Talk:Body-on-frame

message: This probably can be better done by working the text into a more prose form. In general terms, "pro and con lists can fragment the presentation of facts, create a binary structure where a more nuanced treatment of the spectrum of facts is preferable, encourage oversimplification, and require readers to jump back and forth between the two sides of the list." This list is better then most, but in general they should be avoided. --ZacBowling (user|talk) 18:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pro and con is straightforward to write and to read, and makes far less demand on subtleties of language. I'd leave it as it is. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

text: New ladder frame's do have a crumple zone. A ladder frame does not necessarily make a vehicle any more capable off-road or towing, these things are totally dependable of the individual vehicle configuration and how the vehicle is made. Why ladder frame is sometimes favored in slightly built off road vehicles, is that it is much easier to work with and customize a vehicle that has a ladder frame, but in the actual capability it does not make any difference as that is determined by things like wheel travel, tires, tire size, vehicle dimensions and angles, clearance, weight, center of gravity, suspension set up. A well built tubular frame for example is much better base for competition offroad vehicle than a ladder frame would be. Good monocoque is also much better for off road racing than a ladder frame, because of lightness, and less twisting solid structure, which increases stability. But these structures are very expensive and complicate to create if they don't exist in the vehicle from factory. But again, there is so many different genres of "off road" that can't say that one would be better than another overall off road. Totally depends what kind of off road use it is, what kind of vehicle configuration, etc. I did type this here, because my english is bad, but I did remove the false information from the list and explain the reasons here. :) --84.251.80.181 (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages and Disadvantages list 

message: Contrary to what the article says, several current models use body-on-frame e.g. Infiniti QX56. We should list them. Andrewa (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current users 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Body-on-frame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081202105344/http://www.americanchemistry.com:80/s_plastics/doc.asp?CID=1080&DID=6585 to http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/doc.asp?CID=1080&DID=6585
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Tesla Model S probably belongs in the body-on-frame category.  John Nagle (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The Tesla isn't a traditional body on frame.  Like many modern cars it doesn't really fit nicely into any one category but I think the easy way to exclude it is look at the lack of shock towers in the pictures of the chassis.  []  What you see is that there needs to be additional structure above the skateboard chassis to actually accept the suspension loads.  Springee (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the Tesla Model S body-on-frame?