Designing stuff

[aff-man]

Well I always liked designign stuff but i suck at drawing so I got solidworks (cause we used it way back in year 1 of engineering) and started making stuff this is what i got so far. Hopefully will have a whole bike when i'm done. :woohoo:

Has anyone else had a play around out there. Chuck up your designs :Punk:

[Motoracer]

Where do I get this program from??

[aff-man]

Where do I get this program from??

I got it for *cough* free *cough* . It's called solidworks. Can burn ya a copy if ya want. or if you got a 256mb memory stick or bigger i can put it on that.

[Motoracer]

I got it for *cough* free *cough* . It's called solidworks. Can burn ya a copy if ya want. or if you got a 256mb memory stick or bigger i can put it on that.

Yea, sweet! Don't have a mem stick sorry dude. Would love to have a copy on CD tho.

[Big Dave]

Has anyone else had a play around out there. Chuck up your designs :Punk:

Some of my designs have made people chuck up.

good stuff aff-man, my design qualification is in CAD and as an Architectural Draftsman. But that was career No2 of 4 - Haven't used it for nearly 20 years.

[aff-man]

Some of my designs have made people chuck up.

good stuff aff-man, my design qualification is in CAD and as an Architectural Draftsman. But that was career No2 of 4 - Haven't used it for nearly 20 years.

hahaha well yeh i am just starting off slow. Making each piece then putting it together. about to start on the front end now. Not looking forward to trying to do the engine and such things. Solidworks isn't the most powerfull design tool out there. I also got PCT pro desktop and although more powerfull is not as user friendly :rofl: :rofl:


(p.s. if you going out picture taking again I need to get some snaps of my new wheels for my avatar :rofl: :rofl: )

[aff-man]

and so forks were created....

[erik]

Some of my designs have made people chuck up.

good stuff aff-man, my design qualification is in CAD and as an Architectural Draftsman. But that was career No2 of 4 - Haven't used it for nearly 20 years.


I didn't realise they had CAD 20 years ago?

Must've been very different to what it's like today?

[Big Dave]

I didn't realise they had CAD 20 years ago?

Must've been very different to what it's like today?

release 3 - and it was probably 15 - and yes and no - obviously the rendering engine and the scipts are way ahead, as are the add on modules and plug ins - but drawing vectors is still drawing vectors.

Back in those days i used to do the renders in photoshop - because autocad looked too computer generated - that isn't the case now.

[aff-man]

and dennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

[zadok]

I think 'SP' might be into this sort of stuff.

[Big Dave]

Spokes are too straight and rightangular - curve them like the swingarm

[Brian d marge]

I love cad ...Eric kindly sent me a file of solid works ,,but I cant get it to work ..to complicted for a simpleton like me !
Anyway designing mo bike stuff is what I do in the mornings over here in Japan ,,( read thats where the money goes out) and I teach engrish in the evenings ( read money in ) ( money in -money out = beer money )

So I use cad and have a set of original R14 acad on 5 inch floppy if any one needs it !!!
but I like cad ( I use 2004 ) and its GREAT for working drawings ,,,I draw in 3d then do a solid view in a different layer ,,Vala ,,instant 2d drawing

The thing I dont like about it is ,,,,, it cant handle helixes very well ,,aka springs ,,,I have a plug in ,,but threads come out clunky ,,,so I leave them off the 3d

So Mo bike bit design ....... I can help if you need ,,,but ask eric the quality of my answers if I try to answer them whilst drinking:violin::rofl:

One thing I also thought of ..does any one remember when finite analysis came out ..I also have those on 5 inch floppy ,,,

theres a lot of things that are 5 inches and floppy you know ,,I have one me self

anyway I must go back to drinking ,,and stop all this typing stuff ..using up valuable digits and time

kind regards Stephen

[avgas]

yeh i was working on CAD about 12 years ago, and even then it was considered old. CAD 3d studio was ok......but quite tacky. Solidworks is great when you can figure out how to use the heat algorithms, but i never had time or the ability to do so (1st year engineering was the last time i used it as well).
............right now i want to stick a knife in my computer thanks to PROTEL Design Explorer though........

[aff-man]

yeh i was working on CAD about 12 years ago, and even then it was considered old. CAD 3d studio was ok......but quite tacky. Solidworks is great when you can figure out how to use the heat algorithms, but i never had time or the ability to do so (1st year engineering was the last time i used it as well).
............right now i want to stick a knife in my computer thanks to PROTEL Design Explorer though........

Hahahahahaha protel will crash any computer. I am considering putting it on this computer but the amount of times it crashed on me at tech..... :rofl: :rofl:

Dave: Changed the rear wheel is that better?

[dhunt]

yeh i was working on CAD about 12 years ago, and even then it was considered old. CAD 3d studio was ok......but quite tacky. Solidworks is great when you can figure out how to use the heat algorithms, but i never had time or the ability to do so (1st year engineering was the last time i used it as well).
............right now i want to stick a knife in my computer thanks to PROTEL Design Explorer though........
Never used SolidWorks but I know far tooooo much about PROSUCK, not sure why so many people use it. I just finished a 2 layer surface mount design in which actually turned out pretty good in the end but sure isn't the easiest thing to use.

[aff-man]

Never used SolidWorks but I know far tooooo much about PROSUCK, not sure why so many people use it. I just finished a 2 layer surface mount design in which actually turned out pretty good in the end but sure isn't the easiest thing to use.

What you talking bout willis. Protell 99 is awesome and pretty easy to use. I HATE HATE HATE HATE dsp or dxp or whatever the new one is can't use it at all :motu:

[dhunt]

What you talking bout willis. Protell 99 is awesome and pretty easy to use. I HATE HATE HATE HATE dsp or dxp or whatever the new one is can't use it at all :motu:
Yeah 99 wasn't too bad, but still had problems or quirks depending on what you want to call them. I actually prefer EagleCad but it's not very popular here. Major advantage is it runs on Linux and Windoze.

[GixerBoy]

I use 3d software called Powershape and Powermill they are a delcam product, not very common here but it is a great product. We have a digitizer which gathers points, take that into powershape and create surfaces from the point data, this software is real good at sticking to the points unlike others i have seen.
Cool project Aff :2thumbsup

[Big Dave]

Noice. rear axle nut and adjuster next.

[vifferman]

Some of my designs have made people chuck up.
Surely not :spudwhat:


good stuff aff-man, my design qualification is in CAD and as an Architectural Draftsman. But that was career No2 of 4 - Haven't used it for nearly 20 years.
At least it's summat useful.
I'm (in theory) a geologist. (If I could be bothered, I'd do the Tui billboard: "I'm a Geologist". Yeah, right!)
Never used this qualification, apart from as wall decoration.

[NordieBoy]

I've only played a bit with VariCad.
A client was designing motorbike engines and wanted an easy (cheap) way of getting 3-d from his dxf files.

[avgas]

Hahahahahaha protel will crash any computer. I am considering putting it on this computer but the amount of times it crashed on me at tech.....

Havent got it to crash yet......but have had problems with it for the last 2 weeks: Different libraries between computers, f'ed up footprints, F'ed up nets. I havent used it at all for about 3 years (been using another f'ed up program MATLAB) so i imagine most of the problems with it are to do with me.

.......oh crap, just talked to the technicians, they say my schematic needs all the designators changed..........#$%%$$$!!!!!!

Also found that i can only do single layer cos they can line stuff up :nono:

Who is the Zeal at AUT? :sherlock:

Oh well i best get back to my Control Assignment, or else i will never escape this place

[avgas]

Dave: Changed the rear wheel is that better?

Yep that looks proper, now lock the objects and make the wheel spin

[aff-man]

Havent got it to crash yet......but have had problems with it for the last 2 weeks: Different libraries between computers, f'ed up footprints, F'ed up nets. I havent used it at all for about 3 years (been using another f'ed up program MATLAB) so i imagine most of the problems with it are to do with me.

.......oh crap, just talked to the technicians, they say my schematic needs all the designators changed..........#$%%$$$!!!!!!

Also found that i can only do single layer cos they can line stuff up :nono:

Who is the Zeal at AUT? :sherlock:

Oh well i best get back to my Control Assignment, or else i will never escape this place


Huh who is feeding you this shit. There are a lot of ways to get around protels flaws??

