Page 1 of 1
Monocoque chassis
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:41 pm
by nitro-nige
This is a bit of an open ended question.
I was reading over on landracing.com about the guy that wants to build a streamliner with a carbon fibre moncoque frame.
It got me thinking, back in the day they built F1 cars with Sheetmetal aluminium monoque frames, complete with riveted on suspension mounting brackets. With careful planning and a big enough folding machine couldn't you build a lakester that way?
I had imagined something that created a tub around the lower half of the engine and driver with a roll cage around the drivers head. You could maybe even use the 'frame' as a water or oil tank for the engine.
Assuming such a car was properly designed and built would it pass tech inspection?
frame
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:37 pm
by Dr Goggles
...low tech as it seems the quickest route to a frame is bent pipe , the rules specify the pipe required for roll cages and so if you're building a frame as well ..it might as well be one......you can of course build what you are talking about but you will need to follow the procedures of having it assessed by engineers and whatever else(?????) it says in the rule book in order to get special consideration , dunno if i'm right off the bat there .The point is there aren't many instances where weight is crucial , mild steel is cheap and easy ......lots of streamliners have used the frame as tanks or piping , Buells do.
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:07 am
by Brootal
Part of the reason the race cars went with the monocoque was for weight saving.
Of course, we all know that: "Weight is our friend."
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:35 pm
by nitro-nige
I think you're right, mild steel tube is the cheapest and easiest way to make a safe frame.
I was more thinking about strength and aero rather than saving weight.
Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:20 pm
by BOB ELLIS
nitro , rules state(DLRA &SCTA)that vehicile to have a chassis / frame.Dennis Manning (of Bub fame)apparently went down the mono track , and SCTA were not keen.It does state in rules 3.3 "Except where specifically forbidden by class rules,any design frame may be used." Then check out roll cage requirements , and see you really need some kind of chassis to make every thing legal.Depends what you want to build.Will help any way we can.Gordon D , you need some serious help.Dr Goggles (our DLRA Surgeon) may have to pay you a visit.Rev Hedgash is good at counciling the sick. cheers Bob #66C/GCC.
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:18 am
by DirtyDave
GordonD,Bluuur
Apart from the fact that your really starting to piss me off with your stone throwing you should put your money where your mouth is,
The DLRA is a motorsport that has a safe build standard,
If you follow sports like rally, supercars, formula buy a car with absolutely no mechanical aptitude what so ever, then go have a ball,
land speed racing world wide is a pioneer sport, unfortunately we don't have the budgets to build and test vehicles and crash test several models to determine it safety, with monocoque sett-ups, Even Willams F1 missed a few of the season openers a few seasons back and ran last years cars because they didn't make the cut,
Fortunately Street cars have now been cancelled from our rule book so we don't have to deal with pretenders like you,
May i suggest you find a rule book from governing bodies of diffrent motorsport and find out how restrictive they are before you blow us up,,,
Oh and buy the way Kevlar and Carbon Fibre where invented almost 50 years ago anyhow,,,,
Have a F#@kin Great Day.......................
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:41 am
by w3stie
My Westfield clubman has a
mild steel tubular space frame, probably designed in the sixties. There wouldn't be more than a handful of supercars that are stiffer stronger or lighter. For a sport that is largely privateers and amateur builders you can't go past mild steel tube. If you want to go to exotic materials go for it. Nobody said it would be easy.
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:23 pm
by Lynchy
Why does anyone pay any attention to this GordonD? He is obviously just lurking about to pick fights.
Can the webmaster can his login??
Lynchy
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:15 pm
by outbacktrev
Well said Dirtington
Cheers,
Trevor
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:51 pm
by REAL Stan
Peeping Tom
Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:23 pm
by Dr Goggles
He ,he , he ,
Gordon's STILL watching!!...maaaaaaaaaate if ya don't like it then why the blinkin' 'ell are ya still snoopin' around with ya snitchy little snipes . In your mind this forum is populated by half-wits who haven't noticed the last fifty years of automotive mechanical engineering development, others would differ .The more you talk , the more you prove our suspicions...Go away.
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:53 am
by DLRA
GordonD, you throw stones and you have to expect some to come back.
You are a guest here (and still welcome) and when you signed up to the forum you agreed to some cetain terms and conditions. (See Below)
Consider this your first friendly warning.
General Disclaimer
The DLRA does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information, content or advertisements (collectively, the "Materials") contained on, distributed through, or linked, downloaded or accessed from any of the services contained on this website (the "Service"), nor the quality of any products, information or other materials displayed, purchased, or obtained by you as a result of an advertisement or any other information or offer in or in connection with the Service (the "Products"). You hereby acknowledge that any reliance upon any Materials shall be at your sole risk. The DLRA reserves the right, in its sole discretion and without any obligation, to make improvements to, or correct any error or omissions in any portion of the Service or the Materials.
THE SERVICE AND THE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED BY DLRA ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND DLRA EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE DLRA BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE, THE MATERIALS AND THE PRODUCTS.
The DLRA encourages you to exercise discretion while browsing the Internet using this directory. The directory may direct you to sites containing information that some people may find offensive or inappropriate. The DLRA makes no representations concerning any endeavor to review the content of sites listed in the directory or any of the Materials, and so the DLRA isn't responsible for the accuracy, copyright compliance, legality or decency of material contained in sites listed in the directory or in the Materials.
The DLRA respects the rights (including the intellectual property rights) of others, and we ask our users to do the same. The DLRA may, in appropriate circumstances and in its sole discretion, terminate the accounts of users that infringe or otherwise violate such rights of others.
By using this account you indicate that you have read, understood and agreeed to the Copyright, Privacy Statement and Terms and Conditions posted on the DLRA website.
Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:22 am
by Reverend Hedgash
Nitro,
Legality aside of course you could build one that way but would you really want to?
The problem with the old monocoque racers as Jack Brabham outlines in his book was that they were bloody hard to repair quickly after an incident.
Racing damage is not such an issue with LSR of course (and we have a year turn-a-round between gigs) but manufacture is.
I know from the experience of building our car that we spend nearly the same amount of time taking things off as putting them on our car as we learn, develop and improve the concept. (dr G and I were joking the other day that it took only X$ to build the car, but 10 times X$ to not build it with what we have spent on ideas, parts etc that didn't get used.)
If you were going down the monocoque path it would seem that you would have to have an extreme understanding of exactly what you were building before you built it and any changes required along the way would be more tricky to incorporate / test.
With that said, my reading of the rules is that as long as you have the appropriate roll bars / cage around you, the rest of the car can be constructed as you see fit. (I am not a scrutineer though.)
In regards of aero, if the chassis is inside the air doesn't care how its made. The aero issues for exposed head/roll protection is the same regardless of how it is made and will need to be treated accordingly.
As a designer I must say though that I like the idea for the sake of neatness. Like structural origami for cars, some clever kooky solutions are often the most satisfying and fun to do despite all the trickiness. (because of?) I note that you are an engineer and may have the same demeanour.
We build these cars not to a formula but as something that satisfies our soul.
Dr G and I were very proud at our battery mount the other day which involved a tricky little folded metal strap which works very well, is simple to use and looks great. Priceless.
Rev.H+
