Stressbar discussion...

[jdbubb at ix.netcom.com (Dan Bubb)]

No, his diagram is correct. Because the sideways force at the tire patch is below the lower ball
joint it creates a torque on the strut/hub carrier assembly trying to move the top of the strut
outward. That needs to be resisted by the strut tower, so the force on the strut tower is towards
the outside.
Basic laws of statics that can be used to calculate the forces:
Sum of the forces = 0
Sum of the moments = 0
You can't put a rope in compression :)
Dan

> Irregardless, the guy has the towers deflecting the wrong way (outward) under cornering...a
detailed mental stress analysis tells > me ( :) ) the stresses would be INwards.

> Larry
>  ----- Original Message -----
> .From: Dan Bubb
>  To: David Utley
>  Cc: scirocco-l@scirocco.org
>  Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 3:19 PM
>  Subject: Re: Stressbar discussion...
>
>
>  "Another point to consider is that if your outer strut tower is deflected outwards 0.20" by this
333
>  lb force, then you just lost 0.5? of negative camber!  If it deflects 0.42" you have lost a full
>  degree of negative camber. "
>
>  This is the quote. He doesn't state any measured deflection. He's only equating deflection to
camber
>  change. Both deflections, 0.20" and 0.42",  are hypothetical.
>  I'm merely pointing out that if the chassis was so weak that it had that much deflection the
extreme
>  movement and resultant stresses (beyond the material yield point) would fatigue and crack the
metal
>  very quickly.
>  The actual deflections can't be as high as his examples so the camber change due to deflection is
>  proportionally much less.
>  Just making the point that he's exaggerating the possible camber change due to deflection.
>  Dan