+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: What do you guys think of this tripod joint angle

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Starkville, MS
    Posts
    299
    Thought I would bump with a picture.

    Edit: For some reason the pictures aren't working on this forum. You can right click the broken picture block and open it in a new tab and it should work.



    --Dash Robinson
    --Mississippi State University

  2. #32
    Yup, that's a broken tripod joint. We broke one when our chassis came unbolted from the engine and flexed a little too much. The tulip came out and flung bearing needles everywhere.

    Needles to say the joint was never quite the same again, had to make and extension for it and it kept falling apart due to sheared bolts(housing made in two parts).
    Dunk
    --------------------------------------------------------
    Brunel Racing
    2010-11 - Drivetrain Development Engineer
    2011-12 - Consultant and Long Distance Dogsbody
    2012-13 - Chassis, Bodywork & Aerodynamics manager

    2014-present - Engineer at Jaguar Land Rover

  3. #33
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dunk Mckay:
    We broke one when our chassis came unbolted from the engine and flexed a little too much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



    _______________________________________

    Northwestern Formula Racing Alum
    Head Engineer, Frame/Suspension 2006-2009

    My '73 Saab 99 Road Race Build

  4. #34

    Some hopefully constructive ideas.....
    If this was my car, I would increase the wheel base to straighten up the drive shafts.
    That could be done with some new asymmetrical wishbones, without moving the existing inboard chassis mounting points.
    The toe control arm on the hub carrier needs to be made much longer for greater stiffness, and better toe control.
    And as others have already pointed out, the rocker arm geometry needs to place everything in the same plane.
    It is just a matter of moving a few things around, and the changes should not be too difficult to fabricate.
    Cheers, Tony

  5. #35
    Just realized that the perspective in this picture looks like you're running 18"x10" rims and even more enormous tires.

    Anyway, on the more helpful side:
    The plot I was talking about months ago was in an actual SAE paper, you should be able to find it in their library with a few quick searches. Remember, your advisor can request something like 25 papers per year.

    The next question is:
    Presumably you've been running this for a while now... Failures? Thrown shafts? Temperatures? Maybe everything's peachy? IE, is it working for you?
    Daniel Wageman
    University of Washington FSAE
    Team 19: Chassis/Data Acq
    Team 20: Data Acq Lead
    Team 21: Engine, Power Package
    Team 22-24: Technical Director

  6. #36
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wagemd:
    Just realized that the perspective in this picture looks like you're running 18"x10" rims and even more enormous tires. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



    Maybe the photographer just has very small feet.


    Someone from the CSUN team may correct me, but I believe this car was only driven for a few hours of testing, and did not run at competition. It was not driven again after that. It is going to be stripped for parts and won't be used, so I don't think they'll get any information about reliability or integrity of the design of this car.


    Unfortunate.
    _______________________________________

    Northwestern Formula Racing Alum
    Head Engineer, Frame/Suspension 2006-2009

    My '73 Saab 99 Road Race Build

  7. #37
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe the photographer just has very small feet.


    Someone from the CSUN team may correct me, but I believe this car was only driven for a few hours of testing, and did not run at competition. It was not driven again after that. It is going to be stripped for parts and won't be used, so I don't think they'll get any information about reliability or integrity of the design of this car. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    I wondered, but didn't say anything...

    That's too bad. Were there some other big issues or why would it get stripped? A DNF is almost always better than a DNS... It looked like the damper could have been fixed with some creativity (through the halfshafts weren't going anywhere soon).
    Daniel Wageman
    University of Washington FSAE
    Team 19: Chassis/Data Acq
    Team 20: Data Acq Lead
    Team 21: Engine, Power Package
    Team 22-24: Technical Director

  8. #38
    I think most of us at one stage or another, have fabricated something, and then thought of how it could have been done much better.

    Oh the joys of iterative fabrication.....

    But as the sage once said "man, if you ain't improvin you'r dead".
    Cheers, Tony

  9. #39
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Drew Price:
    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dunk Mckay:
    We broke one when our chassis came unbolted from the engine and flexed a little too much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
    </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

    Yeah. Funnily enough, the car was never quite the same after that...

  10. #40
    Haha, you don't say!
    _______________________________________

    Northwestern Formula Racing Alum
    Head Engineer, Frame/Suspension 2006-2009

    My '73 Saab 99 Road Race Build

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts