Uber Ultra-light tear

Anything to do with mechanical, construction etc

Postby kennyrayandersen » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:13 am

OK, so I got a chance to talk to a rotor dynamic guy. OK he’s not into trailer dynamics exactly, but I’m guessing that there ain’t that many of them trailer-specific guys out there. After I started thinking about modeling the trailer resonant frequency, I realized that I needed maybe more information than I had. Some I could get, maybe some I could find – I might get there yet. I'm still thinking on that one.

Anyway, I hashed out with the dynamics guy that you may actually be increasing the mass moment of inertia more by putting the bikes up front, which at first seems counter-intuitive. Since most of the weight of the tear is in the rear – in my case just a couple of feet off the back – around 30 inches, if you put the bike in the back you haven’t changed the mass moment of inertia that much because your new mass isn’t so far from the mass CG (right?). Now if we put the bike up front, it’s around 80 inches from the trailer body/tongue CG – that’s nearly 3 times as far away from the original mass centroid as if we would have mounted the bikes in the back. Hmmm

The equation of mass moment of inertia is:
I = mr2

Now we could go to the general form, but I wouldn’t know what to do about all of that high-faluting calculus, so let’s just talk about the terms. I is the mass moment of inertia, m is the mass and r is the distance from the rotation to the center of the mass (this doesn’t include the rotation of the mass, but we ain’t got that anyway). The thing to note is r is a function squared. Since we’d be adding the bike mass to either location, the total mass doesn’t change for either configuration; but, the distribution of that mass does. The mass moment of inertia is HIGHER when the bikes are loaded up at the front of the trailer.

Am I looking at this right? Because initially, you’d think putting the bikes on the back of the trailer makes the overall rig longer so that must be higher… but now that I’ve had a little time to think about it I think I was wrong. I think the mass moment of inertia is larger, which drops the resonant frequency. I also think the resonance problems are worse the lower the resonant frequency is (in the practical application range we are looking at anyway); so, anything we can do to raise it would probably be beneficial, which means that, theoretically anyway, the bike should be on the back.

A couple of interesting, but only semi-related tidbits:
Helicopters can run into ground resonance problems easier when the tires are at ½ pressure rather than full because it lowers the natural frequency of the spring/mass system.

Therefore, If you want to increase the stiffness of your trailer and decrease the chance that it goes into a lateral resonance mode, make sure the tires are full.

I think A-frame trailers don’t have a problem with this.

$64,000 question is has anyone on the board had trouble (resonance) while using a 2x2 steel tongue, and if so, what was the trailer weight and tongue length? Just curious about that. Or, were the problems you were referring to when a narrower section, say 1x2 was used or maybe the tongue length may have been an issue?
:thinking:
Last edited by kennyrayandersen on Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
kennyrayandersen
1000 Club
1000 Club
 
Posts: 1750
Images: 38
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: TX

Postby kennyrayandersen » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:34 am

aggie79 wrote:
kennyrayandersen wrote:The big thing I noticed is that if you build with composite sandwiches like this, the body weight is in fact much lighter; so, the axles, apparently, need to be shifted back even further toward the rear than usual – even without so much in the kitchen. In addition to that, if I hang the bikes off the back, it will exacerbate that situation further. I might have to come up with a bit of a counter-weight that I can stick on the tongue when I carry the bikes – something that mounts just aft of the coupler that acts as ballast. I wouldn’t want the tongue to be lifting off the ball!


I will have the same situation with bikes. On short trips (one-night stays), we probably won't carry the bikes. Because I will have a small battery, I've thought about using it as ballast and being able to move the battery from the galley location to the tongue box. Of course, I'd have to wire for both locations and have a selector switch.

If you add 60 lbs (2 mountain bikes and a rack) to the aft, you’d have to add an equivalent moment to balance it back to where you started. It’s simple and I’ll show you how to do that calculation.

I’m 30 inches from the trailer body/tongue CG to the aft of the trailer and 80 inches from that CG to the front of the trailer. My guess is that your distance from the trailer body/tongue/frame is probably a bit longer than that.

The moment due to the bikes and rack is 60*30 = 1800 in-lb

The distance to the ballast is 80 inches. The moment from the bikes has to be balance by the ballast moment. To calculate the weight required for the ballast set them equal.

