Square cage...here it is

Metto said:
Forgive my ignorance here, I was off NC4x4 for a couple of years so i might have missed it but is this guy for real? this cant be serious right?
Click to expand...
Ok I guess I'll introduce myself..
I'm 88jeepster, johnfuller, and marty79!! Yeah you've missed a lot of entertainment for sure lol. Probably not worth any of your time to look through (unless your super bored). Yes this is my jeep, yes its my cage, yes its for real painted like a tiger and yes its freaking awesome!! So really the question is, will you be "Team Fuller"....or you can put your flame suit on like most and let the flames roar!!lol. Welcome back:beer:
 
Jody Treadway said:
Your upcoming 4 link upgrade will include rod ends from Tractor Supply won't it?
Click to expand...
Haha, I'm really going to try and make some legit adjustable control arms which is why I haven't yet..gotta get all materials for 8 arms gathered first!
 
all%20thread%20stud%20galv.jpg


Allthread is where it's at!
 
marty79 said:
Just wanted to mention you aren't/wouldn't be the first lol. Everyone does at me/my stuff but that's the beauty of living free and not caring about everyone else's opinions, no offense at all btw.
Weather you and others believe me, I've learned A TON from people here, seriously, but just doesn't make it in the physical on my rig mostly due to my budget on my rig. My rig gets the pocket change budget lol or side jobs only BUT I also am not the kind of guy that will wait and wait to build something till I have the money to do it "right" or "100% proper". I am very determined person, despite my limitations, so what you see in my rigs is my determination to enjoy this sport just like everyone else and be as safe and cautious with it while working with what I have. Well that's all I got!
Click to expand...



Money has literally nothing to do with doing something the right way lol.

I’ve never seen a guide to “proper” hence why all of us hacks post questions here and take peer review as answers.

Again, money has nothing to do with doing something the “right” way.
 
Allthread would still leave too many needed parts, though, and get all gunked up...I think a turnbuckle would do the trick though...all moving parts all in one!

Stainless-steel-Turnbuckle-with-welded-forks.jpg
 
Jody Treadway said:
Welcome back Metto.
This is for real. You've missed a lot while you've been gone. Allow me to catch you up:
marty79: What do you all think about ___________?
NC4X4: well, we would probably do it like this _________ based on experience and collective knowledge.
marty79: Yeah, well, no.

Reapeat.
Click to expand...

You spelled repeat wrong.
 
Mac5005 said:
Money has literally nothing to do with doing something the right way lol.

I’ve never seen a guide to “proper” hence why all of us hacks post questions here and take peer review as answers.

Again, money has nothing to do with doing something the “right” way.
Click to expand...
I kinda agree but not really. To you maybe but for me, money is my reason why. Now that prob means I'm not a good a fabricator as you or others to make stuff work better (and I agree I'm not a fabricator) but I'm at least doing and learning and enjoying along the way.
 
Scooter402 said:
Now, you have same bar, supported by the ends, and supported by two other points evenly distributed over the length (such that there is a supporting member each 1/4 length across the horizontal tube). Apply the same point load in the same place...Now calculate the strain on the bar at each joint. :popcorn:
Click to expand...

So you have 3 supporting members if there is a member each 1/4 length across the horizontal tube and they are evenly distributed? Is there a vertical member in the middle?

You can't divide something into quarters with only 2 tubes; you need to post a picture because it doesn't make sense.

Also, it sounds like you're saying that removing the center tension/compression node by spreading the supports apart is an improvement? The only improvement if that is done is to improve the visibility looking out of the windshield.
 
Last edited:
Fabrik8 said:
So you have 3 supporting members if there is a member each 1/4 length across the horizontal tube and they are evenly distributed?

You can't divide something into quarters with only 2 tubes; you need to post a picture because it doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...
Holy crap now I'm really confused lol, y'all killin me
 
Scooter402 said:
Whoops, was going too fast...was thinking 4 contact points -- each end, and two evenly distributed in the middle...each 1/3 length across the horizontal tube. Good catch!
Click to expand...
Ok that actually makes some sense
 
Scooter402 said:
Whoops, was going too fast...was thinking 4 contact points -- each end, and two evenly distributed in the middle...each 1/3 length across the horizontal tube. Good catch!

