Thread: Land Rover is dead... Long live land rover!

Originally Posted by roverrescue

Because a Monocoque Can or a Wagon is a completely different Banana to a monocoque Ute
Vans and wagons have roofs and walls carrying flexing loads
A monocoque Ute especially tray variant has to rely on a skinny “chassis” to carry the flex load

It’s the same reason that overloaded 130 utes cracked chassis but 130 wagons didn’t

S

"Monocoque". Are we all on the same page here?

Monocoque literally mean 'single shell'. To my knowledge there has never neen a true monocoque car. The term is better equated to boats. The cars referred to this way are really 'semi monocoque', as the "shell is reinforced with ribs and braces, often with some form of pseudo chassis, or rails, for added rigidity. There have been plenty of utes built this way. All Falcons up until the XF for example. The aforementioned VWs. Holdens, up until ,I think, the VS. My Datto 1200 also comes to mind. I have yet to see a "tray variant" of a monocoque ute. There were some VP to VR trays, but they were converted in Castlemaine and had a rear chassis added, quite similar to how ford built the AU and onwards Falcons.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the Defender 130 was a 'body on frame' design, with a ladder chassis, and thus in no way can it be described as semi monocoque, let alone monocoque. (This is why Daniel at Mulgo can convert them.) Maybe the full length wagon body added some strength, or, more likely, it was much harder to overload the wagons. Whatever, chassis cracks in 130s had nothing to do with monocoque.

Sorry I was a little unclear

The new defender is monocoque or whatever you want to call it
I can’t see them making a tray back variant of the new defender

The old defender was body on chassis
Utes most definitely cracked just in front of the spring mounts as the highest load point of flex
(Same as coil GU utes) wagon bodies on same chassis protect the chassis by limiting flex of the rails


Anyways - it is all moot till they actually officially release anything that resembles a Ute

S

Originally Posted by roverrescue

Anyways - it is all moot till they actually officially release anything that resembles a Ute

S

And i bet my left one that will never happen.

A very good source has told me no way.

But never say never...

Originally Posted by blackrangie

I don't think you realize the logistics of a car release?
They are releasing/showing the car all around the world right now to get the sales book started , at the same time doing final testing of the production prototypes in multiple countries. There is a process that needs to be followed.

The early offroad ride by reporters of pre production mules was to give reporters an early taste and create buzz, which it did. It was a thrash around JLRs test track. Water entered the cabin on 1 reporter but it ended up being temp wiring to the roof breaking the door seal.

Its only been a little over 2 months since release and im sure you will agree Franlfurt was a very good call for them (by reports it stole the show)

Maybe pen a letter to JLR with your proposed timeline taking into account absolutly everything, show them how they are wrong and how you would do it better, post it up for us too .

The guys n girls in charge of the release and the pre release marketing are no doubt hundreds of seasoned industry professionals coming together to make decisions.

There comes a point were we should be humble and maybe realise that they know what they are doing because they are more experienced then us in this regard.

It been 2 months they are following normal release processes, imo reporters will get an actual drive when real pre production testing is complete for obvious reasons.

Maybe you could give examples of vehicles released in this way.

Lots of 'leaked' photos (yes there are always leaked photos but they seem to have been LR controlled).
Then an official launch but no product available for months.
Controlled 'testing' of the vehicle (ie no real world testing because they don't have production vehicles available).

Seems odd to me but I look forward to your examples

It's all been hype so far so for their sake I hope it lives up to the hype and look forward to hearing about yours when it arrives because I'm sure you'll have plenty to say about it.

There seem to be mainly three camps now.

1. Foaming at the mouth with excitement about it.
2. Wouldn't buy one because Tata/Land Rover have moved away from their roots.
3. Same thing happened with the move from leaf springs, the release of the Disco etc. etc. and looking back now it was actually a move forward.

I know which camp I'm in and I'm fairly sure I know which camp you're in.

I hope it's a success for them but, as I've mentioned before, I'm not in their target market for many reasons.


Colin

Originally Posted by johntins

"Monocoque". Are we all on the same page here?

Monocoque literally mean 'single shell'. To my knowledge there has never neen a true monocoque car. The term is better equated to boats. The cars referred to this way are really 'semi monocoque', as the "shell is reinforced with ribs and braces, often with some form of pseudo chassis, or rails, for added rigidity. There have been plenty of utes built this way. All Falcons up until the XF for example. The aforementioned VWs. Holdens, up until ,I think, the VS. My Datto 1200 also comes to mind. I have yet to see a "tray variant" of a monocoque ute. There were some VP to VR trays, but they were converted in Castlemaine and had a rear chassis added, quite similar to how ford built the AU and onwards Falcons.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the Defender 130 was a 'body on frame' design, with a ladder chassis, and thus in no way can it be described as semi monocoque, let alone monocoque. (This is why Daniel at Mulgo can convert them.) Maybe the full length wagon body added some strength, or, more likely, it was much harder to overload the wagons. Whatever, chassis cracks in 130s had nothing to do with monocoque.

A slight difference in terminology - my understanding is that "monocoque", in automotive use, simply means that the main structure of the body/chassis is in one (usually welded) bit. If it is without ribs and braces, it would be referred to as stressed skin, and I believe you are right - there has never been one, although the Southern Cross car of the 1930s can probably be accurately described as such, as can several other cars built in very small numbers.

The VW mentioned above is a tray version of a monocoque ute - unlike most monocoque utes it does not need to rely on the sides of the tub to provide rigidity - it has a stressed tray of corrugated steel with dropsides, with another flat floor of corrugated steel about 50cm below that, extending from the attachment point of the rear suspension to the back of the cab/attachment of the front suspension. Both of these floors are backed by crossways ribs and a rail under the edges, and additional rigidity is provided by the sides of the engine compartment.

Originally Posted by Geedublya

I'm very concerned that you keep presenting the voice of reason John. Being a series and Defender owner you do know that you are completely out of line discussing Rover and Landrover's history of change and evolution and pointing out that monocoque vehicles have carried loads previously.
I think you need to sit back and turn this around and start pointing out why the new Defender isn't able to be called a Defender but should in fact be called the Discovery 4.5 or maybe a Pretender. Having your range of experience you should know that the vehicle for the Australian Outback has leaf or coil springs, a separate chassis, no electronics and a non-common rail di diesel engine of at least 3 litres (preferably 4 or more).

I’d rather see them do this than going out of business. The decisions LR have made is so they can stay in business and, regardless of what the older generations may think, the consumer requirements have evolved and, surprise surprise, the latte drinking urbanistas are now the generation in the workforce who are spending their hard earned cash on goods and services to ensure the economy stays alive

Originally Posted by Bonino

I’d rather see them do this than going out of business. The decisions LR have made is so they can stay in business and, regardless of what the older generations may think, the consumer requirements have evolved and, surprise surprise, the latte drinking urbanistas are now the generation in the workforce who are spending their hard earned cash on goods and services to ensure the economy stays alive

Yeah, not necessarily so. There plenty of cashed up retirees . I have access to loads more money now than I ever did when I was in the workforce. $$ burning a hole in my pocket , but I still need to be sensible about it, I'm not going to spend $200k on a Bollinger . $125k is my max spend on a new vehicle , & I can tell you right now it will never be anything that comes from JLR . And I probably visit more coffee shops than & support local communities more than any city dweller ever does.