Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: Carbon Fiber Racing Wheelchair

  1. #41
    The "as photographed" weight refers to the photo in my post. 10lb-8oz for everything pictured. Main wheels and cushion not included, but you're correct, those spoke wheels and Al handrims are in the 7lb range. The process for composite handrims has been used for the handrims on the racing chair. Eventually handrims for the everyday wheels will be produced as well.

    There were accessory components from a variety of wheelchairs used as tooling was completed for replacements. The composite footplates have been installed on the tennis, everyday and racing chairs. The shell/frame solid surface backrests are intended for the tennis chair. I molded one for my everyday chair to use until the molds are completed for the single piece back assembly that will eliminate the side plates, frame and separate laminate shell.

    Playing the weight game can certainly be dangerous. We have almost certainly come to a point where weight reduction in metal alloy frames requires the use of smaller, thinner tubing. Or; as in the case of cantilever frames, simply omitting certain structural members entirely. Properly applying a material that can deliver sufficient strength at lower weight reduces the need to compromise.

    Testing of the tennis chair has been done for several hours a week for over 2 years. The everyday chair some 16-18 hours a day for more than a year and the racing chair is barely out of post-curing. When testing for certification becomes necessary, all areas of performance will be thoroughly addressed, just as they were in the design and manufacture of these first examples.

  2. #42
    Your chairs do look nice, but Jeff has a point.

    Your personal experience using your own chairs can hardly be considered testing when it comes to validation that your products are "medically safe and effective".

    If you are serious about selling your everyday chair in the US market, you would need FDA premarket approval and be in compliance with their regulatory requirements. ANSI/RESNA standards testing is part of that process.


  3. #43
    SCI_OTR,

    Wheelchairs for everyday use were not actually something that we are currently planning to offer. The discussion managed to veer off topic, but I think it was neccessary to provide some clarity on that particular project.

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by SCI_OTR View Post
    Your chairs do look nice, but Jeff has a point.

    Your personal experience using your own chairs can hardly be considered testing when it comes to validation that your products are "medically safe and effective".

    If you are serious about selling your everyday chair in the US market, you would need FDA premarket approval and be in compliance with their regulatory requirements. ANSI/RESNA standards testing is part of that process.

    Well, if this crap have passed the testings i don`t think Black alloy`s chairs would have any problem to do it too.


    But the Racing chair is something more seriosly, because you could get some high speeds downhills and any failure could be fatal.

  5. #45
    Senior Member DaleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Tidewater, VA
    Posts
    5,408
    Quote Originally Posted by totoL1 View Post
    Well, if this crap have passed the testings i don`t think Black alloy`s chairs would have any problem to do it too.


    But the Racing chair is something more seriosly, because you could get some high speeds downhills and any failure could be fatal.
    If you read some of the pre-market approval requests a lot of them make a claim of being so similar to other chairs, which already have been approved, that they should be approved on that basis, alone. Every chair isn't thoroughly tested, in reality, prior to hitting the market. RESNA/ANSI/FDA has such a narrow focus of "testing" it hardly means a new chair design is safe and real world functional. (E.g. the early Marvel chairs passed RESNA but required a couple remediation efforts on the wing and fork mounts, in particular. Parts highly stressed during the barrel/bump test. Parts that consquently failed on some folks, self included, early during real world use.)

    Sadly, racing/Sports chairs are completely excluded from any FDA approvals, iirc, even though during high energy sports equipment is stressed a lot more than everyday chairs.

    Standards can be good, don't get me wrong. But, Minimum standards yield minimum compliance, often, and the point of it all is more to manage liability than to make sure we get chairs best built and designed for our needs, as users.

    IMHO.
    __________________

    He who hears not me but the Logos will say: All is one.

  6. #46
    "Standards can be good, don't get me wrong. But, Minimum standards yield minimum compliance, often, and the point of it all is more to manage liability than to make sure we get chairs best built and designed for our needs, as users."

    Certainly something to think about. In fact, once the conditions of a standardized test are known to manufacturers, it's generally pretty easy to design a product intended more for passing the test than performing the task of say being a really good wheelchair.

    Of the various components of the RESNA wheelchair tests, the double drum fatigue test is clearly the most demanding.

    In many of the studies I've read where chairs of various types have been subjected to the DD test, the majority of frame failures could have been prevented entirely or at least delayed significantly by changing accessory components on the chair rather than making any design, material selection or manufacturing process changes to the frame. The easiest of these is simply to add a larger diameter front caster and/or choosing a caster with a softer rolling surface or pneumatic tire.

    Probably the single most effective design change to ensure long term durability of the frame is to build one with suspension. IMO a suspension frame creates many more problems than it solves, but it certainly reduces stress on the frame. Suspension caster forks would probably be a good compromise.

    Many frames that do experience failures during this test, do so as the result of poor planning with respect to stress risers in the frame. Understanding the direction and magnitude of the forces encountered by individual components of the frame can quickly tell a designer that drilling holes through a frame tube; in such a way as to remove material from the tension and compression sides of any structural beam, moves the location of the outermost continuous fiber closer to the neutral axis of the beam. Doing this will significantly reduce not only the total tensile strength of the beam (generally not a concern in wheelchair frames), but greatly reduces it's bending stiffness. The result of this is that when subjected to bending forces, the beam will deflect more in the area of the hole during each load/unload cycle which accelerates work hardening in materials sensitive to this, such as metal alloys. If a hole is required, orienting it such that material is removed from the tube through the neutral axis rather than the tension and compression areas will have much less impact on bending stiffness and reduce the progression of work hardening in that area significantly.

    An interesting side note to this is that if you haven't engineered a so called "weak point" in the frame by drilling a hole in it, then the weak point has been moved somewhere else. If you can't reasonably predict where this new potential failure point is, then destructive testing would be required to identify it.

    An easy way to visualize all this is to look at steel I beam construction in structures like buildings. When connections between horizontal beams and the vertical columns are made, the bolts pass through the web of the horizontal beam rather than the flanges. The direction of the applied force is known and the beam is oriented such that the flanges are the tension/compression fibers. The web; while providing some additional strength in the areas close to the flanges, simply spaces them apart some distance to achieve the required bending stiffness. Drilling the connection bolt holes through the flanges would be the same scenario as drilling holes vertically in the seat tube of a wheelchair frame. It makes a convenient mounting arrangement for seat upholstery, but removes material from the load bearing areas the tube.

    A round tube is still just a simple beam that is equally capable of resisting bending forces from any side.

Similar Threads

  1. carbon fiber frame wheelchair
    By aaronykc in forum Equipment
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 03-23-2013, 11:48 PM
  2. carbon fiber fabracation
    By randomryan007 in forum Equipment
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 03-29-2012, 04:13 AM
  3. Carbon Fiber
    By t8burst in forum Equipment
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 03-08-2012, 11:57 AM
  4. carbon fiber wheelchair
    By totoL1 in forum Equipment
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-19-2011, 04:51 PM
  5. Carbon fiber fenders
    By Jim in forum Equipment
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-03-2010, 02:48 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •