BC 4x4 Forums banner
1 - 20 of 69 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
To all you hard core,
I'm at the opening stages of building an exterior roll cage for my recently flipped 96 4Runner. I weld and I don't forsee many difficulties but if anyone has any pictures of cages, plans, or suggestions that would be great! I will of course come back with my owne pics as I complete my owne.
Thanks
Will
[email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
dont' use pipe.

utilize as many nodes as you can.

triangles are your friend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
no, he means triangles as in the shape. it is the strongest shape to make.


if you look at all good exo's, you will probly be able to see the main roll cage part, but there will be a bunch of pieces between them making triangles so it will take a hit.
 

·
Crappy driver...in training
Joined
·
736 Posts
crimsen said:
no, he means triangles as in the shape. it is the strongest shape to make.
actually, spheres are the strongest shape.... but we'd all look kinda stoopid driving around with balloons attached to our vehicles.

so we use triangles :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
Kraqa said:
dont' use pipe.

utilize as many nodes as you can.

triangles are your friend.

Mad fab said:
whats wrong with pipe ?:D


Nothing is the matter with pipe if the correct grade and method of manufacturing is used.

Many people lack the knowledge and education to understand the difference between grades as well as the difference between typical strength and minimum strength hence the “pipe is bad” comments.
 

·
Crappy driver...in training
Joined
·
736 Posts
oh come on Jason, look at the smilie :)

my SHORT summary.

pipe:
  • cheap
  • heavy
  • needs a good design to be fully safe
  • did I mention cheap!

DOM tube:
  • more $$
  • light for similar sizes of pipe, cause it's thinner, but strong
  • more forgiving of design
  • buy full sticks to bring price down, or get in a group buy

btw, I've never built a cage, but I've read about them on the Internet :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Pipe is too brittle and heavy for anything automotive. Its ment for internal outward pressure like steam and fluid transfer.
You do not really need DOM for a cage. HREW (seam welded) is really tough and would work fine.
I have built many tube bumpers with HREW and its tough!! It is very light, 47.6 lbs per 24 ft @ .120 wall .
Sure DOM is better than HREW anybody can tell you that. BUT at 9 bucks a foot compared to 2 for HREW.
If your worried its not tuff enuff, OVERBUILD!!!!!!!!!!
:welder
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
bigger air said:
Pipe is too brittle and heavy for anything automotive. Its ment for internal outward pressure like steam and fluid transfer.
You do not really need DOM for a cage. HREW (seam welded) is really tough and would work fine.
I have built many tube bumpers with HREW and its tough!! It is very light, 47.6 lbs per 24 ft @ .120 wall .
Sure DOM is better than HREW anybody can tell you that. BUT at 9 bucks a foot compared to 2 for HREW.
If your worried its not tuff enuff, OVERBUILD!!!!!!!!!!
:welder

raskal said:
oh come on Jason, look at the smilie :)

my SHORT summary.

pipe:
  • cheap
  • heavy
  • needs a good design to be fully safe
  • did I mention cheap!

DOM tube:
  • more $$
  • light for similar sizes of pipe, cause it's thinner, but strong
  • more forgiving of design
  • buy full sticks to bring price down, or get in a group buy

btw, I've never built a cage, but I've read about them on the Internet :laugh :laugh :laugh :laugh

I noticed the smiley but there have been other posters than yourself and other posts about this issue full of misinformation.

I have built way more stuff out of pipe than tubing because I have easy access to pipe.

To cut to the meat of the argument unless you can answer these questions you have no standing in a debate on the merits of pipe versus tube:

What standard is most tube built to comply with?

Compare and contrast the as welded MINIMUM tensile, MINIMUM yield and elongation specifications of said standard versus A106 pipe.

Compare and contrast the allowed concentricity and WT variations between said standard and A106 pipe.

Compare and contrast the metallurgical specifications of the various grades of material under said standard with the various grades of A106 pipe.

What is the weight per foot of 1.660" OD pipe with 0.134" WT versus 1.75" OD tube with a 0.120" WT?


If you cannot answer these questions any reply you make to the argument lacks any supporting evidence or understanding of the differences between pipe and mechanical tubing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,159 Posts
most pipe is made to conform with ASTM A120 or ASTM A53 Grade B.


I never said you could not build a good cage out of pipe. But for $0.75 more a foot why not go for ERW and save the weight.

pipe these days is no where as bad as it used to be. It is manufactured to a way tighter spec then 15-20 years ago. Build a cage out of what you want. but why spend the omoney on something half assed.

and i'l bet that with the china steel shortage ALL steel quality has gone down due to lack of raw materials.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
jasonmt said:






I noticed the smiley but there have been other posters than yourself and other posts about this issue full of misinformation.

I have built 2 cages. And pipe is not even a consideration. If pipe is so good then why are rockcrawling clubs BANNING pipe built buggies ??? Because it is not designed for impact or structure.
Sure lots of bumpers are pipe. To each his own. But a cage. At least use HREW and DOM if you can afford it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
Kraqa said:
most pipe is made to conform with ASTM A120 or ASTM A53 Grade B.


I never said you could not build a good cage out of pipe. But for $0.75 more a foot why not go for ERW and save the weight.

pipe these days is no where as bad as it used to be. It is manufactured to a way tighter spec then 15-20 years ago. Build a cage out of what you want. but why spend the omoney on something half assed.

and i'l bet that with the china steel shortage ALL steel quality has gone down due to lack of raw materials.
Notice I asked what standard most TUBE was manufactured to comply with, not pipe.

Let’s start off with the easy stuff and compare 1.75” Tube to 1.66” OD pipe.

1.25" SCH 40 pipe (1.660OD/0.140"WT) weighs 2.27#'s per foot.

1.75" 0.120"WT tube weighs 2.09#'s per foot.

A whopping 0.18#’s per foot difference.

The moment of inertia between the two sections is within 3% of each other with the pipe having the smaller value due to the smaller OD.



As far as Bigger Air you haven’t answered any of the questions posed, your posit that pipe is not intended for a structural application is negated by this section of ASTM A53/A53M as well as the millions of tons of pipe use in structural applications worldwide:

1.3 Pipe ordered under this specification is intended for
mechanical and pressure applications and is also acceptable for
ordinary uses in steam, water, gas, and air lines. It is suitable
for welding, and suitable for forming operations involving
coiling, bending, and flanging, subject to the following qualifications:

Your statement regarding the “brittleness” of pipe would be applicable to cast iron soil pipe but in regard to mild carbon steel pipe such as ASTM A53/A106/A333-6 or API 5L etc. it is laughable at best and barely worth even commenting on.

Every argument I have made can be backed up by internationally recognized standards from recognized bodies, you offer “facts” gleaned from the internet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
297 Posts
raskal said:
Jasonmt, why do suppose the following then?
So far we have someone saying "rockcrawling clubs BANNING pipe built buggies" but offers no links to said rulings.

With the availability of crush style pipe kinkers at Princess Auto, Lordco etc. that make structurally unsound bends banning pipe cages rather than insisting on min. equipment and material specifications is certainly easier to do.

As well if you do not have someone in the club with the technical background and codes available to them it would be a expensive undertaking for a small club to ensure that their minimum requirements were safe and prudent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
jasonmt said:


So far we have someone saying "rockcrawling clubs BANNING pipe built buggies" but offers no links to said rulings.

UROC Vehicle Specs 2005 (very easy to find)
section 4.12.3.1 Round magnetic steel 1026DOM recommended, tubing 1.5"od with a .120 wall.
They say nothing about pipe.
If you built it from pipe it would require a inspection. And it WOULD fail.
So jason find me some regulations or specs or anything saying that pipe is ok for rollbars or rollcages. Or was it just something you thought up ?
Sell your tools and take up knitting!
 
1 - 20 of 69 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top