dfaldridge
New Member
Meat.... I don't know if you know what the heck your saying, but it sounds good. Can I get an Amen out there! opcorn:
hahaha
hahaha
Meat;86742 wrote: I gave an example to show the extreme case of: Just because a car can move something once doesn't mean it can do it 50 times.
Not sure where all the fatigue load is going? What type of primary structure is on the back end of a unibody vehicle? You are taking a fore-aft load (starting, stopping, side load as in backing or turning sharply) and putting into essentially what is a sub-frame on a sport bike. That load will be sheared out through the crap that makes the floor of the trunk, which is not a very good shear structure due to it not being a nice flat panel. The rear tire essentially makes a massive hole in your primary shear panel. Under normal conditions the trunk floor won't see much shear loading, but put a trailer on the back of your motorcycle and see how much deflection your fairings see.
Sure a pure fore-aft load can be reacted through the frame-like structure (introduced through bearing from the hitch fasteners), but it is the load that is in every direction but fore-aft that is the biggest problem.
The large fatigue margin would be on the rated load and as you may or may not know, the S-N curve can go through the roof once you get too far outside of the designed load. It really depends on what the structure back there is really sized for. That is what actually would determine how much extra trailer load it could take.
I wasn't saying it couldn't take it. I was merely trying to make him (whoever was wanting to know about the towing) think past a one time loading of his structure. Often vehicles (I work in aircraft) have higher capabilities than there primary function because of things like crash loading. This can be the case in towing in some automobiles. I wasn't going to come out and say to tow more than rated. I was just trying to make him think more on the situation.
And as far as the fatigue talk, well, it sure isn’t going to be an ultimate static failure towing a trailer. You have cyclical loading which obviously means fatigue failure.
Don't mind all the technical jargon Meat is throwing around. You will have no problem towing your bike.jay956;86778 wrote: thanks for all the input guys. looks like i might be better off just renting a vehicle for the one more track day i have left this year and check out other options over the winter.
i think i followed this guy half way home from summit earlier this month.dfaldridge;86792 wrote: Jay seriously, you should be fine. Todd aka, hollywood pulls his R6 behind his toyota camry in an open trailer. I've had a ton of gravel in the back of my 3/4 ton truck several times. You don't want to do it everyday and I wouldn't drive like I stole it.. But I wouldn't worry to much about, But then again it isn't my car. Just kidding :dunno:
I just got a 2000 Subaru Legacy wagon for this very reason. 2000 lb towing capacity and with the seats folded down it rivals just about any SUV on interior space.Nexus;86846 wrote: Drive a Subaru...their small, decent mileage and have published tow ratings
Cool. I looked on your profile and saw you were an engineer so I could use more technical wording, but I actually agree with you that most cars should be able to take more load than they are rated for, I just didn't want to make that blanket statement. I wanted the final answer to be left up to the owner so that someone doesn't sue me for $53.55 to cover the cost of their totalled Neon (J/K).Slowninja;86796 wrote: Haha, i can't argue your theory. I too am an engineer (manufacturing, not as cool as you though) I was just saying a cars structure is not likely to fail due to fatigue while towing near or under it's rated capacity due to a large factor of safety. At any rate, i think the OP will be just fine with a small trailer, just watch the toung weight.
Good deal, where do you work? ( not to get too off topic) I did an internship a few years back at a place called Remmele Engineering in MN, they make monolithic components(AL,TI) for Boeing, Bell,Lockheed, NASA... Cool stuff for sure, i hope to get back into the contract/ defense manufacturing segment someday.Meat;86907 wrote: Cool. I looked on your profile and saw you were an engineer so I could use more technical wording, but I actually agree with you that most cars should be able to take more load than they are rated for, I just didn't want to make that blanket statement. I wanted the final answer to be left up to the owner so that someone doesn't sue me for $53.55 to cover the cost of their totalled Neon (J/K).
Right now I work for D3 technologies. I am presently doing stress analysis on the CH53K helicopter for the Marines. It is a major redesign.Slowninja;87021 wrote: Good deal, where do you work? ( not to get too off topic) I did an internship a few years back at a place called Remmele Engineering in MN, they make monolithic components(AL,TI) for Boeing, Bell,Lockheed, NASA... Cool stuff for sure, i hope to get back into the contract/ defense manufacturing segment someday.
That's just too easy :doh:Macon663;87036 wrote: I think Jiggy has a few pictures of my packing skills in action. Maybe he'll post them.
ah shit....slow_honda;87045 wrote: That's just too easy :doh:
Your whole statement is polluted. :spank:Macon663;87036 wrote: ....This also includes a generator that I strap on......