Allen0jason
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #1
183/200 compared to old JK d30/35.
Sponsored
Nailed itf(JL + JT - JK)^123/456 = TJ x (CJ + YJ)
Can't dispute science.f(JL + JT - JK)^123/456 = TJ x (CJ + YJ)
Solved it:f(JL + JT - JK)^123/456 = TJ x (CJ + YJ)
Yes.183/200 compared to old JK d30/35.
Too much free time dude. Too much free time.f(JL + JT - JK)^123/456 = TJ x (CJ + YJ)
Your math is faulty because you forgot to account for the Unlimited(U) variablef(JL + JT - JK)^123/456 = TJ x (CJ + YJ)
Your math is faulty because you forgot to account for the Unlimited(U) variable
EDIT: The following is for the Rubiconnewer JL axles are thicker than the JK's should hold up a bit better
See? I was close...!Same thickness, larger radius. Thickness increases almost linearly.
Tube strength goes up as the fourth power with radius, and it is called Moment of Inertia, or Inertial Stiffness. JL vs JK:
3.14159265 × (D4 - d4) ÷ 64
(70^4 - 63.65^4) ÷ (62.5^4 - 56.15^4) × 100% = +43% stiffer (JL axle)