Should Truck Frames Bend? Thinner Frames Are Weak? - Expert Answers
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 09. 2024
- In this video, we follow-up on truck frames bend questions viewers have had after watching the Chevrolet Colorado ZR2 bent frame and Jeep Gladiator bent frame videos. We ask a long-time frame expert to discuss thin new truck frames versus old thick frames and other frame bend questions.
Subscribe for more Pickup Truck and SUV videos: www.youtube.co...
Interested in upcoming 2021 vehicles? Check out this playlist:
• 2021 Pickup Trucks, SUVs
We NEED your feedback! Here is the playlist for our popular QOTD series: • Question of the Day fo...
Make sure you check out our collection of videos on classic trucks and SUVs are well: • Classic Pickup Trucks ...
Find us on Facebook: / pickuptrucktalk
Also, on Instagram: / pickuptrucktalk
And on Twitter: / pickuptrucktalk
Our website is here: www.pickuptruc...
![How To Make Your Own DIY Truck Frame | #TTDmaxC10 [EP5]](/img/n.gif)
Here is more on our discussion on bent frames with other engineers weighing in on how it happened: czcams.com/video/wrCUFCDD7PE/video.html
Great interview. Being in the auto body repair industry really make this hit home. And what he said was repairing one of these could hurt more that help.
franksrooty2 thanks for sharing. I thought that part was really interesting as well.
Well what I got out of that was the government tells You how to build your truck. Light weight to meet fuel economy Regs. And bend like hell for crash test ratings. Equals a crappy frame. The results are in the picture. Again, buy a 2500 H.D. To pull your 2000lb. tear drop, no problems for the truck, not so much for the trailer. Enjoyed the company man talk!
S Turman thanks Truman!
Stiffer =/= stronger. Ceramic is stiffer than steel, but we don't make frames out of ceramic, do we?
Hit one pebble in the road and your frame is in a million little pieces.
exactly. for sure the mini cooper is stiffer than an old defender but i think it's chassis would be damaged if loaded with same forces the defender experience when going off road.
And every shit talks Toyota for using a c channel on the tundra.
Ceramic is great when traversing hot lava flows in or near active volcanoes👍
Very true. Flexibility has always been one of steel qualities. Especially in this area and building construction.
Excellent interview, Tim! Appreciate you talking to the actual industry experts and engineers!
Thanks Yas! I really enjoyed this discussion as well.
When you increase the rigidity you risk less flex than in the old days and causing it not to bounce back thus bending not flexing. In the old days the pickups would bend and twist but always return now you have a stiff frame with steel that will not flex and when it gets to a point it will kink or bend.
Steels with high yield strength will take more force before plastic deformation (ie, bending permanently). Older frames with lower yield strength will yield (ie, bend) before newer steels with all things being equal.
@@matthewgaines10 The big problem is not general plastic deformation, but rather buckling instability. Strength of the material has little to help here, only wall thickness and frame section geometry can affect this. The older frames with thicker walled sections are much more robust from buckling, generally speaking, than the thinner walled, high-strength steel frames. This is what he was talking about with "bulkheading"; which is the method of improving the resistance to buckling of a thin walled section. Buckling instability is a catastrophic failure mode; massive deformation happens all at once as soon as the overload condition is reached. There is no forgiveness in such a design case, and it is also slightly unpredictable.
@@jonathanrabbitt Not necessarily. Depending on the series of steel used, sheer strength increases and modulus of elasticity decrease as well, which significantly stiffen and stabilize wall sections. Those older frames were also typically not heat treated after welding, which would result in stressed brittle joints, on top of having a lower material fatigue strength. If your assertion was a 100% true for use case, tubular structures wouldn't be used over I or H beam in the first place. Frames used to bend and break all the time in older trucks, and it's a testament to the durability of the new ones that when it happens today it's so outside the norm. Now, stiffening the frames does put more onus on the suspension to further absorb harmonics and retard impact acceleration. The companies may not be far off with their assertion that when the owners modified the suspension, they increased the load on the frame section. Axle wrap is another thing that could be contributing to them. When you functionally lengthen leaf springs, you reduce the lateral and rotational stability of the axle as well.
Stiffer doesn't always equal stronger. You want a little bit of play and twist in the frame to allow the vehicle to sort of conform to the environment. Get it just right (like in the older trucks) and you'll return to normal post-flex. Trucks need to be built like trucks again and have some give in the frame.
Think saving weight on a frame is a bad idea. I would sacrifice a little of MPG for a robust frame vs a lighter and thinner frame.
New frames are stronger than older frames.
Greetings. I watched the video - not because I was interested in the recent (or not) "frame breaking" incidents but rather the seemly age old issue (or NOT!) of frame flexing on modern full sized (25xx-35xx series) trucks. Many of us truck owners take them loaded with +4000lbs of camper in the bed down "jeep trails" (read: plenty of off canter sections of trail) and the visual result (from the drivers seat in the cab) is the "nose" of our campers (the cabover sleeping area) bouncing around (up/down - one or both sides). I've watched it happening in a 97' and 17' Ford with the same camper load. MANY have had the cabover section (and truck cab itself) move up to +2in combined and RUN INTO each other resulting in SMASHING whatever that is on the roof of the truck cab (lights, antennas) and/or damaging the cab over section of the camper itself! Some would claim parts of the camper itself is acting like a accordion (compressing and bouncing back), others would claim that the camper is TILTING/ROCKING in the bed (airborne in the rear!), others claim whatever the camper may be sitting on is acting like a accordion, some think it is the trucks frame flexing and twisting and others still think it is a combination of all of the above. Do you have any experts that can answer this? I can find CZcams videos on +11yo trucks showing frame flex but nothing on modern (>=2020) trucks.
Not to pull the "as an engineer card" but I'm about to...
Hes 100% spot on with his argument from s technical perspective.