[Big Dave]

Surely not :spudwhat:


Yeah - me - when i look back on stuff i did 10 - 15 years ago - Ugh how primative

At least it's summat useful.
I'm (in theory) a geologist. (If I could be bothered, I'd do the Tui billboard: "I'm a Geologist". Yeah, right!)
Never used this qualification, apart from as wall decoration.[/QUOTE]

You must have had rocks in your head.

[Big Dave]

Aff-man - lets have a look at the weather for Staurday and look at a photo session for mid morning if suitable. Sunny is better.

[avgas]

Huh who is feeding you this shit. There are a lot of ways to get around protels flaws??
:yawn: Yeh i still semi-like protel, but i just love the conflicts it has - also not using it that much has left me a little out of the loop at little too.
But only got 4 weeks of project left, so all going well protel will be nice to me this week. Need to get my PCB out of the way. Still got to exband the base code for my micro and finish wacking out a massive report to my supervisior and a manual for the client.
I really wish i had more time :yawn: but must get back to Control crap.....

[Pixie]

I've been called a cad and a bounder.
I've never bounded in my life :crybaby:

[FlangMasterJ]

Whats the difference between CAD and 3D modelling software such as Maya and LightWave? Can you animate with CAD or is it just schematical?

[Teflon]

Well I always liked designign stuff but i suck at drawing so I got solidworks (cause we used it way back in year 1 of engineering) and started making stuff this is what i got so far. Hopefully will have a whole bike when i'm done. :woohoo:

Has anyone else had a play around out there. Chuck up your designs :Punk:

Had a demo of solid works, but never got around to trying it.

Nice designs mate.

[erik]

I've done a bit of work with an old program called model cad, and messed around with turbocad and autocad when I was into model airplanes. Last year I was taught how to use solidworks at uni, we had to measure and then draw a simple IC engine.
I ended up using it to design a rear wheel stand for my bike which was a bit of fun. The welding isn't pretty and the pivot/support bits for the swingarm could be better, but it does the job.
It's only been about half a year though and I already feel like I've forgotten how to use it :wacko:

[aff-man]

tank and the beginning of the headers. Took a little longer than i thought to get it right.

[avgas]

I've done a bit of work with an old program called model cad, and messed around with turbocad and autocad when I was into model airplanes. Last year I was taught how to use solidworks at uni, we had to measure and then draw a simple IC engine.
I ended up using it to design a rear wheel stand for my bike which was a bit of fun. The welding isn't pretty and the pivot/support bits for the swingarm could be better, but it does the job.
It's only been about half a year though and I already feel like I've forgotten how to use it :wacko:
Nice stand man
I know how you feel too - ive completely forgotten how to use solidworks i think.

[flash]

is solidworks a free download?
are there any free design programs that do the job well?

aff-man youve inspired me to try :2thumbsup

[aff-man]

is solidworks a free download?
are there any free design programs that do the job well?

aff-man youve inspired me to try :2thumbsup

Well solidworks is "free" if you know where to look :lol: :lol:

Yeh it's going a bit slower now due to work but i have split the prijects cause one didn't fit with the tail section i designed but will post updates soon

[aff-man]

Updated now

[TLDV8]

That looks like a excellent tool but to complicated for me :doh: ..i use the rip into it method...... I actually think Sarge at Coleman's pulled a SV650 out so i could measure the rearsets for these adapters that move them up and back 25mm,next stop Texas..Thanks Sarge :niceone:

http://imageevent.com/tldv8/rearsetadapter

<img src=http://photos.imageevent.com/tldv8/rearsetadapter/websize/RS37.JPG>

[TonyB]

I use Vectorworks. I've only got version 9 but v11 can do a heap more solid modelling stuff. Infact the difference is so great that when I was sent some V11 files with 3D models of gearmotors saved as V9 files, V9 couldn't even show what was there...
It's a great program though. Probably the most user freindly on the market- works on the WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) principle. So there is no need to send drawings to another program to print them. A lot of powerful modeling programs are hopeless at actually outputting useful working drawings. VW does both very well.

aff-man, looks good mate. Though I reckon you forgot to put the fork springs in, the forks look a little short with not enough travel. :niceone:

[Marmoot]

Affman:
a bit of 2c....(1) 4-spoke wheels do not offer good rigidity. Try 3, 5 or 6. 90 degree angle only aggravate torque on the joint.
(2) With the back too high and the front too low, the bike would run a high risk of speed wobble/tankslap tendencies.

