compositepro
|
| posted on 26/5/11 at 01:39 PM |
|
|
off topic
this is my first post here on this forum but ....big but.
Has anyone ever tried doing a monocoque?
|
|
|
|
|
welderman
|
| posted on 26/5/11 at 01:58 PM |
|
|
A little off topic, which ive just had a read of and it's quite funny in places.
Your head is in the noose, and you're standing on a rickety three legged chair.
Ahh, but are the three remaining legs round or square section, and which would be stronger?
But which is stronger (smell), Stinking Bishop or Stilton ?. 
Thank's, Joe 
I don't stalk people
http://www.locostbuilders.co.uk/forum/23/viewthread.php?tid=172301
Back on with the Fisher Fury R1
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 26/5/11 at 02:08 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by compositepro
this is my first post here on this forum but ....big but.
Has anyone ever tried doing a monocoque?
To keep in the spirit of the thread, who are you calling big but? Robin Hood did a monocoque from stainless before the 2b came out.
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
compositepro
|
| posted on 26/5/11 at 02:20 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
quote:
Originally posted by compositepro
this is my first post here on this forum but ....big but.
Has anyone ever tried doing a monocoque?
To keep in the spirit of the thread, who are you calling big but? Robin Hood did a monocoque from stainless before the 2b came out.
Thanks Peteff I was thinking of a composite though.
|
|
|
alistairolsen
|
| posted on 26/5/11 at 03:11 PM |
|
|
Oh dear, here we go!
Guarantee this is a more heated debate than tube geometry!
(personally, Id love to do one sometime!)
My Build Thread
|
|
|
phelpsa
|
| posted on 26/5/11 at 04:17 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by compositepro
quote:
Originally posted by Peteff
quote:
Originally posted by compositepro
this is my first post here on this forum but ....big but.
Has anyone ever tried doing a monocoque?
To keep in the spirit of the thread, who are you calling big but? Robin Hood did a monocoque from stainless before the 2b came out.
Thanks Peteff I was thinking of a composite though.
Yes, look up Westfield FW400. Less than 400kgs with a car engine!
|
|
|
indykid
|
| posted on 26/5/11 at 04:23 PM |
|
|
Wasn't volvosport working on a composite monocoque 7 many moons ago, or did I make that one up?
|
|
|
Steve Hignett
|
| posted on 26/5/11 at 04:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by alistairolsen
Oh dear, here we go!
Guarantee this is a more heated debate than tube geometry!
It should be an OK topic really, as a monocoque is different to what was discussed and laughed at previously.
Probably best to start a new topic though, if I were you, CompositesPro...
I'm (very very briefly) familiar with composites and know people who've done their own monocoques utilising a moped's (185 engine)
engine and running gear at the back and 2 conventional wheels at the front.
Monocoques are a very good way to make a car (race car) in composites, but it would take a fair bit of re-reading about if I was to give my advice to
someone else!
|
|
|
Neville Jones
|
| posted on 26/5/11 at 05:16 PM |
|
|
Someone in the Southern Hemisphere does a composite chassis'd 7 clone.
Could be Birkin, or one of the NZ companies? Maybe Westfield Aus, Arrow?
Cheers,
Nev
|
|
|
blakep82
|
| posted on 26/5/11 at 05:24 PM |
|
|
remember the guy on here years ago that was talking of doing a monocock chassis
________________________
IVA manual link http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?type=RESOURCES&itemId=1081997083
don't write OT on a new thread title, you're creating the topic, everything you write is very much ON topic!
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 26/5/11 at 05:58 PM |
|
|
Cock
Hee hee
|
|
|
compositepro
|
| posted on 26/5/11 at 06:41 PM |
|
|
cheers
hi guys thanks for the heads up on the cars with the chassis
I was going to comment on the tubular frames as I do have experience in that area but mostly I have been lurking and reading various forums trying to
figure out where things lie in the self build world ...I like the exocar style!!! am i allowed to say that?
However with my love of even classic things with a modern twist the thing that did stand out was that there wasn't anything with a monocoque
chassis and whilst I understand the cost implications of this type of construction it did puzzle me as the kit car fraternity seems to be an inventive
bunch.I was looking for a starting point for a build and maybe the info youve provided will give me that.
I will start my own thread however as I didnt mean to hijack this one
thanks
|
|
|
Volvorsport
|
| posted on 26/5/11 at 07:27 PM |
|
|
i was.....
it got bastardized into something else
www.dbsmotorsport.co.uk
getting dirty under a bus
|
|
|
littlefeller
|
| posted on 26/5/11 at 08:45 PM |
|
|
hijack away, its getting intresting
|
|
|
Neville Jones
|
| posted on 27/5/11 at 11:34 AM |
|
|
A composite racecar 7 has been done a few times.
