Maybe it came down to packaging and shipping?? I cannot see any structural or assembly reason to change from the GCI design.
Gold Crown 3 issues.....??
- Thread starter garczar
- Start date
Maybe it came down to packaging and shipping?? I cannot see any structural or assembly reason to change from the GCI design.
Just out of curiosity, what material was Brunswick using for those parts on the lll & lV? Still solid poplar? Glulam? or?????
From a structural perspective, i've been puzzled since the 80's why box tube steel frames with integral levelers have not become common. Can have wood rails, slate liners, skirts, anywhere the customer wants to see it, if people still do. But should make a stiff, sag free assembly with the potential to be lighter components. As a pro woodwhacker, i understand that in the same section, wood is stiffer on a weight basis. But steel does not move from environmental influence, and can be designed in sections (thin wall box tube) that are stiffer than solid wood for the same or less weight at a given cost point.
If weight is perceived to be an asset, the tubes can be filled with anything from presumably concrete (as machine tool bases now are) to possibly antifreeze mix to drain for moving.
OK, guess i better put an asbestos suit on and duck behind the blast shield.
smt
From a structural perspective, i've been puzzled since the 80's why box tube steel frames with integral levelers have not become common. Can have wood rails, slate liners, skirts, anywhere the customer wants to see it, if people still do. But should make a stiff, sag free assembly with the potential to be lighter components. As a pro woodwhacker, i understand that in the same section, wood is stiffer on a weight basis. But steel does not move from environmental influence, and can be designed in sections (thin wall box tube) that are stiffer than solid wood for the same or less weight at a given cost point.
If weight is perceived to be an asset, the tubes can be filled with anything from presumably concrete (as machine tool bases now are) to possibly antifreeze mix to drain for moving.
OK, guess i better put an asbestos suit on and duck behind the blast shield.
smt
-- WRONG!
See? You even contradicted yourself there, in saying that GC III's were offered with a GC IV frame (also different from the I/II frame).
Regardless of whether the IV frame was introduced at the end of the III era, GC III tables had a unique frame design, different from the I/II design, and different from the GC IV design.
In my own experience, I have worked on several GC III tables. All of which have the same exact frame design: NOT a I/II, and NOT a IV.
Ok, not going to argue with you, just go ahead and put some GC3 rails on a GC5 frame, and call it a GC3, same difference! Look at a GC3 manual and see what the frame looks like, and you'll see for yourself it's no different than the 1s or 2s, and didn't change from that frame until the END of the production run of the 3s, and only used the 4 frame to sell off the last of the 3 rails, skirts, and pedestals, same frame used on the 4s for the whole production cycle of the 4s. But you can call it what ever frame you want, I know the difference, that's what counts to me.
Hey 'cobra, any idea why Brunswick went to the GC4-style frame? Why would they attach the end sills like that? Putting them between the long sills looks waaay stronger. Attaching them at the end like that and using those triangular braces underneath looks kinda low-rent. Don't see how this method could have been much cheaper if that's what they were going for.
Don't know, my guess would be someone's bright idea on how to shorten the frame up for boxing and shipping. What triangle pieces are you talking about?
They're visible in your brace modification photo. Gussets? Those triangular wood blocks underneath: https://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=132657 I guess it would have reduced container size a little but not much. Thanks for all your replies.
Last edited:
Those triangle wood blocks work as supports to prevent the frame member from sagging on the outside edge.
Look at the GC3 manual Trent posted, tell me how that frame is different than a 1 or 2 frame??? Then look in the GC4 Manuel Trent posted, then tell me what the difference is in the frame compared to the 1,2,and 3s???????
Glen, I have looked at the manuals. I know what they look like. The images that I posted came directly from those manuals. Sometimes, when a manual is created, they don't always include the most current information available. Also, they may not be updated to reflect subtle design changes.
I have worked on plenty enough GC III tables to know that the actual GC III frame looks different from the images in BOTH of those manuals.
Last edited:
![Paul Stephens - Brunswick Gold Crown 3 [Nakhon Si Thammarat] (1).jpg](/data/attachments/375/375298-4bdaa56ae7dfb9f5f699ddeb4826123b.jpg)
