Building a motorcycle, need classical mechanics help

AI Thread Summary
An engineering graduate is building a motorcycle and seeks assistance with classical mechanics and materials strength to ensure the durability of the subframe, which is welded at four points. The subframe consists of 25 mm diameter tubing with a wall thickness of 1.6 mm, made from EN 10305-3 E220 low carbon steel. The discussion touches on the distinction between a subframe and the main frame, with clarification that the subframe supports the passenger. Concerns about safety and the lack of access to finite element analysis (FEA) software are also raised, highlighting the importance of proper calculations to avoid potential harm. The thread concludes with a reminder of the serious implications of inadequate safety measures in motorcycle construction.
Feroyn
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
TL;DR Summary
I am building a motorcycle subframe, and I want to calculate the strength/durability of the structure. I need help doing that!
Hi!

I am an engineering graduate that took my bachelor's degree in Mechanical Engineering much too long ago, but I have forgotten a lot of the classical mechanics/mechanics of materials theory that I had learned many years ago. I am building a motorcycle right now, and I want to calculate the strength and durability of my build, to make sure I can use these aesthetics.

Here is the subframe that I want to calculate from. Assume the entire piece will be fully welded on the mainframe (welded at 4 spots).
Tubing is 25 mm in diameter, with a wall thickness of 1.6mm. Steel is EN 10305-3 E220 non-alloy low carbon steel.

181334229_10160890541748056_5314149462933643597_n.jpeg


Here's a quick side-profile sketch of my silly forces/moments. I'm assuming the force is at one spot to make it simpler (my weight).
1619908398624.png


Does anyone have any idea of how to approach this problem in both a classical mechanics (assuming the tubing won't deform/flex), and in a materials strength aspect (since it does flex and might be prone to bending IRL).

Sorry for the stupid question if this is rudimentary. Thank you for any help!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF. :smile:

This thread will likely get closed due to safety concerns, but can you say what distinguishes a subframe from the frame? I'm only familiar with the term frame in motorcycle construction.

Also, what FEA software do you have access to? That's obviously how the regular design folks do this type of task...
 
Thank you Berkeman!

Oh, safety concerns because it might cause me harm if I calculate it wrong? I take on full responsibility for anything that I build and maintain. :) I just want to learn how to approach an issue like this.

The subframe is basically the back frame that sticks out and is welded on 4 spots. Here's a better image of the top view for the subframe:

1619910808494.png
 
Oh and currently I don't have access to any FEM analysis program. Those are quite expensive aren't they? :)
 
Feroyn said:
I take on full responsibility for anything that I build and maintain.
Feroyn said:
The subframe is basically the back frame that sticks out and is welded on 4 spots.
Hmm, so the part that your passenger sits on. Got it.
Feroyn said:
Oh and currently I don't have access to any FEM analysis program. Those are quite expensive aren't they? :)
The software is a lot less expensive than a negligent homicide lawsuit settlement usually runs. Thread is closed.
 
Thread 'Turbocharging carbureted petrol 2 stroke engines'
Hi everyone, online I ve seen some images about 2 stroke carbureted turbo (motorcycle derivation engine). Now.. In the past in this forum some members spoke about turbocharging 2 stroke but not in sufficient detail. The intake and the exhaust are open at the same time and there are no valves like a 4 stroke. But if you search online you can find carbureted 2stroke turbo sled or the Am6 turbo. The question is: Is really possible turbocharge a 2 stroke carburated(NOT EFI)petrol engine and...
Here's a video by “driving 4 answers” who seems to me to be well versed on the details of Internal Combustion engines. The video does cover something that's a bit shrouded in 'conspiracy theory', and he touches on that, but of course for phys.org, I'm only interested in the actual science involved. He analyzes the claim of achieving 100 mpg with a 427 cubic inch V8 1970 Ford Galaxy in 1977. Only the fuel supply system was modified. I was surprised that he feels the claim could have been...
Back
Top