Welcome to our Site for MG, Triumph and Austin-Healey Car Information.
MG MGA - A question of aesthetics
| I've been wondering about the standing seam that runs the length of the sill on each side. Why, why didn't they just roll that edge? It makes for such cleaner lines. I've even done a photo edit to see what it would look like and its quite nice. I can't imagine assembly would have been any harder. Has anyone ever done that type of mod by simply bending that seam back under the car? |
| T McCarthy |
| Maybe it is for strength. The vertical part of a "T" shaped panel adds more to the bending resistance. Looking at my modern car, which like all new cars has thin body panels, there is a vertical panel edge where the weight of the car is supported for jacking up. Mick |
| Mick Anderson |
| Strength is probably not an issue, as the MGA body sills are vary strong (when in good condition), and the underlying frame provides most of the structural strength for the chassis. I'm pretty sure it was a matter of simplicity of design and production 53 years ago. The inner sill panel is flat from top to bottom. Keeping the bottom edge vertical would keep spot welding simple. There is also the matter of clearance between body sill and frame, only about 3/8 inch nominal. Putting an inward flange on the bottom edge of the body sill would eat up some of the assembly clearance (where manufacturintg tolerance could be as much as +/-1/4 inch). Apparently the designers were concerned about this assembly clearance, as the original attachment of the wing lower edges to the body sill called for special thin rectangular nuts on the inboard side of the sill. As a side note, very early production cars were produced without the lower body trim strip. That piece was added later, most likely only as a matter of aesthetics. |
| Barney Gaylord |
| Any chance we could see you photo edit image , just to give us an idea of how nice it is? Gordon |
| Gordon Harrison |
| Sure, here you go! With the sill trim http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/tbm66/113-1343_IMG.jpg Without http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g64/tbm66/113-1343_IMG_2_2.jpg |
| T McCarthy |
| Just paint it matt black to disguise it. |
| DJ Lake |
| I suppose you are creating a bit of an illusion with your photoshop image. That view makes the car look like it has more ground clearance when it wouldn't have. The (original) bottom edge of the body sill is about flush with the bottom of the frame (except for a small bit above the bottom extreme of the frame weld flange). If you turn the bottom 1/2 inch flange of the sill inward it would leave 1/2 inch of the frame exposed from a side view. To keep the frame hidden you would need to re-form the lower curvature of the rocker panels and fenders to end the curve 1/2 inch lower, and then turn the bottom flange inward. This would get it back to having about the original appearance for body ground clearance, but would show a taller rocker panel in place of the bottom trim strip. That may or may not look more appealing, but I would like to see more "shopped" images, especially a dead on level side view. That should be easy in the side view, just stretch or scale the height of the sill below the door downward by the width of the trim strip, then clip off the trim strip. This will have some affect on the apparent shape of the rear fender dog leg. |
| Barney Gaylord |
| Barney, I'm a little confused. On my car, if I bent the standing seam back in board so that it was totally parallel with the ground you wouldn't see the frame behind. The sill hangs well below the frame. Doing so would certainly create more ground clearance by virtue of havng bent the seam back. Or did I misunderstand. |
| T McCarthy |
| Belay that! You are right Barney the frame does extend below the sill. More thinking ahead. |
| T McCarthy |
This thread was discussed between 31/05/2008 and 03/06/2008
MG MGA index
This thread is from the archives. Join the live MG MGA BBS now