[Spridgets] bent frame rails

[Dean Hedin]

Good point, why did they do it?  I agree with Bryan, all the geometry can
be accommodated in the mount points of the suspension parts.  It's crazy to bend the frame like this.
   
This would have been a great question to ask Gerry Coker at Jubilee.
Rather,  I spent most of my time asking him about his career, (which was very interesting, btw).

To me, this has all the hallmarks of an engineering error or compromise.
I'll speculate, tell me what you think.

If you were to straighten the rails out an then put the Bugeye bonnet on, then the front of the 
bonnet would drop down slightly.  That means the gap where the bonnet meets the 
 rest of the body would no longer be squared up.

So maybe there was a measurement error at some point when the dies were made.
Given that respining the press dies for the bonnet parts is an expensive undertaking (due to the complicated curves),
it may be that the "frame squeeze" was a more attractive solution.  

The other option is that the A40 frame was designed with a slight incline in this area and they just decided that
bending the bugeye frame was the easiest way to match this, without having to re-think all the suspension mounting points.  

   

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "bv" <bvsprite at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Spridgets] bent frame rails


> David - Thanks
> 
> Now this is what I'm talking about:-)
> On the jig you can see the inclination of the frame rails. This is all I was
> asking for.
> 
> Now we need to ask ourselves, why did they go about doing this 'retrofit' bend
> of the frame rails. If it was just to adjust inclination of the front wheels,
> it would have simply been a lot easier just to make some simple changes to the
> lever shock mounting surface, and/or mount the A-arm mounts at a slightly
> different angle. Bending the frame is kinda like 'moving the mountain closer
> to the village' rather than the other way around.