Ian P. wrote:Buckling (not to take anything from the Swiss guy...) in compression is easy to predict and to design around.
DaveW wrote:I'm not sure about Ian P's "trivial" task of predicting buckling loads for slender beams
xpensive wrote:But what interests me in the pull-rod case, in practicality, when are you likely to see a compression load-case?
xpensive wrote:At the same time, the before it's time Lotus 72 had torsion-bars, but when it was time for the equally ground-breaking Lotus 79, they were back with conventional coils and monstous top-rocker arms, why was that?
With all the respect Ian P., I think you are passing some very sweeping judgments on what is easy or not within mechanical design engineering, as well as the different reasons for this or that solution.
xpensive wrote:what components exactly do you include in that, if its just the rod itelf, it's not that impressive is it?
xpensive wrote:But why did they hang on to it for so long, I mean, there was hardly any aerodynamical advantages with it, or was it?
Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 4 guests