rruff
Explorer
What are you thinking for frame boxing? Not sure that is a good idea unless you do the entire frame...
'10 Tundra CrewMax
- Thread starter zidaro
- Start date
What are you thinking for frame boxing? Not sure that is a good idea unless you do the entire frame...
Adventurous
Explorer
Dang, now all i need to do is plan out a good design in my head for trusses, boxing the frame, airbag mounting location, hydro-bumpstop mounting, and that pesky 3.0 bypass shock mounting and how much spacing will be required for my tires to not contact them.
Almost ready to start cutting!!!
anyone have great ideas or pics/examples of bypass mounting that does not cut into the bed? and hydrobumps with SUA? Airbags and SUA, or even just airbags using brackets OFF the frame inboard? Throw some ideas my way
I'm guessing you want to keep the shocks outboard of the frame?
zidaro
Explorer
Absolutely. Outboard with shocks angled forward.
VanDominator13
Observer
Shawn at Rogue is the man. I ordered all of my suspension parts from him. Super knowledgeable and willing to talk. He got my Camburg UCA's to me in 2 weeks when Camburg told me there was a 6-8 week wait.
zidaro
Explorer
Boxing the frame in key areas, likely 3/16". Areas of framerail id be concentrating on would be 2.
One section about 2-3' long under the cab/bed junction. This section boxed would give more support to frame flex that allows the bed to contact the cab when the suspension compresses.
Other section is the frame section directly above the axle (1-2' section). This area has both the bumpstops and airbags that are supporting full suspension compression and weight in bed of truck. giving it additional support just helps to distribute that blunt force impact or load pressure across the frame length a bit.
Do you have specific issues with boxing frames? Concerns of direct stresses on a particular area of the Tundra frame?
Tundra frame is notorious for being a bit floppy. Others (including numerous fab shops) have plated and added additional crossmember with good results to the 2md gen tundras.
Frame boxing and reinforcement plates are very common, not aware of any negatives aside from added weight.
But.... I'm totally open so lets hear it
Would love to see some examples too, if there are specific issues.Dats what I'm talkin about! Good prices too, if you gotta pay retail
smslavin
Adventurer
I'm putting a set of the Kinetiks on my Tundra with Kings. They arrived a couple of days ago and they are gorgeous. Had thought about a LT setup for about 17 seconds. Came to the conclusion that it might be overkill but I'm going to keep it in my back pocket for a possible upgrade later. Curious to hear your input and how much work you'll have to do to make everything clear.
rruff
Explorer
Boxing the C channel will make each rail a lot stiffer torsionally. It wouldn't make it much stiffer vertically though, so I don't know if it will acheive what you are after. Greater vertical stiffness (and strength) would be accomplished by reinforcing the top and bottom of the rails rather than boxing.
Strength shouldn't be confused with stiffness. HD trucks always have flexible frames for a reason. Granted the Tundra isn't a HD truck and I would have preferred a stiffer frame, but a good frame design requires some engineering. The frame may be more likely to break if it is made stiff, particularly if it is made stiff only in spots. There is a huge difference in torsional stiffness between a box beam and open C. The sudden transition would be a weak point.
Are the frame mods you are thinking of used successfully on offroad racing Tundras? If so then I wouldn't worry.
p nut
butter
That doesn't make sense to me. Just look at the leaf springs the frame's sitting on. More vertical compliance than lateral.
rruff
Explorer
Frame rails are more like an I beam oriented vertically, and strength and stiffness is primarily in the vertical direction.
The strength and stiffness of a solid member goes up exponentially with its cross sectional dimension. That's why leafs are much stiffer laterally than vertically.
The strength and stiffness of a solid member goes up exponentially with its cross sectional dimension. That's why leafs are much stiffer laterally than vertically.
zidaro
Explorer
From what i have seen on Tundra builds that are adding Long Travel suspension front and rear, the rear frame c-channels are being boxed. Mostly for support to the area around the bumpstops and upper rear shock mounts. Some have done away with all crossmember and replaced them with both square tube and x supports either after fully plating the rear framerails or some have even just tied the new crossmember into the c-channel.
Toyota uses 3 different framerails along the length of frame for our tundras. fully boxed at the engine, sandwiched plated c-channel under the cab, then c-channel at the rear bed past the front spring hanger. Much debate on this
The ride is obvious though to all of us that own one, some have it worse than others. Our beds bob. I call it flopping. But you can see it in the mirror on special sections of road. The rear twists and bounces from side to side, flexing as the suspension bounces. Stiffer compression settings on the rear shocks help, as does weight in bed and bigger tires. But we all have the flop.
Its not a lateral flex, maybe a bit of vertical, but its certainly a twist.
I want to fix that. If you take a section of L channel and twist it, it twists. If you take a section of boxed tube and twist it, well- it doesn't. If you look at race trucks/buggies/whatever you will not find a c-channel frame on one. all boxed. Most have additional plating in key areas of stress. I akin this to me boxing some sections and not in some areas. Obviously you don't want to stress the metal by overheating. You don't want to create a pinch point by plating at 90*, V's or fish plates disperse the stresses.
Im certainly still researching the best way to plate/box the mid and rear sections of c-channel. OPEN to ideas!! this is good conversation before gluing a bunch of metal on my truck and then having it fall in 2 because I'm an idiot :snorkel:
Here is an interesting article
http://www.exploringoverland.com/overland-tech-travel/2015/8/26/thinking-outside-the-box
more research findings to come
rruff
Explorer
My DC long is the worst offender. I'd read all about the issue before I bought the truck, and decided to deal with it rather than get a Ford or GM. On driving home from Denver (where I bought the truck), there was a section of concrete freeway where the bounce was insane. Definitely uncomfortable as hell. But that's the only place it's been a problem at all.
I'm building a camper to go on the frame, so frame twist is a problem. I crossed it up and measured it though, and it shouldn't be that hard to deal with. I'm going to use poly cab mounts for the 8 mounting points instead of rigidly attaching it. That should be enough to keep the box from getting over stressed.
I read somewhere that the guys building Crewmax long conversions (http://stretchmytruck.com/) had thought about boxing the frames but scrapped that idea after realizing it could cause issues. No details on that, though.
The boxed tube is certainly stiffer torsionally. If you were boxing the whole thing (including under the cab), I think it would be fine. It's the transitions that make me wonder. Any C sections you don't box will experience higher stress than before.
Lucky for us, the Tundras have been out a long time so there is plenty of real world experience. Sounds like you've already done a good deal of research. Whatever frame mods the successful LT racing guys are doing should be safe for your rig.
drobb
Adventurer
Hey zidaro.....Not sure if you have heard of these guys....they build really nice prerunners here in San Diego. James knows his stuff....he might be able to answer some questions....http://sdtruckshop.com
D
D