However, in the real world, people are using their trucks past design constraints. Sometimes on purpose (jumping off a sand dune, too much weight in bed) other times not on purpose (giant pothole with trailer or big payload, accident avoidance, or years of corrosion)
This is where we run into issues in some ways. When you push a thick, conventional steel c channel frame past its design limits it will bend. Eventually, it will possibly bend slightly past a point where its physical properties start to change. This is called work hardening. You can get away with pushing steel into this work hardening range for some time. Eventually, the metal will harden so much it will crack and fail but you have quite a bit of abuse before that happens. Similar story with corrosion
On a thinner, high strength steel frame, these factors are more pronounced. By having less material, you have less time to can push it "past its limit" before you will work harden it to failure. Additionally, with the reduced flex of a boxed frame, any work hardened spots will cause a "hot spot" more easily and can cause a kink like we have seen on the jeep and Colorado.
In conclusion it comes down to this. For max payload/towing possible boxed frames give you that in a cost and weight efficient package. For rust resistance over time, and pushing a truck past its design limits a c channel will likely hold up longer.
My .02
Good points. I think you nailed the 95 percentile point he made. If you use your truck properly, the new frames are perfect. If you exceed the limits... well, then bad things will happen much faster than older frames.
@AUTONOMEN x adding a single rib to a square steel tube would add some torsional stiffness and would add about 1/3 more bending stiffness when pressing down on the rib. In the other direction it wouldn't add as much, though if in theory it were fully welded it would keep the sides of the rectangular tube from buckling (which would be useful in case of these trucks)
If you slid a round tube turned sideways inside a square tube at the right point on the frame again you could definitely help keep the frame from bucking. Another good way as mentioned in the video is welding on plates to the outside of the box frame..but now you run into other issues (rust prevention under plate, new hot spots at the points where the plate is welded, and more)
Not 100% sure I understood your question clearly hopefully I answered it.
@@Pickuptrucktalk as with anything it is a compromise. As he more or less mentioned, if you want 22mpg out of a gas pickup that can also tow 10k lbs...you have to start cutting weight and adding strength somewhere. That, unfortunately results in thinner body panels and frames, which is both good and bad for the consumer. At the end of the day though old trucks and new trucks alike will get a hell of alot of work done.
@AUTONOMEN x agreed. Chevy I know has done aluminum hoods since 2014 and now all doors (tailgate too?) Are aluminum on the 2019+ trucks. If they haven't already I'm sure Ram will follow as emissions restrictions get stricter and stricter. It is s good way to save some weight and keep strength in the frame/drivetrain, etc. Especially with these trucks getting big heavy 10 speeds, stronger rear ends, and a the supporting components around it.
@AUTONOMEN x for sure, however my gut says the cost/benefit ratio will never be there fof widespread use of carbon fiber in truck applications. But hey, I could definitely be wrong especially if you were to get energy costs down. Alot of $$ in carbon fiber or any composite is all the energy input needed to cure and process it.
That video answered a half century of arguing about frames! A+ for putting this together! Thanks!
Glad you found it helpful!
Another thing overlooked is: all the recent cases, Raptor/ZR2/Gladiator + Fox, have high performance shocks with relatively high damping rates. They're also traveling offroad, relatively fast (in the case of prev gen Raptors, 70 mph). This was NOT your usage case back in the good 'ol 90's with a regular F150.
You also didn't have the MASSIVE social media platform to spread bent frame cases. Believe me, they bent, and they bent fairly regularly with heavy use. In the 1% of time they were filmed, the VHS-C or 35mm have long been lost...
Use your truck like it's intended to be used and you will never have a frame problem.
I totally agree.
Thanks for the video and great job as always. The research you do combined with guests you have on and the questions asked really sets this channel apart. Engineers get a lot of flak from CZcams comment sections and it’s good to see one getting to explain their side.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Tim, that was an excellent discussion! This illustrates why I subscribe: Your inherent interest in these kinds of vehicles leads you to exploring topics in depth, and we in turn are the benefactors. And good on ya for mentioning the Aussie's dilemma with their mid-size Utes and their Outback. Having lived in Oz for a while, the Ute's omnipresence is striking...as is the double challenge of the Outback's terrain coupled with the presence of Roo's everywhere. Hope you're hearing the grateful applause.
Thanks Jack!
I was shocked. I was wiping down the frame one day on my 19 zr2 and boy was I concerned when I discovered how thin it was. My new trd pro seems thicker.
As you heard, thin doesn’t mean anything. Actually thin means stronger.
How many Tacoma’s (without rust), do you know have bent frames? Has anyone seen pics of one? (That can be shared)
lukestoyz I’ve done some Google searches especially on Tacomaworld. I can’t find one with a bend by the rear axle. A few have bent bumpers the poster is claiming as a bent frame.
@@Pickuptrucktalk You can pee on my leg and tell me its raining it doesn't make it true. Thin is thin. Thin is not as strong as thick.
Robert Young well I’m not peeing on your leg first. 😂 second, I believe high-strength steel is stronger than conventional. However, I could see the need to show you the differences literally. I’ll look into that.
The "square" section could be stronger, than a frame in "C" section...buton the "square" section", you also could use lighter sheet metal.
this reminds me of the totally new body style for chevy trucks in 1981. the previous year models hoods were so stiff that some serious collisions would drive the hood back through the windshield cutting your head off. so in the new 1981 design the hoods had crumple zones on each side so the hood would fold up instead of coming through the windshield. the problem was the crumple zone was to weak and after 6 months to a year the hood would start breaking in half every time you raised it. so a bolt on brace was designed to keep it from breaking. bottom line-they do make design screw ups occasionally. the one on the GM truck hoods went from 1981 to about 1986 before they fixed it at the design level.
Now GM is using aluminum for hoods.
Good Information!! We are expecting the world from our trucks and cars, there is no silver bullet and will be interesting to see how future products are built if these kind of demands are being put on our 4x4s! Maybe we can get a Part 2, on NVH and chassis stress, frames might be good for horizontal rigidity, not vertical, this topic will have a few components to it and its awesome!