I love the shape of the tank, though :love:

[DogBreath]

Updated now
Hey there
I have used solidworks full time now for about 4½ years, a truly amazing program.
I was wondering about the spokes you modelled. Did you use a sweep or a loft?
I've atached a quick set which are lofted, bit more awkward to do, but smoother lines.
Waddyarekon?

If anyone is interested, the program is about $13,000 to buy, plus about $2200/yr maintenance fees. Glad the company pays eh.

[hXc]

What type of bike is this supposed to be??? To me, it looks like a design for a bucket. I agree with the front being to low. Raise it a bit but put the handle bars lower. My bucket has the bars underneath the top clampy thing on the forks/steering head. So they are real low.

But good work mate. We have pro-desktop at school and I farken hate it!!! I just say to the teacher, "It would be quicker for me to just make it. Or design by hand." But he says designing by hand isn't used anymore so we shouldn't be doing it. Bullshit!!! I know people who design stuff always by hand. I'm no drawer but I can design by hand pretty well. Except circles :argh: Drawing drum kits is really hard btw.

[erik]

(1) 4-spoke wheels do not offer good rigidity. Try 3, 5 or 6. 90 degree angle only aggravate torque on the joint.



Could you explain that in a bit more detail?
I don't understand how 4-spoke wheels would be any worse.

[Brian d marge]

Like most things drawing has its advantages and disadvantages, I agree that educators shouldnt be experimenting with newer programs, the basics first ...as in producing good, well laid out working drawings ,,,,THEN say progressing to Acad or Solid works. I use Acad 2004 , its solid robust and does all I ask off it ( except helixes,,I have to install a wee program for those ...Why isnt it built in??? not like springs are an uncommon thing to draw)

The thing I like about say Acad , for example right now I am drawing a conrod in order to find out its lapprox life span and I need a number ( 2nd moment ) ...There is a method of finding it out but I have fogotten , so I just draw the rod resonably accuratly then once its in the computer I can slide and dice it and find out all its little secrets ...and if I did want to produce a drawing from the 3d model I just hit a button and away it draws

Stephen

[dveus]

But good work mate. We have pro-desktop at school and I farken hate it!!! I just say to the teacher, "It would be quicker for me to just make it..

Pro-desktop is indeed crap but is quite popular in schools due to it being almost free. Once one of the teachers has done a 1 or 2 day course (~$500) the school is given a site license for the software. Licensing fees get expensive really quick when your looking at computer labs of at least 30 pc's. Not really a good excuse but that will be the reasoning behind the schools use of ProDesktop.

[Marmoot]

Could you explain that in a bit more detail?
I don't understand how 4-spoke wheels would be any worse.

Long explanation....might bore some people here.
But I could do physics tutorial. I charge by the hour :whistle:

Anyhow, that is also the reason why you don't see 4-spoke wheels too much out there.

[erik]

Long explanation....might bore some people here.
But I could do physics tutorial. I charge by the hour :whistle:

Anyhow, that is also the reason why you don't see 4-spoke wheels too much out there.

<_<
&nbsp;

[juzzer]

Long explanation....might bore some people here.
But I could do physics tutorial. I charge by the hour :whistle:

Anyhow, that is also the reason why you don't see 4-spoke wheels too much out there.

Bloody Honda riders are smart a :banana: Hail Prof Marmoot

[thealmightytaco]

We had solidworks at Uni (mech eng degree at Canterbury) and we've just bought the latest at work, Solidworks 2005. 2006 should be here by now but they havent sent it to us yet. It can do some mad stuff, and after you've made the model you just hit the drawing button, and presto add all the views and dimensions you want, it's fantastic. It's got FEA now too, so you can hold your model here and apply a force here and see if it's strong enough. But to buy the proper one it's between $9000 and $18000 depending on how many features you want, and then $3000 a year to get the latest as it comes out, subscription style. Or the student version is $300. Gotta do a course though, there's one at Manukau for $400? Or there's piracy, if you can find a version.

And for 4 spoke wheels, worst case (which'll happen 4 times a revolution) they'll wobble 'cause you've essentially only got 2 planks supporting the rim against non-axial torsion (twisting the rim around the axle is if you're on the side, one hand on top of wheel, other underneath rocking it back and forth, like if checking the bearings, but imagine it so strong the rim is rolling over), whereas with 3,5 or 6 you've got more planks to resist that wobble more often type thing. Stiffer.

