• The SH Membership has gone live. Only SH Members have access to post in the classifieds. All members can view the classifieds. Starting in 2020 only SH Members will be admitted to the annual hunting contest. Current members will need to follow these steps to upgrade: 1. Click on your username 2. Click on Account upgrades 3. Choose SH Member and purchase.
  • We've been working hard the past few weeks to come up with some big changes to our vendor policies to meet the changing needs of our community. Please see the new vendor rules here: Vendor Access Area Rules

Platform Brainstorm

One of these days im going to run some of these ideas through the structural optimization software I design the interface for day in and day out. I'll need to bring my work computer at home since that's the only machine I'm licensed to use it on. It would tell you fairly quickly what structures and designs are going to be able to withstand different types of loads and forces applied to it. I'll have to pick the engineers brains at work too....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
d_rek said:
One of these days im going to run some of these ideas through the structural optimization software I design the interface for day in and day out. I'll need to bring my work computer at home since that's the only machine I'm licensed to use it on. It would tell you fairly quickly what structures and designs are going to be able to withstand different types of loads and forces applied to it. I'll have to pick the engineers brains at work too....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I think the best material I've seen so far is the 6061 I-beam but it's damn expensive. Like almost 200 for 4'. If I could weld aluminum I think I could make a much lighter and structurally sound model using 6061 1/4" plate.
 
DIYSaddler said:
I think the best material I've seen so far is the 6061 I-beam but it's damn expensive. Like almost 200 for 4'. If I could weld aluminum I think I could make a much lighter and structurally sound model using 6061 1/4" plate.
Click to expand...

I could test out different designs and different materials with our software. The stuff they are doing now with additive manufacturing (aka 3D printing) and composites is unreal. Traditional materials provide less 'creative' solutions, but you can still optimize them for weight and structural integrity.
 
I
d_rek said:
I could test out different designs and different materials with our software. The stuff they are doing now with additive manufacturing (aka 3D printing) and composites is unreal. Traditional materials provide less 'creative' solutions, but you can still optimize them for weight and structural integrity.
Click to expand...
https://www.zoro.com/dynaform-w-beam-isofr-gray-4x4-in-14-in-th-10-ft-871100/i/G2986523/
I found this today. I think we could get 20 links out of it but I don't know if the polyester resin would hold to the tree like a metal would.
 
d_rek said:
I could test out different designs and different materials with our software. The stuff they are doing now with additive manufacturing (aka 3D printing) and composites is unreal. Traditional materials provide less 'creative' solutions, but you can still optimize them for weight and structural integrity.
Click to expand...

Additive manufacturing is some sweet stuff. The new engines for the Boeing 737 MAX have 3D printed fuel injectors. Fuel channels printed right into the design... With additive complexity is free, it is all about cubic inches of material. Someone with access to a 3D metal alloy printer would only need a CAD file and time on machine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
bowhunter15 said:
I also like the idea but have been struggling on a good way to make it. It definitely wouldn't be cheap. I imagine a platform similar to the Lone Wolf/XOP seat but a different shape. Casting isn't cost effective for a 1-up. Machining would be one way to go. You might need to start with a stock size of 24"x24" or similar, most of which would be cut away. The other issue is that if you look at the seats, the attachment bracket that allows tilting of the seat sticks up another inch or so. That means the stock would need to be that much thicker, almost all of which gets cut away. For a reference, a 24x24x1 aluminum block is about $500 from mcmaster, and 2" thick is close to $1000, before the machining costs.

Another option, which would be much cheaper, is to bend, cut, and weld aluminum strips in the shape of the platform. I remember a guy doing that on here not too long ago. I'm not too experienced in welding and how its joints compare in strength.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Use 2" square aluminum box tube. Cut into 2" squares with angle grinder. Place in order you want. Have welder weld them.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
 
This would be relatively cheap and easy. Especially if you have a buddy that can weld. Even thin wall steel wouldn't be all that heavy.
You'd have 6 squares per foot to play with. So a 5' piece of 2"box tube can't be that expensive and you've have 30 squares to play with.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
 
For estimating weight it should be pretty easy if using standard sized metals because you can easily calculate or probably even Google the cross sectional area, multiply by total length used, and multiply by density.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
DIYSaddler said:
Does anyone know where I can get my hands on a free CAD program.
Click to expand...
Yes. The program OnCAD is free. Made by the same people that originally made solidworks. I'm not sure that you can do any FEA simulations with it though. At least, I've never tried looking for it. Mostly I just use it for designing parts for machining or 3d printing.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
And also, it's a cloud based program. So you need Internet access. But on the plus side, you can do it on your phone with their app. I can design parts while in my saddle lol.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
c665638df4b5f5b4bddf0a8179b64dde.jpg


Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
bowhunter15 said:
Yes. The program OnCAD is free. Made by the same people that originally made solidworks. I'm not sure that you can do any FEA simulations with it though. At least, I've never tried looking for it. Mostly I just use it for designing parts for machining or 3d printing.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You mean OnShape? Never heard of OnCAD. OnShape is technically one of our competitors.

If anyone is interested you could get a trial version of our software: http://www.solidthinking.com/Inspire2016.html

It's topology/structural optimization software. It's not CAD suite like OnShape per se, but has some drawing/sketching capability baked into it so you can explore basic shapes and whatnot. Or you can import your own geometry. Should be able to get a 30-day trial. If for some reason you can't PM me and I can make it happen.
 
^^^^^^^^^
Over my head... I draw the line at google SketchUp for all my building projects lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
d_rek said:
You mean OnShape? Never heard of OnCAD. OnShape is technically one of our competitors.

If anyone is interested you could get a trial version of our software: http://www.solidthinking.com/Inspire2016.html

It's topology/structural optimization software. It's not CAD suite like OnShape per se, but has some drawing/sketching capability baked into it so you can explore basic shapes and whatnot. Or you can import your own geometry. Should be able to get a 30-day trial. If for some reason you can't PM me and I can make it happen.
Click to expand...
Yes, OnShape. Not sure why I was thinking OnCAD lol. I even pulled the screenshot right from the app that has the name on it. I'll check out your link as well.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
IkemanTX said:
^^^^^^^^^
Over my head... I draw the line at google SketchUp for all my building projects lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The software is (relatively) easy to use, but if you don't know much about physics it might not be that helpful lol...

Where it shines is helping explore design iterations. For example you can import your geometry, defeature it down to it's basic shapes, apply all of your loads/forces, and then analyze the results for structural/topology optimization. Or, more simply put, bring in some CAD and iterate to find the balance between mass and structural integrity.
 
I may just call in a favor with my Aerospace Engineer buddy before trying to figure all that out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
d_rek said:
The software is (relatively) easy to use, but if you don't know much about physics it might not be that helpful lol...

Where it shines is helping explore design iterations. For example you can import your geometry, defeature it down to it's basic shapes, apply all of your loads/forces, and then analyze the results for structural/topology optimization. Or, more simply put, bring in some CAD and iterate to find the balance between mass and structural integrity.
Click to expand...
What are the main benefits over something like Solidworks Simulation? Ease of use? Price? Accuracy?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
bowhunter15 said:
What are the main benefits over something like Solidworks Simulation? Ease of use? Price? Accuracy?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Ease of use followed closely by accuracy. I can't say we are terribly competitive on price for licenses per user, but we are in-line with industry norms. I know the sT Inspire product is derived from another product in our portfolio that is industry standard. The reason we built the Inspire product was to take it to different manufacturing verticals who would benefit from that type of tool versus the big simulation players AKA aerospace, auto, marine, DoD...

I could be wrong but SW Simulation just does fairly basic meshing and linear static analysis. I think the biggest benefit of SW simulation is an 'all-in-one' solution, even if it's a third party plugin for solidworks.

The sT Inspire tool doesn't have any meshing capability (that's not the point of it) but it will do basic analysis on your object. The idea is that you would iterate for structural design and optimization, run some basic analysis to ensure it's structurally viable, and then move into a more dedicated simulation solution to do your hardcore simulation (meshing and solving).

Again, it would work best to explore package spaces for structural design and optimization and to run some basic analysis on the object. But if you are wanting highly accurate simulation you would want a higher-end tool (ie: HyperWorks, Ansys, Seimens, etc.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top