Ballast * 80 = 1800 in lb
Ballast = 1800/80 = 22 lb

Since your aft distance is likely longer than mine, you should calculate that you need a bit more mass than that (note that this is almost the same weight as a spare tire, but I think you are running the same size as the car (or at least the same bolt pattern as I remember). If you move the battery like you were thinking, then you actually shift the CG so you might have to play around a bit to get it exact (you might try the trailer balance program once everything is known).
User avatar
kennyrayandersen
1000 Club
1000 Club
 
Posts: 1750
Images: 38
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: TX

Postby angib » Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:31 pm

kenny, if you want to try to model the trailer dynamics, go ahead! But remember that you need to model the tow vehicle as well, as it is the combined system that you are interested in the performance of, and you need to work out all the damping functions as well.

Here's a brief description of a British research project into this: Caravan Stability Studies

I was sent the technical paper referred to on the web site and I'd be happy to send it to you (pm me your email address) - it's not light reading!

Andrew
User avatar
angib
5000 Club
5000 Club
 
Posts: 5783
Images: 231
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 2:04 pm
Location: (Olde) England
Top

Postby kennyrayandersen » Wed Apr 01, 2009 6:06 pm

Andrew,
Yeah, it's a bit daunting. And the tow vehicle's probably a pretty bid deal -- especially if the vehicle is small, like I was thinking would be possible. In fact, it seems quite likely that you could have a trailer which was perfectly stable being towed by a larger (firmer) car, which would go divergent when being towed by a pipsqueak.

I'm thinking because I have nearly all of my weight in one spot and the bulk of the body/trailer is quite light, I don't have a problem, or am at least less prone toward a problem, though I'm sure there is some scenario in which the best trailer might go south.

I would like to take a look at the paper though. My e-mail is kenneth(at)koreaaero.com I'll check out the website as well. If nothing else maybe there is a tidbit or two that can at least offer some guidance on trends which would help some one at least steer in the right direction.

As I thought about it more I started to realize that it is a pretty difficult task and more involved than I was initially thinking.
User avatar
kennyrayandersen
1000 Club
1000 Club
 
Posts: 1750
Images: 38
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: TX
Top

Postby kennyrayandersen » Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:50 am

Andrew -- nice site, and THANKS for the link. I believe it confirms what I was saying in my previous post. There is some good general information there even if somebody doesn't want to get too technical. I think after reading that I'm not in too much danger of getting in a crazy resonance mode since all of my weight is pretty close to the axle which means a low inertia value and more stability.


http://towingstabilitystudies.co.uk/sta ... tudies.htm

And EVERYBODY should play the trailer game!


http://towingstabilitystudies.co.uk/sta ... s_game.htm
User avatar
kennyrayandersen
1000 Club
1000 Club
 
Posts: 1750
Images: 38
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: TX
Top

Postby kennyrayandersen » Tue Apr 14, 2009 7:53 am

Conclusions/observations/philosophy
The key to building a lightweight trailer is not having too much redundant structure. In other words if there are extra parts doing what another part is already doing then the extra part may be doing nothing more than adding weight.

Let’s talk about the frame first, because it is one of the heaviest single items in the tear. What is the function of the frame?
1) The frame provides support for the tear body
2) Provides an attachment location for the suspension
3) Provides for the attachment of the tongue

We can address these one at a time:
1) Here is one of the keys IMO to making a frameless teardrop trailer. As an example, take a shoe box with the lid off and twist it – pretty flimsy. Now put the lid on and while holding the lid on twist it again (it also increases the bending strength, but the torsion is easier to see and more dramatic. It’s orders of magnitude stiffer with the lid on. What we want to do is make a trailer that is strong like the shoebox with the lid on. If we can manage to do that, then we will have a structural box which will react the forces that are applied to it. Even if you now cut a hole in the top of the shoebox it will still be pretty stiff (not unlike the side of the trailer with the door cutout.

There are many teardrops that have used techniques that I believe would lend itself to this type of structural box type construction. You can glue and screw, overlap the sides with the floor, or biscuit – all of these will work. I think the important part is to start with a good foundation or floor and provide load continuity between panels. A composite floor could be as little as 1/8 inch thick plywood bonded to 2 inched of blue/pink foam with the panel closed out by some 2x2s (sandwiched between the plywood facesheets) (alternately, a couple of plies of fiberglass is lighter yet and quite robust when combined with the rigid foam core). We would probably want to bury another 1x2 underneath the galley wall. The 1x2s will facilitate the joining of the sidewalls to the floor as well as the galley wall to the floor. By bonding the plywood to the foam core we turn the plywood into the axial load carrying member while the core reacts the transverse shear loads (don’t worry about that now – I’ll show how to figure that as we go along). The main thing is just to provide load paths so that the entire applied load has someplace to go, and that we don’t load something in a direction that it is weak.


