Quote:
Originally Posted by NotEric6
Hope everyone enjoyed their weekends. We were busy testing  . For those curious, the LCA passed both static tests with no yield observed. This is a good thing. These tests were 4G lateral load (light crash scenario) and 4.5G bump (hitting a race curb at significant speed).
Unfortunately we ran out of time to do the fatigue test. We will be trying to slip that in next weekend. We will be fatigue testing at 4G bump (instead of 4.5G as in the static test) for a cycle of 75,000 times. We chose these numbers by estimating this to be ~5 years of severe racing duty.
Thanks and as always, let us know if you have any questions. |
Keep up the good work!
As I mentioned before, the real value with this type of test is A-B comparison. The OE parts were probably designed to "just meet" the requirements for 100,000 mi of spirited, normal driving.
Just as a frame of reference, a 30 mph head-on collision is the typical benchmark for most OEMs. Most companies have found 50 and 100G of shock loading to the vehicle compartment as a fair approximation (depending on crumple zones and rigidity). I'm honestly not sure what it is for suspension pieces.
For normal track conditions, it's pretty safe to assume that 4-4.5G has some headroom during a 2-wheel, corner exit situation.
Most pothole/curb simulations are between 12 - 25G to the vehicle compartment. At the wheels, you're seeing ~2x that in shock load. Check out the UT paper for military vehicles:
Link to PDF
Obviously a cyclic load isn't a shock load, and we're not building military parts. From what I can tell, your testing is just fine for a semi-controlled environment.
Also, 75,000 potholes/curbs is a solid assumption. Many OE parts are tested to 100,000 cycles for normal functions in non-accelerated life tests. Your testing will definitely validate the normal usage situation quite well, with a bit of headroom.