40 years of monocoques
#1
Posted 18 May 2002 - 13:04
There's an excellent article (cover story) in the May issue of MotorSport of how chassis design went from tubes to tubs.
Advertisement
#2
Posted 18 May 2002 - 13:21
the car really was. It is extremely clean. I can only imagine what it was like to drive one of those 1500cc cars.
If anyone knows anyone who sells cutaways of the Lotus 24, I would love to
add it to my collection of cutaways.
#3
Posted 18 May 2002 - 14:55
#4
Posted 18 May 2002 - 14:57
#5
Posted 18 May 2002 - 15:22
At least the Voisin wasn't F1 (ok, at this point I'm putting on my flame-proof suit...;) )
#6
Posted 18 May 2002 - 15:34
Isn't it correct to say that 1967 was the last year a space-frame car won the world championship?
#7
Posted 18 May 2002 - 17:55
#8
Posted 18 May 2002 - 20:09
DCN
#9
Posted 18 May 2002 - 20:51
A similar thing in aviation is the Wright brothers being credited for the "first" flight. There had been flying before, but the Wright brothers developed a machine for controlled, sustained flight, indeed the starting point of real aviation.
#10
Posted 18 May 2002 - 21:31
#11
Posted 18 May 2002 - 22:50
Monocoque is one of many things, like turbocharging, wings and slicks, that took while to get into modern F1. IIRC, Citroen built monocoque roadcars in '30ies...
#12
Posted 19 May 2002 - 05:34
"The Lotus 25 was responsible for establishing the acceptance of monocoque construction in F1 cars"
But you have to equally admire those guys who tried it out in earlier periods
#13
Posted 19 May 2002 - 07:39
Originally posted by DOHC
Checked a little in Cimarosti's book, which is interesting in this context because of those cutaways mentioned above and some technical discussion, and it is suprising that in spite of the 25's and 33's successes, it took a while before the space-framed cars were gone. Brabham's space framed cars even won two championships (66, 67). According to Cimarosti, Ferrari had a mixed approach to constucting their tubs into the early 80s, where the skin and sheeting were welded onto thin tubes. The 312 of 1970 was clearly made like this, but what about the championship winning 312T's in the mid 70s?
Isn't it correct to say that 1967 was the last year a space-frame car won the world championship?
I believe that the mixed construction used by Ferrari was purely to aid the construction of the car. As Cimarosti says, they built the spaceframe first and then welded the tub round it. I don't think the tubes had any significant effect on the rigidity of the resulting car, it was just an easier way for them to build it.
I believe the first stressed skin Ferraris not to use this method were the cars built by John Thompson in 1973.
#14
Posted 19 May 2002 - 08:34
Originally posted by Wolf
the same thing can be said of many things...
...about so many in engineering, that it's surprising! It's very rare to get it right the first few times. And often the first attempts are in some "exotic" application rather than in the area where the breakthrough comes.
Another example: rolling bearings were first "correctly" done and used by the great clock (and eventually watch) maker John Harrison, before 1750. da Vinci had of course also already had a look at it. The first modern rolling bearing seems to be German, from c 1850, but there was no real understanding of them until the German Richard Stribeck published his findings in 1901. One of the key events, however, (getting things right) was the patent by Swede Sven Wingqvist, who in 1907 invented the spherical ball bearing, and from there on there's no end to it---a snowball effect just like with Chapman's 25!
Ok, sorry for this digression...
#15
Posted 19 May 2002 - 12:11
I believe that is correct. Then again, weren't the earlier T models built the old way again?Originally posted by Roger Clark
I believe the first stressed skin Ferraris not to use this method were the cars built by John Thompson in 1973.
#16
Posted 19 May 2002 - 21:57
Interestingly it was the multiple load-sharing structure of the stressed-skin D-Type monocoque which fired Alfieri's imagination at Maserati, and led him to the 'Birdcage'. Italian industry lacked specialist skills necessary to create stressed-skin monocoques in aluminium - largely 'cos hand-hammered stressed-skins are NOT a good idea and Italian panel bashers hadn't yet discovered 'The English Wheel' shaping device. But they could weld any tube to any other tube at the drop of a blow-torch, so that's what they did - the 'Birdcage' multi-tubular chassis design seeking to mimic a stressed-skin structure with more multiple-member load sharing than one could shake a stick at.
DCN
#17
Posted 19 May 2002 - 22:08
Originally posted by Doug Nye
Italian industry lacked specialist skills necessary to create stressed-skin monocoques in aluminium - largely 'cos hand-hammered stressed-skins are NOT a good idea and Italian panel bashers hadn't yet discovered 'The English Wheel' shaping device.
How come? After all Italy had (and has) both aviation and automotive industry. And the Fiat group was involved in both areas. Strange! But I guess that there's a very long English tradition in trying out new technology in racing, and many designers/constructors had an aviation industry background. So the English performance car tradition was just far ahead or more innovative?
#18
Posted 19 May 2002 - 22:15
DCN
#19
Posted 19 May 2002 - 22:30
Strangely, there is little reference to the wheel or the hammer in most monocoque chassis. The folder is in for constant use, other than that most examples were simply curved over formers as they were rivetted in place. The formers themselves were often the chassis bulkheads to which they were rivetted.
Certainly, there were BRMs and McRaes that had bulging sides that required work on the wheel, but look back and you see that these were very much in the minority.
Advertisement
#20
Posted 19 May 2002 - 23:06
Originally posted by Doug Nye
Nothing strange about it - examine the Italian aviation industry of the 1950s and its products
Well, there's for example the Fiat G91, which flew in 1958 (its engine was British though, a Bristol Siddeley Orpheus). So the aluminium sheet shaping technology was certainly available in Italy already in the 50s, not to mention 1970, when the Ferrari 312 was still built by welding skins on a tube frame.
There are other differences though. Italy didn't have the massive experience of aviation industry, development and production that England developed during WW II. After that there must have been a surplus engineering capacity and knowledge in England that is likely to have supplied and inspired automotive industry. Finally there was a big interest in English club racing, old airfields to use for racing etc. That must have stimulated race car engineering at all levels.
It's reasonable to believe that there were few similar cross-fertilizing effects in Italy, but that's another thing than the technology not being available.
#21
Posted 20 May 2002 - 01:13
Originally posted by DOHC
Well, there's for example the Fiat G91, which flew in 1958 ........
There are other differences though. Italy didn't have the massive experience of aviation industry, development and production that England developed during WW II. After that there must have been a surplus engineering capacity and knowledge in England that is likely to have supplied and inspired automotive industry. Finally there was a big interest in English club racing, old airfields to use for racing etc. That must have stimulated race car engineering at all levels..
Did this Fiat have a monocoque airframe? That's really the point...
And there is an even more direct connection in England... some early 500s used discarded/surplus auxilliary fuel tanks from bombers for bodywork.
#22
Posted 20 May 2002 - 10:48
It's a classic all-aluminium monocoque/semimonocoque airframe, with the aluminium skin being supported by an internal structure of ribs, spars and bulkheads. I think that the relevant thing to speak of is all-aluminium stressed skin constructions (and to some extent the riveting technique). Airplanes were built like that before WW II, but cars weren't. The one thing which is hard to do is compound curvature on stressed skins.
Space frames (or trusses) were used for cars almost exclusively in racing, I would think, because it's a light construction that provides rigidity. That was also the reason for using space frames in early airplanes, before c 1930. Some of those airplanes couldn't have their skins stressed, because it was made of fabric. But there were plywood (semi)monocoque airplanes already before WW I.
Likewise, monocoques found their obvious car application in racing, for that's the only area where there was a need for such construction techniques. Airplanes and racing cars have a lot in common, ordinary road cars and airplanes have almost nothing in common. So it was only natural to bring the monocoque concept from aviation industry into racing. Both had used space frames, and since 1962 both use monocoques.
The only reason I see why it took so "long" to bring monocoques into racing is that there was an established, proven and simple technology available in the racing business (space frames), and that it always takes time to learn, perfect and master a new technology that has to be adapted from another area. Chapman's move to monocoques in 1962 was therefore a bold one indeed. A small step for engineering, perhaps, but a giant leap for racing.
#23
Posted 20 May 2002 - 12:57
In contrast the Italian racing car industry relied very much upon local skills and local loyalties - i.e. it paid its workers next to nothing, and they reponded by being happily driven into the ground like tentpegs. Alfieri wanted to build a monocoque. He decided that the artisans available to him - either by being on the staff or being nearby or being AFFORDABLE (because at that time, 1958-59, every Lire he spent was under the tightest scrutiny by the appointed Administrators ) did not have the requisite skills to shape metal in the manner he required. In contrast their abilities and their readiness to attempt something, well, 'different' with soda-straw style welded tube were never ever in doubt.
And think about a D-Type monocoque and you will find precious few structural panels shaped on a folder rather than a wheeling machine. Way into 1962-63 the Modena/Emilia racing car industry was still hammering aluminium to shape in the concave crown of iron-bound tree stumps and not until incomers such as Surtees and Parkes were beginning to be listened to did the English Wheeling machine begin to find real acceptance in the halls of Scaglietti, Fantuzzi, Drogo et al...
DCN
#24
Posted 20 May 2002 - 16:31
#25
Posted 20 May 2002 - 17:05
and here:Originally posted by Doug Nye
the Italian aviation industry was very small and geographically confined, as was the contemporary Italian racing car industry. [snip]
In contrast the Italian racing car industry relied very much upon local skills and local loyalties - i.e. it paid its workers next to nothing,[snip]
[Alfieri] decided that the artisans available to him [snip] did not have the requisite skills to shape metal in the manner he required.
and I think I pointed to the first and last of these arguments. That is, the technology was available, but technology transfer did not take place.Originally posted by dmj
Italian constructors used to stick to old ideas and keep on perfecting them [snip]
cutting costs to extreme levels was the only option for Alfieri. Also, Italy until recently didn't develop a net of small, more or less independent specialists in racing industry, like UK.
#26
Posted 20 May 2002 - 18:05
DCN
#27
Posted 21 May 2002 - 02:15
Thinking about it, there were very few spaceframes in the early fifties, it was only the movement to the smaller cars of the late fifties and early sixties that led down that path. The reality is that it was only really five or six years of serious use of spaceframes before the monocoque hit, in reality it must have been a stroke of genius for Chapman to see any real advantage.
The lightness he pursued wasn't enhanced much, but the level of structural rigidity he found must have been a source of amazement to those building spaceframes around him.
Of course, it was pretty pointless to pursue that earlier, anyway... until tyres, dampers and suspension knowledge developed to the point it had.
#28
Posted 21 May 2002 - 08:24
Has mention been made that Colin Chapman avoided use of the word 'monocoque' to describe his early stressed-skin cars? I seem to recall that it's not in his patent application either. It's interesting, however, to define 'spaceframe' 'cos many that we describe as such were not by the strictest definition, though much of this is personal prejudice and perception.
DCN
#29
Posted 21 May 2002 - 08:56
Originally posted by Doug Nye
- indeed could not take place, the constructors could not/would not afford it, nor was it culturally within their grasp.
A sort of analogue to pizzas never being able to make their way to England until the 70s, then. They had to be perfected in USA first...;)
#30
Posted 21 May 2002 - 09:23
Originally posted by Ray Bell
it must have been a stroke of genius for Chapman to see any real advantage.
The lightness he pursued wasn't enhanced much, but the level of structural rigidity he found must have been a source of amazement to those building spaceframes around him.
Perhaps Chapman didn't see the advantage either until it was a fait accompli. After all, parallel to the development of the 25, the 24 was constructed along classical lines, in case the 25 wouldn't show well. It seems to me that Chapman had a strong belief in his ideas (I never met him, of course, so this view is only from Crombac's and other books), and it is suprising that he chose to have a back-up solution. It's an indication that he was taking a chance on the monocoque and wasn't completely aware of what it would bring. But he certainly knew that it was the standard "light construction" methodology in aviation. That was widely known. As I said above, racing cars and airplanes have a lot in common, because they both need maximal strength at minimal weight. For ordinary road cars this is not a concern. Therefore it was just engineering common sense to look at airframe construction methodology. Bold? Yes! Stroke of genius? I don't think so. It was professional engineering, that's all. (Which isn't little.)
#31
Posted 21 May 2002 - 09:29
Originally posted by Doug Nye
Has mention been made that Colin Chapman avoided use of the word 'monocoque' to describe his early stressed-skin cars? I seem to recall that it's not in his patent application either.
That is highly interesting! What is the patent about and did he get it? And is this the one that Chapman claimed some other constructor made a patent infringement on? I don't recall that story, but soon after the 25 there was somebody else who made a monocoque and Chapman seems to have claimed that the idea was stolen. What happened in that case? Or did he just overreact?
#32
Posted 31 March 2008 - 21:24
Roger Lund
#33
Posted 31 March 2008 - 22:20
I think the 'patent infringement' that DOHC is referring to was the BRP. This was more or less a copy of the Lotus 25 using a lot of Lotus 24 bits like the suspension. Chapman felt it was a copy and was worried by its performance and responded by opposing BRP's application to be considered a manufacturer with the financial advantages that F1CA membership brought, even that early principally access to the cut-price charter flights to far-flung places like S Africa, S America and the USA.