[jdk81]

If we can make it into more of an I beam it will reduce the material required.
I dont know how much space you have, but can you fit something like the following noob cads (it will help cut the weight). But i need to know dimensions etc before I can confirm.

[atari4x4]

jdk81 i think you're trying making it way to complex for what it is, as an example have a look at the low profile crossmember from superior engineering. i don't see any I beams or any real bracing apart from one folded edge.

Quote:

Superior's Crossmember is designed to gain Approx 2 inch lift under the Transfer case to give you more ground clearance.
These are the best on the market with protection to both ends of the crossmember as well as a extra gusset to eliminate any unwanted bending.
No modifications or cutting is needed as they are just a bolt on accessory

[jdk81]

Im just making it as strong as suzuki made it

So because they have superior in their name, it means their engineering is superior.

They engineered a piece of plate to replace what is essentially and I beam. Their product is weaker.
Do you think suzuki are in the habit of using extra metal and doing extra folds if they dont need to?
Id be more inclined to believe the engineers at suzuki, than superior engineering.

[atari4x4]

No

I was using their crossmember as an example & also my aftermarket one that still looks the same after being used & abused for the last 3 years & there is no I beams on that.

Suzuki used wafer thin steel & to get the strength they've had to add all the folded sections.

[Gwagensteve]

jdk81 wrote:

Im just making it as strong as suzuki made it

So because they have superior in their name, it means their engineering is superior.

They engineered a piece of plate to replace what is essentially and I beam. Their product is weaker.
Do you think suzuki are in the habit of using extra metal and doing extra folds if they dont need to?
Id be more inclined to believe the engineers at suzuki, than superior engineering.

So much truth here.

There's so much arrogance out there that OEM manufacturers don't know how to eningeer anything and something thicker must be better.

Manufacturers are always going to go for peak strength V weight through smart design. Outside of OEM we tend to use thickness to compensate for a lack of engineering or inability to make complex shapes.

Personally, I'd skin the underside of the stock GV crossmember in 3mm plate, stitch welded along the ends and plug welded in the centre. This would result in a fair increase in strength and slidability for a minimal increase in weight. I can't see the reason to redesign the stock part from scratch.

Steve.

PS atari - I think you have it around the wrong way. "superior" are using thick material because it's cheaper and easier to put the minimum folds into thicker material than engineer and manufacture a complex shape. It's primarily a cost consideration. Your crossmember has folded edges which add strength in an additional plane.

[jdk81]

^^^+1

thanks steve.

I was trying to assist B4T to acheive his goal of low profile, whilst maintaining factory strength.
Perhaps we can sell it under the guise of more superior engineering.

[atari4x4]

Gwagensteve wrote:

I can't see the reason to redesign the stock part from scratch.

IMO the Vitara/GV crossmembers hang to low along with the Hilux crossmember making it susceptible to being damamged.

I understand where you're coming from with the OEM manufactured gear but realistically the Superior crossmember & the one in mine is going to the job & NOT get hung up on rocks like the stock one.

[Chop]

jdk81 wrote:

^^^+1

thanks steve.

I was trying to assist B4T to acheive his goal of low profile, whilst maintaining factory strength.
Perhaps we can sell it under the guise of more superior engineering.

Yeah coz "factory strength" is the exact reason when buying a used GV you have to look out for a bent cross member to see if its been used offroad!

[jdk81]

if the factory x-member has been bent from offroad situations, it would indicate you have driven the car over something suzuki didnt design for.
In which case we need to design a solution around this, while still satisfying original design requirements.

The engineers at suzuki are significantly brighter than 99% of the clowns on this forum.
They designed and built it this strong for a reason.
I do not know their reason, but I am not arrogant enough to think that me or some techie/tradie/back yard butcher is smarter than them, and can just assume different from their design criteria.

Sure build it low profile, to avoid the rocks. But dont make it weaker.
Thats like pulling the motor out of your vitara and slapping in a 1L from a sierra, does it sound like a good idea?

In terms of principal moment of inertia.
What B4T currently has where he did put the ribs on it, has an Mx of 17,000mm^4.
What suzuki made is approximately 270,000 mm^4.
It weighs the same (if not more), but its signicantly weaker.

Please justify why the engineers at suzuki were wrong and you are right.
Please prove any theory wrong, feel free to derive equations where you feel things were neglected.
Please feel free to highlight any areas, where you feel assumptions have made a significant difference in the results.

If you cant offer constructive criticism towards a solution, please shut up.

[atari4x4]

i thought i offered a simple solution, that didn't involve a 500 word essay & a computer program.

[jdk81]

You did, however it is incorrect.

[ajsr]

Chop wrote:

jdk81 wrote:

^^^+1

thanks steve.

I was trying to assist B4T to acheive his goal of low profile, whilst maintaining factory strength.
Perhaps we can sell it under the guise of more superior engineering.

Yeah coz "factory strength" is the exact reason when buying a used GV you have to look out for a bent cross member to see if its been used offroad!

your thinking about this wrong. the factory x member is not bending in the upward plane, its bending from sideways pressure. it was obiously never designed to take. when its collapsed sideways it will then allow a bend upwards

as steve said if you plated the bottom it would require a massive amount of pressure to bend in any direction as then it would be braced/ have depth in both planes.

i'd bet you a massive amount of money the stock crossmember is so much stronger than 5 mm thick steel plate its not funny

[atari4x4]

jdk81 wrote:

You did, however it is incorrect.

so my crossmember that has been working perfectly for the last 3 years is incorrect?

[ajsr]

atari4x4 wrote:

jdk81 wrote:

You did, however it is incorrect.

so my crossmember that has been working perfectly for the last 3 years is incorrect?

I'm with the engineer, I wouldn't do it like that either Gus

[jdk81]

atari4x4 wrote:

jdk81 wrote:

You did, however it is incorrect.

so my crossmember that has been working perfectly for the last 3 years is incorrect?

Yes, did you not read correctly the first time?

Oh and I used a textbook, pen and paper, a calculator and 3 computer programs.
If I am going to spend my time and help someone I should atleast be right.

[atari4x4]

ajsr wrote:

atari4x4 wrote:

jdk81 wrote:

You did, however it is incorrect.

so my crossmember that has been working perfectly for the last 3 years is incorrect?

I'm with the engineer, I wouldn't do it like that either Gus

it works well for me & i don't have a crossmember hanging down waiting to get smashed again or get hooked up like it used to even if the bottom section was plated & boxed in.

[ajsr]

atari4x4 wrote:

ajsr wrote:

atari4x4 wrote:

jdk81 wrote:

You did, however it is incorrect.

so my crossmember that has been working perfectly for the last 3 years is incorrect?

I'm with the engineer, I wouldn't do it like that either Gus

it works well for me & i don't have a crossmember hanging down waiting to get smashed again or get hooked up like it used to even if the bottom section was plated & boxed in.

I never said the position of the crossmenber was anygood , if its like the sierra one its just waiting to be ripped off.
But I do belive there must be a better way than your plate to get it up out of the way and keep it stong

[Chop]

atari4x4 wrote:

jdk81 wrote:

You did, however it is incorrect.

so my crossmember that has been working perfectly for the last 3 years is incorrect?

Dont worry, yours is weaker because its tucked up out of the way and the suzuki one is stronger coz it hanging down like a ground anchor

[atari4x4]

jdk81 wrote:

atari4x4 wrote:

jdk81 wrote:

You did, however it is incorrect.

so my crossmember that has been working perfectly for the last 3 years is incorrect?

Yes, did you not read correctly the first time?

Oh and I used a textbook, pen and paper, a calculator and 3 computer programs.
If I am going to spend my time and help someone I should atleast be right.

so when you wrote this on pg1 you didn't actually mean what you typed?

jdk81 wrote:

I like in the one atari has

also Gwagon agreed that an added a lip to B4T's crossmember would fix the problem

[Built4thrashing]

Well after driving about today with the cross member how it was i found that the plate was flexing where there were no gussets. It was noticable as the 4wd shifter was moving about alot.

