PDA

View Full Version : Doug Heim's Wreck



Doug Heim
08-20-2007, 10:13 PM
http://s39.photobucket.com/albums/e162/ ... =wreck.flv (http://s39.photobucket.com/albums/e162/WH1TETIGER/?action=view&current=wreck.flv)

K-fab
08-21-2007, 07:31 AM
Man that looked like fun right up to the point of impact. *Killer speed, nice and smooth

I didn't look like you were close to anything, but I'm guessing you hit the tree with the nerf bar or was it front end? *(I watched w/o audio, so I couldn't hear what was going on)

yoshi
08-21-2007, 08:04 AM
LMAO, oh my God man, I don't mean to laugh, but the music kicks in, the motor fires up (sounding effin awesome) and then the thing takes off. *I knew a wreck was coming, but I was getting all pumped up with the music and the motor and was expecting some good riding before the wreck, at least a little run, but 19 seconds from start to finish, on a trail!, lol. *It's like a girl getting you all in the mood, she's taking off her cloths, has you half naked, is whispering sweet nothing into your ear, than BAM!, she gets up and says "I gotta go, see ya later".....

I think it would be funny to have everything the way it is in the video, then when you get into the wreck, have the sound of a record needle scratching across a record and then no more music while you guys talk about what happened after, I think that would be funny as hell....

buggito
08-21-2007, 09:00 AM
Damn tree always win, been there with the st2, it look like your nerf bar took most of the hit and save you more trouble.
You look like to be fine that's what matter.

masterfabr
08-21-2007, 12:29 PM
oops

nutnbolt2002
08-21-2007, 12:47 PM
I can't believe you hit that log. It almost looks like the cars are a little to wide for those trails. From the camera view it looks like you were driving in the middle of the road.

Pacman
08-21-2007, 03:26 PM
Tree's have been known to jump out in front of you.....I know....I fly R/C planes and have had a few "jump" right in front of me! [smilie=blink.gif]

Damage doesn't look to bad for the speed you where going....just a reflection of your strong build....could have been a lot worse...you could have been hurt....the buggy is easy to fix....your body...not so much! [smilie=blink.gif]

Doug Heim
08-21-2007, 05:28 PM
Yoshi I am working on a full length video. I wanted to get the wreck out due to all the discussion on other forums and othe threads... More to come!

the rebuild will not be so bad. I figure $300 tops. I plan on making some improvments in the meantime on the spindles and nerfbars. I will also make a set of front A-arms from round tube.

Bugpac
08-21-2007, 05:31 PM
What will you do different with the nerf bars? they did as intended correct? The frame did not see any damage as the nerfs absorbed it all?

Doug Heim
08-21-2007, 06:39 PM
The nerfs were great in the sence that they did what they were intended to. Since I have to make the right side I will make the left to match the new right because the left was slightly damaged last year (I could only notice it) and the fact that I forgot a weld when my powder coater had it so he welded it and I thought it looked kinda shitty. I will make the nerfs out of 1.25 OD DOM with a .090 wall. That is bigger from the 1.062 O.D. Pipe I used previously. Other improvments will be new front A-arms from .75 O.D. DOM vurses the .75 square. Rxpo did this and I like the round tube better! I will also make the spindle arms double shear vurses the single shear. I was always having problems with tweaking my Spindle arms during hard riding. I will also add a chromolly rod end with misalignment spacers for the tierod. I am debating beadlocks for the rear rims as well. That will be about $500 though so that can come later.

RickS.
08-21-2007, 06:48 PM
Hey Doug,
I think Mike used 7/8" o.d. or 1" o.d. on the front arms.
I think 3/4" would be a little wimpy.

Bugpac
08-21-2007, 07:22 PM
I used 1.25 for the arms and my tie rods...It may be a bit heavy, but the weight vs reward is worth it to me...

Doug Heim
08-21-2007, 07:35 PM
Rick I have both.. but the wall thickness on the 7/8 is .062

actually come to think of it the 3/4 I have is .062 wall too... yeah a little wimpy.

