Jump to content
Model Cars Magazine Forum

Army: We want 100,000 more just like it


Recommended Posts

Pretty good illustration why designing something in CAD (which this surely was) doesn't work all that well if the designer forgets to use the right load-multiplier for the application (whatever holds the rear suspension in place in this case), or if the fabrication team are a little lax welding, checking the welding, etc., or if the assembly team pull the wrong hardware off the shelf......

Somebody made a pretty basic error here to have such a total failure, and there's really no excuse for it. None. Zero. Period.

But I think everyone involved should get a trophy for trying.....

....and as long as we have vehicles like this that self-destruct, think of how much the bad guys will save on IEDs.

Edited by Ace-Garageguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty good illustration why designing something in CAD (which this surely was) doesn't work all that well if the designer forgets to use the right load-multiplier for the application (whatever holds the rear suspension in place in this case), or if the fabrication team are a little lax welding, checking the welding, etc., or if the assembly team pull the wrong hardware off the shelf......

Somebody made a pretty basic error here to have such a total failure, and there's really no excuse for it. None. Zero. Period.

But I think everyone involved should get a trophy for trying.....

....and as long as we have vehicles like this that self-destruct, think of how much the bad guys will save on IEDs.

First and foremost, the rear wheels should under no circumstances whatsoever lock up before the front ones do. They made a capital error in brake dimensioning. This is roughly the automotive equivalent of putting the wings on upside down on an airplane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First and foremost, the rear wheels should under no circumstances whatsoever lock up before the front ones do. They made a capital error in brake dimensioning. This is roughly the automotive equivalent of putting the wings on upside down on an airplane.

I beg to differ. First and foremost, the vehicle's structure and mounting points for the suspension shouldn't fail no matter WHAT kind of brake-proportioning deficiency may occur in service. This is equivalent to stressing an aircraft structure for only 2 gees when it's known it will see 7 gees in operation. First things first.

The PRIMARY system of ANY vehicle...car, tank, boat, truck or aircraft...is the STRUCTURE that holds it all together. The brake system is a secondary system. The primary system should be able to cope with any failure of a secondary system.

Even if the brake-proportioning had been correct, achieved by valving that reduces hydraulic pressure to the rear brakes as weight transfers towards the front under deceleration (which is common, or a processor-controlled analog), there is the potential for the proportioning valve to fail in service, especially in a hostile, combat environment. The vehicle's structural integrity should NOT be compromised by any mechanical failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...