Red Lands Racing/Motive Engineering BITD build

[NIKAL]

It's funny, I consider my self a non-disclosure whore. To this day there are things on our 5/1600 that have been kept hush, hush. They only one outside of the team that knows about them or how they work was Bill Savage. There were things on the class 10 car that were never disclosed. But when Zane contacted me to pick my brain about this build, I felt composed to discuss my ideas & concepts with him, as we share many of the same idea's on how a desert racing UTV should be built, within the rules as they are written. We have both been surprised at the lack of design and how so many just bolt on off the shelf long travel kits. I will admit I have seen some newer builds in the past month that make me think more teams are starting to venture out, understand the rule book and try to build a better race car, vs bolting up what everyone else has.

I knew Zane & crew were going to be very open about this build, and that things we might have talked about or ideas I share with him, and if used would be shown to the world on a internet forum. At first this made me hesitant to share as that is my nature, and probabaly why Zane joked about me being a team member "If I like it or not". It's funny, and maybe because I have no "Dog in the Fight" as it has been told to me, several times. I am happy to share my thought and concepts with them in the hope they build the most extreme desert UTV ever built to date. I know some designs and concepts dont always work. Look at Pflueger's $ Million Dollar TT that has never shown any results.

But I think with Zane & crew's motivation to think outside of the box, access to equipment and desires to dethrone the factory effort teams. I think you will see things that will not only impress those on the internet, but the race results will back it up. I'm also guessing many of the concepts you will see on their UTV will be taken and used by other builders in the future.

 

[motive]

I believed that cognito addressed the problem as much as they could with theit new LT kit. In the few picture I have seen it appears they moved the lower shock mount out as much as possible without having to change the upper mount. Can you confirm that Jim? If that is the case then good on cognit for addressing the CAUSE of the failures and not just over build to compansate. It's hard to come up with perfect solution to a problem when you are constrained to what the average consumer can handle installing themselves. To get the shock inline, I had to move the upper mount outwards several inches.

 

[motive]

But I think with Zane & crew's motivation to think outside of the box, access to equipment and desires to dethrone the factory effort teams. I think you will see things that will not only impress those on the internet, but the race results will back it up. I'm also guessing many of the concepts you will see on their UTV will be taken and used by other builders in the future.

Thanks for that great level of confidence in us Todd! Imitation is the finest form of flattery. Eric and Ryan aren't as involved here as I am (Ryan just had kid #5) but they have put just as much into the design as I have. The chassis that Eric has designed around my suspension is truly awsome. We have pulled together so many ideas from each other, toss is some of your input,Todd, and boiled it down to something simple enough that it just make sense. I am busting at the seams to show it to everyone but I have to retrain. When I get back to my computer I'll send you some top secret spy photos!!

 

[Queen Racing]

This is an amazing build! Good work guys!

 

[sand shark]

trailing arm looks good. Can't wait to see more progress pictures.

 

[COGNITO]

I believed that cognito addressed the problem as much as they could with theit new LT kit. In the few picture I have seen it appears they moved the lower shock mount out as much as possible without having to change the upper mount. Can you confirm that Jim? If that is the case then good on cognit for addressing the CAUSE of the failures and not just over build to compansate. It's hard to come up with perfect solution to a problem when you are constrained to what the average consumer can handle installing themselves. To get the shock inline, I had to move the upper mount outwards several inches.

Yes I moved the lower mount out, won't accommodate the factory wheel anymore but no one buying long travel would be using stock wheels, I wouldn't think.

Oh and fyi, rear shocks on a stock xp1k are upwards of 12"in stroke. Front is another story.
Justin

 

[motive]

Yes I moved the lower mount out, won't accommodate the factory wheel anymore but no one buying long travel would be using stock wheels, I wouldn't think.

Oh and fyi, rear shocks on a stock xp1k are upwards of 12"in stroke. Front is another story.
Justin

If you are getting 12" of stroke on the rear shock, you got problems my friend. Fox quoted me 9.75" I believe on the factory replacement 3.0.

 

[motive]

At first this made me hesitant to share as that is my nature, and probably why Zane joked about me being a team member "If I like it or not".

Oh, did I forget to tell you that you are on pit duty? Why else would I wrangle someone onto the team?!!! haha

 

[motive]

Seat of choice all wrapped up in their condoms to keep them nice. The Pro2000 has a wider spread in the sholders than the EVO series. Every one of us felt hunch backed sitting in the EVO but we all liked the Pro2000 despite our different body proportions.

 

[badassmav]

Seat of choice all wrapped up in their condoms to keep them nice. The Pro2000 has a wider spread in the sholders than the EVO series. Every one of us felt hunch backed sitting in the EVO but we all liked the Pro2000 despite our different body proportions.

These are the seats to build around. Aren't they about the lightest on the market?

 

[rico]

Zane has taken on the mantle of our team social media/ebola czar, so he has been doing most of the heavy lifting on the forum (doing a great job!). I expect to say hello now and then.

I wanted to share little on design methodology with an example. We had been working on this front bulkhead, and after drawing it I performed a simple analysis with the intention of answering the question, "Where will it fail?" (Disclaimer here, this is a simplified analysis, and I consider myself a beginner with FEA).

So what do you think- Where in the geometry will the part fail first under load?




So it actually did not fail under these loading conditions, but you can see that the point of highest stress is highlighted red under the shock mounts, with the maximum stress being in the neighborhood of 5.88e4 psi, giving a factor of safety of ~1.1 (almost failure)



Since this is approaching failure under these loading conditions, to improve the design I opened up the radius under the shock mount point and smoothed out that curve somewhat. See the results below for the same loading conditions with the new geometry:



The max stress has dropped to about 4.54e4 psi, and the FOS has gone up to ~1.5.

So basically with the addition of 1.5% additional material in the correct location, we found a 23% improvement in the max stress, giving us a significant improvement in the FOS (BTW, this is not the final iteration of this component).

If I could just get that rate of return on my mutual fund...

 

[badassmav]

Zane has taken on the mantle of our team social media/ebola czar, so he has been doing most of the heavy lifting on the forum (doing a great job!). I expect to say hello now and then.

I wanted to share little on design methodology with an example. We had been working on this front bulkhead, and after drawing it I performed a simple analysis with the intention of answering the question, "Where will it fail?" (Disclaimer here, this is a simplified analysis, and I consider myself a beginner with FEA).

So what do you think- Where in the geometry will the part fail first under load?




So it actually did not fail under these loading conditions, but you can see that the point of highest stress is highlighted red under the shock mounts, with the maximum stress being in the neighborhood of 5.88e4 psi, giving a factor of safety of ~1.1 (almost failure)



Since this is approaching failure under these loading conditions, to improve the design I opened up the radius under the shock mount point and smoothed out that curve somewhat. See the results below for the same loading conditions with the new geometry:



The max stress has dropped to about 4.54e4 psi, and the FOS has gone up to ~1.5.

So basically with the addition of 1.5% additional material in the correct location, we found a 23% improvement in the max stress, giving us a significant improvement in the FOS (BTW, this is not the final iteration of this component).

If I could just get that rate of return on my mutual fund...

Although I know nothing about finite element analysis, it seems surprising to me that you would consider a model with a FOS of only 1.1 for an off road race car. The latter model at 1.5 is reasonable. At how many G's are these figures based upon? What safety factor will you be using to decide your hardware diameter and torque values? I believe as it relates to torquing hardware, the SAE recognizes the value at yield x 1.25.

Although not relative to the function your bulkhead, let me share with you now, a tip on hardware torque values, and its relationship to high misalignment spacers: Rarely have I found that the minor diameter of a high misalignment spacer can handle the proper torque value of the hardware passing through it, without compressing itself around the shank of the bolt due to a collapse at the minor diameter of the spacer, freezing the two components together. I found that the torque value of the fastener used to secure a spherical bearing or a rod end using high misalignment spacers, is usually too high. In my experience, reducing the toque value by an average of 25%, is most of the time sufficient to minimize or eliminate said problem. This problem exists because a majority of the manufacturers, instead of using a medium carbon steel, use 303 or equivalent stainless steel. I assume because it is cheaper and easier to machine than 304 or 4140, and it is shiny. This material (303) is misused nearly as much as 4130 in the off road industry. I share this with you because for a disciplined designer such as yourself, this data is not available in the textbooks, but it is rather an on-hands lesson that I have learned over the few years that I've been designing and building off road race cars.

Back to your bulkhead. The larger radius in the throat of the shock mount is a no-brainer, but why do I not see doubler plates in the high stresses zones? For example, assuming you are going with a 12#-11# thickness on the bulkhead, the shock mounting hole, along with the 2 adjacent flanged holes (I assume you will flange/dimple them for stiffness), couild be picked up with a 14# doubler that mimics the perimeter profile - 3/16" for welding. More often than not, this seems to be the road that off road designers go down to successfully lighten their highly stressed chassis components. Besides, building the bulkhead out of a material thickness sufficient enough to support the hardware for the shock mounts, would most certainly be overkill in the low stress areas of the bulkhead, correct?

