Yes - a simple separate chassis/frame unit and body is the way to go for a
convertible,
though with modern CAD software and the analytical capability it brings, sizing
and
placing the requisite structures in a unibody is much simpler than it was in
the past.
Gary McCormick
San Jose, CA
Fred_Katz@ci.sf.ca.us wrote:
> Gary,
>
> Also, wasn't there a recent thread about the 240Z crumbling in the front
> due to rust and loosing the suspension, because of the unibody design that
> is very different than our roadster body mounted to a rigid frame? The
> roadster is inherently more stable than a cut-top Z because of our separate
> frame.
>
> Fred - So.SF
>
> _________________________adster
> Author: svgkm@halley.ca.essd.northgrum.com
> Date: 10/26/2000 1:18 PM
>
> Look up the weight numbers for the hardtop and convertible versions of the
>same
> car, any
> car, sometime. You'll see that the convertible is always heavier. A hardtop
>is a
> mechanically efficient way to stiffen an automobile's structure - take it away
> and you
> have to add heavier (both in section AND weight) members to the chassis to
> approach the
> same amount of rigidity.
>
> Gary McCormick
> San Jose, CA
>
> Andrew Jacobs wrote:
>
> > i actually drove a 240 with a similar conversion about 10 years ago.
> > i had a great service guy in virginia who sold me my 240 and i
> > happened to be there when a convertible 240 was in for service. the
> > conversion was well done and the car looked great--i asked who ran the
> > shop about possibly doing the same to my car, he told me to take a
> > ride in the car that was there first--when i did, it was almost
> > scary--the cowl moved all over the place, and when you would turn into
> > parking lots, etc., the whole chassis would twist and make creaking
> > noises when you passed over a dip or a rain gutter between the road
> > and the parking lot. i decided to keep the roof on my car after that.
> > andy
> > 71 240z
> > 69 2000
>
|