78zlt1 Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 coincidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubin Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 17' version and a 5 spoke i wish i could make it a shiny metal, but oh well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ON3GO Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 somebody make those wheels! mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubin Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 yah I wish anyone know how a cnc machine works? do you need to input all the dimensions and details in or do you just load up the program, open a file and it does everything on its own. cuz if you have to input all the dimensions then it would be a bitch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMortensen Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 17' version and a 5 spoke Did you ever see "This is Spinal Tap"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Baldwin Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Cool-lookin' stuff! But, you know, the part between the rim and the hub is PRIMARY VEHICLE STRUCTURE! I don't think I'd just design something up and use it without analysis. This would also allow you to minimize weight while ensuring (hopefully) structural integrity. Want me to do an FEA? Send tequila (Don Julia anejo)... I did the wheels for this: Original design of the front wheel from the styling studio was 17 lb. (!). My version of that design is 8.6 lb. I made a less stylin' design of my own at 5 lb. in magnesium (of which we're having a limited run made). 17' version will not clear Z wheel arches I don't think. But at least it won't be in danger of being trod-upon by a dwarf! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heavy85 Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Cool-lookin' stuff!But' date=' you know, the part between the rim and the hub is PRIMARY VEHICLE STRUCTURE! I don't think I'd just design something up and use it without analysis. [/quote'] I always wondered how the custom billet wheel manufacturers handle the liability because you know they dont do any analysis and you know some of them fail over time. Only thing I can think is if your paying the $ for one-off billet wheels then you probably dont drive it enough to see the effects. Some of the custom motorcycle wheels are especially scary with minimum amount of material connecting the hub to the rim! Cameron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JAMIE T Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Let's get away from the liability mumbo jumbo and get back to the creative nature of this thread! BTW, I think Solidworks can do the structure testing. Ruben, I'd like two sets in five lug. The first set, I'd like some 15x4's and 15x10's.. The second set I'd like 18x9.5 for all for. 5.5" Backspace for the 15x10 and 18x9.5 please. (I know you're not manufacturing these wheels, I'd just like to see them in the sizes I suggested.) LOL. You're good! BTW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Baldwin Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 It is AMAZING to me that people would be willing to just bolt on anything in place of ENGINEERED STRUCTURE, for CRITICAL structural components on their cars/bikes/boats/etc! This "mumbo jumbo" isnt' for NOTHING! It'd be easy enough (for one practised in the art) to take a basic "styling" design and sculpt it into something stronger and lighter, without modifying the basic intent of the "artiste". Actually, this process almost always vastly INCREASES aesthetic appeal. The underlying laws of physics and nature we are designing/engineering to have an inherent beauty of their own, optimization brings this out. The question is whether you want to ensure structural integrity and at the same time minimize weight. This is the HEART of engineering for performance. Nothing uglier to me than those CAD machined from billet centers, "styled" but not ENGINEERED. Hideous. You can BET that if those custom billet wheels are strong enough, they're WAY heavier than necessary. Leave that crap for the custom chopper lame-brains. Performance vehicles deserve opmtimized components. FWIW, I use SolidWorks and CosmosWorks (the FEA package). For more detailed and/or advanced analyses I use MSC/NASTRAN, but for most basic analysis it's a lot easier and quicker to go with the native Solidworks package. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veritech-z Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Did you ever see "This is Spinal Tap"? "We could always do stone 'enge..." Anybody ever been to www.emachineshop.com? maybe they could make you some centers for a reasonable amount... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JAMIE T Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 It is AMAZING to me that people would be willing to just bolt on anything in place of ENGINEERED STRUCTURE' date=' for CRITICAL structural components on their cars/bikes/boats/etc! This "mumbo jumbo" isnt' for NOTHING! It'd be easy enough (for one practised in the art) to take a basic "styling" design and sculpt it into something stronger and lighter, without modifying the basic intent of the "artiste". Actually, this process almost always vastly INCREASES aesthetic appeal. The underlying laws of physics and nature we are designing/engineering to have an inherent beauty of their own, optimization brings this out. The question is whether you want to ensure structural integrity and at the same time minimize weight. This is the HEART of engineering for performance. Nothing uglier to me than those CAD machined from billet centers, "styled" but not ENGINEERED. Hideous. You can BET that if those custom billet wheels are strong enough, they're WAY heavier than necessary. Leave that crap for the custom chopper lame-brains. Performance vehicles deserve opmtimized components. FWIW, I use SolidWorks and CosmosWorks (the FEA package). For more detailed and/or advanced analyses I use MSC/NASTRAN, but for most basic analysis it's a lot easier and quicker to go with the native Solidworks package.[/quote'] Lighten up Dan, I was just teasing! I did mention that the structural analysis could be done in Solidworks, which these drawings were rendered in. Jeez. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Baldwin Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I know SolidWorks has an optional analysis package, CosmosWorks, I use it all the time. But it's only as good as the human telling it what to do,how to do it, and then interpreting the results! Only commenting because I *KNOW* that the vast majority of enthusiasts will simply bolt on criticial structural components without any analysis backing up the design. I've seen a wrecked cars at the track due to underengineered aftermarket lightweight suspension components. They look great, are well put-together, but are in reality structurally inadequate. This is totally stupid and unnecessary. Just putting it out there, since nobody else had. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubin Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I'm no proffessional engineer. I'm just a kid who wants to be one. actually I'll be starting a bachelors degree in september. I would love to help someone design some wheels, but they would need to understand that I am not a proffessional and could not guarantee anything. these renderings are purly to see what I can do, and the 5 spoke one is simply a copy of an existing design. To tell you the truth, after looking at some existing wheels and noticing how little metal there is at the lip of the wheel I assumed that there wasn't very much needed to provide stuctual integrity. I know SolidWorks has an optional analysis package' date=' CosmosWorks, I use it all the time. But it's only as good as the human telling it what to do,how to do it, and then interpreting the results! Only commenting because I *KNOW* that the vast majority of enthusiasts will simply bolt on criticial structural components without any analysis backing up the design. I've seen a wrecked cars at the track due to underengineered aftermarket lightweight suspension components. They look great, are well put-together, but are in reality structurally inadequate. This is totally stupid and unnecessary. Just putting it out there, since nobody else had.[/quote'] I had played with cosmosworks a little bit, but dont understand it very well. this will be my next thing to do. BTW, what are some sae numbers for the different aluminum alloy that should be used for wheel material? and if it's a 2 piece, should the shell be made out of steel? Let's get away from the liability mumbo jumbo and get back to the creative nature of this thread! BTW' date=' I think Solidworks can do the structure testing. Ruben, I'd like two sets in five lug. The first set, I'd like some 15x4's and 15x10's.. The second set I'd like 18x9.5 for all for. 5.5" Backspace for the 15x10 and 18x9.5 please. (I know you're not manufacturing these wheels, I'd just like to see them in the sizes I suggested.) LOL. You're good! BTW[/quote'] I'll see what I can do give me sizes for the rubber so you can see what it looks like with tires. 5.5' backspace meaning 5.5 inches from inside edge? if so how would i make the 15x4? you want the front to stick out? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Baldwin Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I'm no proffessional engineer. I'm just a kid who wants to be one. actually I'll be starting a bachelors degree in september. Ah, college... To tell you the truth, after looking at some existing wheels and noticing how little metal there is at the lip of the wheel I assumed that there wasn't very much needed to provide stuctual integrity. The rim is inherently pretty strong due to it's being a relatively small-radius cylinder with an outer lip and a drop-center section. Depending on how much curb impact and tire-mounting-goon-induced localized load you want to take, you can make the rim portion pretty skinny. Spun or forged rims can be quite thin and lightweight. But of course you then have to transfer the load from the rim to the hub! I had played with cosmosworks a little bit, but dont understand it very well. this will be my next thing to do. Are you talking about the CosmosExpress demo software (really too limited to be of more than illustrative use), or do you have one of the CosmosWorks add-on packages? Either way, you should also study up on stress analysis, statics and dynamics, etc. as you get into using the FEA package. It is VERY easy to make stress contour plots that look real but are off by HUGE amounts! Pay attention to sensitivity to mesh size in critical areas. You will have to refine the mesh in critical areas of interest. BTW, what are some sae numbers for the different aluminum alloy that should be used for wheel material? Here's a useful reference: http://www.weibull.com/mil_std/mil_hdbk_5j.pdf Also, http://www.matweb.com is good for reference only (mostly shows typical rather than minimum properties) If you are casting the centers, you'll most likely end up with 356, which will have to be heat-treated to T6 for strength. If you would be machining from billet, 6061-T6 would be your most likely choice. If you can find a foundry to cast magnesium for you, and a machine shop to machine it, AZ91E (-T4 or -T6). and if it's a 2 piece, should the shell be made out of steel? Nah, aluminum/aluminum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubin Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 i had used the express, but i have the actual cosmos works cd. its version 5.0, will that work with my solidworks 2005? Right now Im just playing around with it designing random stuff. I've got a 4 cyl block, and a 8 pot brake caliper and a few other random things. I'm kind of waiting for school to teach me everything I'll need to know about stress analysis and structual integrity. anyways I'm glad you guys like the designs. maybe if the sakuras do get into production, one of you real engineers could look over it and approve it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Baldwin Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Version 5.0, not 2005 or 2006? I'm running Cosmos 2005 with Solidworks 2006FWIW, so perhaps earlier versions of Cosmos can work with later versions of SW to some point. Do you have a "dongle" (security device attached to printer port or USB port)? If you get to the point that you're going to get something made, I could do a quick sanity check on it. It's always better to do the anyalysis BEFORE the parts get made! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zedevan Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 render it up in photoworks (go to tools addin's, and depending on ur version it should just load, if not download a larger version ), for quick renderings it sure beats 3ds, not mentioning the process of importing all the parts into 3ds (last assignment i just finished for uni i had to rendering something with 2468 parts or there abouts, i'd post a picture of the photoworks rendering but dont have a server atm) nice looking wheels and good luck getting them produced! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JAMIE T Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 I'll see what I can do give me sizes for the rubber so you can see what it looks like with tires. 5.5' backspace meaning 5.5 inches from inside edge? if so how would i make the 15x4? you want the front to stick out? No, not for the 15x4's. They'll be something like 1-3/4" back space. 5.5" is from the mounting flange to the lip of the back of the wheel. The fronts "Skinnies" will use 24x4.5x15" Goodyear drag front tires. The rear 15x10 will use a 26x10.5x15" Mickey Thompson ET Drag slick. At least that's what sitting in my garage waiting on some drag rims. The 18x9.5 will use a 265/35/18 on the front and a 275/35/18 drag radial in the back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubin Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 yah the cd sais "version 5.9, 1999/230" ?!?! and i have SW2005. I'll try installing it and check it out Jaime, ill try it out n let you see Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubin Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 heres the 15's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.