User Tag List

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 68
  1. #11
    Rolling Along Gyro Gearloose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Northern CA
    Posts
    503
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by J&G garage View Post
    The panhard bar on my race car has spherical rod ends at each end. One has left hand threads so the length can be adjusted. There are a bunch of different kinds available/

    Pat how about modeling a Watts Link instead of a panhard bar. Maybe could eliminate the additional side to side brace.
    Jim,

    I have been looking at Watts link also and could be an alternate solution. I may model a Watts also. It may be one of those cost differences, ie. cost of a cross bar vs. cost of extra tie rod ends.

    Pat
    Pat&Marlene Gyrogearloose - 2010 Itasca Meridian 34y - 6.7 w/Allison 6spd - Jeep Wrangler Rubicon - previous Reflection 303RLS

  2. #12
    Rolling Along Gyro Gearloose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Northern CA
    Posts
    503
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Broken Spring Hanger! - Panhard Bar Show and Tell

    Ok, time for some show and tell for Panhard Bar...

    Basic conceptual drawing of Panhard Bar done for for my Reflection 303RLS with no 2"x2" lift. Design will work for units with 2"x2" lift with the addition of some angle brackets for the main brackets. I can post some pics of those at another time. I haven't done a BOM (Bill Of Materials) yet but hoping less than putting X-Factor braces on.

    What I like about this concept is, it gets rid of the lateral forces at the source. A Watts link is an alternative to this but is more complex and potential heavier (may draw this later).

    Compatibility:
    • 71" Outside to Outside frame spacing
    • 2.5"x8" I-Beam Frame
    • 5" tall spring hangers (Correct Track)
    • Will work with or without 2"x2" suspension lift (this is nice if you upgrade from no 2"x2" lift to a 2"x2" lift)
    • Should work with 5.2K or 6K axles
    • Attachments for Brackets to frame can be modified as needed for extra support if desired.
    • Have not modeled it to see if it will work with shorter spring hangers.
    • Could be fairly easily modified for other trailer applications


    There is one area that Rob and I agree on that may be a bit weak and that is where the Bracket that attaches to the Axle.

    Rob Quote: "My only “design" comment is the attachment to the axle tube. This tube is really thin wall. Data I got from LCI a while ago . . . LCI52 AXLE TUBE - 3.00" DIA X 0.150" WALL, 70 KSI MIN YLD 4.3"

    There are a few reasons for where this is attached.

    1. Trying to keep "Rotational Center of Axis" low. Kind of like Center of Gravity
    2. Don’t PHB want over axle for clearance purposes
    3. Trying to keep force more in alignment with the counter force. Less twist etc.? Keeping force as lateral and parallel as possible.
    4. Bracket was off the shelf except for the stuff attaching the Heim Joint.
    5. Tube clamp virtually doubles the thickness of the axle where it attaches
    6. Tube Clamp mounts against the spring U-Bolt to help take up load at least in one direction


    I’m looking at adding a second tube clamp (with bracing) to help distribute the load. Or figuring out a way to reinforce the tube bracket by adding a piece that also gets bolted down by the U-Bolts.

    More thought on this?


    I'm thinking I will try to make this and install it before Vegas Rally.

    Attachment 15466

    Pat
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Panhard Bar Example 1 - Movement Study.pdf  
    Pat&Marlene Gyrogearloose - 2010 Itasca Meridian 34y - 6.7 w/Allison 6spd - Jeep Wrangler Rubicon - previous Reflection 303RLS

  3. #13
    Long Hauler
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    2,356
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Pat

    I would be curious with the attachment point on the I-beam.
    The narrow attachment point would possibly cause a weak point onto the I-beam flange but also can not make a very wide mount for the space available.
    No engineering reason here just experiences have me questioning.

    Brian

  4. #14
    Site Sponsor Cate&Rob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    8,880
    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Country Campers View Post
    Pat

    I would be curious with the attachment point on the I-beam.
    The narrow attachment point would possibly cause a weak point onto the I-beam flange but also can not make a very wide mount for the space available.
    No engineering reason here just experiences have me questioning.

    Brian
    Hi Brian,

    Pat & I have talked about whether there would be a need to reinforce the I Beam flange-to-web as is done by LCI above the spring hangers. I think taking part of the load back to the other frame rail with the upper fixed link cross brace would be sufficient. This is essentially what the aftermarket hanger cross braces do. Note that Pat’s proposal is a “clamp on” design so that there are no holes to weaken the I beam flange and no welding required.

    Rob
    Cate & Rob
    2015 Reflection 303RLS

  5. #15
    Long Hauler
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    2,356
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rob

    The "clamp on" is my questionable area.

    Brian

  6. #16
    Rolling Along Gyro Gearloose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Northern CA
    Posts
    503
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Country Campers View Post
    Pat

    I would be curious with the attachment point on the I-beam.
    The narrow attachment point would possibly cause a weak point onto the I-beam flange but also can not make a very wide mount for the space available.
    No engineering reason here just experiences have me questioning.

