Yeah, even going to 4130 would help a lot. You can make just about anything work given enough money.
or you can use your head, and rework the design with a few cross members/braces. thinking so linearly as only about section thickness, material spec and FEA on “one element” is exactly the problem with taking a purely engineering approach. you end up with a monster section, terrible overall appeal and completely ruin the design intent.
taking a step back from a more holistic design approach, its easy to see the core of the concept and find an alternate solution with more smarts than just brute force and BS FEA and material spec.
" Ok the solution would be simple 2 rods welded to each element all the way down, dont screw up the design much but shit why didnt the judges go “hey kid, draw it so it will function”…naw never happen" zippyflounder first post of thread…Scots soultion is better though
Hey, I didn’t design the f’ing thing, and I don’t care enough to “rework the design.” I don’t even like it. I was just curious whether the assumption that it wouldn’t work as drawn was valid or not. Lighten up brother.
I’m with Z, sort of.
It just seems that every chair ‘concept’ regardless of source gets posted for mass consumption. Must be a conspiracy, c77 is actually a furniture manufacturer?
Speaking topically, it seems design content is majority chairs and lights, a lot of them ‘concepts’: this repetition is of 0 interest to me, the blog ephemera occasionally entertaining. You see, when repetitive ‘concepts’ are offered up they can only be assessed aethetically, and if one happens to not appreciate or see history repeating…
I didn’t realize the initial concept was using 8mm dia. rods. That’s not as elegant as what I was imagining. 20mm rod and the thing would have looked so heavy, it probably wouldn’t have won anything. I think a more interesting project could be born from this though. Maybe there is another 1 hr challenge here: design a seat using only coat hangers?
Scott: Thanks for bringing the nuts & bolts. I think it adds a lot to the discussion.
how about a aero gel seat!
see there we go, problem solved. two different solutions, neither of which needed any fairy dust, just a bit of thinking and consideration. plenty of other solutions as well which could preserve the design intent that just require a bit of smarts.
now next time, instead of ranting and raving about how things wont work, try being constructive.
I guess that’s why designers/creative types are taking lead positions now; they are willing to search out solutions to ideas that are “unworkable”.
The value in the design mentioned is not just in what it presents now but what it inspires others to produce/improve.
Nope, the fools are still fools. The designer for not doing his sums or having the experiance with real world products to know what the problems were and the judges for being sucked in on unworkable concepts. The design as drawn is fairy dust, blatently so, a oh so common problem now.
Creative types have been taking the lead for a long time, just now lazy and experianced ones are rife.
I guess IDSA can start to promote the ZSGD standards so that we all can get a nice stamp on our work if they meet the code requirements.
ZSGD: Zippy’s Standards for Good Design
naw the market does that.