EDIT:

| /\ |

Like this, but upside down so the horizontal bar is on top...and more evenly distributed than trying to use keyboard characters.
Click to expand...

Your design is what happens when you compromise Fuller's design in order to improve visibility. Remove strength, improve visibility.

Both of your horizontal tubes are now being loaded in bending along their entire length, and the V is just transferring the bending load from the top bar into bending load on the bottom bar. You haven't made a truss, because there aren't any tension/compression nodes because you've eliminated them by spreading the members apart.
The tubing also needs to be larger than necessary because of the bending loads for a tube of that long length.

Also all the joints at the end of the horizontal tubes are in perpendicular bending instead of tension/compression/shear.
 
Last edited:
Fabrik8 said:
Your design is what happens when you compromise Fuller's design in order to improve visibility.

Both of your horizontal tubes are now being loaded in bending along their entire length, and the V is just transferring the bending load from the top bar into bending load on the bottom bar. You haven't made a truss, because there aren't any tension/compression nodes because you've eliminated them by spreading the members apart.
The tubing also needs to be larger than necessary because of the bending loads for a tube of that long length.
Also all the joints at the end of the horizontal tubes are in perpendicular bending instead of tension/compression/shear.
Click to expand...
But its better than nothing. Everything isn't always purrrr-fect. Just gggggrrrrrrrreeeeeaaaaatttt!
 
Scooter402 said:
Wasn't considering the node, I was considering the strength of the span of the bar altogether...not knowing what the material is, my point really was moot TBVH.

But, was just using my comments as a "for example" instead of a critique of one particular feature. Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough in my original verbiage.
Click to expand...

Fabrik8 said:
Your design is what happens when you compromise Fuller's design in order to improve visibility.

Both of your horizontal tubes are now being loaded in bending along their entire length, and the V is just transferring the bending load from the top bar into bending load on the bottom bar. You haven't made a truss, because there aren't any tension/compression nodes because you've eliminated them by spreading the members apart.
The tubing also needs to be larger than necessary because of the bending loads for a tube of that long length.
Also all the joints at the end of the horizontal tubes are in perpendicular bending instead of tension/compression/shear.
Click to expand...

I'll quote myself here once more for a bit of emphasis, particularly on the "for example." Also, that "drawing" was done with keyboard characters, hardly to scale, so...my bad?

I know obviously you are or have an engineering background...I'm merely a lowly Physicist. But that being said, I do intimately understand the math, simple trusses, nodes, forces, stress/strain/shear etc. etc. Next time I'll have to come armed with something much more definitive and clear for my argument's sake. But thanks for taking us to school today. :beer:
 
Fabrik8 said:
Your design is what happens when you compromise Fuller's design in order to improve visibility. Remove strength, improve visibility.

Both of your horizontal tubes are now being loaded in bending along their entire length, and the V is just transferring the bending load from the top bar into bending load on the bottom bar. You haven't made a truss, because there aren't any tension/compression nodes because you've eliminated them by spreading the members apart.
The tubing also needs to be larger than necessary because of the bending loads for a tube of that long length.

Also all the joints at the end of the horizontal tubes are in perpendicular bending instead of tension/compression/shear.
Click to expand...
So from this I'm reading that my cage is "pointless" and "useless" weight basically
 
marty79 said:
So from this I'm reading that my cage is "pointless" and "useless" weight basically
Click to expand...
No, he was actually complimenting you. He was critiquing my keyboard character "design drawing" of a variation on your cage.
 
Fabrik8 said:
:D Well played.



Seriously though, Fuller's got the better design this time, except for bad visibility. Which is why the inverted V in the middle of the windshield is an acceptable compromise.
Click to expand...
What??
 
Scooter402 said:
No, he was actually complimenting you. He was critiquing my keyboard character "design drawing" of a variation on your cage.
Click to expand...
Holy cow I'm lost
 
Fabrik8 said:
No, you should be reading that your windshield area is stronger than the suggested alternative. But harder to see out of.
Click to expand...
Ohh dang, y'all got me all twisted up. Feeling stupid.....
 
Wow so my something on the front was right...that's a first
 
Back
Top