Change in body-panel gauge

[Ext User(Jason James)]

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

[Ext User(Feral Al)]

Jason James wrote:
>
> 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.

--
Take Care. ~~
Feral Al ( @..@)
(\- :-) -/)
((.>__oo__<.))
^^^ % ^^^

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Jason James" <at@peace.com> wrote in message
news:47d5b7ad$0$8158$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

> 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.

[Ext User(RainbowWarrior)]

"Jason James" <at@peace.com> wrote in message
news:47d5b7ad$0$8158$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
> 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

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 :)

[Ext User(RainbowWarrior)]

"RainbowWarrior" <anemailaddress@tgr.fr> wrote in message
news:grpBj.24387$421.8403@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> "Jason James" <at@peace.com> wrote in message
> news:47d5b7ad$0$8158$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
>> 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
>
> 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

[Ext User(Jason James)]

"Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in message
news:47d5d827$0$36008$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "Jason James" <at@peace.com> wrote in message
> news:47d5b7ad$0$8158$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
>
> > 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.

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

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Jason James" <at@peace.com> wrote in message
news:47d62cfb$0$8148$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

> 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 fuck 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 fucking dickhead".

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(John_H)]

Jason James wrote:

>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.

--
John H

[Ext User(Kwyjibo)]

"Jason James" <at@peace.com> wrote in message
news:47d5b7ad$0$8158$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
> 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 shit steel flexes rather than bends, and takes a lot more work
(or bog.....) to get into shape.

--
Kwyj.

[Ext User(Kwyjibo)]

"Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in message
news:47d641f0$0$36014$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "Jason James" <at@peace.com> wrote in message
> news:47d62cfb$0$8148$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
>
>> 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,

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.

--
Kwyj.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Kwyjibo" <kwyjibo@ozdebate.remove.com> wrote in message
news:13tcrmeh0brpbea@corp.supernews.com...

> 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.

[Ext User(Jason James)]

"Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in message
news:47d641f0$0$36014$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "Jason James" <at@peace.com> wrote in message
> news:47d62cfb$0$8148$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...
>
> > 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
> 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 :)

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
> 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 fuck
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 fucking dickhead".

Here, they can and do sometimes issue a "knock-back" ticket, locking you
into getting it fixed.

Jason

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Jason James" <at@peace.com> wrote in message
news:47d6ad23$0$8144$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

> Here, they can and do sometimes issue a "knock-back" ticket, locking you
> into getting it fixed.

Fucking ridiculous :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Athol)]

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:

> 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 fuck that
> 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...

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM@idl.net.au> wrote in message
news:1205286921.760378@idlwebserver.idl.com.au...

> 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.

[Ext User(Athol)]

Noddy <me@home.com> wrote:
> "Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM@idl.net.au> wrote:

>> 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.

--
Athol
<http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000
I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss.

[Ext User(Jason James)]

"Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in message
news:47d761fa$0$36008$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>
> "Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM@idl.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1205286921.760378@idlwebserver.idl.com.au...
>
> > 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

[Ext User(John_H)]

Jason James wrote:
>"Noddy" <me@home.com> wrote in message
>news:47d761fa$0$36008$c30e37c6@lon-reader.news.telstra.net...
>> "Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM@idl.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:1205286921.760378@idlwebserver.idl.com.au...
>>
>> > 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.

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

--
John H

[Ext User(Blue Heeler)]

Athol wrote:

>
> Well, the court case has been adjourned. It's not over yet.


Are you Plaintiff, Respondent or Witness?

--

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Jason James" <at@peace.com> wrote in message
news:47d78778$0$8143$c30e37c6@pit-reader.telstra.net...

> 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.