2) Once we get to the point that the box is ‘structural’ – which means able to react loads that are applied to it, we will be able to attach the suspension directly to the body (or box in a structural sense). We would like to avoid applying concentrated localized loads, or at least we need to spread them out a bit. For me, I think that the suspension of choice for a frameless trailer will be the full torsion suspension (to be discussed in more detail later). I think it is a little more elegant and when purchased as a full axle, will probably be easier to align and whatnot. A leaf spring suspension could certainly can and has been used, but as you will see in the upcoming link it requires a fair amount of local reinforcing and I don’t think that the lateral robustness is as good as the full torsion axle. I think that it is a bit more complicated to do; but there all lots of ways of skinning a cat (all of them painful for the cat… unless it’s CRAZY CAT, but then that’s painful for the rabbit… but I digress). Bottom line is that we can locally reinforce the ‘box’ or body to be strong where the local loads are introduced. We sometimes call these types of loads bunch loads as they are similarly concentrated.

What we can do is attach a reinforcing angle to the body that is a bit bigger than the suspension attaching bracket. The concentrated load is then applied to the angle where the load can subsequently spread out over a larger area on the trailer rather than applying the load directly to the trailer in a small spot. By using a full axle, the overturning moments from the outboard wheel offset are reacted by the axle cross tube rather than the trailer body, or frame. The beauty here is that load never leaves the axle, which keeps the concentrated load out of the body. So, through the use of a local reinforcement, and using a full axle, we can reduce the localized punch loads and can attach the suspension directly to the body without a separate frame.


3) We don’t want to leave the teardrop behind so we better attach it to the tow vehicle. There are two basic configurations that I believe will work for this.

a. The first is Andrew’s original light-weight A-frame. It offers a guarantee of lateral stability, reasonable weight, and multiple attach points along the A-frame that will help distribute the tongue reactions over a larger and wider area. http://tnttt.com/viewtopic.php?t=26891

b. The second is an alternate configuration, presented about the same time, which was a simpler single-beam tongue which offers the advantage of lighter weight, lower cost, and easier construction. If the body is properly reinforced, then I believe this one is a really good choice, though I will lay out methods for either of these to be used. http://www.mikenchell.com/TheUltralight.pdf -- page 8 and 9 have example layouts.

c. There are a couple of ways that we can use to react the loads from the tongue into the trailer.
i. We can bury a cross member as was mentioned earlier. In the case of the forward attachment at the intersection of the floor and vertical wall, it will be closed out by a 2x2 anyway, so we can use that point. The 2x2 rectangular steel section (in this case 16 gage) can have a couple of angles welded to the sides of the tongue and through bolts could attach through the angles.
ii. We could use inserts or plugs in the composite which we could bury at initial fabrication or we could drill with a hole saw, put in a plug and scarf or taper a patch and glue it from the outside. It’s much better to use a little foresight and do it ahead of time and glue it together initially.
iii. Another method would be to run the tongue all of the way back to the full axle where it could be attached, though I prefer to attach it to the locally reinforced trailer floor.

SO, that’s the general plan. I hope to get some time to do some detailed layouts to show how the various panels and parts will be attached and connected to each other so that there are reasonable load paths and stresses despite not having a full frame.

:twisted:
User avatar
kennyrayandersen
1000 Club
1000 Club
 
Posts: 1750
Images: 38
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: TX
Top

Postby NWsage » Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:43 pm

Thanks for the info Kenny ... very useful in planning the build of my little td. Suanne :thumbsup:
User avatar
NWsage
Donating Member
 
Posts: 71
Images: 6
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 8:05 pm
Location: Fall City, WA
Top

Postby Micro469 » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:22 pm

After quickly reading through this thread, and finding myself totally lost in all the physics, math and mumbo jumbo, I have come up with one conclusion..........Considering all the teardrops allready built.....


K.I.S.S.

:D
John
Image
User avatar
Micro469
Super Lifetime Member
 
Posts: 3185
Images: 382
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 10:46 pm
Location: Brampton,Ontario,Canada
Top

Postby kennyrayandersen » Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:46 am

Micro469 wrote:After quickly reading through this thread, and finding myself totally lost in all the physics, math and mumbo jumbo, I have come up with one conclusion..........Considering all the teardrops allready built.....


K.I.S.S.

:D



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
after you been doing it for 25 years -- it is simple!!!

I only Go to great length to explain it so that people will have the option of building a little lighter if they want to. It not that you can’t continue to build and haul around a brick outhouse if you want to, it’s about seeing how far one can SAFELY push the boundaries of construction and even develop new ways of doing things (though I think from talking to a few folk I’m not actually the first to actually build like this, just the first to substantiate it in a public forum!). What this does is validates the approach and shows where things might need to be tweaked. Consider this like a proof in school – they weren’t that much fun, hardly anybody got them, but the good part was in the end there was an equation everybody could use.

I’m hoping that this is similar and that building a tear according to the math model I built will allow someone else, who doesn’t understand all of the engineering and math (and doesn’t really need to) to build in a light-weight fashion.

I mean besides the 4 ft width, another frequent complaint people have is usually about the weight. Well, heck! Let’s see what we can do about it!


Think about it. So far it looks pretty darn good that I will be able to have a fully loaded tear, nearly 9 Ft long and 5 ft. wide with A/C, water, ice chest, cook stove, cooking gear, queen sized mattress at a drive-away weight of 500 Lb. Personally I find that liberating and I think it will open up a lot of little rigs to being able to tow a tear that might have been marginal with something heavier. Originally, I had in mind to do this for a Smart car. I think a smart could pull this one, but I wouldn’t want to try and pull anything over 800 Lbs which is where a lot of tear weights are sitting.

What this also means is that if someone wanted to build a REAL strippy using the same techniques, say a 4 ft wide without A/C and missing a few amenities you could be looking at sub 400 Lb without too much trouble. I think there are a group of people to whom that is important. I could be wrong.
User avatar
kennyrayandersen
1000 Club
1000 Club
 
Posts: 1750
Images: 38
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: TX
Top

Postby aggie79 » Thu Apr 16, 2009 8:15 am

:thumbsup: Kenny - while I have minimal understanding about the math/physics/structures part of your discussion, I do find it interesting and practical.

I will apply this to build #2 which will be a standy. Weight will definitely be a consideration for my standy although I will target a weight of 900-1000# for that build using some of the ideas you brought forward.

Thanks.
Tom (& Linda)
For build info on our former Silver Beatle teardrop:
Build Thread

93503
User avatar
aggie79
Super Duper Lifetime Member
 
Posts: 5405
Images: 686
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 5:42 pm
Location: Watauga, Texas
Top

Postby bbarry » Thu Apr 16, 2009 6:47 pm

I, too, find it interesting to contemplate, even if it does hurt my head sometimes. One could apply some of these construction techniques, such as foam sandwich walls, to other more traditional elements like a full trailer frame. Each will strike their own balance between weight, complexity, cost, build time and experience. I'll be watching this one until it's up and running.

Brad
Brad

****************************
Jack of all trades, master of none.
****************************

Kampster build thread
User avatar
bbarry
The 300 Club
 
Posts: 360
Images: 159
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:03 am
Location: Clearwater, KS
Top

Postby kennyrayandersen » Fri Apr 17, 2009 10:56 pm

bbarry wrote:I, too, find it interesting to contemplate, even if it does hurt my head sometimes. One could apply some of these construction techniques, such as foam sandwich walls, to other more traditional elements like a full trailer frame. Each will strike their own balance between weight, complexity, cost, build time and experience. I'll be watching this one until it's up and running.

Brad


Thanks [all] for the kind words. I think it's a great site because together we are definitely more than the sum of our 'parts'! I'm no dummy, but I've learned SO much here, and really appreciate how everybody contributes what they know and think.

There will be a lot more design and details before construction begins as I'm now living in Korea and my contract doesn't end until Jan 2010! So sometime shortly after that I hope to get actually building. Until then, I'll be figuring out exactly how to do all of the joints and details. I'll soon start posting some more detailed sketches. 8)
User avatar
kennyrayandersen
1000 Club
1000 Club
 
Posts: 1750
Images: 38
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: TX
Top

Great topic, and one more thought

Postby TearsInRain » Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:03 pm

This thread is quite a lot to digest- I'm barely keeping up. I did have one thought to throw out there- wind resistance!

