My 1973 Cadillac, Huggy Bear

[eddyramrod]

4 hours ago, GingerNuttz said:

Right Eddy don't take this the wrong way but that's rotten and no matter how substantial the chassis is, filler isn't going to help that situation.

Having a separate chassis doesn't mean the shell can be full of holes and made of filler, you are responsible to keep the car in a roadworthy condition with it being MOT exempt. I'm not trying to be a dick or put down any repair work but you have to see the car needs SERIOUS metalwork to be safe for you and other road users. 

 

 

Oh it's rotten, no possible doubt there!  You will be pleased to know that I have no intention of sculpting a new floor out of pure pud.  I'm going about this the same way I did on the apron above, but probably using more pieces of steel shelf.  Whoever did this car last time used mostly filler and now I'm having to do the job again, but better.  It WILL be safe and strong this time, if neither ideal nor pretty.  Yes it would be best done by a welder with nothing in his way, but that isn't viable for me to do.  Doing what I can now should see the car through to its 50th birthday and maybe then someone else can or will take it on.  Or maybe I will win the lottery and finance it myself!  I certainly would if I could.

[GingerNuttz]

It won't be safe and strong with pop rivets and fiberglass Eddy that's the point. 

No where does it say in the MOT guidelines that having a separate chassis means you can pop rivet and fiberglass structural parts of the car and it'll be safe on the UK roads. It's a bloody disgrace that people are telling you this is fine and acceptable because it has a separate chassis because it's not, any MOT tester will tell you it's unfit for UK roads. 

[eddyramrod]

Well... that's me told then.

[Mr Pastry]

48 minutes ago, GingerNuttz said:

No where does it say in the MOT guidelines that having a separate chassis means you can pop rivet and fiberglass structural parts of the car

Mr Nuttz, with due respect if you read the last paragraph of the guidelines that you have posted,  particularly the last sentence,  it states that riveted repairs are acceptable if they are done properly. 

[Tamworthbay]

First point - it only needs to structurally repaired if it is a structural area. The prescribed areas are listed in the regs and I don’t see the boot closing panel or wing being structural as they do not form part of a monocoque or are close to suspension mounts etc.

Second point - there are far far more dangerous motors than this on the road and Eddy is doing his best to preserve this for a bit longer. I have to admit to wincing at any use of rivets and fibreglass in the ways used here, but I am lucky enough to own a welder.

Go for it Eddy.

[GingerNuttz]

Simply put it in for an MOT if these repairs are acceptable, easy as that. 

[strangeangel]

16 minutes ago, Tamworthbay said:

Second point - there are far far more dangerous motors than this on the road

 

 

This, I have seen more than one lease purchased modern approaching its first MOT with front tyres as bald as fuck. The owner (renter?) of one asked me what the funny noise was when they braked, and I had to explain that that was the sound of metal against metal (a sound with which Our Lass is well acquainted). I could go on...

 

There's a world of difference between what Eddy is doing and, for example, Junkman's philosophy of 'Well, it's exempt, so just ignore it'.

 

[Christine]

Id sooner have a nut and bolt or even a pop rivet  holding bits together than some of the "welded " repairs ive seen on this forum .,and then buried in  black goo for the mot ...

[PhilA]

Arite, so the way this is built, the boot floor comprises a minimal amount of the vehicle's structure- it is an elevated section that does not come into contact with the chassis proper until the rear seat mounts. The suspension loads from the springs are all handled by the chassis (designed that way so any flex doesn't flex the body and cause squeaks and rattles), the fuel system is suspended from the chassis also so the holes in the boot floor are only an issue if the baguettes, jars of Gris Poupon and salmon fillets* fall out of them on the way home from Aldi.

Therefore, replacing the sheet metal and fixing it securely to a remaining strong point is adequate. He can even use seam sealer if it makes him happy.

The construction and use regs show that the vehicle should be maintained and repaired in a way that the vehicle performs in the same way during regular and exceptional driving conditions as to its original factory specification so as not to cause hazard to the driver or other road users. Thus, a solid brace across the back for strength and plod to stop it leaking is good, and riveting a piece of tin over a rusty hole in a non-structure-load panel isn't much of an issue. What would you have said if the bonnet was rusty and a panel got riveted over it? That's as much structural load as the boot floor takes. the rear arches take body load, as do the A B and C pillars up to the glass, the floor pan and scuttle. The rest is there to look pretty or stop drafts. This is not monocoque**.

--Phil

 

 

*other foods are available but a can of beans will put a window out the same as anything else that size

** it's also why they really don't crash very well, despite their size

[GingerNuttz]

Right so it should fly through an MOT with the tester remarking how it doesn't need to be structurally sound because it's a separate chassis m9.

It's never going to see an MOT because it's gonna fail on fiberglass and pop riveted repairs.

 

[PhilA]

A pop riveted repair within 12" of a structural mount, yes. There's quite a distance to one of those from the boot floor.

 

Good god man, never fly in an aeroplane.

[Tamworthbay]

You don’t seem to understand how the MoT works. Look at things like an Austin 7 special, ally panels riveted to make a tub and bolted onto a chassis, or a beetle based beach buggy - fibreglass tub on a steel floor pan.. The key is that it isn’t a monocoque.