Hopefully that made a lick of sense, it's too late to recheck.

[Brian d marge]

And for 4 spoke wheels, worst case (which'll happen 4 times a revolution) they'll wobble 'cause you've essentially only got 2 planks supporting the rim against non-axial torsion (twisting the rim around the axle is if you're on the side, one hand on top of wheel, other underneath rocking it back and forth, like if checking the bearings, but imagine it so strong the rim is rolling over), whereas with 3,5 or 6 you've got more planks to resist that wobble more often type thing. Stiffer.

Hopefully that made a lick of sense, it's too late to recheck.

Made good sence though I will have to think about that one....Sounds plausable :apint:

will be home from work soon...and I am indeed looking forward to alkyholll
:apint:

As for finite analysis ...would be very nice ,,,,,,buy oh look at that price ...

Stephen

[Marmoot]

Bloody Honda riders are smart a :banana: Hail Prof Marmoot

Aye brother!
That's why we chose Honda....coz we is smart aye! :love:

[erik]

And for 4 spoke wheels, worst case (which'll happen 4 times a revolution) they'll wobble 'cause you've essentially only got 2 planks supporting the rim against non-axial torsion (twisting the rim around the axle is if you're on the side, one hand on top of wheel, other underneath rocking it back and forth, like if checking the bearings, but imagine it so strong the rim is rolling over), whereas with 3,5 or 6 you've got more planks to resist that wobble more often type thing. Stiffer.

Hopefully that made a lick of sense, it's too late to recheck.

Hmm. The explanation that it is non-axial torsion we are considering clears things up a bit. By "plank" you mean a single spoke?

Say the the spokes on a 4-spoke wheel were aligned vertically and horizontally, all 4 spokes would resist non-axial torsion: the vertical spokes would be subject to bending and the horizontal spokes would be subject to torsion.

In a 3-spoke wheel with 1 spoke pointing vertically down, the bottom spoke would be subject to bending and the top spokes would be subject to a combination of torsion and bending.

It is difficult to see how the 3-spoke wheel is any better than the 4-spoke wheel.

I'd guess that the choice of a 3-spoke over 4-spoke wheel is mostly an aesthetic consideration.

I had a look, couldn't find any photos of 4-spoke motorcycle wheels, but did find mention of them for BMWs here (http://largiader.com/parts/wheels.html).
There are 4-spoke bicycle wheels available (see here (http://www.corima.com/corima/gb/produits/roues/4batons_suite.html) )which would be subject to similar forces except on a smaller scale than motorcycle wheels. Perhaps on a bicycle using 4 spokes reduces the length of rim unsupported by spokes, maybe a 3-spoke wheel would need a heavier rim?

[TwoSeven]

I do all my concepts and base drawings on paper. Since I cant draw, I have found taking a picture of another bike, printing it on the color printer, then putting a sheet of paper over the top, so I can trace and modify the outline, to be a good cheats way. Cant be bothered with faffing about on a computer program until I have a pretty good idea what I want to do. By then I've usually lost interest in it :)

Couple of things about the design of wheels that might be usefull. The rim on modern wheen should have several angles across it for stiffness both for sidways movemement and for impact resistance. There is also a special design on the bead to hold the tire.

On the old F2, the axel is narrower than the rim aby about 30%, with the thick end of the spokes taking most of this up (6 spokes) and the thin end on the rim only using about 20% space. Spokes are triangluar in shape and turned sideways (easy to clean).

Also, dont forget the design of the cush drive on the rear rim, and both rims require room for a spacer each side of the wheel, especially the rear wheel as its used to align the wheel in the bike given the a set rear sprocket distance and chain alignment.

[avgas]

Aye brother!
That's why we chose Honda....coz we is smart aye! :love:
Funny u mention that - it seem all the obsessively smart people i meet buy diHatsu Charades????

[Brian d marge]

three spoke 4 spoke wheels ....Efficiency of design ...as pointed out before about the plank ....yes true but the three spoke is more efficient design with regards to strength /wieght ...you dont get any more stiffness for the increase in wieght if you add a 4th spoke .
5 spokes you can make the spoke thinner which may make thwheel more efficient again ...moving or changing it Radius of gyration ( I mean Rossi does want it to turn into the corners!!!)