Ultra-Lightweight is awesome, and something I would like to pursue, but for me weight is only half the equation. I tow w/ a Civic hatchback with a 1.6 L engine (gutless). At freeway speeds, it's the wind resistance that kills me more than the weight.

The classic teardrop shape looks cool, and at first glance looks aerodynamic, but it's really not so hot. A roof profile like a Prius would likely be much, much better and allow me to ease off on the gas a bit, and perhaps even increase interior space. Hmm. I'd love a stressed skin lightweight design that was just a bit more aero...
TearsInRain
Teardrop Inspector
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:59 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Top

Postby kennyrayandersen » Wed Jun 10, 2009 7:30 pm

The aerodynamics (or lack thereof) has been discussed in a couple of the other threads. I suppose that there is a shape that is more aerodynamic than the standard teardrop, but as Andrew pointed out even the slope of the back of the tear is likely at an angle that causes a fair amount of drag (slope not gradual enough).

The REAL problem is that a really aerodynamic shape is probably:
1) Smaller
2) Longer
3) More dirigible shaped (but a bit pointy at the back)
But… longer would mean less stable in cross winds, smaller would mean less room on the inside (OK, if you went from 58 inches to the original width of most of the vintage teardrops of 48 inches, that would be a 20% reduction in area and a corresponding reduction in drag), and the final supper roundish-oblongish shape would be fairly difficult to build.

Now, even though you were to build a really super-aerodynamic shape, the next hurdle is the TV (tow vehicle). There is the basic aerodynamics of the TV, i.e. what kind of a wake does it leave. Assuming you are driving something pretty aerodynamic like a Prius rather than an F-350 pick-em-up truck, there is still the issue of a gap between the TV and the teardrop. This gap causes a lot of turbulent flow (drag), but practically there isn’t too much you can do about it. The teardrop has to be far enough behind the tow vehicle so that the TV doesn’t whack the tear in a turn, so that leaves a significant gap. Commercial 18 wheelers are starting to look more at putting fairings on the cab (tractor), but they pretty much always are towing something so it can be integrated into the basic design. Your Prius, or even pickup for that matter, isn’t going to do well with some fairing hanging off the back all of the time, because without the tear, it would actually be worse than stock; so, practically there is not much to do about that. Also, the tear is pretty much riding in the wake of the TV, so you can be virtually guaranteed that you don’t have ‘smooth’ air to start with.

OK, so what can you practically do? The drag is a function of the area, so making the tear narrower would cut down on the drag regardless of any other considerations. Also, if you were willing to live with a little less headroom you could make it a little shorter. You could use a torsion axle and low ride it a bit – that gets some of the height down and would reduce the apparent area since it doesn’t stick up into the airstream as much. Basically anything you can do to make it smaller behind the tow vehicle will cut down on the overall drag. You could put some wheel pants on (it will look cooler than it actually helps).

For me, the small gain in fuel economy is not worth the loss in utility. Just a swag, but I’m guessing the $ gas difference between a 58 inch and a 48 inch tear would be $2/hundred miles. Since you don’t drive them so much you would be trading a lot of utility for not much savings. It’s nice to talk about the theory, but practically, it doesn’t make so much difference. Maybe don’t make a square box and keep the weight down and you are 90% (or more) there.
User avatar
kennyrayandersen
1000 Club
1000 Club
 
Posts: 1750
Images: 38
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: TX
Top

Postby teardrop_focus » Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:39 am

It's late (or early, depending) and it's been a long day, but I wanted to comment on this thread:

This thread RAWKS! :thumbsup:

There are some brilliant dudes posting their hard-earned education and experience here in this thread and we all benefit from it. And it's threads like this that will make my simple wood build even lighter.

Thanks, fellas! :-)~
.
Image

"There is something about these little trailers that brings out the best in people." - BigAl, Scotland, 2010

"Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature's peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into the trees...
The winds will blow their own freshness into you and the storms their energy, while cares will drop away like autumn leaves..." - John Muir, 1898


Chris Squier / teardrop_focus :-)~
User avatar
teardrop_focus
Donating Member
 
Posts: 5975
Images: 127
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 3:18 pm
Location: SoCal
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Teardrop Construction Tips & Techniques

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests