Spaceframe or Monocoque (split from MSNZ) - Page 2

MacrosNZ · 4 Mar 2013, 00:59 (Ref:3213885)

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

.

Icarus_nz · 4 Mar 2013, 04:59 (Ref:3213922)

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.

Jerico · 4 Mar 2013, 05:40 (Ref:3213928)

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.

smokin'joe · 4 Mar 2013, 05:47 (Ref:3213931)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerico

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.

can we have an example ?? when people say early cars, i'm not thinking unibody, but old Model T's with a chassis underneath ??

Swedish Brick · 4 Mar 2013, 05:57 (Ref:3213933)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarus_nz

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.

Can you please enlighten me then

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swedish Brick

So by adding a few steel sheets in the front welded into box section that makes the car monocoque?
What is the body doing? Do those B pillars have the inner panels adding strength and stiffness? In fact are those B pillars anything more than just the outer panel?
Is the roof adding torsional strength or is that coming from the extensive spaceframe structure in the car?
Can someone please show me where "the body serves as part of the structure"

DX20VT · 4 Mar 2013, 06:06 (Ref:3213936)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goat Boy

Quote from Wiki spaceframe explanation for cars:

"In both a spaceframe and a tube-frame chassis, the suspension, engine, and body panels are attached to a skeletal frame of tubes, and the body panels have little or no structural function. By contrast, in a unibody or monocoque design, the body serves as part of the structure."

Given what Mark has just told you, how can you still argue that it is a spaceframe? Mark says you don't need the cage structurally and nothing is mounted to it, therefore it must be a (semi) monocoque.

How could you not?

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.

Jerico · 4 Mar 2013, 06:25 (Ref:3213939)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DX20VT

How could you not?

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.

Have a look at a TransAm car then have a look at a ST.

smokin'joe · 4 Mar 2013, 07:41 (Ref:3213951)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerico

Have a look at a TransAm car then have a look at a ST.

so, a supertourer has opening doors/boot/bonnet.

can the steel tube structure be removed and have a fully functioning vehicle with an NZST ???

Southern Man · 4 Mar 2013, 07:43 (Ref:3213953)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerico

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.

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

Jerico · 4 Mar 2013, 07:57 (Ref:3213956)

Quote:

Originally Posted by smokin'joe

so, a supertourer has opening doors/boot/bonnet.

can the steel tube structure be removed and have a fully functioning vehicle with an NZST ???

Yes. It is not a spaceframe car.

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.

smokin'joe · 4 Mar 2013, 08:00 (Ref:3213959)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerico

Yes. It is not a spaceframe car.

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.

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.

Mark Petch · 4 Mar 2013, 08:08 (Ref:3213963)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Southern Man

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

Hi Carl,

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.

Jerico · 4 Mar 2013, 08:14 (Ref:3213964)

Quote:

Originally Posted by smokin'joe

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.

Monocoque, Semi monocoque-Unibody, Subframe, Semi subframe, Half chassis, Backbone chassis, ladder chassis. SPACEFRAME. What is the point of all this again?

smokin'joe · 4 Mar 2013, 08:17 (Ref:3213965)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerico

Monocoque, Semi monocoque-Unibody, Subframe, Semi subframe, Half chassis, Backbone chassis, ladder chassis. SPACEFRAME. What is the point of all this again?

eligibility into a well supportered SI series that will not allow spaceframed cars to run.
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.

smokin'joe · 4 Mar 2013, 08:20 (Ref:3213967)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Petch

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.

which would fail first ? the roof or the chassis rail connection to the firewall ??

MacrosNZ · 4 Mar 2013, 08:33 (Ref:3213973)

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.

Jerico · 4 Mar 2013, 08:35 (Ref:3213974)

Quote:

Originally Posted by smokin'joe

which would fail first ? the roof or the chassis rail connection to the firewall ??

Have a look Joe.
Youtube
Smart vs Mercedes E Class Crash Test. The overhead is good.

Mark Petch · 4 Mar 2013, 08:39 (Ref:3213975)

Quote:

Originally Posted by smokin'joe

which would fail first ? the roof or the chassis rail connection to the firewall ??

SJ, you are the one using the word "fail"

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.

smokin'joe · 4 Mar 2013, 08:48 (Ref:3213979)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MacrosNZ

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.

48 seconds . remove all the rollcage and box section and what strength is left ??

Jerico · 4 Mar 2013, 09:17 (Ref:3213990)

Quote:

Originally Posted by smokin'joe

48 seconds . remove all the rollcage and box section and what strength is left ??

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.

smokin'joe · 4 Mar 2013, 09:30 (Ref:3213995)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerico

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.

irrelevent, they were built from a monocoque/unibody chassis. if someone wants to chop bits out before the add the jungle jim, then bully for them. prior to modifcation, they could be driven without the bar work.

Goat Boy · 4 Mar 2013, 10:10 (Ref:3214010)

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.

**GTRMagic** · 4 Mar 2013, 10:19 (Ref:3214017)

Up close and personal with a V8ST...

**Woolley** · 4 Mar 2013, 13:52 (Ref:3214070)

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.

NZSTfan · 4 Mar 2013, 21:57 (Ref:3214255)

Geez, a ST is a monocoque with a cage.....end of

TLX is a pure space frame car....end of

Its quite simple really

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