[garbaldy]

Monocoque or not the body mounting points to the chassis still have to be sound within a certain radius.

[PhilA]

Just now, garbaldy said:

Monocoque or not the body mounting points to the chassis still have to be sound within a certain radius.

I think I said that. Didn't I?

Yes. If the mounts are rotten then you run the risk of the body seperating from the chassis in a crash, or after a severe maneuver which will impact the driver's ability to control the vehicle.

If the boot floor falls out, it gets windy inside the boot.

[strangeangel]

9 minutes ago, GingerNuttz said:

Right so it should fly through an MOT with the tester remarking how it doesn't need to be structurally sound because it's a separate chassis m9.

It's never going to see an MOT because it's gonna fail on fiberglass and pop riveted repairs.

 

 

It's never going to see an MOT because IT'S EXEMPT. Jesus.

 

[Fumbler]

2 minutes ago, PhilA said:

If the boot floor falls out, it gets windy inside the boot.

So long as it isn't an anchor point life is good... except for what's inside of course.

[Ghosty]

38 minutes ago, strangeangel said:

Junkman's philosophy of 'Well, it's exempt, so just ignore it'.

The 16 is in for new sills at the moment...

[Ghosty]

[GingerNuttz]

5 minutes ago, strangeangel said:

 

It's never going to see an MOT because IT'S EXEMPT. Jesus.

 

Still has to be maintained to a roadworthy standard which it clearly isn't. Pop rivets and fiberglass isn't a structural repair like has been carried out the apron under the rear window 

 

 

[PhilA]

Struc. Ture.

There's a difference between a cosmetic panel and a structural one.

[GingerNuttz]

So the rear window apron isn't the C pillar on these cars ?

[LightBulbFun]

what @eddyramrod needs to do is remove the body and set that aside until it can be tended to

and just drive around on the chassis like so

https://www.flickr.com/photos/fray_bentos/200198976

 

[eddyramrod]

There's a whole lot of stuff I "need" to do.  Quite a bit will probably never happen, for a range of reasons we don't have room for here.

[Christine]

Them  old yank motors come from the factory with a fuck ton of structural wob anyway?

[Andyrew]

Right or wrong repairs aside. 

Mr ramrod  that waxoyl on a completely rusted out boot floor made me chuckle. 

Carry on sir. 

[PhilA]

19 minutes ago, GingerNuttz said:

So the rear window apron isn't the C pillar on these cars ?

No, the tub ends at the base of the rear window. If that behind there gets weak, the trunk springs start to deform the panel and eventually will break the rear screen when the trunk is opened. What's been put in just stops the top of the rear wings from bouncing about and cracking the filler.

[DodgeRover]

30 minutes ago, GingerNuttz said:

Still has to be maintained to a roadworthy standard which it clearly isn't. Pop rivets and fiberglass isn't a structural repair like has been carried out the apron under the rear window 

 

 

Before you make yourself look any more silly I suggest that you go and read the MOT manual you apparently know well enough to lecture people on.

Especially Appendix A, Section 8, Vehicles with a separate body (which this Caddy is)

Here is a link to it

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-private-passenger-and-light-commercial-vehicles/appendix-a-structural-integrity-and-corrosion

Some vehicle types have bodies and many mechanical components attached to a separate under-frame. The frame is the main load bearing structure with a passenger cell and possibly a separate load bed secured on top of the frame, which may also be load bearing or supportive.

You should only reject excessive corrosion in these structures if:

• it’s likely to affect the brakes or steering
• it is within a prescribed area
• body or cab security is significantly reduced

Find where in there is any RFR (reason for refusal) based on the repairs Eddy has carried out

[Bren]

If rivets are good for an aeroplane they are good enough for a '72 caddy.

Besides it will probably still be on the road for years to come. Creaking gates hang the longest.

[GingerNuttz]

 

9 minutes ago, DodgeRover said:

Before you make yourself look any more silly I suggest that you go and read the MOT manual you apparently know well enough to lecture people on.

Especially Appendix A, Section 8, Vehicles with a separate body (which this Caddy is)

Here is a link to it

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/mot-inspection-manual-for-private-passenger-and-light-commercial-vehicles/appendix-a-structural-integrity-and-corrosion

 

 

Find where in there is any RFR (reason for refusal) based on the repairs Eddy has carried out

Make myself look stupid ? You lot are defending piss poor repairs of rivets and filler tied in with a little bit of shelving then covered with a fuck ton of fiberglass.

I never said i knew everything about the MOT rules but i know enough that that car would fail miserably for corrosion and piss poor repairs. Tell you what I'll pay for the MOT and lets see if it passes on these repairs that are totally fine along with the floors made out of Swiss cheese 

 

 

 

[rickvw72]

I’ve mentioned in the past about this type of repair and it’s structural safety. It’s interpretation of rules or technicalities you are arguing over. Most mot people would class these panels within one foot of structural points. Technically you could argue they should pass.

Dont see many testers just waving it through merrily though sadly.

If rot to this extent is not failable, things like discovery mk1s would never die. I’ve never seen one rot it’s chassis but the bodies are usually fucked. 
 

My concern would be these are the issues seen, and discovered so far. No one here knows how the chassis and underside is. If I owned it I’d get it tested, worth the cash to know it’s structurally good enough in your mot testers eyes, or you could find way more issues too...