@Hummie A 1.4% elongation means ‘101.4%’ (one hundred and one point four percent), and likewise, 1.4% means 104.8%. Meaning that the material stretches to 100% (standard resting rate) and then stretches a bit more until 101.4% or 104.8% (before snapping). – N.b. elongation is not so relevant as the enclosures will not get ‘stretched’ apart… But anyway… I could be mistaken, and a structural engineer could clarify…
Or, in other words, I can 101.4m until failure. You can run 104.8m until failure.
So, no. It is not ‘3 times’ the difference, not at all. It’s more like a 3% difference. – As I said, his graph is misleading because the lines appear 3x different, while the math is very very far from that. After all it’s an educational video explaining basic theory.
But theory requires application… And in this application, the tongues do not stretch on the Solideogloria Modular Flex Enclosure unlike, on a one-piece enclosure, where the connections (consisting of multiple laminations) are forced to bend and snap (exactly as per KYLE.ENGINEERS video). The Solideogloria tongues will ‘float’ without suffering any strain.
Karate chop comparison:
See Line ‘FC2’ vs ‘FC3’ on the chart as a rough illustration. I hope that illustrates how small a difference it is. But, yes, you’re quite right that fibre has superior properties re. elongation, but as mentioned, it’s a very small if not negligibly small of a difference in this application.
But when laminated and bent… That’s another story…
Wood comparison: Let’s take a look at wood bending. Below are the two main methods. Focus on the ‘outer tension’ part to visualise how a one-piece enclosure (with multiple laminated layers) WILL CRACK, when the outer layer is too brittle. Imagine if it was a panel of glass, while the inside is flexible fibreglass.
Therefore, it is possible for a carbon outer layer to withstand flex, given proper construction (light and not loaded with resin), but even then it’s not ideal. If it’s to be a one-piece enclosure, it’s better to be 100% carbon. But that would be quite expensive. However, as we know fibre performs better, and is cheaper, it’s better to have 100% fibre. – The Solideogloria enclosures is free of this problem, so it’s of no real consequence. We can use either material, or both materials together!
Are you pulling my leg?
No, no, you misunderstand. The point is that the Solideogloria system is plenty strong, far stronger than a one-piece enclosure, due to the design having small 2s4p box modules, unlike a long elongated bog box in a one-piece with a large weak patch in the centre (about the size of a small dinner plate, or 2).
I suggest you review the ‘Torsion Box’ above and study it carefully. – The multiple smaller boxes within the large frame is what gives a large table, or kitchen cabinets, house floors, house walls, bridge floors, etc, so much strength… They are really really really strong…
‘A threefold cord is not quickly broken.’ (Ecclesiastes 4:12)
Imagine thumping your fist upon a large moving box (for moving house etc), compared to small shoe box, or an even smaller box. The large box will collapse instantly on the first 1 or 2 thumps while the small would hold up much much longer.
Yes… of course… I could add ridges, but it would be overkill. Plus, the added detail makes it more annoying (and expensive) to produce. – I’ve already got a design for this, btw. Trust me it’s overkill. Not unless you’re Tony Hawke and you intend to thrash this enclosure in a professional way, like doing crazy stunts on Red Bull commercials… jumping off 1m+ drops and board-sliding on boulders… or are expecting your worst enemy to kick your enclosure with their steel-capped Timberlands… then… it’s overkill… PM me if you’re really interested and I’ll make one with ridges for you.