"Joshua Nelson" <spam_box@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:b102b6e4.0307310716.18b4bbf5@posting.google.c om...
> > For an unproven/undocumented design: choose thick/beefy, with lots of
> > 'included' triangles, etc. .... OR choose a design that closely imitates
> > one that is definitely known to "work well".
>
> Turns out the wall thickness on the 1.75" pipes is .134, while it's
> only .120 for the 2" pipes, so I may be better off with the smaller
> ones anyway.
>
> Of course, this says nothing about design... if I knew enough about
> metalworking to design my own, I wouldn't need to hire out the job in
> the first place. But I don't, and I have neither the cash nor the
> desire to personally crash test a number of designs... so I guess
> I'll just go with what looks and feels solid to my eye.

Actually, 2" x .120 is stronger than 1.75" x .134 given the same steel alloy
and manufacturing process. It also has a larger cross section by a small
percentage.

Chris

 

From a structural basis the 2" would be better. .... but we're
splitting hairs hsre.

YES about what LOOKS good to you. Interestingly when a designer/engineer
develops such a structure, if the EYE isnt satisfied - the design isnt
persued .... you're definitely right on trusting your EYE !!!! :-)