Before you read this I tend to rant a bit so I highlighted the rant bullshit in red
. So you dont need to read it if you dont want to. But its all on topic nonetheless.
Im curious how strong an all wood enclosure (wall) can get compared to one built with a steel frame.
Ive seen regular plate steel used several times for builds but Im more-so asking about the way most builders are doing it these days; which seems to be using square stock to build a frame which you then fasten your wood from the inside using the winged type screws like these. If you arent using these then I strongly suggest you do, saves a ton of time.
And likely, for adhesive the builder would use PL Premium aka wall builders best friend.
To me, if you're going to the extent of putting a wall in your vehicle then youve committed your vehicle forever. Theres no going back. Atleast not the way I build a wall. Otherwise if you want something that you can go back and forth, just build a loud setup thats in the trunk/hatch/cargo area. You can still get loud as **** back there. Trust me. My explorer was doing 157.8 sealed at the dash with 6 stock out of the box 10s and 2 batteries. AKA 160+ in the kick. Add more batts and that score would have gone up substantially. And there are countless examples of other guys doing the same or better without a wall setup. Once you wall your vehicle, its a big decision, you are committing the two for life. Its a marriage lol. The wall to the vehicle...til death do you part
If I were to build my enclosure out of just wood. Id build it the exact same way of course. Being that you first build the frame and have it fastened to the vehicle in several areas to make it as secure as possible in an accident. But also to act as external bracing for your whole enclosure. In my opinion a lot of builders overlook this part of the build. The more the enclosure can be built as one with the car, the stronger it will be...no matter if you're using steel, wood, fiberglass etc. In this case instead of steel square stock id be using 2x4s or 2x6s to build the exoskeleton and then fasten the inside wood (mdf or birch ply typically) from the inside and after that is all easy stuff, just time consuming. Atleast, for most designs; When doing a tunnel, things can get interesting.
Obviously the steel cage route is going to be stronger, I dont think anyone is really questioning that. But to me these are the important questions for stereo guys:
How much stronger is the steel cage method??
-If I were to add layers of wood, at what point would that be equal in strength/rigidity to the steel construction?? Does it need to be 3x as thick?? 5x as thick?? 20x as thick?? I think theres likely a physics calculation that can take care of this one but even so....a sub box is a very dynamic environment compared to a straight physics equation. But still it would be good to know.
Do these strength and rigidity terms really matter for a stereo which will surely be under 170db??
-For instance, if we end up figuring that the steel enclosure is 15x stronger than wood. But wood will still stay remain rigid up to 10 tonnes of pressure then would this strength difference really matter for a stereo producing FAR less energy??
Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts or ideas on this it would be greatly appreciated. Or even someone with real world results that would be awesome.
Thanks for your time
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
BUILT NOT BOUGHT
---->97 Explorer--157.8db Termlab sealed at dash 2nd Place 2007 DbDrag World Finals Street C
---->1981 Malibu Wagon 160+ Groundpounder UNDER CONSTRUCTION