|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
4 Mar 2013, 00:59 (Ref:3213885) | #26 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 160
|
If the front firewall is a stress bearing member (and where the upper suspension mounts are) it can't be a spaceframe. If the bars in cabin are the stress bearing members after that the worse it could be is a space-coque .
|
||
|
4 Mar 2013, 04:59 (Ref:3213922) | #27 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 498
|
Sorry Brick, once again you've misunderstood a clarification.
By design and manner of construction the ST is a monocoque which benefits from reinforcement by the safety frame - like any unibody car. Unlike the TLX (for example) which is a spaceframe. I thought Marks explanation to be very clear. |
||
__________________
The is no truth, only perspective. |
4 Mar 2013, 05:40 (Ref:3213928) | #28 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 519
|
Most if not all early built monocoque cars never had inner strenghteners in their A, B or C pillars, or sill panels. So the lack of inner strenghteners in a ST doesn't change the fact the car is a momocoque.
|
|
|
4 Mar 2013, 05:47 (Ref:3213931) | #29 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 849
|
can we have an example ?? when people say early cars, i'm not thinking unibody, but old Model T's with a chassis underneath ??
|
|
__________________
despite all my rage, i'm still just a rat in a cage |
4 Mar 2013, 05:57 (Ref:3213933) | #30 | |||
Racer
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 451
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
|
4 Mar 2013, 06:06 (Ref:3213936) | #31 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 325
|
Quote:
Considering that the body panels are removeable from the car and the car will still function, that is the outer skin, rear guards etc, then they do not have "Structural Function". Whether the front suspension arms are mounted to round tubes, or hand made square tubes, makes no difference really, it's weather the outer skin of the car is part of the structure or not IMO. |
||
|
4 Mar 2013, 06:25 (Ref:3213939) | #32 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 519
|
Quote:
|
||
|
4 Mar 2013, 07:41 (Ref:3213951) | #33 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 849
|
||
__________________
despite all my rage, i'm still just a rat in a cage |
4 Mar 2013, 07:43 (Ref:3213953) | #34 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 665
|
The 1949 Morris Minor lo-lite which was if I remember correctly the first mass produced Monocoque production car certainly used all the panels and box sections for structural strength and when the 1952 Hi-lite model was produced as a convertable model quite a lot of extra strengthening sections were added into the structure for including some heavier gauge materials for amongst other things in spite of plastic rear window and a rag top it was actually heavier than the normal 2 door model
|
|
|
4 Mar 2013, 07:57 (Ref:3213956) | #35 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 519
|
Quote:
If you asked a hairdresser to look at a ST and a TL car and asked what is different I'm sure they would say nothing. Many people would think the TL car was a spaceframe if they had never seen a racecar close up before. |
||
|
4 Mar 2013, 08:00 (Ref:3213959) | #36 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 849
|
and they wouldn't say the same of the NZST. BTW , the TL is a genuine monocoque with a cage, TLX is a space-frame. you too busy trying to confuse us, that you are confusing yourself.
|
|
__________________
despite all my rage, i'm still just a rat in a cage |
4 Mar 2013, 08:08 (Ref:3213963) | #37 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 968
|
Quote:
Very good analogy if I may say so. If we cut the roll gage out you could still drive the V8ST chassis around but just like the Morrie convertable, you would loose a lot of rigidity. The salient point being that both Morrie's are still unibody [monocoque] car's, not spaceframe cars. |
||
|
4 Mar 2013, 08:14 (Ref:3213964) | #38 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 519
|
Monocoque, Semi monocoque-Unibody, Subframe, Semi subframe, Half chassis, Backbone chassis, ladder chassis. SPACEFRAME. What is the point of all this again?
|
|
|
4 Mar 2013, 08:17 (Ref:3213965) | #39 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 849
|
Quote:
so, not TLX and would doubt the NZST would pass tech either, as it is not, by true definition and proper monocoque chassis that could be safely driven without the jungle gym inside it. |
||
__________________
despite all my rage, i'm still just a rat in a cage |
4 Mar 2013, 08:20 (Ref:3213967) | #40 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 849
|
||
__________________
despite all my rage, i'm still just a rat in a cage |
4 Mar 2013, 08:33 (Ref:3213973) | #41 | ||
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 160
|
There's a vid on youtube with a closer look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWrHzN6Qz-0 The engine bay stuff if definitely not space frameish. |
||
|
4 Mar 2013, 08:35 (Ref:3213974) | #42 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 519
|
||
|
4 Mar 2013, 08:39 (Ref:3213975) | #43 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 968
|
Quote:
If you are really interested in seeing how the V8ST chassis is designed, be my guest at Ruapuna this weekend, for a close up look. Come on Saturday and it wont even cost you a cent. FYI, the chassis has in fact two inner and two outer chassis rails, the outer chassis rails are very substantial rail's joined by a large torque box to the front chassis rail, and the rear bulkhead at the back. |
||
|
4 Mar 2013, 08:48 (Ref:3213979) | #44 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 849
|
Quote:
|
||
__________________
despite all my rage, i'm still just a rat in a cage |
4 Mar 2013, 09:17 (Ref:3213990) | #45 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 519
|
Joe, don't think for a minute that all the TL cars still had all the inner strenghteners they came out with from factory. Some of those TL cars would dend in half before a ST would if you cut the cage out of them. they don't have the strenght in the floor that the ST has.
|
|
|
4 Mar 2013, 09:30 (Ref:3213995) | #46 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 849
|
Quote:
|
||
__________________
despite all my rage, i'm still just a rat in a cage |
4 Mar 2013, 10:10 (Ref:3214010) | #47 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 2,491
|
Personally, I'd believe the guy that had a hand in the design concept rather than a bunch of armchair experts. Of which I don't proclaim to be one.
If you look at the photo link that I provided of the TLX under construction, it is completely obvious that it is a spaceframe. The ST body on the other hand is far closer to the unibody style in the other diagrams. I don't quite know where you people get off telling Mark he is wrong on his own car concept! I think that you just can't ever accept anything that is said by Mark or associated ST people. |
||
__________________
Nice one, Centurion! |
4 Mar 2013, 10:19 (Ref:3214017) | #48 | ||
Race Official
1% Club
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 47,394
|
|||
__________________
Go woke, Go broke… #CANCERSUCKS #GOCHIKO Here’s hoping a random universe works out in your favour… The meaning of life… ENJOYING THE PASSAGE OF TIME! |
4 Mar 2013, 13:52 (Ref:3214070) | #49 | ||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 12,455
|
I'm assuming that the difference here is monocoque chassis as opposed to monocoque body?
You certainly couldn't accuse the engine bay above of being spaceframe. |
||
__________________
Bill Bryson: It is no longer permitted to be stupid and slow. You must choose one or the other. |
4 Mar 2013, 21:57 (Ref:3214255) | #50 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,366
|
Geez, a ST is a monocoque with a cage.....end of
TLX is a pure space frame car....end of Its quite simple really |
||
__________________
"You see, the problem with NZ is that we all think we are a poor Australia, when in all reality we are just a rich Fiji" - Owen Evans, April 2015. |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MSNZ & TMC - 'Wheels start to come off' | E36ST | New Zealand Motor Racing | 2370 | 29 May 2016 22:20 |
MSNZ and Cams Working together? | nomad_n | Marshals Forum | 3 | 1 Jun 2009 20:32 |
Spaceframe Chassis Materials | av8rirl | Racing Technology | 14 | 18 Dec 2001 09:34 |