Silver Creek durability test Silverado Tundra F150.

[SVT666]

The irony is, to paraphrase Hemi666, an enthusiast thinking he knows better than Ford's engineers.

Your ignorance has to be painful.

Especially considering Ford's Super Duty pickups are the most durable and capable pickups on the market.

[93JC]

I agree with GoCougs entirely on this matter. What (substantial) difference does it make if a Tundra oscillates more at 28 mph than a Silverado, which does so more than a Ford? Can the Ford inherently tow more? Can it inherently carry a heavier payload?

No. Absolutely not. The biggest semi-trailer trucks use comparatively elastic c-channel frames, and they can haul a hell of a lot more than some piddly-ass light-duty boxed-frame pickup.

So what does any of that video mean? In the grand scheme of things, not much. The Ford's frame is stiffer. Probably heavier too. Doesn't make it better.

[S204STi]

I agree with GoCougs entirely on this matter. What (substantial) difference does it make if a Tundra oscillates more at 28 mph than a Silverado, which does so more than a Ford? Can the Ford inherently tow more? Can it inherently carry a heavier payload?

No. Absolutely not. The biggest semi-trailer trucks use comparatively elastic c-channel frames, and they can haul a hell of a lot more than some piddly-ass light-duty boxed-frame pickup.

So what does any of that video mean? In the grand scheme of things, not much. The Ford's frame is stiffer. Probably heavier too. Doesn't make it better.

What you are missing here is that GoCougs went on some big campaign over at C/D a month ago about the inferiority of c-channel frames, etc.  Hence, while you're absolutely correct, he would think that the fact that they use a c-channel frame has more to do with cost than effectiveness.  Perhaps it's both; perhaps fully-boxing a frame is not worth the extra cost for the very minor improvement it makes.

[S204STi]

Especially considering Ford's Super Duty pickups are the most durable and capable pickups on the market.

Pretty much.

[The Pirate]

Isn't a C channel frame favorable for pick up duty?  I was under the impression that some flex in the frame was a good thing.

[Submariner]

I agree with GoCougs entirely on this matter. What (substantial) difference does it make if a Tundra oscillates more at 28 mph than a Silverado, which does so more than a Ford? Can the Ford inherently tow more? Can it inherently carry a heavier payload?

No. Absolutely not. The biggest semi-trailer trucks use comparatively elastic c-channel frames, and they can haul a hell of a lot more than some piddly-ass light-duty boxed-frame pickup.

So what does any of that video mean? In the grand scheme of things, not much. The Ford's frame is stiffer. Probably heavier too. Doesn't make it better.

But at that point, Open C-channels are useful to allow for some flex, otherwise the immense torque and weight would likely rip the rig apart.  I'm not sure if thats the case with a vehicle that tows substantially less weight.  If I were in the market, I would like the truck with the stiffest frame.  But then again, I'm not in the market, nor do I know much about towing, or the right frame for the right job.

I think comments before have been based on Cougs blind following of Toyota, not so much his argument.

[SJ_GTI]

I agree with GoCougs entirely on this matter. What (substantial) difference does it make if a Tundra oscillates more at 28 mph than a Silverado, which does so more than a Ford? Can the Ford inherently tow more? Can it inherently carry a heavier payload?

No. Absolutely not. The biggest semi-trailer trucks use comparatively elastic c-channel frames, and they can haul a hell of a lot more than some piddly-ass light-duty boxed-frame pickup.

So what does any of that video mean? In the grand scheme of things, not much. The Ford's frame is stiffer. Probably heavier too. Doesn't make it better.

A stiffer frame means the suspension can do more of the work, which usually means a better controlled ride without necessarily giving up comfort. I agree its not going to impact towing or payload much, but it does impact the overall quality and refinement of the truck.

[GoCougs]

The irony is, to paraphrase Hemi666, an enthusiast thinking he knows better than Ford's engineers.

Your ignorance has to be painful.

And this charge from a creationist???

[SVT666]

A stiffer frame means the suspension can do more of the work, which usually means a better controlled ride without necessarily giving up comfort. I agree its not going to impact towing or payload much, but it does impact the overall quality and refinement of the truck.

...and if you want refinement and ride quality....don't buy a truck.

[Tave]

It makes it so easy for vandals to put random stuff in it, or people to siphon off your gas.? Both may be rare occurances, but then again so is someone breaking into your house or car, and it still feels alot safer to have a door that locks.

A friend of mine had his fuel siphoned off in Denver about a year ago. His gas cover locked, but the theives broke into it easily. It made him wish his car came with one that just popped open -- the crooks were going to get it either way, and if he had one, he wouldn't have to pay for the damage they did to his car.


In any event, it was a very weird crime.

[S204STi]

And this charge from a creationist???

I win.

[SJ_GTI]

...and if you want refinement and ride quality....don't buy a truck.