I have 1" with a .090 wall... should I use that? If so then the gussets need to be shaved down that I sent you in AutoCAD. Let me know your thoughts Thanks Doug

Doug Heim
08-21-2007, 09:35 PM
Started a bit of tear down to get a better look. I cant believe how out of whack that rear upright is. I will hafe to buy all 4 bearing flanges as they are all bent along with the upright. The CV boot also needs to be replaced on the upright end due to driving back with the CV at the increased angle. Bearings and stub axle look good along with the wheel hub. Tomorrow I will pull down the front end to get a better look at that.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e162/WH1TETIGER/wreck001.jpg
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e162/WH1TETIGER/wreck002.jpg
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e162/WH1TETIGER/wreck003.jpg
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e162/WH1TETIGER/wreck004.jpg

Pacman
08-21-2007, 10:28 PM
Dang....that really twisted that rear upright....if you look at it from the top it looks like a box without a top and bottom............I wonder if you where to add a "top" and "bottom" to the upright .......that would give it much more resistances to twisting like that...... you could punch a big hole in both pieces so it wouldn't add much weight.

DuneMe
08-22-2007, 12:01 AM
[smilie=shocker.gif] Bummer! * [smilie=big_explode.gif]

Doug Heim
08-22-2007, 06:21 AM
I thought of the same thing but I feel that if it hadnt twisted then the damage would have moved to a different location... A-arms or rear housing...

masterfabr
08-22-2007, 07:09 AM
When you rebuild the front arms design them with additional triangulation.There is none outboard of the shock mount.They appear to be strong enough but lack the last bar or 2 that will prevent the bending outboard of the shock.Someone with photoshop may wish to dive in here?

yoshi
08-22-2007, 08:04 AM
If you really wanna make that lower a-arm strong as hell, add a gusset to the front and back lower tube, 1/8" plate should be strong enough, and connect them at the tip with another triangle shaped gusset, similar to how I build my lower a-arms. *Very strong and simple to do. *You don't have to be as elaborate as mine, just 3 pieces that can be plasma cut fairly cheaply, just make them outta cardboard and drop the templates off at the cutter, if you don't want them to stick down lower on the bottom, you can put them on the top if you want, I did it on a single seat rail once and it was fine. *Below is stronger, but I think you would break a ball joint or bolt before you broke the lower a-arm with plating on top..

yoshi
08-22-2007, 08:11 AM
Also, I agree with Pacman, I would definatly box in the rear carriers, 3/16" plate should do it. *

It's not like beefing up those components will make something else break, it will just keep you from breaking such an expensive part next time. *You may bend the wheel more, fold back a nerf bar, or still snap a tierod , but those are quick fixes, maybe even could have been fixed in the trails and not lost a day. *If you had an extra set of rims, and a new tierod, you could have kept going if the carrier and a-arm were not damaged. New a-arms and bearing carriers is a lot of work, which could have been avoided I think with no more damage than what you currently have if they were braced...IMO

Jet09
08-22-2007, 08:56 AM
Doug, Tony mentioned this to me when i hit a tree when we are out at a track stuffing around, I used thicker tube on my front swing arms (sidewinder) and when i went into the tree, the plan went right, the swing arm didn't bend. but all the mounts did, and my bars around it did.


Tony said thats the reason the arms are so lightly build, so they act as a crumple zone rather than sending the forces back to the mounts, becuase its a lot easyer to build new arms, then straighten your frame back.

So in reality, your Swing arm did exactly what it was ment to do, sort of like what your nerf bar did.

thats just the way it was explained to me.

buggito
08-22-2007, 09:09 AM
I agree with Yoshi some parts needs to give up, your safety and chance to walk out as you did seems to me that your buggy was safe.
If a tank hit a wall ( very strong one) at 30 miles and hour it will kill everybody inside, how ever you have been strapped.
The new car bend like accordion and most of the time people get out with no problem, but the car is total, they call that crunch zone. The most important that none of your weld give up and in my point it's what matter.

bdkw1
08-22-2007, 11:10 AM
Forget the plate underneath it, you've got enough room for proper internal gussets.

Something like this.....
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g122/bdkw1/wreck004.jpg

masterfabr
08-22-2007, 02:13 PM
yup

masterfabr
08-22-2007, 02:26 PM
Hell,just plate it. quick,easy and effective.Put some holes in the plate and it will weigh as little as yoshi's suggestion and be stronger to boot.