    Brian
    Hi Brian,

    Thanks for the feedback. Yes, struggling with space, strength, cost and keeping it simple is a struggle. But gotta attach it somewhere. I have considered making the brackets wider or the mounting wider.

    Check out the PDF and it may explain how I plan to attach better that should not affect the integrity of the I-Beam as much.

    Attachment 15470

    Pat
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Panhard Bar Example 1 - I-Beam Bracket Clamp Example.pdf  
    Pat&Marlene Gyrogearloose - 2010 Itasca Meridian 34y - 6.7 w/Allison 6spd - Jeep Wrangler Rubicon - previous Reflection 303RLS

  7. #17
    Big Traveler
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,099
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by patwardell View Post
    Hi Brian,

    Thanks for the feedback. Yes, struggling with space, strength, cost and keeping it simple is a struggle. But gotta attach it somewhere. I have considered making the brackets wider or the mounting wider.

    Check out the PDF and it may explain how I plan to attach better that should not affect the integrity of the I-Beam as much.

    Attachment 15470

    Pat
    Really nice design, but I'm concerned with the clamping surface area to counter the lateral forces from the entire axle. A design that would trap the web solidly on one side and to use the clamp on the other with more surface area would help to distribute these loads. Maybe have the clamp on opposite sides of the left and right beams.
    MidwestCamper

    Jim & Dawn
    Near Milford, Michigan
    2017 Imagine 2600RB
    2015 GMC Sierra 1500 Double Cab 4x4

  8. #18
    Rolling Along Gyro Gearloose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Northern CA
    Posts
    503
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MidwestCamper View Post
    Really nice design, but I'm concerned with the clamping surface area to counter the lateral forces from the entire axle. A design that would trap the web solidly on one side and to use the clamp on the other with more surface area would help to distribute these loads. Maybe have the clamp on opposite sides of the left and right beams.
    Hi Jim,

    When I initially starting designing the clamp plate it was a 4 bolt and wider and a 1/4" plate welded onto the bracket. Then I was thinking that two 1/2" grade 8 fine thread bolts @ about 17K lbs. clamp force ea. would be enough, especially when Rob requested the weld-on locating plates to control the lateral forces. I don't think the clamp plates have a major effect on the lateral motion.

    But, I do hear you guys on distributing the force better on the I-Beam web. I have been kind of on the edge on making them wider. This example will have 5" of clamp on each side. Using six 1/2" grade 8 fine thread bolts will give about a 100K lb. clamp force and if they were 3/8" grade 8's about 56K lbs. clamp force. This will make the web contact area 20 sq in. vs. 5.5 sq in. with the current method.

    Spring hangers provide 22.5 sq. in. of I-Beam web contact per axle. The 5" clamp on would provide 40 sq in of I-Beam web contact per axle. 25 sq in bottom web to bracket plate and 15 sq in of clamp plate contact. The clamp plate method triples the thickness of the web and increases contact area with I-Beam Web.

    Attachment 15477


    Not really sure how to interpret this, or if I do understand it, I'm not really sure if it can be done simply. "A design that would trap the web solidly". I thought clamp plate was doing that and didn't weaken the I-Beam by drilling?

    Pat
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Panhard Bar Example 1 5 in. Bracket Clamp Plate.pdf  
    Pat&Marlene Gyrogearloose - 2010 Itasca Meridian 34y - 6.7 w/Allison 6spd - Jeep Wrangler Rubicon - previous Reflection 303RLS

  9. #19
    Site Sponsor Cate&Rob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    8,880
    Mentioned
    85 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The lateral forces in both directions are taken by the abutment stops welded to the bracket. The only function for the clamp plates is to hold the bracket up against the underside of the I beam flange so that the abutment stops can do their jobs. The only "failure mode" that I can visualize would be the frame flange twisting crosswise on the web. This would be similar to what might happen at the hanger attachments and is probably why LCI adds a welded in reinforcement between the flange and the web, above the hangers.

    The loads into the frame rail will be lateral only because of the ball joints in the Panhard rod and the fixed link above it. And, we have to remember that these loads will be more-or-less equal in both directions.

    Rob
    Cate & Rob
    2015 Reflection 303RLS

  10. #20
    Long Hauler
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Posts
    2,356
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The lateral load on the flange of the I-beam is where the question arises. I-beam's are designed to sustain vertical loads not lateral. I realize that the lateral load will not be a huge number but it is still there. I like everything with the design just think we maybe transferring the problem elsewhere, albeit a smaller problem.
    The other part I just thought of is that most have the 2" tube spacer, with this how do we attach to the I-beam?

    Brian

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

DISCLAIMER:This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by Grand Design RV, LLC or any of its affiliates. This is an independent site.