Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / General Car Topics (Australian group) / March 2008
Change in body-panel gauge
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Jason James - 10 Mar 2008 23:34 GMT Not a riveting topic ('scuse pun), but the thickness of sheet-metal used for body-panels, used to be quite thick compared to many cars today.
I can remember the old cars I had, which were significantly thicker: Holden, large body cars up until the Commodore, all Valiants period and Falcons up until the EA?
What I have noticed with lighter gauge cars, such as the '75 Corona and the '95 Camry I've had, were the greater amount of dings, collected over time in the body. It seems that from the get-go, the Japs used lighter gauge sheet-metal for their offerings.
The tank body Valiants were indeed like *tanks*. One lady who somehow was stalled on a rail-way crossing in town, walked away from a decent shunt by a locomotive. The VH Val was banana shaped,..fortunately it hit her on the passengers side. I don't think the lighter gauge vehicles, in that type of stack,.would have faired as well for the driver.
It could be argued, that the subframes are of "normal" thickness in all cars,..but that doesn't help the monocoque design, which relies on virtually the whole body for strength.
Jason
Feral Al - 11 Mar 2008 00:03 GMT > What I have noticed with lighter gauge cars, such as the '75 Corona and the > '95 Camry I've had, were the greater amount of dings, collected over time in > the body. It seems that from the get-go, the Japs used lighter gauge > sheet-metal for their offerings. Isn't '75 about when the locally built Corona was starting to be fitted with a local four cylinder crap donk? IIRC it was between '75 and '78.
 Signature Take Care. ~~ Feral Al ( @..@) (\- :-) -/) ((.>__oo__<.)) ^^^ % ^^^
Noddy - 11 Mar 2008 01:53 GMT > It could be argued, that the subframes are of "normal" thickness in all > cars,..but that doesn't help the monocoque design, which relies on > virtually > the whole body for strength. But most cars aren't monocoque by design.
With a monocoque construction, the outer skin is a structural member and that certainly isn't true of most car bodies. To be specific, not completely anyway. Aircraft bodies are true monocoque in that the entire outer skin forms part of the structural assembly, but with car bodies things are a little different.
The only *real* structural "outer skin" on your typical unitary car body is the floor, as it's form is dedicated to the function of providing strength in that it's pressed into a particular shape to provide a fair degree of rigidity for the metal being used, and has frame rails and other associated crap fastened to it to assist with that. The rest of the outer skin, namely the "shiny side" offers little in the way of anything other than covering the internal framework and making it look pretty.
Take turret or roof panels for example.
A *lot* of people think the roof skin of a car is a structural member, but it's not. The internal frame that runs around the periphery of the roof at the gutter level (or where the gutter would otherwise be on modern cars that don't have them) and attaches to the pillars is the structural part, with the outer panel existing purely for decoration and to stop you getting wet when it rains. Quarter panels, guards, doors bonnets and boots are all the same in that their purpose is to be formed in a particular way as to make the car look pretty (or, at least what it's designer thinks looks pretty) while also providing a weatherproof outer layer.
Strength in metal is more to do with shape rather than thickness, and if you look at some cars the shape of their outsides would make it impossible for the outer skin to provide much more strength than covering the internal frame with gladwrap would.
-- Regards, Noddy.
Jason James - 11 Mar 2008 07:54 GMT > > It could be argued, that the subframes are of "normal" thickness in all > > cars,..but that doesn't help the monocoque design, which relies on [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > the outer skin to provide much more strength than covering the internal > frame with gladwrap would. Fair enough. The idea about body panels including doors forming part of the car's strength came about when a dinged door was enough to knock the car back for rego (NSW) Must have been another reason.
Jason
Noddy - 11 Mar 2008 09:25 GMT > Fair enough. The idea about body panels including doors forming part of > the > car's strength came about when a dinged door was enough to knock the car > back for rego (NSW) Must have been another reason. They must have some pretty bizarre rego/roadworthy requirements up there.
Down here there are no such limitations, and the only real requirement of the exterior bodywork is that it's not in such a state that a pedestrian would be injured if they were to brush up against it (such as jagged edges or other protrusions for example). You can't have rust holes large enough to kick a footy through, but smaller rust in "non structural" areas like lower quarters and the like are fine, and my own XF ute was roadworthied about 12 months ago with the driver's door kicked in so hard you could *just* wind the window down :)
Still, you get some guys who like to place their own interpretation on the "rules", and what might be perfectly fine for some will be an instant knock back for others. I once had a guy knock back an otherwise very clean and tidy car for the simple reason being that it had a two inch split in the lower outer edge of the driver's seat squab, and if he hadn't lifted the seat cover he would never have known it was there. How in the blue f.ck that could have interfered the car's safety I'll never know but he "didn't like it".