Doug Heim
08-22-2007, 04:30 PM
Thanks for all the input guys but Im with JET... It is way easier for me to make bolt on parts then mess with the frame. I will stiffen up the front A and the rear uprights slightly but just slightly. hitting a tree at about 40 somthing is going to bend... the upright will cost me about $20 in lasers but thats just because I will order enough laser work for 11 sets and sell the others with the rearend kits I sell. Thanks for all the support everyone! Yoshi I like your suggestions but I can clearmy see that my mount points to the frame are not as robust as yours. All things I am considering for my next build though. I will fix the Piranha up better than new and still ride it untill the Cuda is done and then the plan is to sell the Piranha. Any takers?

RickS.
08-22-2007, 07:37 PM
Hey Doug,
I would use the 1" x .090 wall DOM on the new arms.
As far as bracing goes I think your arms were fine. You hit a tree! They even folded outboard of your shocks. It don't matter how you brace em, their gonna get tweaked after after an impact like that. You were even able to drive it the 4 miles back to camp. I'd be real happy the frame is ok. *Here's a set out of 1" .090
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s2/RickS_2nd_Piranha/2-17-07AArms002.jpg
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s2/RickS_2nd_Piranha/aarms002.jpg

Doug Heim
08-22-2007, 07:58 PM
Thats exactly what I need! Thanks Rick as always. I take it you made thos to fit the shocks further outboard on the newer design?

RickS.
08-22-2007, 08:16 PM
Yes.

Bugpac
08-22-2007, 08:23 PM
I am real curious, as i have read on the edge forum, now that were talking shocks, you guys are putting a 5" spacer inside a 14" air shock? why not use a 8.5 shock and use its travel as its meant to use? How is the shocks progression with the spacer, From my knowledge, it seems they would be super stiff at ride height to get good progression using just 1/2 the travel, have you guys figured out something we all do not know?

yoshi
08-22-2007, 09:09 PM
I am real curious, as i have read on the edge forum, now that were talking shocks, you guys are putting a 5" spacer inside a 14" air shock? why not use a 8.5 shock and use its travel as its meant to use? How is the shocks progression with the spacer, From my knowledge, it seems they would be super stiff at ride height to get good progression using just 1/2 the travel, have you guys figured out something we all do not know?My guess is they need the car to bottom out where it is, a smaller shock would bottom the frame out and still have shock travel. *I am about to start doing the same thing with all my shocks. *I use just over 11" of the 12" stroke shock in the rear, and about 9.5" of the 10" stroke shocks in the front. *The full compression and ride height numbers are right where I want them but adding a 1" spacer to the rear, and a 1/2" spacer to the front will allow me to get rid of the limit straps which will save me some money, time, and adjustment as they stretch...

masterfabr
08-22-2007, 09:25 PM
Make the spacers from polyurethane instead of aluminum and you won't get a clank when they hit full extension. The next ones I do will be poly.

RickS.
08-22-2007, 09:26 PM
I think the spacer Doug used is just under 4" (I designed the set-up)
The reason is because the Edge rear shock is angled forward quite a bit.
Not a problem if we were running a trailing arm set-up, but because our a arms move straight up, and the shocks angle forward, the shocks see some side loading.
(The side loading is great enough to ruin a shock with a 5/8 shaft.) Keeping the piston deeper inside the shock body makes the shock a lot stronger for the side loading. Doug says the spacer set-up works real nice. I imagine it would be a little stiffer than the shock without a spacer though. I also talked with a Fox tech. when I was thinking about using the spacer. They did say it shouldn't be a problem.
We're using more than 2/3 the travel. My new design also uses a spacer in the 14" shock, but It's only 1 1/2" long.

RickS.
08-23-2007, 10:45 AM
Iíve given the spacer scenario a little more thought and I believe it makes little or no difference in shock performance.
It would be stiffer if the nitrogen was being compressed more, but thatís not whatís happening. The shock is charged with the spacer in place. The nitrogen pressure to achieve your ride height is the same with or without the spacer. (As long as youíve removed the spacerís volume in oil.) Maybe Iím wrong, but with the Fox 2.0 air shock the valving is only progressive in relation to speed, not in relation to stroke. Itís the compressed nitrogen that makes the shock get progressively stiffer. By playing around with the oil volume I believe there would be no difference in performance. If the volume of nitrogen over the oil is the same as that of a shorter stroke shock their performance would be the same.
Dougís shock with the spacer is charged to 275#. *It still takes the same force to compress the nitrogen with or without the spacer.
Also the Fox techs advised to use no less than mild steel for the stop. anything softer will be destroyed by the pounding. At least that's what they told me.
Any thoughts?

