A while back I did some experimenting with some 32 frames. I put a stock one up on jackstands. Two were under the rear kichup and one under the front crossmember. I tied a 283 block to the left rear corner and got a load on that corrner. I put a 2x 12 across the front crossmember and measured from the right frame horn to the ground. I then sat on the 2x12 so I had about a three foot moment arm. The one side went down 2 inches and the other side went up the same. Pretty scary. The source of 32 cowl shake. I had a unboxed repo frame with a Chassis Engr style crossmember. I measured again and could not accurately measure the deflection. Maybe 1/8 inch. I went ahead and boxed firewall forward and over the kick up. I still saw maybe the 1/8th. I would love to try this with other frames. Especially the ones with the tubular crossmembers. I did not see any aditional stiffness from all the boxing and welding. Anybody have one to test?
I think a stock unboxed '32 frame will be just fine if you replace the K-member with an X-member...that's what I'm doing on my next build.
I've been mulling over interconnected suspensions for ages. Torsional rigidity suddenly becomes for all intents and purposes a non-issue. Here are some of the results of my investigations: http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/31-a-fhc-build-design-thread.374184/ Here are some things to read up on: https://www.google.co.za/search?new...5.0....0...1c.1.58.hp..8.5.1957.0.Pz7-foljnKc https://www.google.co.za/search?new....0....0...1c.1.58.serp..18.7.3197.6Uq1vZ3ZtAQ https://www.google.co.za/search?new...3.0....0...1c.1.58.serp..2.3.1460.NVLmLC2HlMg 2CV Hydrolastic/Hydragas Packard
The deeper the X-member is , the better. Also , if the OP had spreader bars in the frames it also would be better
You will find that properly bolting your body down and adding your engine and transmission will change that twist to the better. nearly everything that you bolt to the chassis becomes part of the structure. That said when I was a kid we bolted a balls to the walls 426 in a A sedan and made it hook. it didn't take long before we were replacing the wood with steel.
I've been working on a '32 frame from that other car company - Chevrolet. I picked up the driver's side rear frame horn a good 2" before there was any motion at the passenger side front. Not ideal, the body was breaking apart in a few places. It didn't help that there is a lot of wood in the body. I boxed the frame and put in a tubing cage. It's solid as a bridge now.
When we built the frame for my Deuce pickup I used a original frame and boxed the front and the rear,I then used a Chassis Engineering X member and I am really happy with the way it turned out,absolutely no flex at all. HRP
The center of the X needs to be connected with a rigid center like HRP shows in his pic above. If you add a center X but only have a bottom chord to hold up the tail of the transmission, it will twist like sheetmetal. The forward forces along one leg of the X as it twists need to be counteracted by a a rearward force from the opposite leg. And the legs need to be connected top and bottom to press upon each other. Any flex not held in the frame will radiate up into the body. And if you just spent $5 to 10 grand on that new paint job it will now be chipping and cracking soon without a solid frame under it.
El Polacko's page on his K-to-X conversion has some comments on torsion. And an interesting piece! Issues I see in here somewhere...boxing gives you 2 very stiff rails, but the ends are still attached one to the other by Ford Crossmembers which obviously don't contain a lot of metal, especially if the rear of the front member has been trimmed away. X-ing adds more in the middle. On steetrod X-ing, a lot of what I see in ads and features has a baffling lack of serious connection between the two halves, as Alchemy and Primer are saying. The >< parts are built like bridge girders, with more metal and bracing than the entire original frame, but it looks like many have that final connection made with a single welded tube and the nearly irrelevant bolt-in trans mount. Huh?? That is almost reduced to two pieces of dead weight rather than a real X member. Clearly adding a floor plate and a hump over the middle welded to the sides would do a lot. Nobody seems interested in depth of the frame...body adds some deep reinforcement, but it is pretty frail. especially on a roadster. Look at the '32 firewall...it is shaped perfectly, with cowl hoop and 45 degree legs, as a deep crossmember, but again it is not a tremendously strong piece. What if you made a tubing hoop right behind the body channel of the firewall and tied it into the frame either by welding or by a much stronger than stock flat piece against the rail, then added welded tube at 45 degrees where the toe-board mounts? Other places some serious stiff could be sneaked in would be in a tubing-hoop welded to a steel firewall between cockpit and trunk or, a very traditional way, add a roll bar with braces back into trunk. And...look at the typical tin box that mounts the seat cushion. What could that do if you made a new one of twice the gauge, made to bolt flat to floor with the bolts running into frame rail? Depth I think could add a LOT of stiffness beyond the normal approach.
Me too! At the end of the day all that tubing is for naught if the sides aren't joined with anything decent Also, a well known frame brand has this type of deuce frame with tubing everywhere yet their A Model frame is made from simple tapered 4x2 with ONE centre crossmember! Both the deuce and the A will get the same powerplant and suspension. That I don't get.
There was another car company in 32? Better yet, there was a year of manufacture other than 32? Not an original joke but I couldn't resist. "I need my mirror boy"
Those old frames are supposed to flex like crazy (BAD roads or no roads)- why do you think so many '32 frames where built into 4 wheel wagons!
You sure can tell winter is setting in and guys have spare time on tap. But it is very interesting I will say. That is why I went with Brookvilles 34 cross member set up on my latest deuce frame. Would have liked to used ElPolacko's, just did not have the bucks.
ElPolacko's Deuce X member is super strong and probably one of the best on the market. I have used the CE one and one I made using 2 x 5/3/4 x 11 ga. C channel which proved to be easy to fabricate. The reason Ford went to the X member from 33 up is for the very reason stated above. Cowl shake is not to be taken lightly if you have just spent your entire savings to have the car painted. I build 33's so unless I use the ASC rails my X is included from Ford. Let's hear from some more of you who build your own. Here are a couple I like: I don't who made this X but it looks strong when tied in top and bottom. Adding side braces like a 35-48 also make a big difference in rigidity. Here is another example showing the modified original center and the added cross brace for the radius rods.
This is why I'm building a tidy chromoly roll bar in my PU even though the boos will probably start rolling in...now! I'm also not that keen on seeing it in there but... "I need my mirror boy"
The Jalopy Journal