I thanked him and told him I'd fix him up when I presented the car for it's second inspection. Left his place, drove 3 minutes down the road and got a test done at another place where it passed with flying colours. I even lifted the cover and showed the second tester the split (in the seam) and told him about the other guy knocking it back, and he just laughed and said "Yeah, he thinks he's God, but he's a f.cking dickhead".
-- Regards, Noddy.
Kwyjibo - 11 Mar 2008 12:36 GMT >> Fair enough. The idea about body panels including doors forming part of >> the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to kick a footy through, but smaller rust in "non structural" areas like > lower quarters and the like are fine, I seem to recall that rust holes (even quire small ones) could be enough to fail the test if there was a likelyhood that exhaust fumes could enter the vehicle through it. e.g Boot floor etc.
 Signature Kwyj.
Noddy - 11 Mar 2008 13:21 GMT > I seem to recall that rust holes (even quire small ones) could be enough > to fail the test if there was a likelyhood that exhaust fumes could enter > the vehicle through it. e.g Boot floor etc. Yeah, if there's anything like that you'll get knocked back, but something like a small hole in the corner of a guard or door won't bother most testers.
-- Regards, Noddy.
Jason James - 11 Mar 2008 17:01 GMT > > Fair enough. The idea about body panels including doors forming part of > > the > > car's strength came about when a dinged door was enough to knock the car > > back for rego (NSW) Must have been another reason. > > They must have some pretty bizarre rego/roadworthy requirements up there. Indeed we do. While I haven't come across or heard of any certifying mechanics from doing so,..technically you can get pinged for torn upholstery because it interferes with driver comfort, and hence safety. When I said "dinged door- panels",..this meant fairly heavy damage. The standard fix for upholstery is to put on a set of seat-covers however.
> Down here there are no such limitations, and the only real requirement of > the exterior bodywork is that it's not in such a state that a pedestrian [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > months ago with the driver's door kicked in so hard you could *just* wind > the window down :) At one stage in the late '60s to early '70s, if you presented a car outa rego for an "over the pits " inspection,..some inspectors had a screwdriver handy to test for bog in areas known for rust.
> Still, you get some guys who like to place their own interpretation on the > "rules", and what might be perfectly fine for some will be an instant knock [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > told him about the other guy knocking it back, and he just laughed and said > "Yeah, he thinks he's God, but he's a f.cking dickhead". Here, they can and do sometimes issue a "knock-back" ticket, locking you into getting it fixed.
Jason
Noddy - 11 Mar 2008 22:00 GMT > Here, they can and do sometimes issue a "knock-back" ticket, locking you > into getting it fixed. f.cking ridiculous :)
-- Regards, Noddy.
Athol - 12 Mar 2008 02:55 GMT > Still, you get some guys who like to place their own interpretation on the > "rules", and what might be perfectly fine for some will be an instant knock [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > could have interfered the car's safety I'll never know but he "didn't like > it". The NSW pink slip rules don't allow disassembly. Lifting the seat cover would count as disassembly... So does removing hubcaps! If a car is presented with hubcaps, the pink slip inspector is not required to check for broken wheel studs, but if there are no hubcaps, they have to look...
 Signature Athol <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000 I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
Noddy - 12 Mar 2008 05:54 GMT > The NSW pink slip rules don't allow disassembly. Lifting the seat cover > would count as disassembly... So does removing hubcaps! If a car is > presented with hubcaps, the pink slip inspector is not required to check > for broken wheel studs, but if there are no hubcaps, they have to look... How do they check brakes, or don't they?
Good to see you back btw...
-- Regards, Noddy.
Athol - 12 Mar 2008 07:05 GMT >> The NSW pink slip rules don't allow disassembly. Lifting the seat cover >> would count as disassembly... So does removing hubcaps! If a car is >> presented with hubcaps, the pink slip inspector is not required to check >> for broken wheel studs, but if there are no hubcaps, they have to look...
> How do they check brakes, or don't they? The brakes are tested dynamically. No physical inspection.
As the Manager, Vehicle Operations & Investigation at the RTA said to me today, it's a misconception that pink slips and blue slips are a comprehensive check of vehicle condition. They are not, and neither are engineering certificates!
> Good to see you back btw... Well, the court case has been adjourned. It's not over yet.
