Mike G wrote:

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in message
...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Mike G"
saying something like:

Forgot about vans and pick-ups, but if anything
that just reinforces my point, and that is that no Morris Minors
were built as monocoque vehicles.

Some would reach the opposite conclusion about saloons, tourers,
convertibles, and travellers.

All those ones I was under 35 years ago must have been a figment of my
fevered imagination then.
They have no seperate chassis, just a couple of pressed-steel legs which
are part and parcel of the floorpan, which in turn is welded to the side
and upper structure, thus being exactly the same as any other modern car
which has a monocoque construction.

Not quite.
Although the underbody may look similar, a MM does not rely on it's
bodywork for rigidity, as is the case with a monocoque design. Of course
a saloon body will add to it's rigidity, but the body is not an integral
part of it's design strength.

Never believe anyone who consistently fails to spell "its" correctly.


A MM convertible has the same fabricated chassis as a MM saloon.
I doubt you could chop the roof off many modern cars without having to
add stiffening to the floorpan.

Hmmm. So what purpose do the brackets welded to the A-posts (only) on
the convertibles serve? Or the stiffeners at the foor of the B-posts?
Or the extra channels in the sills?

I think that GC's opinion is rather closer to accepted opinion than Mike
G's.


--
Kevin Poole
****Use current date to reply (e.g. )****

On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:00:16 +0100, Kevin Poole
wrote:

Not quite.
Although the underbody may look similar, a MM does not rely on it's
bodywork for rigidity, as is the case with a monocoque design. Of course
a saloon body will add to it's rigidity, but the body is not an integral
part of it's design strength.

Never believe anyone who consistently fails to spell "its" correctly.

Especially not that many times...

Kevin Poole wrote:

A MM convertible has the same fabricated chassis as a MM saloon.
I doubt you could chop the roof off many modern cars without having to
add stiffening to the floorpan.

Hmmm. So what purpose do the brackets welded to the A-posts (only) on
the convertibles serve? Or the stiffeners at the foor of the B-posts?
Or the extra channels in the sills?

I think that GC's opinion is rather closer to accepted opinion than Mike
G's.

I always thought the Traveller had "a chassis of sorts", but only in the
same way as the van/pickup models. I'm aware of the strengthening on the
convertibles though. Not that this means anything, plenty of
body-on-frame cars need body strengthening or chassis mods when you take
the roof off!

Richard


--
RichardK - http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/ - retro, music, cars.
124 cars/16 years - 125 = C6 2.7 HDi Exclusive C6 RTK. BBE 2015.
"If the thought of something makes me giggle for more than 15 seconds I
am to assume I am not allowed to do it" - Skippy.

In article ,
Richard Kilpatrick wrote:
I always thought the Traveller had "a chassis of sorts", but only in the
same way as the van/pickup models. I'm aware of the strengthening on the
convertibles though. Not that this means anything, plenty of
body-on-frame cars need body strengthening or chassis mods when you take
the roof off!

Of course. Every car has some sort of floor pan that could just about
stand alone. US cars used to have a perimeter frame that perhaps made the
actual floor pan stronger - but all the variations are simply shades of
grey.

--
*Is there another word for synonym?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Kevin Poole" wrote in message
...


Mike G wrote:

"Grimly Curmudgeon" wrote in
message ...
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert,
when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Mike G"

saying something like:

Forgot about vans and pick-ups, but if anything
that just reinforces my point, and that is that no Morris
Minors
were built as monocoque vehicles.

Some would reach the opposite conclusion about saloons,
tourers, convertibles, and travellers.

All those ones I was under 35 years ago must have been a
figment of my
fevered imagination then.
They have no seperate chassis, just a couple of pressed-steel
legs which
are part and parcel of the floorpan, which in turn is welded
to the side
and upper structure, thus being exactly the same as any other
modern car
which has a monocoque construction.

Not quite.
Although the underbody may look similar, a MM does not rely on
it's bodywork for rigidity, as is the case with a monocoque
design. Of course a saloon body will add to it's rigidity, but
the body is not an integral part of it's design strength.

Never believe anyone who consistently fails to spell "its"
correctly.

Not a spelling mistake. A typo. I do know the difference between
'its' and the abreviation of 'it is'.


A MM convertible has the same fabricated chassis as a MM
saloon.
I doubt you could chop the roof off many modern cars without
having to add stiffening to the floorpan.

Hmmm. So what purpose do the brackets welded to the A-posts
(only) on the convertibles serve? Or the stiffeners at the
foor of the B-posts?

They merely stop the body sides from flexing. They don't
contribute to the longitudinal stiffness of the chassis.

Or the extra channels in the sills?

I'm not aware of any extra channels in the convertible

I think that GC's opinion is rather closer to accepted opinion
than Mike G's.

Accepted by whom? I don't think you'll find it's accepted within
the MM Owners Club.
Note the correct use of it's.:-)
Mike.

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 13:30:03 +0100, "Mike G"
wrote:

Not quite.
Although the underbody may look similar, a MM does not rely on
it's bodywork for rigidity, as is the case with a monocoque
design. Of course a saloon body will add to it's rigidity, but
the body is not an integral part of it's design strength.

Never believe anyone who consistently fails to spell "its"
correctly.

Not a spelling mistake. A typo.

Same typo, three times in a row? That's a bummer of a typo...

Dean Dark wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 13:30:03 +0100, "Mike G"
wrote:

Not a spelling mistake. A typo.

Same typo, three times in a row? That's a bummer of a typo...

I've got a keyboard where I have to hit the "T" harder than the others
or it gets missed. That sort of omission is easy to spot with a spell
checker. But a missing apostrophe wouldn't be flagged, so I am prepared
to believe it is a typo.

Jim

On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:51:43 GMT, Jim Warren
wrote:

Not a spelling mistake. A typo.

Same typo, three times in a row? That's a bummer of a typo...

I've got a keyboard where I have to hit the "T" harder than the others
or it gets missed. That sort of omission is easy to spot with a spell
checker. But a missing apostrophe wouldn't be flagged, so I am prepared
to believe it is a typo.

I have some prime real estate in Florida that I'd like to sell to you.

Dean Dark wrote:
On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 13:51:43 GMT, Jim Warren
wrote:

Not a spelling mistake. A typo.
Same typo, three times in a row? That's a bummer of a typo...
I've got a keyboard where I have to hit the "T" harder than the others
or it gets missed. That sort of omission is easy to spot with a spell
checker. But a missing apostrophe wouldn't be flagged, so I am prepared
to believe it is a typo.

I have some prime real estate in Florida that I'd like to sell to you.

OK, provided I can pay you in £18 notes :-)

Jim

"Dean Dark" wrote in message
...
Never believe anyone who consistently fails to spell "its"
correctly.

Not a spelling mistake. A typo.

Same typo, three times in a row? That's a bummer of a typo...

TBH, thoughtlessness or carelessness as well.
But thanks for bringing it to my attention.
If you hadn't, I'd probably have continued making the same
mistake.
I'll make a mental note to use the apostrophe correctly in
future.
Mike.