K-fab
08-23-2007, 10:50 AM
I agree with your line of thinking - it's all about the air space and pressure. *Air space will be made with either the oil or the oil and spacer.

Mild??? *I always used 6061.

yoshi
08-23-2007, 10:55 AM
Iíve given the spacer scenario a little more thought and I believe it makes little or no difference in shock performance.
It would be stiffer if the nitrogen was being compressed more, but thatís not whatís happening. The shock is charged with the spacer in place. The nitrogen pressure to achieve your ride height is the same with or without the spacer. (As long as youíve removed the spacerís volume in oil.) Maybe Iím wrong, but with the Fox 2.0 air shock the valving is only progressive in relation to speed, not in relation to stroke. Itís the compressed nitrogen that makes the shock get progressively stiffer. By playing around with the oil volume I believe there would be no difference in performance. If the volume of nitrogen over the oil is the same as that of a shorter stroke shock their performance would be the same.
Dougís shock with the spacer is charged to 275#. *It still takes the same force to compress the nitrogen with or without the spacer.
Also the Fox techs advised to use no less than mild steel for the stop. anything softer will be destroyed by the pounding. At least that's what they told me.
Any thoughts?any non compressible material *in the shock will effect the compression rate (oil, spacer, etc). Oil bumps the compression up quite a bit, *it will have a higher compression rate as the psi spikes considerably more as it compresses over no oil at all, even if they have the exact same psi to start with. *Example, 100psi in a shock with no oil may be 300 psi when fully compressed, but adding oil could bump that same initial 100 psi up to 600 psi as it fully compresses.....

RickS.
08-23-2007, 11:10 AM
Of course! Any addition or or removal of non compressable material will have an effect. *
But we remove the spacers volume in oil so the non compressable material volume is unchanged.

RickS.
08-23-2007, 11:16 AM
K-fab,
I just use mild steel because thats what Fox suggested I use.
I do turn it down like a spool to reduce weight.
I may try the aluminum in the future since you are doing it without problems.
Have you ever taken your shocks apart to examine the spacer?

yoshi
08-23-2007, 11:21 AM
Of course! Any addition or or removal of non compressable material will have an effect. *
But we remove the spacers volume in oil so the non compressable material volume is unchanged.correct, I think I read what you wrote wrong. *You wrote:

"By playing around with the oil volume I believe there would be no difference in performance"

I took that as you saying adding or subtracting would not effect the rate, but reading it now, I realize you meant what you just said above..

yoshi
08-23-2007, 11:22 AM
K-fab,
I just use mild steel because thats what Fox suggested I use.
I do turn it down like a spool to reduce weight.
I may try the aluminum in the future since you are doing it without problems.
Have you ever taken your shocks apart to examine the spacer?do you have any pics of the process? I want to do tis to my shocks, but have never had one apart...

RickS.
08-23-2007, 11:26 AM
Yes, I'll post some tonight.
We also turn up a lower boot flange that gets sandwich mounted between the shock shaft and rod eye. It adds only 1/16" to the overall length.
A motocross shock boot is then fitted over the shaft. May not need this for sand, but a must for off road or racing.

masterfabr
08-23-2007, 12:28 PM
Iíve given the spacer scenario a little more thought and I believe it makes little or no difference in shock performance.
It would be stiffer if the nitrogen was being compressed more, but thatís not whatís happening. The shock is charged with the spacer in place. The nitrogen pressure to achieve your ride height is the same with or without the spacer. (As long as youíve removed the spacerís volume in oil.) Maybe Iím wrong, but with the Fox 2.0 air shock the valving is only progressive in relation to speed, not in relation to stroke. Itís the compressed nitrogen that makes the shock get progressively stiffer. By playing around with the oil volume I believe there would be no difference in performance. If the volume of nitrogen over the oil is the same as that of a shorter stroke shock their performance would be the same.
Dougís shock with the spacer is charged to 275#. *It still takes the same force to compress the nitrogen with or without the spacer.
Also the Fox techs advised to use no less than mild steel for the stopanything softer will be destroyed by the pounding. At least that's what they told me.
Any thoughts? * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * My foxes came from the factory with a 1" ALUMINUM spacer.THe poly spacers for full extension will prevent any shock on the shaft as it quickly slams to a stop.For a compression spacer then aluminum will be fine.If using the correct hardness, poly for compression would be better yet.