This was fixed by adding some more bracing. see pics







There is alot to what has been said and im starting to notice some problems with making a high clearance cross member. It now exposes the back or of the t/case to dammage by the rocks that would normally be hit by the stock crossmember.

What ive made so far will do for now but its not what ill end up with. If i can straighten the factory one ill plate the bottom and incorporate a skid plate for the t/case.

[Built4thrashing]

P.S. Im starting to get good with the Arc Welded

[atari4x4]

that looks like it's going to do the job nicely.

you could make a skid plate for the transfer case like this.... the GV's have the chassis crossmember behind the Xfer case like the vits.

[jdk81]

atari4x4 wrote:

jdk81 wrote:

atari4x4 wrote:

jdk81 wrote:

You did, however it is incorrect.

so my crossmember that has been working perfectly for the last 3 years is incorrect?

Yes, did you not read correctly the first time?

Oh and I used a textbook, pen and paper, a calculator and 3 computer programs.
If I am going to spend my time and help someone I should atleast be right.

so when you wrote this on pg1 you didn't actually mean what you typed?

jdk81 wrote:

I like in the one atari has

also Gwagon agreed that an added a lip to B4T's crossmember would fix the problem

I was wrong, as I was relying on intuition and not on the calculations.
At that stage I didnt have the xsectional views that B4t sent me, and I had no idea the scope of x-section of what was replaced.
It wasnt until I did the full calculations that I discovered the differences.

Intuition was poiting us in the right direction, the calculations gave us scope.

[atari4x4]

cool, i'll be sure to let you know when mine fails

[jdk81]

Built4thrashing wrote:

Well after driving about today with the cross member how it was i found that the plate was flexing where there were no gussets. It was noticable as the 4wd shifter was moving about alot.

Thanks for the real world information.

What material did you brace it with, I can give you an idea of how you are going .

[atari4x4]

jdk81 wrote:

Built4thrashing wrote:

Well after driving about today with the cross member how it was i found that the plate was flexing where there were no gussets. It was noticable as the 4wd shifter was moving about alot.

Thanks for the real world information.

so 3 years & probably 50,000kms isn't real world information?

typical answer from a know all engineer, haven't seen one wheeling pic posted by you in the nearly 3 years you've been here... just another web wheeler.

[Built4thrashing]

jdk81 wrote:

Built4thrashing wrote:

Well after driving about today with the cross member how it was i found that the plate was flexing where there were no gussets. It was noticable as the 4wd shifter was moving about alot.

Thanks for the real world information.

What material did you brace it with, I can give you an idea of how you are going .

I used 5x25mm flat bar. I did one side of the lower section and one side of the top section (opposite sides) and i added a 12x12 square solid rib to the top section between the welded on nuts..... make sense?

[laurie]

i have not bent mine yet but i am watching this with interest

[MacDaddy]

laurie wrote:

i have not bent mine yet but i am watching this with interest

I have already dented and bent my cross member, hehe, when the design and testing of this cross member has finished, i would be interested in one, and if it came with transfer skid/protection plate as well, even better, look forward to the finished product !

[Built4thrashing]

I think im trying to achieve a pointless goal. By increasing the clearance under the crossmember ive gone and created bigger problems.

To get the strength required its going to be extremely heavy. (Its already heavier than the factory one and its not finished yet) and by increasing the clearance under the cross member ive exposed the back of the transfer to damage by rocks that normally get bashed out of the way by the low hanging cross member. To fix this i'd have to make anouther Heavy plate to protect it thus adding even more weight. Not a great idea when the suzukis are known to be capable due to their light weight.

So after spending several hours under the GV i have figured out it would be best to leave the factory crossmember as it is and make a skid plate that welds/bolts onto it that acts like a water ski allowing it to slide over the rocks and to also protect the t/case.

Now i need a straight crossmember to start version 2.