It was 1009nmm(millimetres not a typo*) The chainring holes were also under load and a bit of lateral load, although we thought the crank and bb would take most of that. All total it feels like a pretty huge number.
I believe I got 318nm out of here somehow ps I have no idea what I’m doing. I’m also puzzled why it’s so irregular since the model itself is perfectly symmetrical. although there are moments of similarity it’s not the rule. The final spider is only the 11th iteration for material loss concerns previously alluded to and it didn’t seem to be trending towards similarity. Perhaps it may be a more meta symptom of machine learning in that the algorithm hasn’t yet got perfect logic or more likely the machine knows something we don’t or perhaps this is way above my head. It seems maybe @Rik_Van_Looy might know a bit more than me.
If mine works I’d be open to making some more if my mates cool with it. (maybe out of titanium #fullbodycume) although warning they will be trick as fuck but they’re likely to be pretty expensive as well.
- attached pic is of a spider modelled to hold 109nmm because we’d misread it the first time
Edit: just realised this spider is very symmetrical. We never tried this but I’m not sure if you run the same model twice that you’ll get the same results which is interesting to think about