Interesting. I'll have to look into NVH and chassis stress.
Age old part of engineering. The the stiffer the structure, the more brittle. Yes the new frames have higher stiffness and torsional ridgity. But there is not progressive failure point. Once it bends, it's done for.
That's not true. Stiffness of a structure is totally different than modulus of elasticity of the material. A structure is multiple components; and rigidity of the structure has to do with the total design not just the material. When you get into materials, you find things like structural steel versus a 300 series stainless steel one has a greater modulus of elasticity (Young's modulus) and one has a greater Poisson ratio. The carbon steel has a better modulus of elasticity while stainless is the one with a greater Poisson ratio. You'd think that a greater modulus would translate to a larger Poisson ratio (ability to stretch) - but it doesn't. So, let's not get hung up on pretending stiff = brittle.
First of all, these are not brittle failures. Brittle failure tend to fracture, not bend. Think your ceramics example. I don't know about your engineering background but I suspect it's not up to snuff. Next, it's interesting that people are inferring things over two failures they haven't done any metallurgical inspection on and seem to know how it failed.
@@matthewgaines10 I was using it as an analogy. We can clearly see they aren't fracture issues. I was referring to the stiff high strength metal, once it's bent, it's not going back to the same shape.
@@terrencejones9817
All steel, once it yields isn't coming back. High strength steels have higher yield strength. That means it takes more force for it to yield (bend and not recover). Your analogy seems to be strangely not helping your case. Your instincts don't match the metallurgical characteristics of steel.
@@matthewgaines10 that would depend entirely on the scenario. I do work in the field and frame repair still happens. The use of high strength steel may make that rare now.
The older model trucks had a thicker frame and in reality were stronger and had a better torsional twist effect than the newer frames due to the fact that they used more carbon in the steel and zinc which most of the new chassis do not incorporate
Tacoma, aside from the rust issue, stayed strong despite of the common off-roading use. I think it’s precisely by virtue of the C frame that bounce back
BUT - if the new frame is more rigid and bends less, then it might actually be less spring-y and will resist bending until it fails - and then it kinks.
Why do people seem to think older frames were boxed? At least the ones I've been under are never boxed and the channels actually have smaller top and bottom sections. Just looked under my 74 c10 and 83 f250
If a frame is design to absorb a crash, it just ain't strong enough for a real world use with all of us that really use them. I have been in many wreaks( not driving) that the frame never bent. Geez. Like he said, it's about mpg now.
You did hear him say the frames are stronger these days right?
@@Pickuptrucktalk I did hear this, high tensel steel with thinner metal everywhere when it's not needed.
Interesting that the American Truck manufacturing uses the same Company in Mexico for its Frames. They do not build there own. Weird.
Roam TV likely do to cost savings. Most trucks are really just a combination of supplier built parts that the automaker assemblies. Some companies even have parts suppliers on the same property as their plant to speed up delivery time. Why would they build their own frames when it’s cheaper and faster to pay someone else to do it? Makes sense to me.
Crumple zones save lives. There is no question about that. My “real world” is driving my Colorado pickup on the highway and on city streets, at legal speeds. I don’t care what happens to a Colorado that is subjected to unusual stresses in an off-road environment. If that’s your “real world,” you have to understand the stresses and the limitations of your vehicle.
Im apart of alot different car channels, but this was the best interview I have seen. This is where it all starts with the frame and unbelievably explained.
Wow. Thank you! I was really happy with how it turned out.
I think in many cases the engineers put too much faith in computer modelling rather than real-world testing. There's a lot to be said for seat-of-the-pants engineers.
Mark Deters there will always be real world validation in the design and engineering process. I don’t think any current engineer will rely solely on CAD or similar computer simulations.
You can't rely too much on anything, and they're not just relying heavily on computer modeling. There's still plenty of real-world testing happening, probably more so now than before. That's because computer modeling advances frame development at a lower cost, allowing them to greater hone the design with real-world testing.
True, but remember they have to test for so many different scenarios, they use computer modeling for most similar crashes and uses. They also crash a TON of trucks before they go to market as well. Computer modeling is just one tool in their testing procedure.
@@Pickuptrucktalk All true responses...but I have known more than a couple of engineers who didn't know a 1/2 in bolt won't fit in a 1/2 inch hole. Software is only as good as the practical understanding of the people who write it. Case in point the flight software of the Boeing 737 Max. I personally have no issues with today's frame designs.
@John Hughes I've been talking with Mac about his video in the comments. He has been watching my videos and I think he is changing his opinions on why the frame is bending. His initial conclusions aren't backed up with engineering research.
I love my 2nd gen Tacoma. After my last GM, I don't like them much anymore. Build quality and anything that doesn't have an LS is crap.
Still Driving my 88 Toyota Longbed 4×4. No way would I buy a new truck!
People are using them like they’re Fords and they’re not. I also blame CZcams a little. I remember watching one video where the guys were ragging on the Ford because they couldn’t open the tailgate when the wheels were all jacked up on ramps at angles no one would ever drive on let alone open a tailgate. But the Chevy tailgate opened and all the comments were about Fords frame being weak when it did what was correct. Then I saw a similar commercial touting GM or Fiats frame basically the same way. It might be good advertising but they need to flex or they’ll bend.
A most enjoyable conversation.
I've always been a nerd more interested in the performance from a load perspective and the long term wear and reparabilty of a vehicle than the latest infotainment features showcased endlessly on other channels these days.
Thanks!
I still don't understand why GM is stating that you can't use a slide in camper in their midsize trucks. If their frames are the same as the other makes that doesn't seem right? I wish I could have asked him if he knew anything about their reasoning.
Here is a general rule I use with my pickups for hauling & towing. If the manufacturer says it requires a 1/2 ton use a 3/4 ton. If you have a 1/2ton you actually have a 1/4ton. And so on. I have used this and never had a failure. Just my opinion. Do not believe manufacturers specs. Once you get to the upper end of the specs. That's when you start having problems.
