Morris Minor Owners Club

I have a question for the guys who have extensively rebuilt travelers. When the traveler was designed, they decided that the sills needed some re-enforcement due to the lack of a rear body. They didn't spend much time thinking about it since they simply used the same extra panel that the convertible has, whereas it was only needed to re-enforce the B post to the rear part of the sill to pick up the rear inner fenders. It also helps in the torsional loads. Is it really needed? Was it just for the trip from the regular assembly line to where they put on the traveler body? On the other hand without it there would be extra loading of the wooded frame and especially with torsional loads there could be some creaking. I don't recall it mention if the many traveler rebuild topics and just wonder what everyone's thoughts are on the detail.

Bearing in mind how many travellers are running round without issues, but with severely corroded sills, I am sure it would never be noticed if it was not fitted. The car I restored was being driven around for years with little more than pop riveted aluminium and filler where the sills once were. I would say the wooden frame adds more strength than load.

That said, if you are restoring a car, might as well fit it.

I have recently replaced all sills and floor pans on a traveller and i never fitted the extra strength panel mainly because I never knew about it until it was to late. But I am no atall worried about it not being there as it's far stronger now than it was when it was still on the road with the many botched patches and filler and pop rivets years ago. I think when it's all new and welded properly the boxing structure that is made with all the panels together will be very strong.

bluegrass wrote:The right hand panel is REP100, and the left hand is REP101. Both are Sri Lankan made panels.

http://www.jagspares.co.uk/Morris/PartV ... perpage=10


Here I include two pictures. The first is the strengthening panels along with The two 'Boxing' panels REP097 and REP096
The second, the strengthening panels alone.



I hope that helps.[frame][/frame][frame][/frame]

These are the commercially available reinforcing panels..

Taupe

Thanks for the feedback, so the re-enforcement is considered unnecessary or redundant once the rear body is attached.

When I did mine I thought the original strengtheners were a serious corrosion trap, but as I didn't want to risk it being less rigid than designed I fitted a piece of 2mm folded to an angle. I plug welded this to the rear and top of the sill step, behind the boxing plate, but shaped it to stop it sitting too close to the junction with the floor, which is where the corrosion starts. I also seam sealed the bottom of my angle strengtheners in the hope of stopping moisture getting trapped behind it.

I wouldn't leave it out myself. It must have been put there for a reason - because it was felt necessary - and certainly not just until the woodframe was fitted....

jaekl wrote:Thanks for the feedback, so the re-enforcement is considered unnecessary or redundant once the rear body is attached.

It depends what the car is used for. Originally these cars were often bought as substitute vans, heavily loaded and driven hard for tens of thousands of miles per year, over poor quality roads. They had to be designed to cope with that. It must have been assumed that they would be worn out long before they rotted out, which was no doubt the case with the majority.

Not many Minor travellers are overloaded and used as daily workhorses over rough terrain today.

If you have the sills apart then you might as well add some extra metal, if you can use the original design even better. In any case, if new floor and sills are fitted, I think this is a non issue.

Despite me having added strength to mine I agree with Neil's logic - I'm intending to use mine hard over many years, but many will be treated more gently. One side on mine had been replaced previously without the strengthener and didn't appear to have suffered any ill effects. I really wouldn't fit the original pattern strengthener as it makes the rust prone sill design even worse.

Thanks, I tend to agree it's needed. However, some owners have successfully left it out without experiencing extra creaking from movement between the wood and metal. At the base of the B post the floor pan is basically just one side of a box so even though the side members are boxed, the torsional strength is minimal. The wood and aluminum structure is very rigid itself. The weak point is the mounting to the back of the cab. The possibility of twisting is now more of a shearing action through the body joint, which the standard saloon sills can resist. As long as the wood is still structurally sound with tight joint, most cars shouldn't have a problem. Just remember that the saloon sills are designed to be supported by the rest of the metal body and the traveler body can change in time. Thanks for the input while I think about this out loud. I may consider just re=enforcing the back third of the sills. At least I corrected the spelling of the tilte

Them men in brown coats and flat caps were not silly, it's unlikely they took the time to design that piece of steel and the associated tooling to produce it, simply on a whim.

So the question I feel inclined to ask is....

Do you feel you understand the structural design of the vehicle well enough to decide that it's designers were wrong to add strength in this area and question the way they did so?

If the answer is no then fit them, if yes then carry on as you see fit.

Regards
Rod

Actually, they didn't design that piece of steel and tool up for it for the Traveller. They had already produced it for the convertible, where the need for additional strength is beyond question. Much as I love the Trav, close acquaintance with the design beyond the B pillar does reveal that its development owes much more to pragmatism than fine engineering expertise. Bunging in the sill strengthener has all the hallmarks of a just in case good idea at the time.

I really can't see any good reason to restore a car to be less strong than the original design??
As for leaving it out because it could be a rust trap, there are modern rustproofing techniques to prevent that. My Minor is well rustproofed but lives outside all year and still has the original rust-free inner sills and strengtheners. They've lasted 57years so far without trouble.