If the refinement hurts performance I'd agree, but the Silverado and F150 seem to be able to tow as much and carry as much as the Tundra, while still being much better refined vehicles.

[Submariner]

And this charge from a creationist???

Can you prove otherwise?

Didn't think so.

[GoCougs]

What you are missing here is that GoCougs went on some big campaign over at C/D a month ago about the inferiority of c-channel frames, etc.? Hence, while you're absolutely correct, he would think that the fact that they use a c-channel frame has more to do with cost than effectiveness.? Perhaps it's both; perhaps fully-boxing a frame is not worth the extra cost for the very minor improvement it makes.

LOL - no such thing occurred.

The only relevant happenings in that thread was watching you utterly flounder in beam theory and metal fatigue on pages 3 and 4.

http://forums.caranddriver.com/auto/board/message?board.id=6&thread.id=72995&view=by_date_ascending&page=1

[S204STi]

LOL - no such thing occurred.

The only relevant happenings in that thread was watching you utterly flounder in beam theory and metal fatigue on pages 3 and 4.

http://forums.caranddriver.com/auto/board/message?board.id=6&thread.id=72995&view=by_date_ascending&page=1

Yeah, and you know all about chassis engineering. One of the two of us has studied the topic of chassis and frame design, and it wasn't you.

[GoCougs]

Yeah, and you know all about chassis engineering. One of the two of us has studied the topic of chassis and frame design, and it wasn't you.

Irrespective of your education, your two relevant posts in that thread (my highlights added) make false assertions.

Those that are really interested in the soap opera, can reference the thread for my explanation of the falsehood of the claims.

Page 3, post 3:

C-channel frames are no weaker in terms of verticle strength than a boxed frame.  The only thing that determines the verticle strength is the actual height of the beam.   Boxing the frame rail only helps by improving resistance to twisting forces on the frame rail, something that a cross-brace is also designed to deal with.

So basically, having a C-channel for the rear section is not an issue, so long as the chassis does not flex diagonally so much as to become a third spring.  I noticed a lot of that with the Tundra demo.  Does that mean the Tundra is not "up to snuff?"  No, of course not.

Keep in mind though that those are dramatic conditions that most trucks would never face at those speeds.  I have never seen a dirt road that bad, that you could actually maintain 28mph on, and I grew up four-wheeling in Colorado.

Page 4, post 2:

Doesn't beam strength relate directly to the height of the rail though?  I guess I'm wrong,

However, I disagree with your second comment.  The more a metal part flexes, the more it is going to fatigue.  Better to have no flex and let the suspension do it's job, it would seem.

As they say, stones and glass houses and all that jazz...

[SVT666]

If the refinement hurts performance I'd agree, but the Silverado and F150 seem to be able to tow as much and carry as much as the Tundra, while still being much better refined vehicles.

Mu point being that if you want refinement and ride quality, then don't buy a truck.   

[GoCougs]

I agree with GoCougs entirely on this matter. What (substantial) difference does it make if a Tundra oscillates more at 28 mph than a Silverado, which does so more than a Ford? Can the Ford inherently tow more? Can it inherently carry a heavier payload?

No. Absolutely not. The biggest semi-trailer trucks use comparatively elastic c-channel frames, and they can haul a hell of a lot more than some piddly-ass light-duty boxed-frame pickup.

So what does any of that video mean? In the grand scheme of things, not much. The Ford's frame is stiffer. Probably heavier too. Doesn't make it better.

Actually, kinda in my own defense, I didn't state which was better or worse. I simply stated that Chevy and Toyota could devise a test to similarly show the Ford in not the best of lights, and that the Super Duty doesn't have a fully boxed frame.

There's another version of the video out there with commentary (and audience reaction). This video was actually part of some sort of closed-doors presentation. IIRC, they commented on the lack of a fully boxed frame on the Tundra.

Watching the video again, I will also bet that the road surface (bump spacing and sizes) in addition to the 28 mph speed, was specifically targeted to show the Ford in the best of lights.

[S204STi]

Irrespective of your education, your two relevant posts in that thread (my highlights added) make false assertions.

Those that are really interested in the soap opera, can reference the thread for my explanation of the falsehood of the claims.

Page 3, post 3:

Page 4, post 2:

As they say, stones and glass houses and all that jazz...

Beam resistance is the opposition to vertical flex when weight is applied to the top of the frame, and is determined by the height of the main frame, period.  And I don't see what the issue is with my last statement either. 

[Submariner]

Irrespective of your education, your two relevant posts in that thread (my highlights added) make false assertions.

Those that are really interested in the soap opera, can reference the thread for my explanation of the falsehood of the claims.

Page 3, post 3:

Page 4, post 2:

As they say, stones and glass houses and all that jazz...

Actually, one has to look no further than cougs posts for theatrics galore!  The use of all those big words, that, and your consistent belief that what you are defending is right.

