Frame Connectors
I believe a structural member is often as weak as its weakest point. The sculptured USCT frame connectors (FC) are reduced to a rather small cross-section in areas, largely reducing the stiffness added, they have other shortcomings outside the engineering realm and is another topic.
The mention of "number" of USCT stiffening components usually includes torque boxes, which I concede are an improvement when used without frame connectors but are not a good nor efficient engineering solution to gain stiffness, especially compared to FC. Using both is redundant as the FC's are much better at achieving the goals sought. Kind of like wearing a belt and suspenders to hold up one's pants, one of them is much better.
The largest FC cross-section suitable is the stiffest, and the wall thickness can be reduced as the FC gets larger to keep weight in check.
The biggest hurdle for many is having the FC penetrate the floor. I personally can find little reason to have that aversion. Function trumps form almost always for me. The price paid by not penetrating the floor regarding stiffness/ground clearance is IMO significant. A robust FC solution also provides a few other benefits, mainly a solid member to attach seats/belts/DS safety loops/etc to.
The pics below are my 62 Lancer GT, with 2 3x2 FC and I added two crossmembers for a second driveshaft (DS) safety loop and seat mounting, since I am using Sebring seats with integral belt mounts which adds significantly to the seat floor mounts. I also expanded the DS tunnel to allow me to tuck up the exhaust tighter, and the battery now mounts in the rear removed seat area thru the floor.
Don't take this personally as many get a bit put off when I share my view on this matter.
I believe a structural member is often as weak as its weakest point. The sculptured USCT frame connectors (FC) are reduced to a rather small cross-section in areas, largely reducing the stiffness added, they have other shortcomings outside the engineering realm and is another topic.
The mention of "number" of USCT stiffening components usually includes torque boxes, which I concede are an improvement when used without frame connectors but are not a good nor efficient engineering solution to gain stiffness, especially compared to FC. Using both is redundant as the FC's are much better at achieving the goals sought. Kind of like wearing a belt and suspenders to hold up one's pants, one of them is much better.
The largest FC cross-section suitable is the stiffest, and the wall thickness can be reduced as the FC gets larger to keep weight in check.
The biggest hurdle for many is having the FC penetrate the floor. I personally can find little reason to have that aversion. Function trumps form almost always for me. The price paid by not penetrating the floor regarding stiffness/ground clearance is IMO significant. A robust FC solution also provides a few other benefits, mainly a solid member to attach seats/belts/DS safety loops/etc to.
The pics below are my 62 Lancer GT, with 2 3x2 FC and I added two crossmembers for a second driveshaft (DS) safety loop and seat mounting, since I am using Sebring seats with integral belt mounts which adds significantly to the seat floor mounts. I also expanded the DS tunnel to allow me to tuck up the exhaust tighter, and the battery now mounts in the rear removed seat area thru the floor.