I am not an engineer, so maybe someone could explain what this benefits. The only thing I see is less weight, but a fully boxed frame throughout seems it would be a lot more sturdy then c style or c style with reinforcements. Your thoughts??
Tripletech Frame Why??
1 - 20 of 128 Posts
Joined
·
435 Posts
I'm no engineer either, but I have read explanations that were written by Toyota engineers. People automatically assume fully boxed has to be better, but that's not any more true than the old adage bigger is better. You just cannot make such a simplistic assumption. Lots of factors have to be considered for a truck, including tow/hauling, acceleration, ride quality, etc. There's also the issue of flex. Flex can be either good or bad, but the thing to consider is that you don't want too much of it, and you also don't want to totally eliminate it. The tripletech frame puts strength where it is needed most and allows for flex and lighter weight where it can enhance the tow/haul capacities, acceleration and ride quality.
It would have been an easy thing for Toyota to include a fully boxed frame on a new design, but they seem to know that doing so wouldn't do a whole lot for them except give them a bold statement to make in the brochure, like Ford does. I think it boils down to who you want to believe. I just bought a new Tundra, so that's where I stand.
Joined
·
1,343 Posts
actually this was already explained very well so I will just say nice job
easy answer to a ford guy, if fully boxed was so special, then why not on all your trucks?
easy answer to a ford guy, if fully boxed was so special, then why not on all your trucks?
Joined
·
1,562 Posts
I'm a Mechanical Engineering student (Senior) plus work for an engineering frim. The basic arguement of Fully-framed vs. C-Channel/Hybrid is rigidity vs. flexibility.
If you watch any of those Spike TV vehicle modification shows one of their favorite things to do to older trucks is box in their C-channels. This is to make them better offroad platforms, as having "spring" in your frame and a smoother ride are not neccessary to crossing a 3 ft embankment. In fact the "lighter" frame is more likely to break in extreme offroad conditions.
The C-Channel has more give and so can act as an additional shock absorbing device. It allows the vehicle to bend some in both side to side and up and down axis of motion. It also allows more twisting motion along the front to back axis (bed twists in comparision to the cab) which believe it or not is a good thing in a vehicle that in many ways are truely two seperate moving bodies, cab and bed. Thus it helps to give a better road ride, plus it saves weight.
Just looking at the display in the dealership Toyota obviously thinks the hybrid gives them an advantage (else they wouldn't have a display). Ridge box for the engine compartment, reinforced C for the cab with some give for passenger comfort and traditional C for the bed which has less ride quality needs then the cab (though our bed bounce experiencing brothers may disagree).
If you have a 4x4 and you offroad with it atleast once a month on a challenging route, then you would be wise to box out the rest of the Tundra's frame, even the reinforced C section under the cab. For casual offroading the hybrid frame should be more then enough. Ford's F-150 simple does this for you before hand and compensates for onroad with cushier suspensitioning. Plus it has been a good marketing promotion for them as their vehicle is currently the oldest full size (by current sheetmetal) and the current body has to carry them through next year to 2009.
If you watch any of those Spike TV vehicle modification shows one of their favorite things to do to older trucks is box in their C-channels. This is to make them better offroad platforms, as having "spring" in your frame and a smoother ride are not neccessary to crossing a 3 ft embankment. In fact the "lighter" frame is more likely to break in extreme offroad conditions.
The C-Channel has more give and so can act as an additional shock absorbing device. It allows the vehicle to bend some in both side to side and up and down axis of motion. It also allows more twisting motion along the front to back axis (bed twists in comparision to the cab) which believe it or not is a good thing in a vehicle that in many ways are truely two seperate moving bodies, cab and bed. Thus it helps to give a better road ride, plus it saves weight.
Just looking at the display in the dealership Toyota obviously thinks the hybrid gives them an advantage (else they wouldn't have a display). Ridge box for the engine compartment, reinforced C for the cab with some give for passenger comfort and traditional C for the bed which has less ride quality needs then the cab (though our bed bounce experiencing brothers may disagree).
If you have a 4x4 and you offroad with it atleast once a month on a challenging route, then you would be wise to box out the rest of the Tundra's frame, even the reinforced C section under the cab. For casual offroading the hybrid frame should be more then enough. Ford's F-150 simple does this for you before hand and compensates for onroad with cushier suspensitioning. Plus it has been a good marketing promotion for them as their vehicle is currently the oldest full size (by current sheetmetal) and the current body has to carry them through next year to 2009.