Thickness has an advantage in that it takes longer to rust out. I don't see the industry ordering steel that has better rust resistance. Also thinner metal sections are more prone to point load failure. Try hitting a rock with a thin 'strong' cross section. Think a beer can--hard to crush compared to denting and creasing. Cars and trucks are rusting out in very very few years. $50K has to be amortized in four to five years in modern vehicles where in years past a vehicle would last ten or fifteen years in the same areas. It is germane to note the engineers are not calling the shots in today's industry sales dictates to them what they want, even advertising seems to outrank engineering department. So I can't put too much stock in what he is saying.
Isn’t the the 2 GM & Gladiator trucks considered mid size or light duty? So if you are expecting those trucks to do the same as the full size trucks then that is the issue.
Fascinating to learn about the manufacturing process behind the scene. Thank you Tim.
What about corrosion on thiner metal and is the new steel being made with out cooking off impurities and using electric arc making corrosion worse it just seems like there cutting cost so much vehicle rust before they come off lot or very soon after
Guys, trucks are designed to manufacturer chosen specifications and when used within those specifications the incidence of frame failure is practically zero. The most recent controversy over frame strength has been inspired by a grand total of TWO, not two hundred or two thousand, but two, incidents of frame failure when the vehicles were being used in situations that can easily be understood as being beyond the factory intended specification. In both cases towing off-road in areas where excess speed was not only possible but very likely. No one will ever know for sure because the owners will always see it their way but these occurrences are not the norm, just saying. In any event, trucks built in the last five to ten years are not routinely folding up like beach chairs as the innocently cruise down the highway or even when used properly in the light off-road situations they were designed for. Now, concerning frame design, commercial trucks use C-channel frames and older trucks usually did as well. C-channel frames, when designed correctly, are more durable long term when dealing with heavy loads because they can flex. This property in and of itself, not raw strength, often allowed older trucks to get away with things newer trucks can't. Doesn't mean they were designed to take the abuse they did though. It was more of a happy accident. Anywho, C-channels are not as stiff in torsion which is what you need if you want to improve ride and handling and to provide a predictable platform for building a crash cell and crumple zones off of. The obvious compromise is a hybrid of box frame up front and C-channel in the rear but combining the two does change how each reacts under load. Consult your friendly local frame engineer for more information because that gets complicated!
Awesome vid to see and very informative. Thanks!
Glad you liked it!
After hearing the repair topic I looked up a Ford Ranger frame repair procedure and saw I-car statement saying there are modular portions of the frame designed that way for ease of replacement in the event of an accident. So a “frame” isn’t necessarily one piece anymore, but many that are fixed together.
Yup. I was surprised and glad to have this part of the conversation as well. It was really enlightening that you can't always bend a frame back, but depending on the section of the frame, you can chop off and mig weld a piece back without losing the structural integrity of the frame.
Wheelbase of new trucks have become so long, that I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often! Bring back the 115-119 inch wheelbase!
Having worked on older trucks & autos ,you see the difference in the steel& thickness. Worked in a steel product mfg plant yrs ago helped me understand molecular strength & metallurgy . Torsional strength has depended on thickness and heat treat to make sure product retains strength VS flex and still maintain its 'designed ' shape.. all in all mother nature will show you who's in charge.
Good video on this particular problem.
Thanks.
Softer metal is better it can flex but the thinner metal will crack welds cus its more brital
Land Rover used a relatively thin steel frame for their Defender series, right from the outset in 1983. They did use a deep box section and relatively high grade of steel though, much better steel than they used in the outriggers welded to the main frame. They always flexed in axle-twisters but I've never heard of one bending or cracking. Unfortunately in later years, from year 2000 on approximately, they downgraded the steel used and that is obvious because the sides of the main frame rusts and flakes from that point on. You find the younger ones flaking to the extent that they may need plating, which is something that was not needed on earlier ones. The other unfortunate thing about Defender frames is that they build a dirt and rust trap into the rear crossmember, which is something they always did since the 1950's and never did rectify ever.
Holes in chassis! Have a look at Nissan Navara and Patrol chassis. They have more holes than Swiss cheese and there can only be one reason for. They build in obsolescence. Compare to Toyota HiLux and Land Cruiser chassis which have very few to almost no holes in the wheelarch area of the chassis.
The new bumpers are stronger too, that's why the metal is paper thin. The panels are stronger, that's why they pop in the car wash. The mirrors are cheezy plastic, stronger. It's all about making (more profit) then the day before, the consumer pays. How many square body's have you seen fold in half?
So I am 6 min in and the argument that the thinner frames of today are stronger than the older frames. Well with my experience it is true a thinner material maybe be stronger but it will likely be less durable. It’s just not going to handle max strain nearly as well as a thicker material. Once that thinner martial is damaged it will take less force for it to fail when compared the a product of the same material with thicker wall . For instance thin sheet metal will tare and thicker metal cracks. Thinner material also doesn’t resist denting nearly as well since it has less materal backing an impact point
The thinner high-strength steel is made up of different alloys as well. So, it isn't an apples to apples comparison of thickness versus metals.
Awesome video, I really like these videos of you interviewing experts in the field. Now get someone from Ford on and squeeze out more bronco info out of them..
😂 I wish they would talk Bronco.
Love the talk about the NEUTRAL AXIS. Brings back memories when i studied mechanical engineering in college. It would be great if you could get an engineer on your channel and talk.about why some TACOMAS have this frame rot issue. I own a 7 yo Taco and thankfully the frame is almost as good as new. Some of these frames have not faired so well. I understand that other brands may also have this problem.
More lighter trucks for fuel consumption + use of crumple zones on the chassi + cheaper ways of production + towing heavy loads over tongue weight + have low suspension travel due to lift kits or heavy loads = Bent frames.
Appreicate the info. Father is a retired engineer which has help me many times know what i should or shouldnt attempt
Those trailers pictured don't look heavy enough to cause a well built frame any damage.
