Quad 4x4 - help me choose frame material, please.

Dundy

1 mW
Joined
Aug 10, 2024
Messages
10
Location
Czech republic
Hello, my first E-Project. Now I try to decide for frame material, but it looks I’ll go for ALU 6061 T6 and Chrom moly for arms + wheels attachment.
Thank you for recommendactions.

setup: 4x QS 205, 2x dual MakerX D100s, 72v 50Ah 400A(max) BMS Amorge battery.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3703.png
    IMG_3703.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 23
  • IMG_0550.jpeg
    IMG_0550.jpeg
    3.7 MB · Views: 22
  • IMG_3515.png
    IMG_3515.png
    1 MB · Views: 19
  • IMG_3454.png
    IMG_3454.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 23
ALU 6061 T6
I don't know your fabrication process. If you weld 6061, it looses it's temper and then that must be restored with a proper treatment in an oven. Do you have access to a controlled oven large enough for any such parts you weld?
 
I don't know your fabrication process. If you weld 6061, it looses it's temper and then that must be restored with a proper treatment in an oven. Do you have access to a controlled oven large enough for any such parts you weld?
I have to ask my welder. What is the right process, please? it is better start to doing frame from 6061-O and after welding make a treatment for T6? Thank you.
 
What is the right process, please?
Talk to your welder, please. I'm not knowledgeable enough for you to make your machine on my advice. I just know it's an issue from asking if a bicycle frame builder could add on to my frame.
 
Quads are stiffness limited, not strength limited. That is, once you use enough material that the frame is stable and not all squiggly, you will have more than enough strength if there aren't fundamental design problems.

For that reason, DOM structural steel is adequate for what you're doing. You could use seamless chromoly in the same dimensions, for the same stiffness and weight, but the added expense wouldn't buy you much. Maybe slightly increased crashability, which doesn't seem like much of an advantage in your situation.

That said, if you find a good deal on some nice 4130, it's hard to go wrong that way.

Because structural aluminum is harder/more expensive to weld and requires post-weld heat treatment, I don't think it's a good material for your project.
 
Last edited:
What is the right process, please? it is better start to doing frame from 6061-O and after welding make a treatment for T6?

You can start with the aluminum in any heat condition, but T6 or T6511 are by far the most common. Then to restore the frame to T6 strength it has to be baked in a furnace for a while at nearly its melting point, then quenched in water, then baked at pizza oven temperature for a while longer to bring it to full strength. I don't think it's worth the trouble, when steels don't require any of that.

If you heat treated a 4130 chromoly frame (which is an easier process), you could have extreme material strength by comparison. I still wouldn't do that, because it's not necessary.
 
You can start with the aluminum in any heat condition, but T6 or T6511 are by far the most common. Then to restore the frame to T6 strength it has to be baked in a furnace for a while at nearly its melting point, then quenched in water, then baked at pizza oven temperature for a while longer to bring it to full strength. I don't think it's worth the trouble, when steels don't require any of that.

If you heat treated a 4130 chromoly frame (which is an easier process), you could have extreme material strength by comparison. I still wouldn't do that, because it's not necessary.
Thank you for everything! I’m gonna use tubes with 40mm diameter. How thick wall do you think is enough?☺️
 
Thank you for everything! I’m gonna use tubes with 40mm diameter. How thick wall do you think is enough?☺️
My guess is 1.5mm wall should be enough, 2.0mm if you want to be certain (and make it easier to weld). That's based on a look at the computer model of the frame.

To be clear, I'm talking about dimensions for 4130 CrMo tubing. Go up 0.5mm for structural steel, and 3X for aluminum.
 
Last edited:
I’m quadruplegic. just for enjoy freedom everywhere, where wheelchair sucks☺️
Type [wheelchair atv] into Google. Looked at images. Look at this:
temp_sd_cr_lp_orng_se-copy-1651854532879-ezgif.com-webp-to-jpg-converter.jpg
There are probably more if you poke around on the internet.
 
Type [wheelchair atv] into Google. Looked at images. Look at this:
View attachment 358189
There are probably more if you poke around on the internet.
I know about them (I’m doin frame same like Exoquad - exotek.com ), but price is around $15-25k for these quads and its overpriced. I will do it by myself for like $8k☺️
 
OK :) I like to look at pictures.
Exoquad_Messe000053.jpg
 
A couple of things maybe worth considering. First I was going to suggest live axles on 4 link mountings rather than fully independent, they have better characteristics when high speed handling and unsprung mass aren't an issue but you're using regular hub motors (mounted in a fork), probably not practical with live axles and that's also going to raise an issue with bump steer. I'm not sure how you're planning to position your upper wishbone ball joint on the top of the fork but basically it needs to be in a straight line from the ground contact point of the tire through the lower ball joint, ie. it probably needs to be inward by around 200mm from the center line of the wheel. The more the line between the top and bottom ball joints goes away from the contact patch, the more you're going to feel it through the steering and even an inch can result in a lot of force coming back through the steering, potentially wrist breaking at higher speeds.

Maybe have a look at how some car manufacturers are doing their lower wishbones these days (Audi/VW for ex.), they use 2 rods rather than a wishbone, 2 ball joints on the hub rather than 1. That forms a trapezoid, as the short side (the hub) moves it roughly pivots around an imaginary axis further towards the outside of the vehicle, more towards the centerline of the wheel (or beyond). That allows the upper ball joint to also be positioned closer to the centerline of the wheel but I'd be wary of getting too fast and loose with that geometry, maybe stick to the proportions car manufacturers are using as that imaginary axis isn't perfect, there could be some nasty side effects when turning at sharp angles on irregular terrain.
 
A couple of things maybe worth considering. First I was going to suggest live axles on 4 link mountings rather than fully independent, they have better characteristics when high speed handling and unsprung mass aren't an issue but you're using regular hub motors (mounted in a fork), probably not practical with live axles and that's also going to raise an issue with bump steer. I'm not sure how you're planning to position your upper wishbone ball joint on the top of the fork but basically it needs to be in a straight line from the ground contact point of the tire through the lower ball joint, ie. it probably needs to be inward by around 200mm from the center line of the wheel. The more the line between the top and bottom ball joints goes away from the contact patch, the more you're going to feel it through the steering and even an inch can result in a lot of force coming back through the steering, potentially wrist breaking at higher speeds.

Maybe have a look at how some car manufacturers are doing their lower wishbones these days (Audi/VW for ex.), they use 2 rods rather than a wishbone, 2 ball joints on the hub rather than 1. That forms a trapezoid, as the short side (the hub) moves it roughly pivots around an imaginary axis further towards the outside of the vehicle, more towards the centerline of the wheel (or beyond). That allows the upper ball joint to also be positioned closer to the centerline of the wheel but I'd be wary of getting too fast and loose with that geometry, maybe stick to the proportions car manufacturers are using as that imaginary axis isn't perfect, there could be some nasty side effects when turning at sharp angles on irregular terrain.
There you can see how it works.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3350.jpeg
    IMG_3350.jpeg
    141.1 KB · Views: 12
  • IMG_3349.jpeg
    IMG_3349.jpeg
    135.3 KB · Views: 12
Any way you can try one of those or get some genuine impressions from someone who has? It's very hard to tell without measurements but it looks like bump steer would be pretty bad with that geometry, it looks like the pivot axis is at least an inch from the contact patch centerline. Maybe that works just fine, it's easy to get hung up on design points that make very little difference after real world testing but I'd have expected steering pressures to be kept to an absolute minimum on a mobility device for the general market. There's certainly potential to dial it out in that design, there's little to no dish on the wheel in those pics (hub laced off center to the rim) and the hub mounting could be re-angled and at $15-25k I'd hope they throw in that kind of service for free!

4 wheel steering is definitely worth looking into btw, it's better locked out for most use but it can make a massive difference in difficult terrain and with hub power and double wishbones you're getting it almost for free.
 
Any way you can try one of those or get some genuine impressions from someone who has? It's very hard to tell without measurements but it looks like bump steer would be pretty bad with that geometry, it looks like the pivot axis is at least an inch from the contact patch centerline. Maybe that works just fine, it's easy to get hung up on design points that make very little difference after real world testing but I'd have expected steering pressures to be kept to an absolute minimum on a mobility device for the general market. There's certainly potential to dial it out in that design, there's little to no dish on the wheel in those pics (hub laced off center to the rim) and the hub mounting could be re-angled and at $15-25k I'd hope they throw in that kind of service for free!

4 wheel steering is definitely worth looking into btw, it's better locked out for most use but it can make a massive difference in difficult terrain and with hub power and double wishbones you're getting it almost for free.
I can’t test it because there is no dealer in Czech republic.
 
I can’t test it because there is no dealer in Czech republic.
Damn, would be good to get some impressions. A couple of other things with that design, is the seat height about right? No problem if so but ideally it needs to be as low as possible to get the center of gravity as near to the ground as possible. It could also do with a flat plate covering the whole underside with chamfers leading in all around. Ideally that would be fairly solid, maybe 6mm aluminium because the ideal is to have the batteries laid flat right above it with a space in the middle of them for the seat base.

That might sound like overkill for the kind of conditions you might be aiming for but it allows for the unexpected, like a bit of a slip sideways that leaves you high centered on a rock, not getting that rock caught on a chassis rail is a big plus and not having a high c of g if it's left you steeply tipped over is another!

I do a lot of off road driving and that kind of thing happens a lot, worth planning for it from the start imo. I've always wanted to build an electric off roader, kind of surprised they're not already taking over with things like trials tbh. Power requirements are ideal for that kind of steady and mostly technical driving, it's always surprising how little fuel is used after a whole days driving with infernal combustion power.

Edit: I hadn't noticed it has a plate underneath it, far too light though, more often than not they tend to get hit quite hard and it should definitely wrap around the frame tubes at the side, it would tend to dig into things like fallen branches and get peeled back.

What I'm most confused about with that thing though, why on earth didn't they use hub motors on the back too?? Those motors mounted up high are still unsprung mass but with a C of G way up high :/ I'm guessing they wanted more power on the rear wheels than the front but bigger hubs would've been the way to go.

Another edit: Something with designing from the ground up with electric, it's only natural to start with the conventional bits, the frame or engine but imho electric has to be designed with the battery first and foremost, both from the drive train aspect and the structural aspect. No good sticking a 10kw hub motor on a Raleigh Chopper and then having to cut up most of the frame to get enough room for the huge battery needed to power it with a good lifespan and the same would probably apply to frame design, the battery will be the largest single component and it needs a sturdy housing so it probably makes sense to use the battery as a structural component. That's what car manufacturers seem to be doing with floor pans these days and most of the better mountain bike/motorcycle crossovers seem to be the same, a big sturdy box for a frame with the batteries inside.
 
Last edited:
I just picked up free roadside 4wheel/quad frame-wheels-other bits minus the gas motor/trans
and a few plastic bits basically a roller with brakes working one could add power ie battery/motor and a custom seat

maybe a blown motor gas unit would cut a bit of the costs rather then custom scratch building
also wrecked scooters for hub motors and wire controller battery ect
and you could really cut the costs to phone calls for scrap units

why buy build new if you can use existing stuff at a very small % of new stuff
and use your time for the very custom seat and controls you need
 
My guess is 1.5mm wall should be enough, 2.0mm if you want to be certain (and make it easier to weld). That's based on a look at the computer model of the frame.

To be clear, I'm talking about dimensions for 4130 CrMo tubing. Go up 0.5mm for structural steel, and 3X for aluminum.
Frame goes to welding :) hopefully it’ll be ok. chrom moly 2mm.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0707.png
    IMG_0707.png
    4.7 MB · Views: 14
  • IMG_0708.png
    IMG_0708.png
    4.7 MB · Views: 14
  • IMG_0704.png
    IMG_0704.png
    4 MB · Views: 14
Back
Top