Page 10 of 38 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 375

Thread: Holden - how long before the end?

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    AU
    Posts
    643
    Total Downloaded
    0
    So that is the story in my opinion

    It's a bad time for Aussie manufacturing industry because of the mining boom and associated "Dutch disease" plus a government that does nothing.

    On the other hands, Holden has been an absolutely arsehole

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    AU
    Posts
    764
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Norway i think decided to limit how much LPG or whatever natural resources they sell and put all the profit into a future fund.

    Sounds like thinking at least two steps ahead of Oz.

    [Does Gina have Gigolo's?]

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    18,616
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoClax View Post
    Not going to get into an argument over this but the same team worked on both chassis.
    No worries - you got any references for this?

    Cheers

    Garry
    REMLR 243

    2007 Range Rover Sport TDV6
    1977 FC 101
    1976 Jaguar XJ12C
    1973 Haflinger AP700
    1971 Jaguar V12 E-Type Series 3 Roadster
    1957 Series 1 88"
    1957 Series 1 88" Station Wagon

  4. #94
    DiscoMick Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by rammypluge View Post
    Norway i think decided to limit how much LPG or whatever natural resources they sell and put all the profit into a future fund.

    Sounds like thinking at least two steps ahead of Oz.

    [Does Gina have Gigolo's?]
    Sovereign wealth fund. Singapore also has a government investment arm.
    We have the Future Fund, which is only to cover government obligations, and superannuation funds. Our super reserves are one of the world's biggest.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kilmore, VIC
    Posts
    848
    Total Downloaded
    106.38 MB
    Quote Originally Posted by garrycol View Post
    No worries - you got any references for this?

    Cheers

    Garry
    No dramas, but not sure what the question is. The source of my information I quoted in that post. The original proto chassis was essentially identical, and then LR and Ford each worked on their own versions of it, but with LR 'constrained' as to the changes they could make to the design and content. The rest is history and LRs solution was both novel and effective (if not overly weight-efficient)...
    DiscoClax
    '94 D1 3dr Aegean Blue - 300ci stroker RV8, 4HP24 & Compushift, usual bar-work, various APT gear, 235/85 M/Ts, 3deg arms, Detroit lockers, $$$$, etc.
    '08 RRS TDV8 Rimini Red - 285/60R18 Falken AT3Ws, Rock slider-steps, APT full under-protection, Mitch Hitch, Tradesman rack, Traxide DBS, Gap IID

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    18,616
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Ok thanks - i looked back and cannot find any references, links or official documentation.

    Anyway not all that relevant to a Holden tread.

    Garry
    REMLR 243

    2007 Range Rover Sport TDV6
    1977 FC 101
    1976 Jaguar XJ12C
    1973 Haflinger AP700
    1971 Jaguar V12 E-Type Series 3 Roadster
    1957 Series 1 88"
    1957 Series 1 88" Station Wagon

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    AU
    Posts
    764
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoClax View Post
    No dramas, but not sure what the question is. The source of my information I quoted in that post. The original proto chassis was essentially identical, and then LR and Ford each worked on their own versions of it, but with LR 'constrained' as to the changes they could make to the design and content. The rest is history and LRs solution was both novel and effective (if not overly weight-efficient)...
    If say they made the body twice as stiff, i wonder how much that would translate to the chassis, given that the body mount bushes would flex more?

    Its still a nice idea but yeah, turned out heavy. Its clear Ford were heavily at play here, given how different the D3 is to the L322.

    I notice that high strength steels in monocoques seems to be worsening NVH. I imagine an alloy monocoque should be better than a mild steel monocoque?

  8. #98
    JDNSW's Avatar
    JDNSW is offline RoverLord Silver Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    29,513
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rammypluge View Post
    ............

    I notice that high strength steels in monocoques seems to be worsening NVH. I imagine an alloy monocoque should be better than a mild steel monocoque?
    Logically, if you use high strength steel to replace mild steel, the only reason to use it is to reduce weight. This means thinner sheets of steel. But although the high strength steel is stronger, its elastic modulus is the same, so panels in particular will vibrate more easily.

    Going to alloy, there are two factors at work - the alloy is weaker, but also more elastic. Both of these will require thicker material, and the rigidity added by the thicker material will, I think, lead to a stiffer structure despite the lower modulus, simply as a result of having to use the thicker material to be strong enough.
    John

    JDNSW
    1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
    1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    AU
    Posts
    764
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JDNSW View Post
    Logically, if you use high strength steel to replace mild steel, the only reason to use it is to reduce weight. This means thinner sheets of steel. But although the high strength steel is stronger, its elastic modulus is the same, so panels in particular will vibrate more easily.

    Going to alloy, there are two factors at work - the alloy is weaker, but also more elastic. Both of these will require thicker material, and the rigidity added by the thicker material will, I think, lead to a stiffer structure despite the lower modulus, simply as a result of having to use the thicker material to be strong enough.
    Thats exactly what i was surmising. Although i was also thinking of the high tensile as being a bit like a tuning fork or a piano wire, transmitting noise more readily.

    Rolls Royce used to have a separate chassis for NVH, but now they are doing alloy monocoque. They are pretty particular i believe.

    Will be interesting to get feedback from offroaders going from D3/4 to D5.

    Were any of the guys in this thread involved in the development of the Crewman?

  10. #100
    Tombie Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by JDNSW View Post
    Logically, if you use high strength steel to replace mild steel, the only reason to use it is to reduce weight. This means thinner sheets of steel. But although the high strength steel is stronger, its elastic modulus is the same, so panels in particular will vibrate more easily.

    Going to alloy, there are two factors at work - the alloy is weaker, but also more elastic. Both of these will require thicker material, and the rigidity added by the thicker material will, I think, lead to a stiffer structure despite the lower modulus, simply as a result of having to use the thicker material to be strong enough.
    Let’s get pedantic and specific...

    HS Steel = Alloy
    Mild Steel = Alloy
    Aluminium = Element
    Aluminium Alloy = Alloy

    And they now have an Aluminium Alloy that is as strong as steel at same dimensions/thickness.

Page 10 of 38 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!