Static weight is not the whole picture. Momentum is mass times velocity. At higher speeds, you can get greater force from momentum than from gravity.
Unfortunately those new truck frames are resting out a lot faster than the old frames. That is not good 😐
Bottom line is that when the engineers design a frame they make them right to the very minimum. If the steel is just a little weak it will yield. Not like the old days when stuff was over built.
Please tell me when cars were over built. Then I will tell about the garbage that was put out at that time. Everyone seems to long for the 'good old days' and ignore all the problems back then.
@@matthewgaines10 your right anything that is engineered is meant to fail
I don’t think so. There will always be a margin of safety in any structure. An engineer might strive for a small margin, but never a zero margin.
HA! KNEW IT! told you tim, they didn't calculated the strength requirements for those Colorado and gladiator for the 1 percent usage. Us engineer can't plan for those 1 percent use case but what we can can do is over engineer requirements to accommodate those unknowns. But this can increase production cost hence if you have a corporate culture of maximizing profit it can cause unintended consequences. All the non-sense about longer struts and larger wheel were just that.
Yeah, the longer shocks and bigger wheels was nonsense.
The problem is the pressures put on engineers to get better results out of antiquated technology. There's been basically no significant frame technology changes in the last 40 years. The manufacturers want to tout bigger numbers but don't want to invest in the R&D to significantly change the game.
Sure, I could see that argument. I'd argue the invention of high-strength steel and the introduction of crumple zones are pretty big innovations though. Plus, the stronger and more rigid frames are pretty impressive. That all leads to better ride quality which is why companies like Ford went fully boxed on the Super Duty. This allows that truck to ride more like a half-ton from the early 2000s. The rigid frame really helps engineers narrow down the ride quality issues and work with less moving parts as it were. The customer sees a big benefit to these kinds of innovations.
@@Pickuptrucktalk So you sacrifice structural integrity for ride quality? No, and I'm sorry but your journalist friends are the ones pushing this plush ride and interior design trumps all malarkey. These are pickup trucks, they're intended to do work, first and foremost and that has to be the priority. If you don't like the ride, that's the beauty of capitalism. Can you imagine this kind of mentality in the farm machinery industry? My God, people have really lost a sense of reality.
@@captainstabbin9338 Sorry, did you even watch the video? We address all of those things.
@@Pickuptrucktalk I did. While I respect his knowledge, he seems quite contrite on the subject of overall frame ingenuity, or lack-thereof.
@@captainstabbin9338 Thanks for sharing. Always good to hear another point of view.
“Source steel locally” in countries with no steel mills. Factories in Canada and Mexico source steel in China, then do secondary fabrication: And THAT is the steel “next door” used in the frames.
HOWEVER the steel, no matter where it was made, meets technical specifications or else it is rejected.
Very informative. Thank you for the education.
Thanks for watching!
The way I had heard it too, was that truck frames were built a little heavier than was required as the manufacturer knew that some of it would be lost to rust in the northern climates.
I find it interesting that people believe hearsay without any objective facts to support what they heard. Truck frames didn't start bending yesterday. Older truck got their frames bent before too. I'm going not by what I heard but what I seen. It isn't the first time.
The bottom line? The frames are week. Period. They do this to keep overall weight down.
Bottom line, all frames have limits. Without doing the analysis, I can't come to the conclusion that the frame was weak. Step one is to determine the means the frame failed. Perform metallurgical analysis to determine how it failed. Funny how non-engineers seem to have non-engineering responses over two failures. CZcams and your gut feelings don't make cars and trucks work.
And to keep cost down as well, GM quality has been going down sharply for many years, the frames are not the quality they used to be and they are failing.
Hydro formed frames, 14 gauge or sheet metal frames this days ain't going to hold up like the truck frames back in the 70's and 80's.....big rigs and box trucks have and continue to use a c channel frame he needs to visit a kenworth truck plant a see the frames they use
@pete smyth In the not to distant past pickup truck frames were built like big rigs, heavy gauge C channel, weight reduction has become the main influence in design.
^this. Weight reduction and usage. Build a truck for the 95th percentile and not the 5 percent who will abuse it no matter what kind of frame you have.
@@Pickuptrucktalk towing a 2000 lb camp trailer is not abusing it. They should be building them for the 95% that payed the asking price of the truck.
Richard ball you and I both know a frame doesn’t bend towing 2k lbs. That driver drove way too fast and hit big bumps while towing. He is the 5 percent and abused the truck.
@@Pickuptrucktalk Being an engineer who has worked for an Auto manufacturer. I hate to say it but BS.
The frame of a truck the literal backbone of the vehicle should be the LAST component to fail when overloaded this is engineering 101. And this is how trucks used to be designed. Axles, suspension mounting points, and suspension components should fail LONG before the frame ever does. And yes Boxed frames POUND FOR POUND are stronger, but they do NOT pound for pound, they are much much lighter.
Excellent Q&A with TWO very knowledgeable individuals !!!
Thanks!
Conclusion: Lightweight higher strength box tube construction gives the ability to provide crash crumple at the front, and better on-road performance. That part is good, what's bad is that lightweight flex free steel will break more easily when subjected to loads like trailers and corrugations, which is exactly what Aussies encounter all the time. Aussies stiffening the rear ends to overcome this problem do not make the front crumple zones ineffective, and there are none in the rear to worry about. If you watch a video on how the Unimog chassis is tested you will see extensive flex testing which is integral to it's off road articulation.
The solution seems to be to hold on to your C section chassis as long as you can and just rebuild your running gear as required. Stay away from flimsy new stuff.
There are rear crumple zones.
Another solution is to not overload your truck and slow down.
from what i've heard these frames are bending while towing within the a small percentage about or below the vehicle's tow capacity. Now my first vehicle was a 1998 Chevrolet s10 blazer with the 4.3, and when my dads 1990 1 ton dodge had a transmission issue we used my blazer to tow that 1 ton truck on a car trailer to the shop. the suspension on the balzer was bottomed out or at the very most had maybe a half inch of suspension travel left. the shop was 15 miles away and we towed it at 55mph on deteriorated county roads and the frame of the blazer did not bend, i guarantee you that towing that truck was at least double if not triple the tow capacity of the blazer. My question ultimately is how can you consider these modern frames better when it seem their margin for error when it comes to the tow capacity seems to be nonexistent and damage seems to occur when it probably shouldn't. i do believe that on these new vehicles they need to reduce the tow capacities by at least half.
I appreciated the explanation for the c channel vs boxed frame topic.
Thanks. I thought that was interesting as well. Again, that question came from comments on this channel.
I'm 53 yrs old . I couldn't care what this engineer said. Pull a 30 yr old or older ford, dodge or chevy out of a farm field and there is no frame rot. Look under a 5yr old truck of any manufacturer today and they are rotted to hell. Boxed frames are done for lighter weight to get some strength with less material. The old "C" channel frames don't rot because they don't hold water and they "breathe" going down the road. Screw the gas mileage, I want a truck that will last 15 yrs and cost me under 30 grand. Lets see how many trucks from 2000 to 2020 will be around 30 yrs from now?
One more thing. I worked for GM in Linden making the S10 trucks. The Frames were made by Budd in Canada. The flavor of the decade was to dip them in black wax. With the seasonal change of hot and cold, the wax would crack off and rot the frames. We can send a man to the moon but they can't make a vehicle that won't rot or bend a frame?
They still do the same thing with their frames FYI. That hasn't changed. I've spoken to GM at length about it and they favor the wax coating over an e-coating. The thinking is if the frame is scratched, the wax will cover up the scratch while the e-coating will not causing rust faster.
I've seen lots of things designed with tube to be "stronger" backfire because of rust issues. Tubes hold water, dirt, ice melting chemicals, salt etc. Sure tubes are stronger when everything is new, but it's easy to end up designing a rust bucket waiting to happen.
Good work, tim. Glad you brought up the argument that toyota frames don't bend like that, at least the north american c-channel. Sometimes rigidity can be a disadvantage, especially off-road, but also on. The flex from c-channel gives a smoother ride on road and helps keep your wheels on the ground off-road. Very often, something with no flex will just bend or break. High rise steel buildings have a certain amount of flex designed into them.
Great content buddy 👍
Glad you enjoyed it!
All American HALF TON frames are very cheap made. G wagon is also considered HALF TON which has far superior design compare to American‘s. They are nowhere near the 4mm thick boxed frame from G wagon.
Great Information! Thanks Tim
Doug Kreutzer you are welcome!
This should not happen. Too many under built vehicles no doubt to achieve mpg numbers.
High strength steels can lead to thinner section wall thickness, but the frame section geometry can be enlarged to improve stiffness. Note carefully how he talks about 'stability". What he's referring to is buckling stability (or instability). Buckling resistance is entirely dependent on the frame section geometry; including holes (adverse) and "bulkheading" (improving). Strength of steel makes little difference to this, because buckling instability is dependent on the elastic properties of the steel; and this changes little with the strength of the steel.
I think the key question on the frame bending that we're seeing is whether the tow hitch loads have been correctly (and generously) incorporated into the design basis. If they haven't, then the thinner wall thickness, high-strength steel frame leads to easily buckled/bent frames when they are inadvertently or deliberately overloaded (both static and dynamic overloading). The older trucks with their thicker wall, but lower strength steel frames would be much more resistant to buckling during inadvertent overloading.
Good point. With towing being lower on the list of consumer demands in mid-size pickups, they might have overlooked it a bit during the design process versus a half-ton or larger truck where towing is more of a consumer demand. It will be interesting to watch if any changes come from this.
That was an excellent video. Lots of questions answered.
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it!
I guess I won't buy a new truck. I want a thick frame.
Excellent Expert Guest !
Roy Smith thanks for watching!
It's no surprise where this engineer stands he won't bite the hand that feeds him . that said a stiffer frame can be bad when you have a vehicle that experiences abundance of flexing there is a reason heavy duty vehicles have c channel frames with the rear being held down with massive weight the front will need to flex has the front and rear tires hit different elevations
Suspension?
The suspension adorbs bumps but it does not keep the vehicle level when the rear of your vehicle is at a different elevation than the front tires are about 10 years ago guys that worked in the oil fields we're having problems with damaging frames on square frame trucks as Dodge and Chevy had because the cross members we're over stressed trying to keep the frame straight. I don't know if you've ever worked in the oil field but the lease roads are not smooth nor level it is not uncommon for one front wheel to be hitting a pothole while the other one is climbing out of it causing a twisting motion on the trucks frame and light duty trucks This is not an issue because the vehicle does not have large amounts of weight acting on the rear of the frame pushing it down while the front end is trying to lift up.
@@80f250 cool
I agree with what you say 100% all makes sense the older chassis had more structural rigidity and used more carbón and zinc in the chassis making them stronger during Flex to return to their original shape the new chassis do not have that Integrity built into the steel as they are made to be lighter for a reason only to save fuel and only last so long
Yeah if you want to see a frame engineer fail look up the 1980 ford f100 "Swiss cheese frame " they put holes in frame to lighten it they flexed so badly the bed and cab would hit and frames buckled .
I suspect that any aftermarket welding on the frames is going to disrupt the factory tempering/heat treatment that was mentioned here and is probably done after all the frame welding is complete.
Exactly.
before these models was there an issue with trucks folding in half ??
Not really. However, that's a bit inaccurate to do a before and after. People are using the ZR2 and the Gladiator in the same ways they used to use the full-size Bronco and Blazer. Those are apples and oranges when it comes to comparisons.
Great content¡ My guess is that once you overstress the frame, a thin boxed section would colapse in a more visible way. Overloading a F450 is easier and more common, and a thicker c channel will fail but, deformation probably will not be noticeable.