Stephen

[nudemetalz]

Upon hearing all of this discussion with the downfalls of a 4-spoke wheel design, it's interesting that Yamaha have this on their MT-0S concept bike.

[Eurodave]

One word describes that new Yamaha YUMMY!!!

[Brian d marge]

It also has wave rotors as well , I suspect more for asthetic reasons than any other .
Tis a very nice looking bike ...almost Buell like ........

Stephen

[Milky]

Solidworks isn't the most powerfull design tool out there. I also got PCT pro desktop and although more powerfull is not as user friendly

I agree with you there. Pro-D is a toy compared to Wildfire 2 though (Pro Engineer) If the license for solidworks is nigh on 13k+ upkeep, I imagine that UoA is spending hundreds of thousands on ProE licenses for the mechanical dept.
Anyone else use ProE out there? I have been for about a year, and only just scratched the surface of it's capabilities. A couple of 3rd year mech friends were doing a CNC routing project for Design in ProE... Real impressive stuff.

[thealmightytaco]

three spoke 4 spoke wheels ....Efficiency of design ...as pointed out before about the plank ....yes true but the three spoke is more efficient design with regards to strength /wieght ...you dont get any more stiffness for the increase in wieght if you add a 4th spoke .
5 spokes you can make the spoke thinner which may make thwheel more efficient again ...moving or changing it Radius of gyration ( I mean Rossi does want it to turn into the corners!!!)

Precisely, the 4 spoke can be designed to achieve the required stiffness but it'd be heavier than the 3 or 5 spoke, hence obsolete. Not that I've done the calcs on this myself, makes sense thinkin' about it conceptually but everything can always be proven wrong.

[Marmoot]

Precisely, the 4 spoke can be designed to achieve the required stiffness but it'd be heavier than the 3 or 5 spoke, hence obsolete. Not that I've done the calcs on this myself, makes sense thinkin' about it conceptually but everything can always be proven wrong.

I think you guys are absolutely right. I missed a detail in previous statements.

4-spoke is workable, as long as they are put at an angle so that they are not placed as a radius (i.e., a straight line from center of the circle to the contact point between tyre and road).

Cheers.

[avgas]

Also no one has pointed out that 3 spoke wheels are easier to inject mould. More surface area leads + more volume = less errors

[erik]

Precisely, the 4 spoke can be designed to achieve the required stiffness but it'd be heavier than the 3 or 5 spoke, hence obsolete. Not that I've done the calcs on this myself, makes sense thinkin' about it conceptually but everything can always be proven wrong.
How can you assume it'll be heavier?
If you use 4 spokes, each individual spoke could be lighter than the individual spokes in a 3 spoke wheel. Plus the rim might be able to be lighter as there would be a smaller span between the spokes.
I don't think it's possible to say one would be lighter than the other without actually designing them and going through the calcs.


4-spoke is workable, as long as they are put at an angle so that they are not placed as a radius (i.e., a straight line from center of the circle to the contact point between tyre and road).
With wire-spoked wheels, the spokes need to be at an angle. If they were at a radius, they could not offer any significant resistance to axial torque (ie from accelerating or braking) until the hub of the wheel had rotated a certain amount, effectively putting the spokes at an angle. I'm not sure how to explain this other than to give an example. Take a piece of string drawn tight between two points so that the string is horizontal. If you try to make the centre of the string deflect downwards, it will take very little force at first, but as the deflection (and hence angle of the string from horizontal) increases, the required force increases (exponentially, I guess?).

However, with cast alloy wheels (which is what I'm assuming we're talking about here) the spokes are thick and can therefore offer resistance to bending at the hub of the wheel, even if they're placed as a radius.
They don't need to be placed at an angle.

Thinking about it, even though cast spokes do not need to be at an angle, I guess they might benefit from it in the same way (to a lesser extent) that wire spoked wheels do. But having the spokes at an angle would also make them longer, which may make them heavier.

However, none of this suggests a 4 spoke wheel is at any disadvantage when compared to wheels with other numbers of spokes.

[Marmoot]

However, none of this suggests a 4 spoke wheel is at any disadvantage when compared to wheels with other numbers of spokes.


well...one can always argue that "4-spoke is ghey" without the need for specifics
:whistle: