Square holes instead of round holes on a frame

I am building my frame shortly. And I have seen alot of frames with round holes in the front. I was thinking of being alittle different and try sqaure holes. But before I screw up $50.00 worth of metal does any one have any pictures of someone doing that? Thanks

 

Everything square sucks.

 

Not as strong .

 

Square holes can crack in the corners. That's why you never see them.

 

Not as gracefull...round curves always look better than square sharp edges...Jason

 

Thanks for the fast replies... I keep that in mind

 

Ditto....

 

Not to mention, ugly! I think I saw a frame with iron crosses cut out of it once. ugghh, hideous... Plus, the original purpose of drilling holes in suspension components was to reduce weight. I realize that most "lightening" holes you see these days are for aesthetics, but they're at least reminiscent of the past attempts at reducing weight by being round.

 

If you go square at least radius the corners to avoid cracking or you could do triangles interlaced, again radius the corners.

 

Yeah I was going to say if you must do squares at least radius the corners but as mentioned triangles might be a better choice.
However the circle is still king as far as strength is concerned.

I drew up this pic real quick to show you how it might look.

 

Round is also for expedience as they can be drilled quickly rather than cut

 

DON"T, round holes don't start cracks, four corners in a square hole will.

 

I'm not sure how well ur gonna be able to bolt on stuf if you have square holes

 

Oval would have possibilities. Still, round distributes the load and is strongest.

 

That looks cool....definitely different.

 

I think if the square holes were "rounded", it would look good.

 

some of you guys have NO IDEA what traditional means

 

Its a term of endearment.

 

Don't forget to strengthen the frame by welding in a 2 pound sleeve after cutting out a half pound of metal to save weight.

You also might try drilling holes and putting a scoop in the front of your backing plates to let air in, and seal up the back so the air stays in.

 

Why

 

just because its diffrent doesnt make it cool. I dont get that way of thinking. There is a reason no one does it.....its lame!!!

lets add 4 inches to a cars roof while were at it

 

A reasonable question and he got some good answers for not doing it.
Remember the Comet Airliner.


Rectangular is a better way to go.
Make sure to either cut one big half circle at each end or cut the corners with a hole saw so as to make a rounded corner rectangle.
And don't make the hole so large that most of the boxing plate is taken away in that area.

As well as pay attention to where the hole goes.
You don't want the hole too close to a crossmember attach point or other potential place for mounting things.
It's not always done for lightweight, sometimes it's for access.

Along these same lines, other than for lightening, a different style frame hole won't be seen by most.

 

The british built a passenger jet plane with square windows. Thy broke up and crashed because of the square windows. Square holes will weaken your frame. I think the plane was called the comet. Do a search.

 

The original purpose for the holes are lightening holes it was a method of lightening something without significantly reducing the strength.

http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135805

 

If you want to open the envelope past round, how about tear drops? Still round, a recognized hot rod shape and I've never seen it done before.
Put the small end facing the front as if the wind was blowing the fat end to the rear.

 

I'm under the impression that he isn't saying he is simply going to mill out square holes in a piece of rectangular tubing. I think he is going to put a piece of square tubing in the hole and weld all the way around it. I don't see a big problem with that myself. Its not like its going to see the stress that a airplane or a bulldozer would see. JC

 

Yup, it was the De Havilland Comet. It was the worlds first operational Jet Liner and came close to being the last! Although the two that broke up in mid flight (1954) did so as stress cracks were developing from the square windows (Even with radised corners) there were three accidents, one fatal prior to the famous mid air destruction ones.
The first two accidents in 1952, the first in Rome was a take off incident leaving two passengers injured. The second also on take off happened in Pakistan while bound for Australia and resulted in the death of all crew and 6 passengers, the first ever jet liner fatal crash. Both these were wing section deficiency's, severely increased angle of attack decreased air flow to the point of stall.
The third was a mid air failure of control surfaces that led to a break up of the aircraft in mid flight 40 something people were killed. (I cant remember where this one happened)
The next two were the famous mid air catastrophic failure incidents. The cracks were caused by the repeated pressurization and de-pressurization of the airframe during assent and decent. Both the failures were believed to have occurred at the port (Left, I say believed as I think one airframe could not be recovered?)) side forward escape hatches and a direct result of the SQUARE WINDOW design. The square design gave an estimated 50,000 thousand times greater failure danger than a round window.
(PS, this is all from memory so could be a little in accurate)

Ok, not that you ARE doing this, but if you do.........
So an airframe may be a lot more catastrophic when it fails in flight in comparison to a chassis failing while driving, but are you going to accept the deaths of one or two people as 'OK' because it IS only a car and not an airplane?
I wonder if the family of whoever gets killed by your car will think the same?
Different is not good if it is potentially dangerous. Please don't do it, if the worlds leading (At the time) aircraft manufacturer could be that far out on a calculation I don't care if a car wont see the stress of a jet or bulldozer, increasing the danger by up to 50,000 times is a bad gamble when you are talking lives.
Doc.

 

exactly...

 

Paisley holes man

 

Decaf. Seriously, switch to decaf...:d

Oh, and as for the square holes: you might want to draw up something ahead of time to see what it would look like. I have a feeling once you do this you might not be so keen on the squares.