On Dec 28, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Alistair Bell wrote:

> Ah, but Tom, it is welded in.
> 
> Maybe you are thinking of the exposed U-channel cross piece that you see when looking up from rear seat.

Yes

> There is another beam though, welded to both sides of van body.

Thanks,

Tom
> 
> alistair
> 
> 
> On 28-Dec-10, at 9:34 AM, Tom Buese wrote:
> 
> 
> On Dec 28, 2010, at 9:45 AM, Alistair Bell wrote:
> 
>> the westy's cross brace has its analogue in the tin top van. A box section  cross beam at the point just aft of where the sunroof would go. In both cases i believe the cross brace is needed for torsional stiffness in the body
> 
> Unless that cross brace is welded in, it doesn't add any torsional stiffness to the body- a "moment resisting connection" would be required to transfer that stiffness to the body & if the brace is only siting on a lip in the opening, it is only supporting axial or gravity loads on it.
> 
> Mr. BZ-licensed architect who can legally design some structural members, but uses much smarter structural engineers to do that instead
> 
> 
>> (and as mentioned, to support forward end of westy bunk plywood). In the tin top, the beam is curved to match roof curvature, in the westy its not.
>> 
>> Both van types have box section cross beam at forward end of roof opening area.
> 
> yep, that box section is what provides the torsional stiffness around the opening
>> 
>> alistair
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 28-Dec-10, at 8:10 AM, Thomas Buese wrote:
>> 
>> In my professional experience w/ structural engineering, I believe
>> that the Westy cross brace in the ceiling is more for the structural
>> support of the upper bunk than for cross bracing the roof-sunroof
>> models don't have that brace, right Craig?
>> 
>> YMMV,
>> 
>> Mr. BZ-you can never have too much headroom, but where do you store
>> your stuff?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Dec 28, 2010, at 7:40 AM, craig cowan wrote:
>> 
>>> Ahh. I guess they did pull out some structural stuff.
>>> In that case, it may be somewhat compromised. How much? It's hard to
>>> say.
>>> 
>>> -Craig
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:05 AM, Loren Busch <starwagen@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 7:30 PM, craig cowan
>>>> <phishman068@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> It's only missing the top bunks right? They're not structural....
>>>>> So, "YES"?
>>>>> 
>>>>> It looks good!
>>>>> If you don't use your top bunks, that looks slick!
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> BUT it is missing all the sheet metal part of the top in that area
>>>> and
>>>> maybe more important the  very beefy cross brace at the front of
>>>> the bunk
>>>> the VW/Westfalia put in.
>>>> 
>> 
> 
>