Confidence problems?  low self esteem?  It's ok.  Drive a Toyota, and you will feel 100% better.  The relaxing feel of the Camry will soothe your soul, although, it might put you to sleep.

Perhaps a Tundra is what you need.  All that chassis flex will surely keep you awake.

[93JC]

Beam resistance is the opposition to vertical flex when weight is applied to the top of the frame, and is determined by the height of the main frame, period.? And I don't see what the issue is with my last statement either.?

Whaaaaa?

[GoCougs]

Beam resistance is the opposition to vertical flex when weight is applied to the top of the frame, and is determined by the height of the main frame, period.?

There are myriad factors; whether in the original context of the beam itself, or this new context of an entire frame. The basics are that beam cross section in any dimension affects beam strength in any dimension. Specifically, it is false to state that beam stiffness is solely a function of beam height. For further basic details, you need to become familiar with mechanics of materials. For specific details, add in some FEA and perhaps some material science.

And I don't see what the issue is with my last statement either.?

See p. 4, post 4 in the same C&D thread, by yours truly:

Yes; the primary failing of that response is the assertion that flex = fatigue. That simply isn't always true. Stress = fatigue. You can have lots of flex and very little stress (and hence little fatigue), or you can have very little flex and lots of stress (and hence lots of fatigue).

This is the last time I'll respond to your ankle biting attacks you insist on throwing my way. You simply aren't worth the effort.

[SVT666]

I hope R-Inge never designs the steel on any building, bridge, or car frame that I will ever use...but then again I know shit about structural steel.  It's just that GoCougs is the only one that makes sense here...but then again I know shit about structural steel.

[GoCougs]

I hope R-Inge never designs the steel on any building, bridge, or car frame that I will ever use...but then again I know shit about structural steel.? It's just that GoCougs is the only one that makes sense here...but then again I know shit about structural steel.

Or, we can take a very real-world example using dimension lumber: When spread between two points, which will deflect more with the 2" side in the vertical: a 2x4 or 2x12?

As with any design, there are optimums of course; one wouldn't likely design a frame rail using the the above analogy, but it's sound: beam strength in the vertical is not soley a function of the beam's vertical height.

[S204STi]

Whaaaaa?

Remember, frame rails, not buildings...   I know there are other forces at work on a frame, such as torsional forces, which I mentioned in the post Cougs quoted.  I'm not completely dense, nor do I know it all like Cougs, but at least in a real-world situation I know what it takes to make a strong frame, and while I would personally box it against torsional forces, that does not mean that it's going to bear a greater vertical load.

What do you think?  You're an engineering student right?

[S204STi]

This is the last time I'll respond to your ankle biting attacks you insist on throwing my way. You simply aren't worth the effort.

What, the troll doesn't like being trolled?  Pity.

[S204STi]

I hope R-Inge never designs the steel on any building, bridge, or car frame that I will ever use...but then again I know shit about structural steel.? It's just that GoCougs is the only one that makes sense here...but then again I know shit about structural steel.

GoCougs is good at bullshitting, you mean.  The things I know where taught at an established school that has been training technicians and hot-rodders for years, and somehow I managed to get A's, so I suppose I absorbed something. 

And I know nothing about steel buildings or how to build them.   

[93JC]

You're an engineering student right?

Ja.

What do you think?

Take the absolute simplest equation for stress under bending:



assuming y is vertical and x is horizontal along the beam, where sigma is stress in the x plane (compression/tension), M is the moment, y is the vertical distance to the neutral axis and Ix is the second moment of area about the x axis.

Ix is defined as:



in which case dA is a theoretical elemental area with no height, but with a width.

Ix for a rectangular cross-section is:



where b is the width.

All things being equal, a wider beam will have a larger moment of inertia, therefore a smaller stress due to bending.

[the Teuton]

GoCougs is good at bullshitting, you mean.  The things I know where taught at an established school that has been training technicians and hot-rodders for years, and somehow I managed to get A's, so I suppose I absorbed something. 

And I know nothing about steel buildings or how to build them.   

Did you go to UTI or Wyotech?

Depending on when and where you graduated, I might have a friend who went to school with you.

[S204STi]

Ja.

Take the absolute simplest equation for stress under bending:



assuming y is vertical and x is horizontal along the beam, where sigma is stress in the x plane (compression/tension), M is the moment, y is the vertical distance to the neutral axis and Ix is the second moment of area about the x axis.

Ix is defined as:



in which case dA is a theoretical elemental area with no height, but with a width.

Ix for a rectangular cross-section is:



where b is the width.

All things being equal, a wider beam will have a larger moment of inertia, therefore a smaller stress due to bending.

Huh, cool, I was edumacated today.  So, do you think that a frame rail made with 1/8" thick mild steel but with a "C" section will carry less weight vertically than one that is fully boxed?  Assuming the same width of the rail?