Forum Discussion
Dadoffourgirls wrote:
Spoon never likes to have Facts interfere with good Internet stories. So for all the non-engineers, just believe Spoon and anything he says (which is usually negative about GM). For Engineers, just let the marketing department teach Spoon.
Really pops? You just mad cause I've blown up your nonsense theories before? Its not personal, just stating the truth. This test means nothing to the world of RV'ers. This is a stupid propaganda test. I know where your loyalties lie, so I understand your deep seated passion to defend GM at all costs.
I gave a solid reference to support my theory. You, on the other hand, are slinging mud and trying to obfuscate the issues. All the name calling in the world does nothing to support your argument, nor disprove mine.
Show me all the Ford Superdutys that experienced frame failure due to the "weak frame" shown by this "test". Until you have proof that Ford's frame is indeed weak and that this test adequately proves it... I stand by my statements. Just because you don't like reality does not, in fact, change reality.- Didn't GM post the same test about a year or 2 ago?
Older trucks , Same results.
Dead horse beating or what? mich800 wrote:
Maybe there is merit to that test. But it doesn't apply to how I use my truck. I do have one question. Is this a problem that needs to be solved? I.E. do contractors or others that use their truck in the field park them in a situation where one or two wheels are off the ground and need to unload? It seems if you are in that precarious of a position it would not be a safe place to load/unload.
But if you do unload with a tire 3 feet off the ground, you better be driving the chevy or you'll be in trouble. Then again the tailgate would be about 6 feet off the ground so unloading would be awesome to watch.
I'll take flex over breakage any day, but this is all moot IMHO since I'm not aware of a single frame breakage issue on any truck.
Flexing buildings are being researched for robustness against earthquakes, interesting to me, though very different from a vehicle frame.clickyspoon059 wrote:
ktosv wrote:
spoon059 wrote:
Built in frame flex will prevent fatigue, leading to a frame that is more durable.
Care to expand on this thought process?
I'm not an engineer, so I can't really explain it.
http://trailer-bodybuilders.com/archive/tips-truck-frames
I've got to go to work, so I don't have time to find other references. Basically the argument is that steel needs to have some flex. Without flex it bends. When it bends it becomes fatigued. When it has fatigue, it is more likely to fail. To prevent it from failing, engineers allow for some flex.
Spoon never likes to have Facts interfere with good Internet stories. So for all the non-engineers, just believe Spoon and anything he says (which is usually negative about GM). For Engineers, just let the marketing department teach Spoon.- Aluminium is more rigid than steel and will stop this foolishness.
ktosv wrote:
spoon059 wrote:
Built in frame flex will prevent fatigue, leading to a frame that is more durable.
Care to expand on this thought process?
I'm not an engineer, so I can't really explain it.
http://trailer-bodybuilders.com/archive/tips-truck-frames
I've got to go to work, so I don't have time to find other references. Basically the argument is that steel needs to have some flex. Without flex it bends. When it bends it becomes fatigued. When it has fatigue, it is more likely to fail. To prevent it from failing, engineers allow for some flex.- Frame flex matters to the people that do go off-road occasionally. A stiff frame is why I looked really hard at the RAM and decided to ultimately go with it. On my father's 89' F-250, it was annoying having the rear topper rub on the cab (had a rubber gasket). Hit any bump and you got all sorts of squeaky noises. Also a pain when parking on unimproved roads to your favorite fishing spots along a river where you have to park on a burm or partway into a ditch.
As for a statement of frame flex being good for off-roading, maybe you ought to tell that to the rock crawlers, dune buggies and other fully-caged tube-built rigs that run the dunes or rock-hill climbs. Or the rally racers and race car teams or F-1 guys that put tons of effort into stiffening up the chassis so they can better tune a suspension. If RAM hadn't stepped up their game in the suspension and frame departments, I don't know if I'd be driving one today even though it has the big "C" on the side.
I'm sure Ford is well aware of these videos on the web and will be coming out with a reply pretty soon. Otherwise, they would risk falling into irrelevancy. It's time to stop making excuses and time to put-up. This is why the manufacturers are constantly locked in this game of one-upmanship, and we, the consumers, only stand to win (As long as we're not blindly loyal). Cv67cheng wrote:
Same old propaganda garbage. None of the big three are really better than the other. I have never had a need to open my tailgate while traversing a ditch and frankly, I would rather have a frame that flex's a bit when off roading.
Ever notice that the newer trucks with the fully boxes and with extra reinforcement are able to haul larger payloads and pull a heavier trailer load. Obviously not.
The post 2011 GM trucks and the 2013 and later Ram 3500 trucks have much stronger frames than their predecessors, or Ford trucks.
Even Ford makes two different F-450 trucks and the payload on the F-450 pickup truck is less than the payload rating for the F-350. The F-450 chassis cab version of the F-450 has a different frame and it supports a payload rating that is a full 3,000 lbs. greater than either of their pickup trucks.
Amazing how some people find it so difficult to learn anything new, and also pathetic.- Yep, GM is desperate.
