Doesn't matter if you disagree. Not interested in proving you wrong. My post stands on it's own. I will try to explain what it says again. Engineers had known the strengths of materials, beam shapes, loads and forces before the 40's. Structural engineers with bridge, tall building, ship, trains and planes experience, traveled in and out of the auto industry. They knew that too rigid would break or break something and be a stiffer ride. The vehicles do twist and were designed to allow that. Those engineers were highly educated, knew strength of material and structure calculations and the Chassis were highly sophisticated using the materials at hand. Channel ladder frames are still used today. Did not say anything about "hard points", Did not say anything about a goal of reducing flex, the reinforcement I suggested was to strengthen/support any area the poster was concerned about. My whole post is about NOT reducing flex. Also: angle ("L" shape) is very strong, channel ("C shape) is stronger, both will have the necessary flex to a point. Tubing: round, square, rectangle or special, would be too stiff for those frames. They tested many configurations over the years and stuck with channel as a happy medium. A bolted assembly is very strong, clamping forces will be adequate to strengthen the motor mount area and is something any bolter can do and does not apply heat and no danger of weakening by bad technique. I did not imply that the body was rigid, I said it was. It's a box and is rigid. I think everyone knows that the attachment points are to attach the body to the frame. You may be misstating what I say and then arguing with a misstatement and asking me to provide you with an engineer from the 40's. The only engineer I can provide you with is me. I think the discussion of the engineers and all that is off the topic. I was just trying to help the guy with reinforcement of an old frame which I have done, with a TF truck using a BBC, in the manner suggested. No problems yet after 5 years. When I started my career in 1964 at Sperry Flight Systems (later Honeywell Aerospace) I met many Mechanical Engineers from the 40's. I assure you that they were as sophisticated as you are and were highly trained and experienced. What they designed in the auto industry was great. It was not guess work and they did not end up with a flexible frame by accident as you imply ("it just did"). They would not have succeeded in the aerospace engineering world that way. How do you like your bird? Fried with tomatoes?
Last edited by bartamos; 10/28/2011 7:47 PM.
