Originally posted by Silverback
View Post
Originally posted by Silverback
View Post
Originally posted by Silverback
View Post
Originally posted by Silverback
View Post
Originally posted by Silverback
View Post
Originally posted by Silverback
View Post
I agree 1026 dom is going to be stronger than A519 4130N if the 4130's wall thickness is 40-50% smaller. However, I'm guessing in the grand scheme of their rules making, they make no distinction between types of mild steel. In other words they must compare 1008 dom to 4130. Herein lies probably very equavalent strength structures if the 4130 is 40% thinner wall.
So what I'm saying is they're broadly lumping 1008 and higher grade carbon steels into a ms group. When they do that you kind of have to take the worst case scenario of tube in order to make sure a ms structure theoretically equals a 4130 structure you have already deemed sufficient.
So, the thing is mild steel can be so many things from material composition to condition etc. 4130 can only be one composition and you're left with a small choices of conditions. So 4130 in essenence is much more uniform in its strengths while just saying "mild steel" is all over the place.
I bet if they spec'd 1026 in the rule book and not mild steel you wouldn't see mild steel structures needing to be such heavy wall according to the rules.
I guess I think the rule should be a material and size they feel is adequate and if you can provide spec sheets and data to show equivalency then you should be able to build your chassis out of whatever material and size fits the bill. I think the whole problem seems to come from expecting mild steel to be something like 1008 and comparing that to 4130. There is a huge difference in strength there.
Comment