Printable View
A D5 is not a D1 either....couldn't be further from a D1 but that doesn't stop LR. If LR kept developing the old jalopy Deefer instead of leaving it in yesteryear then we would be in exactly the same place arguably with Defender 2. So no it's not (thankfully) a Defender with some modern kit in it. And LR can call it what it wants.
Cheers
Sure it is - it’s written right on the bonnet.. 😉Quote:
Originally Posted by roverrescue
Hope the new Bond film is good.
Love Bond films.
[emoji56]
Yep its as much a defender as a d5 is a discovery, its no old defender for sure, some people will like that others won't. If they don't they can keep their old one or buy one, everyone's happy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ozscott
Been looking at spy shots of filming, there is a RRS that is flipped in it too and lots of cars..looks like they are putting a lot off effort into it! Will be there first night for sure [emoji1419][emoji41]Quote:
Originally Posted by 16PMark
Hi blackrangie,
Awesome! I'll bring the drinks and popcorn! [emoji6] Hoping also, for an Aston Martin we don't know about too. [emoji41]Quote:
Originally Posted by blackrangie
As others have said, a monocoque is a type of chassis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne Park
My dad's a farmer and spent decades towing cattle around with an old HR Holden - it might've stretched a little but there was no cracking.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne Park
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melbourne Park
Errr.. dunno about this.
I reckon there's enough Triton owners here in Aus that will debate that claim!
A google search for cracked chassis will reveal many ladder frame chassis cracking events, very few monoque cracking hits tho.
A monocoque design will be stronger for a given body weight every time compared to a ladder frame.
And the ladder frame design will make it cheaper to build variant bodies for the manufacturer.
"Stronger" doesn't really describe the differences does it ... for torsional rigidity a monocoque is the cheapest way to get there, for sure. And for a given level of torsional rigidity, its lighter too, and much cheaper to build, plus it crushes better in a crash. Plus you can roll the floor pan into all sorts of different vehicles, the new Defender being a typical example of what contemporary cost accountants have decreed. Towing though with a chassis sees the stresses by pass the "cabin" which is not subjected to the tow weight strains.Quote:
Originally Posted by AK83
If a chassis Defender had of been developed, street wise it would have been worse than this new monocoque one will be. And R&D cost would have been many many many times greater, because it would have been new. And IMO a version of the D3/4 concept would have been very heavy which is not a Defender hallmark and also costly. Rather than a conversion of current floorpans into something more off-road and evidently tougher.
It's great they've created a new "Defender". And they aren't making X5s or Audi Porsches etc. ie just essentially good handling softroaders. LR are differentiated and that differentiation goes back to their core off road heritage. While I'd have liked a chassis in the new "Defender", the cost of capital for developing a new chassis platform would have provided a much lower return than using that capital for other JLR projects that are coming. So doing a chassis Defender might have wrecked the company. We've got to be happy that they did something and who knows whether for me it will provide a tow option, or something that 3rd parties will want to develop off road gear for. And I note that ARB don't seem to list gear for the current Discovery models.
Agreed plus monocoque/unibody engineering has increased in leaps and bounds since the 70s, I can't see the D5 creaking and groaning, huge rubbers seprate the body/chassis and the subframes aswell.Quote:
Originally Posted by AK83