Joined
·
266 Posts
Less weight works, but not cost effective. It actually costs Toyota more to build this frame than a fully boxed frame like Ford. Ford's hydroformed frame is really a tube of steel put in a form and water forces it into its now current shape. Much easier than building and putting together three different pieces of frame. Also, Tundra has had this same frame for years, as the Silverado until the 2007 redesign.
I also like to argue the fact that a fully boxed frame equals more weight, which adds to curb weight, and thus takes away for available payload and towing capabilities. Sure, it would seem you could put more weight on top of it, but your drivetrain is what determines a large part of payload and towing capabilities, as well as the suspension. Look at all the 3/4 ton and one ton trucks on the road right now, and even the 18 wheelers. They also use the C channel frame in those applications. Sure if funny you don't see Ford with big advertising campaigns about that, but show it all in their t.v. ad where the truck is all apart, and then comes together.
Joined
·
23 Posts
Well Im no engineer either, but I have been following the automotive industry for thirdy years and in that time I have seen the automakers spend billions of dollars and man hours in the relentless effort to build a more rigid chassis than the last, and when they do accomplish this feat they brag about it all over there ads, never have I heard a manufacturer brag about how they reduced structural integrity for some obscure benefits, and the racing industry (including nascar truck) knows you never want the chassis to part of the suspension, that job is for the suspension and any flex from the frame only introduces inconsistent variables in otherwise precise chassis tuning methods. Yes I know people will say:
Yeah but you cant compare racing vehicles to street vehicles" Well maybe not directly in every sense but i do believe that the most stucturally rigid frame that does its job to provide load support while allowing the suspension to do its job to provide ride comfort is the optimal engineering accomplishment.
Im not trying to convince anyone else of my view, but for what its worth hears what i tell myself:
Ive got a 381hp double overhead cam 32 valve aircraft alluminum lexus derived 5.7 liter v8 with independent variable valve timing, and a six speed tranny with duel overdrives and i payed the same price as a ford or chevy guy......do the math, they had to shave cost somewhere, Chevy and ford both quote over 2000lb payload, dodge over 1700, toyota 1655(unless you have the max payload package which comes in very limited configurations) yes i know our trucks tow more than the other guys but thats more do to the 401 lb-ft of torque than the less rigid frame.
I had the choice of an all new 07 chevy with a sturdier frame,
or an all new 07 tundra with an adaquate frame bolted to a hotroders dream engine and tranny, Im that hotrodder!
ok Im done, go ahead and hate me
Yeah but you cant compare racing vehicles to street vehicles" Well maybe not directly in every sense but i do believe that the most stucturally rigid frame that does its job to provide load support while allowing the suspension to do its job to provide ride comfort is the optimal engineering accomplishment.
Im not trying to convince anyone else of my view, but for what its worth hears what i tell myself:
Ive got a 381hp double overhead cam 32 valve aircraft alluminum lexus derived 5.7 liter v8 with independent variable valve timing, and a six speed tranny with duel overdrives and i payed the same price as a ford or chevy guy......do the math, they had to shave cost somewhere, Chevy and ford both quote over 2000lb payload, dodge over 1700, toyota 1655(unless you have the max payload package which comes in very limited configurations) yes i know our trucks tow more than the other guys but thats more do to the 401 lb-ft of torque than the less rigid frame.
I had the choice of an all new 07 chevy with a sturdier frame,
or an all new 07 tundra with an adaquate frame bolted to a hotroders dream engine and tranny, Im that hotrodder!
ok Im done, go ahead and hate me
Joined
·
549 Posts
I am no engineer, and have read all of the posts in this thread. Therefore, my feelings are purely subjective. With that, the 07' Tundra is probably the biggest vehicle launch of Toyota's storied career. And, I have to believe that the research/development team concluded decisively that the current "C" frame was the best fit for the Tundra. Is the box frame better? Well, I guess it depends on your needs...but then again, why isn't all of Ford's truck fully boxed instead of some being C channels??? Most of us (I assume) will never use our trucks to the maximum limits anyway as we use them as daily drivers and occasional Lowes haulers. But, I firmly believe that I am driving the best 1/2 ton on the market with the best powertrain, reliability, and resale value. Does my Tundra have the best frame on the market??? I don't know, but I am sure it will stand up to all the punishment I can give it and then some.....all while giving me over 200K miles of problem free enjoyment.