Bugpac
08-23-2007, 07:11 PM
Ok, that makes sense, I agree, and its exactly the answer i was looking for, Now for removing the same amount of oil as the spacer, I disagree there a bit, i dont believe you would have to, but it is a good starting point, i also believe 275lbs for that weight of car seems steep, that is why i say i dont think you need to remove that much oil, But is 275 lbs with the tires on the ground, or off? My heavy car takes 190 in all 4,s tires off the ground, im guessing your car is about 700lbs or so? I am at 20ccs over foxs factory specs...Does the car feel stiff or soft and nimble, it surely does depend on the drivers preference as well tho...Now, i believe that shock spacers on the shaft outside the body will work as well, but i think you need t put that much more oil in the shock as well...

Doug Heim
08-23-2007, 08:48 PM
with 200 PSI in the shocks the buggy will fall to the ground. the buggy is about 800#s and 200 PSI in the rear will allow the chassis to drag on the ground. Are we still talking about AIR Shocks? I will be running coilovers on my next build and then the PSI will be alot less.

RickS.
08-23-2007, 08:59 PM
I do agree that removing the entire voulume of the spacer may be a tiny bit too much. I say this because I'll bet that the compressable area within the Fox shocks is larger with longer strokes. For example; A *5" shock would have less nitrogen over the oil than a 14" shock. If this is true then when decreasing the stroke you would also want to decrease the area above the oil.
Doug's 275# is with the weight off the shocks. The Piranha weighs 800 to 900lb.
and the RC51 is a heavy motor.

Bugpac
08-23-2007, 09:04 PM
200 psi with 800 lb car should easily support it, I think your oil capacity is definetly off, at 500 psi *14" shock can support roughly 900 lbs....at 200 psI the shock should easily support 200 lbs corner weight...I think that you probbaly need more oil, i think factory 14" shock is 300 cc's and like 370cc max....so if you deduct the internal spacer, say its "100" ccs capacity for example.... If you take that from the 300 you have 200 ccs oil, now you still can add 70 more from stock for ride height etc.... Now if you have a 1" spacer externaly, you also can add that amount to inside the shock.....Of course all these numbers are inacurate but you get the point....I think with some adjustment, you would be amazed at what that air shock will do, compared to what you have now.....

Does the car bottom out the shocks easily now? Is it a bit stiff at ride height?

Doug Heim
08-23-2007, 10:42 PM
the ride in the rear is perfect! It has never bottomed and it is NOT stiff. However the front has 425 PSI and it bottoms alot easier. Ricks buggy seems to have close to the same "spring rate" as mine but all in all Id have to say after this trip I am much happier with the set up than I have been in the past. Still not 100% though... Now what about leverage, shock mount ange, Shit like that. Im sure that when you say a shock at 500psi will support 900# that would be if the shock was mounted straight up and down right to the outside of the control arm. There are so many variables.

Update on the damage to my buggy. I pulled the front end apart and found out that the only other damaged part that I was unaware of is the king pin. I did bend that as well. The buggy is ready for its new parts. I just need to wait on my laser work and get caught up on some other jobs I have going on. I will be making the rear uprights, front A-arms, Nerf bars, and spindles all as sets and I will replace those items on both sides with updated parts. Now I will have spares for the whole left side... so I guess Im all ready to take that out on the next ride... Ahh scratch that... I better not plan on it. I think Ive had enough damage to last at least untill Fall of 08.

Bugpac
08-24-2007, 05:45 PM
Yes it does effect it...here is a spread sheet from pirate 4x4, i cant figure out how to adjust the variables myself....
http://www.pirate4x4.com/tech/billavista/PR-Airshox/Model1.jpg

we could move this excellent discussion to ricks adding a spacer thread as well, if he doesnt mind....

RickS.
08-24-2007, 06:43 PM
No problem.