Good read on the 4Runner frame
- Thread starter Range
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
bob3dsf
New member
The fire engine I drive, and the 105' aerial ladder I drove before that, had C-channel frames. I think the author neglected to consider that a stronger gauge steel in a C-channel would mitigate against any loss of rigidity in that profile vs. a box.... Pretty sure the engineers know what they're doing, and 80's era domestic cars and trucks (cool as they are, and the period vehicles I gathered the author was comparing to) were pretty horribly built. Why else did the Imports all but take over the market (Japan in particular)? About the only reason the "big 3" didn't go under then was pure patriotic sentimentality and tariffs. GM wouldn't even be here now if they didn't get bailed out.
BlackWorksInc
New member
Not sure how I feel about the article because I myself am still unsure if a Box Frame is better than a C-Channel. As [MENTION=66316]1engineer[/MENTION] pointed out a while back there's a lot of differences between the two of them and it is more apples to oranges due to those variables. Just look at the picture of the Toyota "Triple-Tec" frame cross sections. They have riveted support structures in the C-Channel for rigidity (also I can see moisture getting trapped in there) while the boxed section doesn't have a secondary support sleeve...
It's a bit more complicated than it looks at face value.
It's a bit more complicated than it looks at face value.
LandCruiser
New member
I don't think that anyone will give us an honest answer.
Engineers are paid to design things to specification and the new norm is "boxed frames are better, so you better ****ing make it a boxed frame, you eggheads."
I'd like to see whad kind of design they'd come up with if the marketing cokeheads weren't telling them what to do.
BlackWorksInc
New member
Well I was thinking a bit more about it... If the External C-Channel of the Tundra's frame section was a steel that had high strength that allowed torsion, then the riveted inserts could provide shear strength and torsional rigidity on the top ends of the C-Channel. This would allow the C-Channel section to support a large amount of weight, but twist/flex if needed in say an off-road scenario.
Theoretically the same could be done with a Boxed Frame, but would require welding/attaching two types of metal in a similar fashion and could result in one side buckling from not enough freedom of movement...
Perhaps I am over thinking it, but in the end it comes down to intended design and materials.
Bevo
New member
He is a biologist. Don't biologists design and build things? :wink2:
Last edited:
delloro
New member
have you seen the way engineers dress?
I'd like to see it too, but only out of curiosity.
of course, it would be equally interesting to see what a marketing-only design would look like, as well as an accountant-only design.
i'm guessing the engineer version would work great under certain ideal conditions, but nobody would want it because it would look ridiculous, and that nobody could afford it.
everybody would want the marketing version, but it would never work.
nobody would want the bean-counter version.
delloro
New member
yes they do, the good old-fashioned way. with one male, and one female, and some alcohol.... :thumb3:
santanvalleydirt
New member
Sounds like his opinion is based entirely upon marketing material. Weird that sport bike manufacturers spend lots of time and money tuning their frame designs to add flexibility.
The F250 wins on the RTI score
I love how stupid the Chevy attack ads are getting. "When we messed with absolutely everything about the competitor's truck, it didn't function completely normal!"
Last edited:
santanvalleydirt
New member
I'm working on an Engineering degree. I guess I'm going to have to minor in biology.. :wink2:
T4R2014
Elite Member
Sounds like he could do a better job at designing a Tacoma frame than Toyota can.
Make the front section a strong box section that rusts quickly out due to improper coating, and the rear section a C channel that flexes and bends easily. All while selling a truck of the same size and engines overseas with a boxed frame with no known issues. At least the C channel won't rust. Oh wait...
1engineer
Moderator
First off, the engineer version would work in any conditions and would be cheap to boot. Sadly nobody would buy it as it would stick through the body at certain points. The marketing version would not work as they would not use any steel. They would use a material called empty promises and we all know how that goes.
Seriously, I have a question for those of you reading this.
"What is the correct stiffness?" It's easy and cheap to build a frame that won't flex but obviously it needs to flex right? Otherwise they would just do it the easy way. So what is the correct amount of flex?
Haha you guys buy into the marketing hype instead of asking the right questions.
Let me help you out with the answer:
"The frame shall be designed to repetitively perform to the intended use specifications in addition to meeting all safety, efficiency, economical and durability parameters."
You can design it a thousand different ways and they would all meet the specs. Make it S, C tubular or boxed. Everything else is marketing.
Seriously, I have a question for those of you reading this.
"What is the correct stiffness?" It's easy and cheap to build a frame that won't flex but obviously it needs to flex right? Otherwise they would just do it the easy way. So what is the correct amount of flex?
Haha you guys buy into the marketing hype instead of asking the right questions.
Let me help you out with the answer:
"The frame shall be designed to repetitively perform to the intended use specifications in addition to meeting all safety, efficiency, economical and durability parameters."
You can design it a thousand different ways and they would all meet the specs. Make it S, C tubular or boxed. Everything else is marketing.