Quite true, you'll not find any truck frames from 1 tons on up to semi trucks and trailers that use anything but channel iron or aluminum.
Not really, get along side a loaded 53' flatbed sometimes at highway speeds. They're designed to flex a good 2"-3". I've welded up more than one semi-trailer frame that was broken/cracked in the middle and the cause was always overloading, not from flex.
Joined
·
281 Posts
Triple Tech frame is nothing new to Tundra. It was on the previous generation as well.
You make good points, but I would add this: "rigidity" does not equal "strength". Rigidity is a measure of flex or lack thereof; Strength is a measure of force need to break, not bend. There is a huge difference. Strength can be accomplished with more material (thicker), shape (boxed) or metalurgy (stronger material per pound). Something can be extraordinarily strong, but flexible (think synthetic winch lines). Making something more rigid does NOT mean stronger (concrete is rigid, but not as strong as steel) and transfers forces to the other components (hence the huge bolts Ford talks about).
Toyota has been builing trucks for years and has built a reputation for overbuilding. It is possible that they "skimped" and did not build the same margin of error into this truck as in previous (i.e. overbuilt as much); but wouldn't it be an absolute marketing disaster if they underbuilt it? I don't think Toyota is that stupid.
One last thing: technology does wonders over time. Think of how much less steel goes into trucks and how much stronger and safer they are than say even 25 years ago. The TT frame is probably more than adequate, but unfamiliar and new, ergo not perceived as "strong" to everyone who is used to something different. Of course, Toyota could take the time to do a commercial and educate us, but they aren't known for good communication. Are you listening, Toyota?
Joined
·
1,562 Posts
The one thing I would ask is when would anyone put more then 1500 lbs in their bed? The heaviest load i ever tried to haul was a palet of landscaping bricks and that had to top out at 1200 lbs. most ATV's that would fit in the bed weigh less then 1000 lbs. Its great to be able to haul 2000 lbs in your bed but I'm stumped as to what you'ld put in there that heavy that you wouldn't be better off towing in the first place.
Joined
·
23 Posts
Joined
·
281 Posts
When it comes to engineering I'm gonna trust the guys at Toyota before I trust the engineers from other companies who are still sitting on their asses, perfectly complacent to use old technology instead of seeing if something might actually work better. A little FYI Toyota bought at least one of each of the competitors trucks to see if anything they did would be worth while. Put under enough stress, guess what a fully boxed frame doesn't do? Bend, it just snaps.
So I'm not checking fully boxed. It's been mentioned before, if that were the best frame then all the heavy duty trucks would use it.
So I'm not checking fully boxed. It's been mentioned before, if that were the best frame then all the heavy duty trucks would use it.
Joined
·
1,562 Posts
Did you experience any problems hauling this load? If not then we can assume that atleast one of these applied:
A) The C Frames were up to the job.
B) The bed floor was adequate.
C) The suspension was working well.
D) All of the above or any combination of 2 of the above.
If you did have problems I would assume Toyota put in a weak bed floor before I would think that the C Frames might buckle. the C shape is one of the strongest metal forms in compression and torsion. Not so good in expansion so never hang your Tundra from a crane by the top of its C Frame. LOL!
Joined
·
23 Posts
And you could very well be right, but I still would rather have a boxed frame as i am not aware of any recalls from ford or chevy do to "snapped frames"
I am however aware of there higher payloads.
But I am not arguing, to each his own and i do believe you chose the right truck.
Joined
·
281 Posts
I doubt the higher payload comes from the boxed frame though. If that were true they would box the frame of the heavy duty trucks to give them a higher payload.
Joined
·
1,562 Posts
Here's a link on Steel beam types. I beams are by far the best type of steel framing member, but would be too rigid and lack proper mounting points for body connections.
STRUCTURAL STEEL SHAPES
STRUCTURAL STEEL SHAPES
Joined
·
266 Posts
The Tundra has a payload of over 2,000 pounds on a regular cab pickup. I haven't checked on a Chevy, but just try and buy one of those Fords that supposedly have the Max Payload package. They aren't really available. I've tried many Ford dealers with the same response. My Tundra has a payload capacity of 1,515 lbs., and I was very close to this hauling a pallet of tile home one evening. My 2005 DC had a payload of over 1,800 lbs, and took 33 bags of concrete (2,640 lbs, plus me at 270 lbs.) and it handled it fine.
1 - 20 of 128 Posts
Join the discussion
