totalled?
#22
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I was car #3. I believe the guy in the first car was about to miss his exit on the freeway, so I think he slowed down to try to cut across... problem was there was a ton of traffic on the road. He basically slowed to almost a stop. The car in front of me (a yellow cab) tried to go around him, but figured out too late he couldn't make it so he hit his brakes hard and slammed into car #1. I then hit the cab and subsequently the girl behind me hit me. Luckily no one was injured.
#23
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The word "frame" was totally apporpriate for my original post. If I had said "as long as the body is not bent"...well, that would not make any sense. You are the one splitting hairs on the term....
FWIW I have build several Jeeps and a couple of race cars from the "frame" up. Oh wait, some were "tube chasis" not "frames"....
FWIW I have build several Jeeps and a couple of race cars from the "frame" up. Oh wait, some were "tube chasis" not "frames"....
#24
![Default](https://www.audiworld.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
There is really, really no frame to the B5 platform. It is a unibody with some beam and crossmember components that lend lateral strength as well as support for major component structures.
This is not the sort of construction that lends itself the old frame and body repair rules like, "If the frame's not bent, it's a good fix." That doesn't apply to unitized construction, and it certainly doesn't apply to a wreck like the one that spawned this discussion. From what I can see, (which is admittedly not everything), it would be difficult, if not impossible, and certainly cost prohibitive to PROPERLY realign that wreck such that it is factory true, with intact structural impact protection, because you don't just bolt things to a frame. That wreck has been tagged hard from opposing directions in succsession. It is very likely not "a good fix" even if the forward support "frame" components which support primarily the powertrain are completely straight.
As for your tube chassis statement... Yes. A tube chassis is a proper frame. There's a very significant difference between that and the unit subframe construction components used within our B5, which you call a "frame".
And yes, I've been involved in a tube chassis project as well. Remember the old 240z cars? Building tube frames underneath, (within), them is like sculpting physics... but the results are excellent. Unfortunately, it's a skill I don't have.
This is not the sort of construction that lends itself the old frame and body repair rules like, "If the frame's not bent, it's a good fix." That doesn't apply to unitized construction, and it certainly doesn't apply to a wreck like the one that spawned this discussion. From what I can see, (which is admittedly not everything), it would be difficult, if not impossible, and certainly cost prohibitive to PROPERLY realign that wreck such that it is factory true, with intact structural impact protection, because you don't just bolt things to a frame. That wreck has been tagged hard from opposing directions in succsession. It is very likely not "a good fix" even if the forward support "frame" components which support primarily the powertrain are completely straight.
As for your tube chassis statement... Yes. A tube chassis is a proper frame. There's a very significant difference between that and the unit subframe construction components used within our B5, which you call a "frame".
And yes, I've been involved in a tube chassis project as well. Remember the old 240z cars? Building tube frames underneath, (within), them is like sculpting physics... but the results are excellent. Unfortunately, it's a skill I don't have.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
WilliamWallace
Audi 90 / 80 / Coupe quattro / Cabriolet
4
12-18-2003 03:36 PM