Frame plant in Canada is gone. Hight strength steel corrodes more. Holes are mute if on neutral axis. This guy managed people that knew what he doesn’t.
I just did a quick Google and I can’t confirm what you typed. The plant in St. Thomas Ontario just signed a new deal last year and is adding people. Adding nickel to HSLA frames can reduce corrosion. The hole comment doesn’t make sense. Do you have links?
This guy is the real deal. As a young Engineer, I would love to work for a him.
You should not be so gullible friend, he has bosses that will make your hair fall out!
@@stex1985 That is true, but I can say the same thing about my own boss.
👍👍
You get 4000 lbs of a trailer, and bind up the hitch, if you Crest a hill, I could see the trailer axle being g picked up off the ground, and If so.....its bending something or breaking the ball off.
None of this is as technical as it sounds. They don't make things as tough as we did in the past. That includes people. Most new cars are overcomplicated tin crap. Pre obd2 was the sweet point. 90s cars and trucks were the peak.
Cars are safer than they have ever been and much more technically advanced.
The sack of crap saying something is stronger is relative relative to what say your frames are stronger is to say that a bridge is going to be stronger because it's made out of more steel and less concrete if you take the flexibility out of an object to make it more rigid you're caught talking about tensile strength and then you're going to be able to fit in there like a box of spaghetti noodles that are uncooked you're going to be so rigid they're just going to shatter I said of being flexible and be able to absorb some Shock impact on regular everyday driving you should not be able to bend a frame in a pickup truck by bumping or jumping or curve by accident
Computer simulated says it all. Had GM or FCA tested these trucks offroad while towing these bent frames would've been fixed before they were released. Now it is too late so the lawyers will claim it isn't the manufacturers fault, which will cause them to lose customers.
The ZR2 was validated in racing before production. The frame isnt the problem.
@@terrencejones9817 Was it validated towing a trailer while racing? That might be a good simulation . The problem doesn't present itself while racing. The problem presents itself while towing a trailer that most other mid size trucks , suv's, and JEEPS seem to have no problem towing in harsh conditions. This isn't rocket science. People have been towing trailers offroad for decades. If the trucks had a stronger frame they wouldn't be bent, and there isn't anything that you can say that changes that fact.
@@bdd1469 Considering it's been proven without a doubt that the 1 bent ZR2 frame.
1: had an overloaded truck bed.
2: his trailer was extremely tounge weight heavy and exceeded tounge capacity.
3: he was traveling at high speed and hit a bunch of whoops.
The second bent frame was on Jeep Gladiator.
So maybe the frames aren't the issue.
The ZR2 has been jumped on numerous occasions without issue. It's not a frame problem. It's user error.
@@terrencejones9817 Time will tell. Actually it already has , as there are thousands of other rigs towing similar loads in similar conditions without bent frames. Jumping and racing have nothing to do with the way either of these bent, so please stop beating that dead horse. The fact that the ZR2 had weight in the bed and a little extra tongue weight isn't much of a selling point to me, but then again I'm used to hauling heavy loads in harsh conditions. FYI You won't find a bigger fan of Chevy trucks and Jeeps than me. I've owned dozens of them, my shop is full of them , they are what I drive, build, and love.. But... I'm not brand loyal enough to blow off an obvious issue if it repeats itself, and I predict that will happen.
@@bdd1469 Do you run 40mph through whoops while exceeding your payload capacity? Because that's what the ZR2 guy did. I haul a 800lbs ATV in my bed. I'm sure as fuck not going to hit whoops while doing it.
I also tow an 8klbs trailer trailer with a half ton .Even hitting bridge expansion joints can be fun.
Futher note, neither the ZR2 nor the Gladiator were running weight distribution hitches.
Excellent Tim!
Thanks!
Short answer: yes!
Reason? Planed obsolescence.
Not even close. You did watch the video right?
Pickup Truck Plus SUV Talk Pickup Truck Plus SUV Talk Pickup Truck Plus SUV Talk Hi Tim! Yes, I saw the video, honestly I dont think an industry guy will tell you the truth about their recycled metal, I found very funny the fact he remarked the previous Colorado chassis was made by Isuzu (zero issues with it) and the current ones are done by GM (well not GM, the OEM provider) also he remarked the holes on hot spots need to be flanged or in any way reinforced and you don’t see anything like that on the useless holes on the breaking point of the Colorado. Poor metal, poor design and high profit for them. Now Part of my answer was purely based on my experience (am enginner but civil not industrial, but some structural concepts are the same) and what I’m looking on this days with the crappy new trucks we have in the market. Let me explain it briefly. Where I live is pretty normal to put a complete pallet of cement bags in the bed of a 2014 Toyota Hilux or over my brother’s 1987 Nissan 720 pick up (similar to D21 pick up) and go up for dirt and loose gravel roads and hills without even sweat. A pallet of cement is 35 bags of 50 kilos each that means 1,75 tons of load. We have done it for years and our frames, axles, suspensión and other components are normal wear conditions and perfectly straight. Some times we have to help a loaded truck to go uphill fully loaded and we tow with our trucks surpassing by far the towing capacity and still the frames are good. We don’t use a fancy elastic rope for it, sometime we have to use a bare chain or a recovery strap as much. Also is very usual to tow rental cement mixers which have no suspension, the axle is in the back ( so almost all the weight go to the tongue) no fancy weight distribution hitches and no brakes with a regular weight of around 840 kilos. Let’s not talk about some friends which produce potatoes and they use to load almost everyday a Toyota Land Cruiser 70 series totally stock (except for the fact they use LT tires) with over 2,7 tons of product sometimes even on the roof top and on barely existing dirt roads and nothing happen. We have lots of old FJ 45 series still running and loaded with near 3 tons on them. And after that, I’m looking at this generation of recreative “trucks” that can’t handle a made of feathers trailer or a bump without bend the frame!!! Who can spend this amount of money on something that will break if you use it for the purpose it was supposed to be designed? I don’t care what a nerdy engineer say, real world is the real thing and that’s why our spartan and outdated designed Japanese trucks are way better than any crappy poseer Jeep or ZR2. You guys should ask for the quality you paid for instead of justify or find excuses for poorly designed crap. He said it repeatedly “cost”.
Humberto Rubi thanks for the detailed comment. I notice you reference a Hilux and a Nissan Navara. Those are built for different needs and engineered differently. No way could a ZR2 or Gladiator would be able to handle the same loads. Those trucks are built to handle more payload since there isn’t a larger truck in those markets.
Pickup Truck Plus SUV Talk Always a pleasure to chat with you! Actually yes, we have the full size available here, we have the F150, Ram 1500 and The Silverado and even the HD’s are available. Some people here buy these ones because want to look like a Texan Cowboy on them but none buy one for work because of price, gas consumption, and expensive servicing. When we need to carry more than 3 tons we buy a Truck ( not a pick up) you know a Isuzu NKR, NPR, Hino 350, Mitsubishi Fuso or Nissan UD. Lower than 3 tons we go with Toyota 70 series, some ones feel fancy and buy a Tundra or Titan and mostly have Hilux, L200, Frontier, Isuzu Dmax, Mazda BT50. Also the Ranger with the 3,2 diesel and the V6 TDI Volkswagen Amarok sells very well but not for work, mostly for fun. Our experience here with US brands is that they are super comfortable, lots of electronics, nice looking but thirsty, expensive and not reliable. On this last point when we say not reliable is because they don’t age well as most of the electronics broke early, the interiors start to rattle soon, and the engines won’t last trouble free for more than 50 k miles in our road conditions. On the other hand a mitsubishi or similar will be running happy at 150k miles or more easy. Your standards are different there as you change your cars very often and we use to keep a car for at least 5-10 years as standard or even way more depending on the car. You are right in your appreciation about the market differences, but I feel sad that you there are receiving this bad products from your own industry and they just blame you for use the truck as intended.
Humberto Rubi one of these days, I’m going to make a trip to your area. Sounds like you live in truck paradise!
It’s that fad of the super stiff boxed frame that’s the issue
When you heat a high strength low alloy frame you a actually change the molecule structure of the steel back to a more or less mild steel whitch cant support the load it was designed to carry a d it will ultimately fail
Unibody cars with crush zones are a prime example of this a frame section must be replaced if extream damage occurs
You don't change the molecular structure of high strength steel by heating. Changing the molecular involves chemistry. You can change the grain structure of the steel and that does affect the yield and ultimate strength of the steel.
@@matthewgaines10 when you heat high strength low alloy steel to more than cherry red it burns off some of the carbon and makes it weaker with the same properties as mild steel
@@stephencrandellsr4915
And where does heating steel beyond its recrystalization temperature happen in use? Please do tell.
@@matthewgaines10 it happens if a bodyman uses a torch to heat the metal to straighten it and this is not an approved method of repair for high strength low alloy steel cold straightening only or replace the pannel or frame
In other words its cheaper quality metal
High-strength steel is more expensive than regular steel.
You can slice it any way you want. And throw in fancy words. And mention science and engineering............Bottom line is old frames did not bend.(did not deform while towing) New ones do obviously !!!!!! Look at a 1986 Suburban as an ecample
Great chanel though. Good content
Fabulous!
He spouts the propaganda about how great the steel is, but doesn't explain well why the new frames bend, break, doing the same. job's the old supposedly weaker frames do and DON'T GIVE OUT!
Those old frames would bend the same when put in an identical situation. Australia owners have been dealing with it for years.
If it bends when you lift it off the ground, you did not increase his performance. You decreased it. Big difference.
Since when did chassis become frames ? Or am I missing something ?
Not sure what you are asking.
I think it's that Americans call it a frame and the rest of the English speaking world calls it a chassis.
Ahhh I see. Thank you Greg.
Watch Ford F 150 vs Chevy Silverado vs Dodge Ram vs toyota tundra, toy frame is so flexie it almost throws the bed off, just toy cutting corners like always
Loved your video keep them coming moron suspension and frames thank you
Tacoma had a bunch of bad rusting frames because they used crap steal and not enough E coating. They were and still are warranted out
I'll take a Toyota over any fake American truck! GM, Ford, Ram,
You lost me at "checked with a Computer" lol. Nobody cares about ride comfort and crash safety in a 1 ton truck. We wanna double the sticker weight without consequence. The new frames may be stronger but in all the wrong places. Show me a bent frame on a 74 Ford F250? Real world testing is fact. Numbers on paper are best used for starting fires. I'll come out and test some frames. I love taking something an engineer spent a year of his life designing and destroying it in an hr.
Dealing with steal manufacturing is like dealing with oil companies supply demand and max profits! Jaded is the least geeky thing he has said!
I have no argument that truck frames have gotten stronger, but the bending of the frames have been due to driver error as the owners were using their vehicles out of the manufacturer recommended specifications. Frames are definitely not built like they used to be.
Agreed.
Stop catering to people that want a truck to drive like a car and force them to buy a car. They were never meant to be truck owners
Tundra uses c channel as you know.
I’d expect that to change with the best generation.
@@Pickuptrucktalk yah I am curious about that. Excellent interview...
J W thanks!
Toyota sells advantages of their c channel over box frames, so I was curious if they would switch to box in next Gen or stick w what they sell today.
J W it is going to be an interesting conversation for sure especially after this interview. The more I know, the better questions I can ask.
BS - weve been making strong frames for DECADES and they could take the stress. GM is doing the same theyve been doing the last 25 years and looking for cheaper and cheaper ways to build vehicles, and the result is weve lost reliability and now thinner "high strength" frames that somehow have less strength than before. Theyve actually took five steps back and managed to ruin one more item we had perfected strength wise fifty years ago. Before long you wont even be able buy a truck that will do any work at all without frame failures.