Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 10:34:37 -0700
Reply-To: Tom Buese <tombuese@COMCAST.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Tom Buese <tombuese@COMCAST.NET>
Subject: Re: ebay Vanagon with extra headroom - poptop only - no roof.
In-Reply-To: <9DB8E934-35F6-4BBB-87A0-59464586304A@shaw.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Dec 28, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Alistair Bell wrote:
> the westy's cross brace has its analogue in the tin top van. A box section cross beam at the point just aft of where the sunroof would go. In both cases i believe the cross brace is needed for torsional stiffness in the body
Unless that cross brace is welded in, it doesn't add any torsional stiffness to the body- a "moment resisting connection" would be required to transfer that stiffness to the body & if the brace is only siting on a lip in the opening, it is only supporting axial or gravity loads on it.
Mr. BZ-licensed architect who can legally design some structural members, but uses much smarter structural engineers to do that instead
> (and as mentioned, to support forward end of westy bunk plywood). In the tin top, the beam is curved to match roof curvature, in the westy its not.
>
> Both van types have box section cross beam at forward end of roof opening area.
yep, that box section is what provides the torsional stiffness around the opening
>
> alistair
>
>
>
>
>
> On 28-Dec-10, at 8:10 AM, Thomas Buese wrote:
>
> In my professional experience w/ structural engineering, I believe
> that the Westy cross brace in the ceiling is more for the structural
> support of the upper bunk than for cross bracing the roof-sunroof
> models don't have that brace, right Craig?
>
> YMMV,
>
> Mr. BZ-you can never have too much headroom, but where do you store
> your stuff?
>
>
>
> On Dec 28, 2010, at 7:40 AM, craig cowan wrote:
>
>> Ahh. I guess they did pull out some structural stuff.
>> In that case, it may be somewhat compromised. How much? It's hard to
>> say.
>>
>> -Craig
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Loren Busch <starwagen@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 7:30 PM, craig cowan
>>> <phishman068@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's only missing the top bunks right? They're not structural....
>>>> So, "YES"?
>>>>
>>>> It looks good!
>>>> If you don't use your top bunks, that looks slick!
>>>>
>>>
>>> BUT it is missing all the sheet metal part of the top in that area
>>> and
>>> maybe more important the very beefy cross brace at the front of
>>> the bunk
>>> the VW/Westfalia put in.
>>>
>
| 