Will the bulkhead be 100% welded construction, or will you be forming the straight sections and welding in the rest? If forming, are you using 7 x t as a reference for the bend radii? I hate that factor. It rarely nets an aesthetic part, architectural design not withstanding.

Well enough for now. I just woke up to get a drink, and saw your post, and couldn't help myself not to share my thoughts. I am uneducated past high school and am a self proclaimed armchair engineer, whereas I assume you are not, so your comments carry a lot of credibility here. Please feel free to correct me if I am off base.

 

[rico]

Although I know nothing about finite element analysis, it seems surprising to me that you would consider a model with a FOS of only 1.1 for an off road race car. The latter model at 1.5 is reasonable. At how many G's are these figures based upon? What safety factor will you be using to decide your hardware diameter and torque values? I believe as it relates to torquing hardware, the SAE recognizes the value at yield x 1.25.

Although not relative to the function your bulkhead, let me share with you now, a tip on hardware torque values, and its relationship to high misalignment spacers: Rarely have I found that the minor diameter of a high misalignment spacer can handle the proper torque value of the hardware passing through it, without compressing itself around the shank of the bolt due to a collapse at the minor diameter of the spacer, freezing the two components together. I found that the torque value of the fastener used to secure a spherical bearing or a rod end using high misalignment spacers, is usually too high. In my experience, reducing the toque value by an average of 25%, is most of the time sufficient to minimize or eliminate said problem. This problem exists because a majority of the manufacturers, instead of using a medium carbon steel, use 303 or equivalent stainless steel. I assume because it is cheaper and easier to machine than 304 or 4140, and it is shiny. This material (303) is misused nearly as much as 4130 in the off road industry. I share this with you because for a disciplined designer such as yourself, this data is not available in the textbooks, but it is rather an on-hands lesson that I have learned over the few years that I've been designing and building off road race cars.

Back to your bulkhead. The larger radius in the throat of the shock mount is a no-brainer, but why do I not see doubler plates in the high stresses zones? For example, assuming you are going with a 12#-11# thickness on the bulkhead, the shock mounting hole, along with the 2 adjacent flanged holes (I assume you will flange/dimple them for stiffness), couild be picked up with a 14# doubler that mimics the perimeter profile - 3/16" for welding. More often than not, this seems to be the road that off road designers go down to successfully lighten their highly stressed chassis components. Besides, building the bulkhead out of a material thickness sufficient enough to support the hardware for the shock mounts, would most certainly be overkill in the low stress areas of the bulkhead, correct?

Will the bulkhead be 100% welded construction, or will you be forming the straight sections and welding in the rest? If forming, are you using 7 x t as a reference for the bend radii? I hate that factor. It rarely nets an aesthetic part, architectural design not withstanding.

Well enough for now. I just woke up to get a drink, and saw your post, and couldn't help myself not to share my thoughts. I am uneducated past high school and am a self proclaimed armchair engineer, whereas I assume you are not, so your comments carry a lot of credibility here. Please feel free to correct me if I am off base.

I hope we're not keeping you up at night!

This is an example of the process, not the finished product. The first model was the first cut--our initial guess at what we wanted (what I would consider "Art"). After a little analysis we found that our art is almost failing with the selected load (FOS of 1.1 is much too low). Let me reemphasize that this is a first order analysis, very basic, lots of assumptions. Based on the results, we can change the design and find significant improvement. Now is the design optimized? No. Is the solution I used the only one? No. Doubler plates welded at the failure points would be useful (that was Zane's first comment when I showed him this). With this type of design iteration we start to move away from art--or our best guess--to something that will (should ) work better. There it is, engineering in a nutshell.

 

[motive]

Anyone want to continue on my personal set by step guide to building a race car?

So earlier I went over steps 1 and 2 of designing a race car. Step 3 is a simple but important one. WHEELS.

The problem is that so many people view wheels as an afterthought or simply a cosmetic decision. Now I'm not saying you have to choose your specific wheel at this point but you do need to consider what backspacing and sizes are available. Waiting till the suspension is bolted on to pick a wheel in order to maximize track width is a big mistake. Increasing track width by changing wheel offset has consequences that needs to be understood.

So what are we looking for in a wheel? Idealy it needs to be light and strong. Not just statically but also be able to deform instead of all out fail if it takes a hit. You can continue on with a bent wheel but not with a chunk missing. Are you going to need bead locks?

Spun wheels like OMF fill these requirements very well but do cost significantly more than a cast wheel. Sometimes decisions have to be made with the wallet.

After you decide what type of wheel you can afford you need to consider what width and offsets you can get. These are important figures to design your suspension around. Things like scrub radius and spring rates are effected by changing wheels. You can design an optimized suspension around just about any wheel size and offset. But once the suspension geometry is set in steal, either stock, off the shelf kit, or custom, all the hard earned design that went into that suspension is changed whenever you change wheels.

Feel free to chime in, comment, correct me, or expound more on the subject. There are a lot of opinions about how to do something and this is just mine. Doesn't mean its right, so lets hear yours.

 

[badassmav]

We agree on the value of a spun rim as opposed to a casted one. OMF makes some of the best wheels for UTE's out there. Todd (NIKAL) said he had his old Centerlines cryo'd after straightening them, and they wouldn't bend again in the same spot, as they would without the cryo treatment.

 

[Little Clod Buster]

Nice Thread! Good info and interesting. I have spent many hard earned dollars on all types of UTV wheels, widths and offsets since my inception to racing popo's since 2009. Don't have an engineering degree just experience. I can draw it out and tell you my experience on every major brand or give you a list of what worked best. I race woods and desert.

 

[tatum]

I think OMF would make any width you want but I would like to see some of the other manufacturers make a 6 inch or maybe even a 5 inch wide wheel for desert racing. If you look at a TT they run a 9 inch wide wheel on a 39 inch tire while most Utes are running a 30 on a 7inch wide wheel.
I believe Reid said they run a 15 inch diameter wheel and I assume this because of his front steer conversion or tire sponsorship. IMHO more sidewall is better for desert racing even though it probably hurts cornering and a narrower wheel would be harder to damage.

 

[motive]

Please feel free to chime in about any positive experiences with wheels and your results running different sizes. By pointing out OMF wheels, I don't want to come across as other wheels have issues. Any quality wheel should hold up to the abuse dished it. There are many, many people having great results with a quality cast wheel. No matter what, if you take a hit like the picture Reid showed, you are changing a tire so I guess is doesn't matter.

I also forgot to mention the effects of a wider offset wheel on other components. Putting the extra leverage out there will wreck havoc on wheel bearings, stub axles and other parts charged with holding a corner together. Things to consider before haphazardly changing things.

 

[NIKAL]

Everyone thinks OMF is the best, maybe they are or maybe not! Maybe it's because they were the first to build spun wheels with the UTV lug pattern. If you know the right people and do your homework, you will learn more company's are able to make spun wheels for UTV's at a fraction of what OMF charges.

Yes there are shops that specialize in straitening spun aluminum wheels. And yes Cryo was one of my secret weapons which we used on our repaired wheels.

One other question for you all? Why does everyone run beadlocks? Sure they look cool, but are they needed? Are you spinning the tires on the wheel? Why add more unsprung weight? Maybe its due to the small tires and maybe they are not as tough as the current tires used on other class of cars? How many other limited class cars like 1600, 5/1600 run beadlocks? How is it they can get away with not using beadlocks? Are the UTV's faster then a 1600 car? are you hammering through the bumps harder then a 1600 car? Are you running beadlocks because everyone else is, or because you need too? Something to think about.

Wheel studs & lug nuts are another overlooked area on race UTV's but thats for another day.

 

[motive]

One other question for you all? Why does everyone run beadlocks? Sure they look cool, but are they needed? Are you spinning the tires on the wheel? Why add more unsprung weight? Maybe its due to the small tires and maybe they are not as tough as the current tires used on other class of cars? How many other limited class cars like 1600, 5/1600 run beadlocks? How is it they can get away with not using beadlocks? Are the UTV's faster then a 1600 car? are you hammering through the bumps harder then a 1600 car? Are you running beadlocks because everyone else is, or because you need too? Something to think about.

Wheel studs & lug nuts are another overlooked area on race UTV's and thats for another day.

I have thought about the necessity of beadlocks but it was just in passing. I assumed it was needed because the lower air pressure that the ATV style tires can handle. We would love to hear from some of your guys that don't run beadlocks!