Google has failed me.
Trying to compare apples to apples on the strength difference between 1.375 x .095 as opposed to 1.5" x .080 DOM.
Not hugely concerned which alloy yet, as long as it's a same to same comparison.
-Hans
Google has failed me.
Trying to compare apples to apples on the strength difference between 1.375 x .095 as opposed to 1.5" x .080 DOM.
Not hugely concerned which alloy yet, as long as it's a same to same comparison.
-Hans
here is one from Pirate4x4 http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/general-4x4-discussion/216233-tubing-strength-chart-weight-per-foot.html
they dont have 1.375 but you can guess
Apples to Apples !.375 x.95 or 1.5x.95 the larger tube has more resistance to bending Same will apply to the same in.80. In steel the weight diff. is only in the pounds, under 20, for a roll cage. chrome molly can be both smaller and thinner thus giving a 50 pound or more diff. overall. molly though can't be straightened after it's bent and must be replaced.
GTXVette wrote: Apples to Apples !.375 x.95 or 1.5x.95 the larger tube has more resistance to bending Same will apply to the same in.80. In steel the weight diff. is only in the pounds, under 20, for a roll cage. chrome molly can be both smaller and thinner thus giving a 50 pound or more diff. overall. molly though can't be straightened after it's bent and must be replaced.
Looking to stick with mild steel instead of chrome-moly, just to eliminate the heat treating and stress relief work. It looks like a wash between the two. Very slight weight advantage to the thinner wall 1.5, and probably a slight strength advantage as well. For a car with a target weight, with driver, of 1100lbs or less I think either size will work out fine.
-Hans
Find the formula for calculating the moment of inertia for each size tube. The strength will be proportional to that value.
DeadSkunk wrote: Find the formula for calculating the moment of inertia for each size tube. The strength will be proportional to that value.
Didn't know the name of what I was looking for, but easy calculations once I found it. Not 100% sure to extrapolate the full meaning of the final numbers, other than the 1.5x.080 is stronger in every measurement so far than the 1.375x.095, while also being a touch lighter.
Ok, back to the planning of this project. Much thanks.
You'll need to log in to post.