 Signature Athol <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000 I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.
Blue Heeler - 12 Mar 2008 09:22 GMT > Well, the court case has been adjourned. It's not over yet. Are you Plaintiff, Respondent or Witness?
--
Noddy - 12 Mar 2008 09:47 GMT > The brakes are tested dynamically. No physical inspection. Wow :)
> As the Manager, Vehicle Operations & Investigation at the RTA said to me > today, it's a misconception that pink slips and blue slips are a > comprehensive check of vehicle condition. They are not, and neither are > engineering certificates! I tend to agree with regards to roadworthy inspections, but engineering certificates are a different matter.
> Well, the court case has been adjourned. It's not over yet. Bugger.
-- Regards, Noddy.
Jason James - 12 Mar 2008 08:33 GMT > > The NSW pink slip rules don't allow disassembly. Lifting the seat cover > > would count as disassembly... So does removing hubcaps! If a car is > > presented with hubcaps, the pink slip inspector is not required to check > > for broken wheel studs, but if there are no hubcaps, they have to look... > > How do they check brakes, or don't they? Guy puts a gizmo on the seat (some sort of interiaomometer?) and hits the h/brake, then the footbrake from a pre-determined speed. More inertia force change= bettter brakes.
Jason
John_H - 12 Mar 2008 09:00 GMT >> > The NSW pink slip rules don't allow disassembly. Lifting the seat cover >> > would count as disassembly... So does removing hubcaps! If a car is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >h/brake, then the footbrake from a pre-determined speed. More inertia force >change= bettter brakes. A Tapley Meter is what they used on the chariots back in the days when Jesus was the chief tester at the Jerusalem RTA! :)
Presumably not much has changed since.... http://www.tttonline.com/product/brake%20gauges%20and%20tools/Tapley.htm
 Signature John H
Jason James - 13 Mar 2008 21:22 GMT > >> > The NSW pink slip rules don't allow disassembly. Lifting the seat cover > >> > would count as disassembly... So does removing hubcaps! If a car is [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Presumably not much has changed since.... > http://www.tttonline.com/product/brake%20gauges%20and%20tools/Tapley.htm Yup,..that sure sounds like the same thing, John,..only these days they have a small chart recorder which they staple to your rego-pinkslip.
It goes to show, that like a lot of things we see today as new and innovative,..they've been around for yonks! :-)
Jason
Noddy - 12 Mar 2008 09:46 GMT > Guy puts a gizmo on the seat (some sort of interiaomometer?) and hits the > h/brake, then the footbrake from a pre-determined speed. More inertia > force > change= bettter brakes. Yeah, we have those down here and they're *supposed* to be used on every roadworthy inspection but they never are. It's mandatory to remove one front and back wheel to physically check brakes down here.
-- Regards, Noddy.
RainbowWarrior - 11 Mar 2008 07:14 GMT > Not a riveting topic ('scuse pun), but the thickness of sheet-metal used > for [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Jason Just walk around a carpark after a big hail storm and look at the cars with no dents compared to those that are near write offs :)
RainbowWarrior - 11 Mar 2008 07:17 GMT >> Not a riveting topic ('scuse pun), but the thickness of sheet-metal used >> for [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Just walk around a carpark after a big hail storm and look at the cars > with no dents compared to those that are near write offs :) P.S.
Give it up Roger you transexual carrot molester :P
John_H - 11 Mar 2008 10:18 GMT >Not a riveting topic ('scuse pun), but the thickness of sheet-metal used for >body-panels, used to be quite thick compared to many cars today. > >I can remember the old cars I had, which were significantly thicker: Holden, >large body cars up until the Commodore, all Valiants period and Falcons up >until the EA? The change for most, if not all of the locally built ones came in around the late 60's.
Valiant went to lighter panels somewhere between the VC and the VH but I don't remember what model. It was also the transition between being able to metal finish the panels (for those who still knew how) and either bogging or replacing them.
Modern panels are high tensile to boot, which makes them stronger but near impossible to straighten for other than shallow dents.
 Signature John H
Kwyjibo - 11 Mar 2008 12:33 GMT > Not a riveting topic ('scuse pun), but the thickness of sheet-metal used > for > body-panels, used to be quite thick compared to many cars today. Which is why newer cars are a pain in the arse to panel-beat. When you hit a bent panel from an older car with a hammer, the metal bends and stays bent. The newer sh.t steel flexes rather than bends, and takes a lot more work (or bog.....) to get into shape.
 Signature Kwyj.
|
|
|