For the road, I wouldn't entertain the idea, as IVA asks you to go through very stringent specs, although these aren't made clear
publicly.
It's part of the reason the RH's had so much trouble with their mono's, (along with the questionable build methods in places).
Cheers,
Nev.
|
|
|
Confused but excited.
|
| posted on 27/5/11 at 12:38 PM |
|
|
All this is very interesting to a numpty like me (note my LCB name), but as DDD stated "On non structural parts you could use smaller tube like
3/4" 18swg."
This got me more confused. My question is; What parts of a locost/space frame type chassis are non-structural?
Or have I missed something?
This is not meant to be snide, so apologies to anyone who may think different. Just trying to expand my meagre knowledge.
Tell them about the bent treacle edges!
|
|
|
littlefeller
|
| posted on 27/5/11 at 06:32 PM |
|
|
what exactly is iva requirement for chassis and how are they tested
[Edited on 27/5/11 by littlefeller]
|
|
|
v8kid
|
| posted on 27/5/11 at 06:45 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Confused but excited.
All this is very interesting to a numpty like me (note my LCB name), but as DDD stated "On non structural parts you could use smaller tube like
3/4" 18swg."
This got me more confused. My question is; What parts of a locost/space frame type chassis are non-structural?
Or have I missed something?
This is not meant to be snide, so apologies to anyone who may think different. Just trying to expand my meagre knowledge.
The bits you hang other stuff off! Like seats, gearlever, steeringwheel, radiator, engine/box - that sort of stuff 
BTW square v round it depends on how you are loading it, bending (loads of different planes), torsion, buckling, shear - cant think of any other modes
offhand - the point is you have to know how the particular member is loaded before making a decision.
Great thread.
Cheers!
You'd be surprised how quickly the sales people at B&Q try and assist you after ignoring you for the past 15 minutes when you try and start a
chainsaw
|
|
|
bikenuts
|
| posted on 27/5/11 at 07:55 PM |
|
|
Just to pop a couple more logs on the fire;
Round tube is more susceptible to damage and even a small dint reduces its strength dramatically.
Which way should you orient your square tube? It's almost always used with the flat side parallel to the ground but would rotating it 45 degrees
give a stiffer structure? after all the second moment is greater in bending that way????
Bikenuts
|
|
|
compositepro
|
| posted on 27/5/11 at 08:43 PM |
|
|
I'm interested to know what problems people had with the monocoques .I do see a lot of fear on the various forums I've come across with
home builds aluminium and carbon being the main ones but I can see the reasoning behind it when most are building from home.
Having done a fair bit of calculating before embarking on this including the square versus round it is pretty easy to build a chassis from steel
tube....I don't really want to get involved in the square versus round debate but im sure people are mainly just trying to build the best they
can on a budget and get some fun out of it.I'm one of those people who always needs to eel that extra bit of advantage or push a bit of a
barrier with technology and it seems the chassis of a locost would be different to have as a project.
I would be interested to see the level of documentation the inspectors would need to get a pass (i wouldnt have any problem providing figures etc)as
I'm not sure what they would be looking for any links would be interesting.but again I would be interested not what the technical limitations
are but if the actual process of getting it through qualification would kill the project or introduce compromise
|
|
|
iank
|
| posted on 28/5/11 at 06:34 AM |
|
|
The problem with monocoques are that people are basically conservative (small c), and it's very hard to understand how a monocoque will hold up
in an accident where people are more confident that 'more triangles' will get you through. Whether they are right or not isn't
really the point, experimenting and refining designs isn't really feasible with composites and aluminium isn't as easy to modify as steel
tube chassis.
The Robin Hood Lightweight debacle didn't help.
p.s. there was a pdf presentation kicking around the web showing a carbon-fibre spaceframe technique which Caterham were involved with. u2u your
email if you want a copy
--
Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.
Anonymous
|
|
|
designer
|
| posted on 28/5/11 at 07:11 AM |
|
|
There is one thing that always stands out in this debate.
A round tube chassis will always look better than a square tube one.
|
|
|
littlefeller
|
| posted on 28/5/11 at 09:25 PM |
|
|
anyone modded a chassis to create a different car?
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 28/5/11 at 11:18 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by designer
There is one thing that always stands out in this debate.
A round tube chassis will always look better than a square tube one.
In your opinion? I think square looks better
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
Bare
|
| posted on 29/5/11 at 03:38 AM |
|
|
Whot a silly discussion.
Obviously every Twit who has built a marginally designed Locost /Haynes Chassis is gonna swear up and down on their Mother's Grave that square
is the Holy Grail.
Total waste of time arguement.
Ever wonder why NO bicycles use square tubings ?? :-)
[Edited on 29/5/11 by Bare]
|
|
|
