Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Hollow axles sketch me out. Don't trust the strength cause I'm heavy. Hollow kingpins also seem stickier on grinds. Solid axles and kingpins all day.
Hollow axles are stronger than than a solid axle of equivalent mass and material. In addition, a hollow axle is much more likely to rebound under extreme stress than a solid axle, which is more likely to break. Now obviously the mass of a hollow axle is nominally lower on a truck of the same size, and they could use shitty materials, but by and large no one need worry about the strength of hollow axles.
Do you have some links you could post supporting this? Not asking in a dickhead way, just genuinely curious because in my mind it just doesn't make sense for something with less material in the center to be stronger.
Same, would like to read more on this.
What's the deal with Royal and Royal Japan having different release schedules? Are they different companies run independently? Would make more sense to release all 3 variants (Standard, IKP, Ultralight) in the US with a bigger market, or all 3 at 1 go since it was barely a month since the new model was released.
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Hollow axles sketch me out. Don't trust the strength cause I'm heavy. Hollow kingpins also seem stickier on grinds. Solid axles and kingpins all day.
Hollow axles are stronger than than a solid axle of equivalent mass and material. In addition, a hollow axle is much more likely to rebound under extreme stress than a solid axle, which is more likely to break. Now obviously the mass of a hollow axle is nominally lower on a truck of the same size, and they could use shitty materials, but by and large no one need worry about the strength of hollow axles.
Do you have some links you could post supporting this? Not asking in a dickhead way, just genuinely curious because in my mind it just doesn't make sense for something with less material in the center to be stronger.
so i think it has to do with it being a ring and being able to bend, disperse the force and rebound vs a solid piece that is stiffer/more solid. for instance, metal baseball bats that aren't solid end up being a trampoline for the ball vs a wooden bat that compresses the ball more & end up with less help from the bat itself. sorry to baseball this up
edit: to add to the baseball bat example is how metal bats tend not to break as much as wooden ones when they are hit at weaker points
This is partially true.
A tube of the same diameter with the same material properties as a rod will not be as strong in bending or shear. There is just less material to address the same forces. Bending forces are equal parts tension and compression on opposite sides of the same shape, which are measured as force/area - PSI. In the case of a rod (solid axle) or a tube (hollow axle) you have less area to deal with the same force - your ass stomping down on that puny piece of metal.
This is an oversimplification, but to explain why it's partially true.... if you take the amount of area of metal included in the rod and turn it into a larger diameter tube, you've taken the same material and pushed it farther away from the axis that separates the compression and tension forces comprising the bending force... it functions as an internal lever.
This internal lever is efficient to the 4th degree, meaning that for every unit of displacement you move the force, you've increased the efficiency of the material by a factor of 4 - the same material now uses it's geometry more efficiently. because of this, it is possible for a tube that is slightly larger, but with less material, to be as efficient as a rod. but, if the diameter is the same, the lever is the same.... so the only way for the rod and axle to be more efficient is through the amount of material, and it's properties.
That is a long-winded explanation, but the rules are simple. If the diameter and materials are the same, the solid shape will always be stronger than the hollow one because it can spread the force out over the increase in sectional area.