Ladder Frame vs. Monocoque - SUVphiles, Kanino Kayo?

[Jeepcruizerph]

Originally posted by Ungas
Ah okies... kala ko kasi si Cherry yung tinutukoy mong on top sa iyo. :bwahaha: :bwahaha: :bwahaha:

bad Cherry hehehe :D:D :D

[Drexx]

15Dec2003 (UTC -8)

Originally posted by mbt
glenn,

generally mas matibay ang monocoque design kesa body-on-frame design... the whole body shell IS the support

Beg to disagree. And so would truck and real 4x4 builders, I believe.

The whole-body-shell concept is exactly why you will not want it for heavy-duty loads. Once it twists, it stays twisted --the ladder-type frame flexes back *and* can be reinforced with more cross-members. And pulling/pushing forces acting on the vehicle will deform a monocoque body out of shape, thus misaligning doors (a close friend of mine had a relatively simple head-on collision but the doors where affected on his Nissan Pathfinder), pushing engine parts/components where it shouldn't be (yes, I've seen it on a hardcore Jeep Cherokee), and generally heading the vehicle off for scrap. And then try to imagine what a 12,000lb. winch can do trying to pull a stuck car out...

Monocoque bodies are designed for soft-roading. And please, no need to mention about Paris-Dakkar rallies. :D That competition is mostly about marketing products. There are no conclusive studies that such "tests" accurately reflect years of real-world consumer vehicle reliability. And besides, those vehicles are heavily modified and there are no post-mortem reports on how good/bad the vehicles' and parts were after the race. The said overall winners are of the Super Production Car class.

However, if one wishes to pursue the argument, the stock car category in Paris-Dakkar Rally is more applicable for guys like us. Only the tyres, springs and shocks, night lights, roll cage, seats, and GPS equipment are modified. I can give you a good guess on who won that category (Diesel engine, Production Car class) for about 2(?) years now

[mbt]

drexx,

in response to jeepcruizerph's question, i was referring to the crash safety characteristics (and not load-carrying capacity or stress capacity) of a monocoque versus a body-on-frame... isn't it true that a monocoque design is inherently more capable of better, more controlled deformation (by diffusing the force of the crash across a larger structure)?

not to say that body-on-frames can't be designed to have good crash characteristics though

[Drexx]

15Dec2003 (UTC -8)

Originally posted by mbt
drexx,

in response to jeepcruizerph's question, i was referring to the crash safety characteristics (and not load-carrying capacity or stress capacity) of a monocoque versus a body-on-frame... isn't it true that a monocoque design is inherently more capable of better, more controlled deformation (by diffusing the force of the crash across a larger structure)?

not to say that body-on-frames can't be designed to have good crash characteristics though

Oh, OK :D I agree with you on this.

BTW, anong Tagalog ba ng "safety" ?

[mbt]

"kaligtasan"? hehehe

[ARB]

The LC80 is two time winner, stock with little modifications lang like the fuel cell and roll bars. Am i right? and if i remember it correctly it is the only diesel engined vehicle to do it in its class.