So why were "Suicide" doors used by the auto manufactures?

[Ace-Garageguy]

1935 Fords had an even more swept back A pillar, and they had front-hinged doors.

Yes, but the front cut-line of the door opening itself is vertical on the '35, not leaning back like the '32 3-window. The '35 uses TWO hinges, in line, on the vertical cut-line.

It's very easy to engineer hinges on a vertical cut-line. It's much more difficult to do it on a line that slants, and requires hinge-think that wasn't in general use at the time.

For a door to work, ALL the hinge-pins HAVE to be on the same axis. To accomplish this on a leaning-back cut-line would require at least one of the hinges to stick WAY out, or the rear of the door would swing in an odd arc that would make it unnecessarily difficult to engineer it to close properly...and it would look goofy. It's all just geometry.

The earlier mention about the B-pillar on the '32 3-window being stronger is spot on. Closed Fords of the early '30s usually used THREE hinges in line on the front-hinged doors to support the weight. Hanging all the weight of the larger door of the 3-window required a stronger pillar to do it, yet still required three hinges in line.

Hinge and more-steel-in-the-body design had progressed by '35 to be able to hang the entire door on two hinges easily, but it wasn't until considerably later in the evolution of body design that curved internal hinges capable of dealing with more pronounced body contours became mainstream.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

The earlier mention about the B-pillar on the '32 3-window being stronger is spot on. Closed Fords of the early '30s usually used THREE hinges in line on the front-hinged doors to support the weight. Hanging all the weight of the larger door of the 3-window required a stronger pillar to do it, yet still required three hinges in line.

'31 Ford convertibles had front-hinged doors. I doubt the weight of the door had anything to do with it. We're not talking about bank vault doors here. What did a '30s-era Ford door weigh? Maybe 50 pounds, if that? The question of front or rear hinged doors had to do with geometry, not a question of structure. If the front of the door was vertical, they could hinge from the front, like the '31. If the leading edge of the door was angled, like on the '32 coupe, they hinged from the vertical rear of the door. Obviously the structural integrity of a '31 convertible was no better than a closed '32, yet the open '31 had front hinged doors. It's all about geometry.

[Ace-Garageguy]

'31 Ford convertibles had front-hinged doors. I doubt the weight of the door had anything to do with it. We're not talking about bank vault doors here. What did a '30s-era Ford door weigh? Maybe 50 pounds, if that? The question of front or rear hinged doors had to do with geometry, not a question of structure. If the front of the door was vertical, they could hinge from the front, like the '31. If the leading edge of the door was angled, like on the '32 coupe, they hinged from the vertical rear of the door. Obviously the structural integrity of a '31 convertible was no better than a closed '32, yet the open '31 had front hinged doors. It's all about geometry.

Sorry, weight is a factor, believe it or not. It ALWAYS is in engineering. A '32 3-window door is considerably heavier than an open Ford door of the period. Remember, I work on these things day-in, day-out. 

As simple as a 2-hinge roadster door would seem to be, go work on a restoration or collision repair, and see what it takes to get them to operate correctly and close right, without slamming, like they're SUPPOSED to, every time. These old hinges are weak, they sag easily...as designed... and if the pillar they're attached to moves around, you're screwed.

Yes, geometry is the predominant factor, but the extra weight of the '32-'33-'34 3-window suicide doors most definitely comes into play.

[Ace-Garageguy]

They were still being used in the sixties on cars so????????

They're still being used on a few cars today, but things like electric interlocks that keep them from being opened while moving greatly reduce the "unsafe" factor.

By the way...when we build rods or customs with suicide-doors, it's common now to replace the old one-click latches with 2-click styles that latch partially even if the door isn't completely shut...AND to install either manual or solenoid-operated pins to prevent accidental opening at speed.

[Harry P.]

Yes, geometry is the predominant factor, but the extra weight of the '32-'33-'34 3-window suicide doors most definitely comes into play.

You know better than I do. Like you said, you work on these things in real life. I defer to your expertise.

[Ace-Garageguy]

The '32 Ford 5-window only used TWO hinges on the front. Not just me, but Ford's own engineers in 1932 seemed to think the additional weight of the 3-window door was worth another hinge. More weight needs more structure to support it.

 

Edited February 25, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

The '32 Ford 5-window only used TWO hinges on the front. Not just me, but Ford's own engineers in 1932 seemed to think the additional weight of the 3-window door was worth another hinge.

Huh? Why would a 3-window door weigh so much more than a 5-window door that a third hinge would be needed?

[Ace-Garageguy]

Huh? Why would a 3-window door weigh so much more than a 5-window door that a third hinge would be needed?

Look at profile shots of the two cars side by side. The 3-window door is much larger. Steel is heavy...and this stuff was thick, MUCH thicker than what car doors are stamped from today. The window on the 3W is also considerably larger than the 5W door window. Glass is also heavy. More is heavier. 

Edited February 25, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[Harry P.]

Ok, boss...

But seriously... yeah, I see that. You are correctamundo, sir!

[unclescott58]

Had you going there, huh? Why let facts get in the way of a good story? You say it's not logical; yet, you think there might be some truth in it.  

 

It may have come off not being logical. But, I've heard of stranger things being true. And I was giving you the benefit of doubt. I like to believe that you were telling the truth or pulling our leg. But, I wasn't sure in this case which it was.

[unclescott58]

I'm not sure there is a really good reason why some cars used suicide doors. And others did not. I think it really came down to preference of the builder and/or designer.

The more I look at the facts, the more I stand by what I stated above.

Edited February 25, 2016 by unclescott58

[Art Anderson]

1935 Fords had an even more swept back A pillar, and they had front-hinged doors.

The angle of the A pillar has nothing to do with it. The hinges aren't even attached there. It has to do with the angle of the leading edge of the door. In order for the door to swing open level using barrel hinges (the type that were used in the '20s and '30s), the upper and lower hinge has to be aligned and centered vertically one above the other. As you can see, the angled leading edge of the door on the "32 would make it impractical to hinge from the front, so they were hinged from the rear, where the hinges could be vertically aligned on the straight vertical line of the door opening. On the '35, however, they went with a vertical leading edge on the door, so putting the hinges in front was possible, as the upper and lower hinges could align vertically.

It's simply a matter of geometry; nothing to do with body construction or wood framing vs. stamped steel or anything like that.

Consider,  Harry, that the A-pillar of a car body goes all the way from the body sill to the roof, as do both B and C pillars.  The '32 Ford Deluxe Coupe in your top picture shows a straight A pillar, placed at an angle backwards from sill to roof, where the '35 Ford 3-window coupe has an A pillar that is cured at an angle from the beltline to the roof--more modern, and a result of body engineering advances.  The David Holls (noted GM stylist from the 50's through the 1980's) book "A Century Of Style"  talks at length about the engineering advances in automobile body design and styling--worth the price, if you haven't got a copy.

Art

[Art Anderson]

The '32 Ford 5-window only used TWO hinges on the front. Not just me, but Ford's own engineers in 1932 seemed to think the additional weight of the 3-window door was worth another hinge. More weight needs more structure to support it.

 

One thing to consider:  Ford did not produce the 3-window coupe body--that was done by outside supplier  Murray Body Company.  The 5-window body, on the other hand, was built in Ford's own plant.  From the Model A through the 1933-34 Model 40's, Ford cars were produced with bodies by three suppliers:  Ford themselves, along with Briggs Body Company and Murray.

Art

[Art Anderson]

They were still being used in the sixties on cars so????????

On the '60-'61 LIncoln Continentals, yes.  That was a decision based on building that series of Continentals on what was essentially a shared, but stretched platform which was also shared with Thunderbird (the story has been written and published in numerous magazine articles over the past 20-25 years).  In order to get an adequate sized opening for the rear doors, the only solution was to mount those suicide-style.

Art

[Ace-Garageguy]

Bottom no-BS line is that there's really no "why" any cars of any period used anything, other than that's what the designers and engineers and management agreed on, for specific reasons peculiar to the vehicle in question, using available technology and then-current engineering practices.

Very expensive coachbuilt car, oddly shaped door, difficult to engineer hidden hinges in FRONT...

Very expensive coachbuilt car, oddly shaped doors, difficult to engineer hidden hinges in BACK...

 

Edited February 25, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy

[unclescott58]

On the '60-'61 LIncoln Continentals, yes.  That was a decision based on building that series of Continentals on what was essentially a shared, but stretched platform which was also shared with Thunderbird (the story has been written and published in numerous magazine articles over the past 20-25 years).  In order to get an adequate sized opening for the rear doors, the only solution was to mount those suicide-style.

Art

???? '60-'61? Lincoln used suicide doors on their 4-door Continentals from 1961 through 1969. Including their beautiful 4-door convertible offered from 1961 through 1967.

I do agree with you on David Holls and Micheal Lamm's book A Century Of Automotive Style. Sad to say I do not own a copy. But a few years back a friend loaned his copy. A very, very good book. Some day I need to hunt one down.

Edited February 25, 2016 by unclescott58

[Art Anderson]

???? '60-'61? Lincoln used suicide doors on their 4-door Continentals from 1961 through 1969. Including their beautiful 4-door convertible offered from 1961 through 1967.

I do agree with you on David Holls and Micheal Lamm's book A Century Of Automotive Style. Sad to say I do not own a copy. But a few years back a friend loaned his copy. A very, very good book. Some day I need to hunt one down.

My typo!  I meant 61-69.

Art

[unclescott58]

My typo!  I meant 61-69.

Art

No Art! Your suppose be perfect. Like me........ Oh, that's right. I make mistakes from time to time too. Darn, I guess neighther of us is perfect. 

[Greg Myers]

"neighther"  ? 

[Ace-Garageguy]

"neighther"  ? 

Yeah..."and like a good neighther, State Farm is there"...

[Greg Myers]

Yep 

Custom or hot rod  

[Harry P.]

Yep 

Custom or hot rod  

What does this have to do with the topic?

[Art Anderson]

Something to keep in mind when wondering about things such as "suicide doors":  With few exceptions, the "styling" of automobiles, very much through the 1920's, was very much dominated by engineers who were charged with making the automobile and all of its features and components workable--with appearance being pretty much an afterthought.  Much of that was due to the fairly limited range of materials available--sure there was steel, iron, aluminum, brass, copper and of course wood, but very little in the way of those original materials (certainly alloys of the various metals) come all that close to what became available by the early 1930's and beyond.  Automobile body sheet steel, until the very late 1920's was carbon steel, which could not stand deep-draw stamping, which really didn't matter all that much, considering that the generally accepted auto body construction was wood (generally ash in the US), which in mass-produced body shells meant rather stiff, upright body shapes, the carbon steel used limiting such as fenders to the open, rather shallow contours seen in cars prior to the early 1930's.

In addition, the capital investment requirements for producing what is known as "composite" auto body construction is a great deal less than that for all steel construction--mostly wood-working machinery, coupled with fairly small stamping presses for whatever sheet metal was to be used (in mass-production) or simple hardwood bucks if body panels and fenders were to be hand-hammered to shape (the custom body coachbuilders of the era).  While enterprising companies such as Edward Budd did dabble in completely all-steel mass production body shells as early as the WW-I era, those really did not catch on, even though Dodge Brothers did adopt some body types from Budd (mostly touring cars).  Rather, wooden framed bodies with sheet metal skins remained the norm in mass production until the early 1930's (for example, the ultra-rare ---today--- 1932 Chevrolet Roadster, used no less than 17 pieces of ash to frame up just the rumble seat/trunk lid!)

Mild steel was around, but not until about 1930 did it become available in mass quantities, which would allow the deep-drawing of automobile body panels, thus eliminating the "need" for traditional wood framing--but the pressures that culminated in the Great Depression simply precluded immediate investment in the truly huge stamping presses (and their infrastructure) required, the entire automobile industry was focused simply on surviving the brewing economic storm.  In addition, there was an "at least perceived" reluctance on the part of the general car-buying public, to embrace anything radically new (as Chrysler discovered with the Airflow in 1935-36), so in short, conservatism reigned.  On another front, the rise of professional automobile styling departments was resisted by the engineering departments (Harley Earl's battles with the engineers at the various GM Divisions was legendary, Edsel Ford had to work with his ever intransigent father Henry when he wanted to establish a styling department).  While GM and Ford both produced their own bodies, pretty much every other automaker relied on independent body suppliers, principally Briggs and Murray--both of whom were almost as hide-bound as the Big Two--and just as restricted by scarce investment capital at the time.  In addition, the concepts we think of in this 21st Century regarding automobile safety were virtually unheard of, save for safety glass--today a "suicide" door design would likely not pass the scrutiny of regulators, and be a cash cow for tort lawyers.

So, it's little wonder to me that engineering considerations on auto body design still tended to rule out to at least 1932-33 most styling advances., from my reading in my library of automotive histories, and the now almost countless accounts in my collection of such publications as the former "Special Interest Auto's" and my entirely complete collection of "Collectible Automobile" (I have every issue of CA going back to July 1984).  In so many ways, it was what engineers decreed that made cars appear as they did, with artistic types limited to designing small or non-structural components, until more forceful personalities in the styling profession got the upper hand where overall appearance was concerned.

Art

[unclescott58]

"neighther"  ? 

Okay. Here is a frighting thought. I work in the field of education. With people like me teach your kids, is there any hope for the future?

Speaking of teaching. What was the point the above entry Art? Ask a person the time. And they tell you how to build a watch. Despite the one or two mistakes you may have made in other posts in in this thread. We don't doubt your intelligence in automotive matters. So you don't need to put me to sleep proving how much you know.

Though I do admire your sources Art. I too use many of the same. I also have every issue of Collectible Automobile going back to issue #1 (May 1984). IMO still the best car magazine out there. And, you brought up Special Interest Autos. A magazine I dearly miss. Hemming's Classic Cars which replaced it, some how misses the boat for me. It fact Hemming's basically gave us three monthly magazines to replace the one bi-monthly, Special Interest Autos.  And the three together for some reason do not do as good of a job as old SIA did.

Edited February 27, 2016 by unclescott58

[Ace-Garageguy]

Speaking of teaching. What was the point the above entry Art? Ask a person the time. And they tell you how to build a watch. Despite the one or two mistakes you may have made in other posts in in this thread. We don't doubt your intelligence in automotive matters. So you don't need to put me to sleep proving how much you know.

I don't think that's at all fair to Art.

He has a wealth of knowledge, both about the history of the hobby AND automotive history in general, and he's willing to take the time to share it. Some people like to have more detail available, and Art often fills in the blanks and explains things in more depth.

It doesn't have anything to do with "proving how much you know".

He's just generously trying to help foster understanding of the whys and hows, for modelers interested in going a little beyond the simple what.

I would think an educator would grasp this.

Edited February 27, 2016 by Ace-Garageguy