datac
Active Member
Posts: 339
Likes: 170
1957 Cardinal
Currently Offline
|
Post by datac on May 31, 2018 14:53:28 GMT -8
When I bought my '57 Cardinal, I paid heed to vikx's warning about very weak frames on these trailers, enough so that I nearly passed on what otherwise appeared to be a nice choice. She's worked on a number of '57-'59 Cardinals, and found scary weak frames and inferior steel in all of them. I crawled underneath and all seemed to be in order, but it was only when I posted photos of my frame (in this thread) that it became apparent that it was radically different in both construction and materials than the others she'd seen. Digging around a bit more, it turns out that there was a running change at some point during 1957, and the good news is that the difference is obvious even without climbing under the trailer. The strong version has supports running underneath the main frame rails and angling up to meet the skirts and sills, while the weak version all lies in a single, flat plane. You can see the angled supports at the front of the trailer at the tongue. 1956 Cardinals, appear strong:1957 Cardinal, strong version:1957 Cardinal, weak version:1958 Cardinal, all weak:1959 Cardinal, all weak:Hopefully this will help folks avoid painful mistakes while not needlessly avoiding a good candidate. I hope vikx will offer any further insights she has.
|
|
|
Post by vikx on May 31, 2018 21:37:20 GMT -8
This is great info Datac!! We need to try and archive this and document which trailer and when had good/bad frames...
What in the heck happened? What were they thinking??
Even later 60s Cardinals (strong frame) had serious flaws in the wood floor framing.
Please PM me if you are interested in doing some archiving. It could be priceless. Thank you.
|
|
datac
Active Member
Posts: 339
Likes: 170
1957 Cardinal
Currently Offline
|
Post by datac on Jun 2, 2018 13:04:36 GMT -8
Yep, I should probably archive the photos off into a Google album. Here's a theory as to what happened- we've often noticed the family resemblance between several of the El Monte manufacturers, and, in fact, the frames on '56-'58 Daltons I've seen appear to be identical to the stronger Cardinal frame. It's possible that Cardinal either purchased frames from Dalton, or both Cardinal and Dalton purchased frames from the same local supplier. In any case, an outside supplier might well lead to either supply issues (difficulty meeting demand from more than one manufacturer) or pricing issues (gotta take their cut), either of which would force Cardinal to explore alternatives. 1957 Dalton ('58 frame is the same):
|
|
|
Post by vikx on Jun 2, 2018 20:05:38 GMT -8
Also, any of you who own Cardinals, please chime in. It "appears" that 60 and newer Cardinal frames were sturdy enough.
The main tell tale of a weak frame is "rolled steel" runners rather than C channel 1/4" runners. The outriggers are less than 1/8" thick on the weaker frames.
We need more info to be sure the 56s all had strong frames.
|
|
|
Post by Teachndad on Jun 14, 2022 4:17:26 GMT -8
Interesting. The round steel is a truss strap. That is very unusual. That should really strengthen the frame. The flat steel welded to the top of the C channel framing is unusual as well. I may be mistaken, but from the pix, the C Channel looks taller than what you might see on a canned ham. Vikx has the experience with Cardinal frame. Let's see what she says.
Of note, are you planning on doing any cleaning up of the springs? They look very flat as if they have lost their arch. They should at at least be cleaned up and the through bolts checked and replaced and new lube injected. Re arching or replacement could be considered.
Rod
|
|
|
Post by vikx on Jun 14, 2022 11:50:24 GMT -8
I have worked hands on Cardinals: 57, 58, 59 and 64:
Welded patches are aftermarket fixes. These old Cardinals (56-59) are notorious for frame cracks and the tongue dropping off. My frame had many patches, including bolts/plates to try and hold it together. The round support bars are also not factory on a Cardinal. A metal man told me that the rolled steel was particularly vulnerable to stress, especially since it is under 1/8" thick.
Here is one patch:
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/53634851@N03/36016196791/in/album-72157693991881044/" title="001 f Cardinal Frame (1)"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/4313/36016196791_7eb20142cf_z.jpg" width="640" height="480" alt="001 f Cardinal Frame (1)"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Weak frame showing bent outriggers:
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/53634851@N03/27072493238/in/album-72157693991881044/" title="Cardinal frame (12)"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/4783/27072493238_56ffb43e05_z.jpg" width="640" height="480" alt="Cardinal frame (12)"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Another view of the entire frame waiting to go to the recycler:
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/53634851@N03/26070921127/in/album-72157693991881044/" title="Cardinal frame (11)"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/788/26070921127_a7da5c522d_z.jpg" width="640" height="480" alt="Cardinal frame (11)"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Beefing up and boxing the frame did not make it stronger. It broke before/behind the fixes:
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/53634851@N03/27072495018/in/album-72157693991881044/" title="Cardinal frame (4)"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/817/27072495018_501d0eb323_z.jpg" width="640" height="480" alt="Cardinal frame (4)"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/53634851@N03/40049423075/in/album-72157693991881044/" title="Cardinal frame (1)"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/783/40049423075_c128f5d157_z.jpg" width="640" height="480" alt="Cardinal frame (1)"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/53634851@N03/26070922857/in/album-72157693991881044/" title="Cardinal frame (2)"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/789/26070922857_2d7917bd40_z.jpg" width="640" height="480" alt="Cardinal frame (2)"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Such thin metal:
<a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/53634851@N03/27072494048/in/album-72157693991881044/" title="Cardinal frame (8)"><img src="https://live.staticflickr.com/799/27072494048_51d171c6d6_z.jpg" width="640" height="480" alt="Cardinal frame (8)"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The original frame was replaced with a sturdy 70s frame from a Scamper Canadian trailer. (not the "egg", which is a Scamp)
|
|
|
Post by vikx on Jun 15, 2022 11:53:09 GMT -8
It's hard to tell how the plates were added... it could have been done after the factory discovered the frame weaknesses or later. Maybe built the Cardinal this way?? I believe the plates do add strength. Whoever did it seemed to know what they were doing. None the less, keep an eye on the frame and suspect ANY flaws...
Note: Friends had a 56 that the tongue fell off, so year didn't really matter. The frames were either OK, or not.
I've not personally seen a mid to late 50s Cardinal with a decent frame. It's possible that some frames were replaced years ago...
|
|
|
Post by vikx on Jun 15, 2022 12:21:30 GMT -8
|
|