Then around the early 2000s, we began to see a rapid increase in the number of vans that were built on a composite design. The flipside of this design is the weight in the chassis – it is built to handle just about any road, track, or trail we drag them along, but they’re incredibly heavy especially when stood next to their newer counterparts. This leaking leads to water damage of the timber and, in turn, frame rot.
One of the greatest drawbacks to the stick and tin design is that they are prone to leak water especially after decades of movement and slight gaps forming between the sheeting. This construction method allowed the top (body) to move and flex a touch, and that was that one caravan that would last the ages.
#Framer construction winter full
Often full box section, with the A-frame and chassis all but over-engineered. Where this approach shines, is in the chassis under the van because that is where the strength lies. The frame is held together with glue and screws, with the cladding held down essentially the same way or with rivets. For most of us, thinking about what a van looks like under the skin, you’ll most likely imagine a timber (often meranti) frame, with various types of panelling to the inside, and tin or aluminium cladding over the top, the outside. Stick and tin, as it’s known colloquially, was the most common way of building vans over the decades close enough to nearly a century. With the old ‘stick and tin’ style cladding-over-frame construction method making way for the use of composite panels glued together, we thought it high time we looked at the differences. Have caravan manufacturing techniques and technology changed a lot over the past few decades? Not until relatively recently, and certainly not in all cases. We hear these terms used often, but what do they mean for you? We examine the tried and tested old-school stick and tin vs composite panels
0 kommentar(er)
