Thread: Monocoque for new Defender?

Originally Posted by Tombie

Why? Vehicle construction has come a very long way and there is no reason a UniBody constructed vehicle couldnt be stronger, lighter and more rigid or have better longevity than a body on chassis...

Keep an open mind...

It seems to work for aircraft,Formula 1,all supercars,load bearing structures etc. Pat

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

IIRC the reason was that it wasn't able to withstand the stresses of real off road Land Rovers have made their name off and they didn't want it to be another soft roader like the X5 BMW etc.

Won't the new Discovery be on the aluminium chassis same as the Range Rovers (excluding the Evoque)

All new model LR's including the Defender and D5 which comes out next year will be mandrel formed,hydraulic formed or press formed alloy construction.Approx twice the strength,about 10 times the rigidity for half the weight. Pat

Originally Posted by manofaus

Problem with unibody design is the fact that most parts if the vehicle are part of the integrity of vehicle. I would think your windscreens and quarter glassed wouldn't like corrugations and a damaged sill would be a big cause for concern. Bolt on bits would be practically non existant apart from a bull bar or tow bar.

Might see a dealer spec nudge bar. Suspension would need to be more supple. I can see a biturbo auto driveline in the crystal ball too. No low range just an extra 2 low gears in slushbox... ..

Windscreen glass in all LR's from the D1,except the defender have been load bearing in the cabin cell,the reason for the thickness of them. Pat

Originally Posted by loanrangie

The good old days, a gas axe, some bog and a bit of paint and off you go again.

Maybe the reason you no longer allowed to do it. Pat

The big problem with unibody construction is that it makes multiple body options much more expensive, as each has to be designed separately to handle stress paths that will be very different, for example, in a five door wagon, a dual cab, a single cab, a style side ute, a trayback, cab/chassis etc.

But at least in theory, today these different designs and stress analyses can be done entirely in software, although this does not solve the problems inherent in needing a lot of different structural parts for each body type. (Not just having to manufacture them, but different assembly requirements, spare parts chain etc.)

For example, the torsional stiffness about a longitudinal axis will be supplied in a wagon or van by the roof, side pillars, firewall, glass, doors, sides, and base platform. But when you consider the cab/chassis or trayback body style, most of these elements are missing, and you have to decide whether to beef up the platform to provide the stiffness on all models (despite not being needed on some) or accept different parts for different models, with all the problems this brings.

One of the key design features of the existing Defender is the large amount of parts commonality between different body styles. This is something Rover learnt from experience - Series 1 had a different chassis for the lwb wagon; the lwb Series 2 chassis was designed from the start to accommodate the wagon body.

John

I think the video on this site with the Evoque launching off the roadway is enough evidence of the monocoque strength - the Defender in the same situation would have looked like a pancake

Originally Posted by loanrangie

The good old days, a gas axe, some bog and a bit of paint and off you go again.

I had forgotten about bog.. ahh the memories of home-fix-its

Originally Posted by PAT303

Maybe the reason you no longer allowed to do it. Pat

Ah the good old days, when all you needed was an axe, an adze, a cocky's fenceline and a bucket of bullocks blood to get on the road again.

My Crystal ball says unibody with some substantial sub frames, but then the way i have been picking shares lately .