A place to discuss the characteristics of the cars in Formula One, both current as well as historical. Laptimes, driver worshipping and team chatter do not belong here.
i´d say the monocoque is part of the chassis ,but you´d have to count the engine and gearbox case to the chassis also because they are main loadbearingmembers and form the rear half of the chassis.
Ok, now that you got me thinking, I'd say that the rear impacty structure is definately a major part of the chassis. This includes the engine and the G-box. So in my books the chassis consists of more than just the monocoque, regardless of what some f1 geek has written in his book. By the way, from what year is the book of yours? I don't think the rear impact structure is that old a part of an F1 car. So could your source be out of date? That doesn't really matter.
Anyway, i think the chassis is more than just the monocoque(if this weren't so then why call it a monocoque, why not just call it the chassis?)
Location: Covilhã, Portugal (and sometimes in Évora)
Post
the date of publishing of my books are:
- Peter Wright - 2002
- Giorgio Piolla all books from 1995 to 2002
- Nigel MacKnight - 2002
- Race Car Chassis Design - 1998
By the way the F1 geek....Peter Wright worked in F1 from 1967 to 1994 and was technical director from 1991 to 1994....and probably knows more about F1 and automotive engineering then all of us put together!
Having a monocoque by it's self can be called a chassis, but an engine or a gearbox by them selfs cannot be called a chassis! And at the end of the day the engine/gearbox arrangement transmites the forces applied on them to the rear of the monocoque (in one of the books they talk alot about it and the importance of the rear of the monocoque being very strong and anti-torsional)
I'm not saying I don't agree that the chassis sould be considered as the whole monocoque-engine-gearbox arrangement...but the specialists call the monocoque as a kind of chassis....and since they know more then me I'll have to go with their word! Besides that diferente people have diferente ways of calling the same thing if you speak to an engineer he'll talk to you of the polar momentum of inercia...while if you talk to a physics teacher he'll say that polar momentum of inercia is completly incorrect the correct word is only momentum!
sorry chaps,but I think the guest was right .All Aero loads all suspension loads are fed into the gearbox at the rearso you cannot call it only a gearbox.For ease of understanding the authors refer to the monocoque as chassis ,but inreality the monocoque engine and gearbox together form the complete chassisomit one of these and you won´t be able to even roll it over the backyard.In modern Sportscar designs the engine is only semistressed(Zytek ,Lola B160) so there the engine would not really count to the chassis,only increasing torsional stiffness of the whole.
one might ask piola and wright what they think but of course they would agree
I hate to discontinue the Chassis/Monocoque talk but about the new mclaren, If the pace that Kimi showed in britan was real Mclarencould realistically climb to 2nd or 3rd in the constructors championshiip and maybe win a race or two. they could be up there with BAR and Renault
in contrast to Mclaren the toyota update did not show very well out of the box...let´s wait and se ..i feel their pain will increase in the months to come.
Coming back to the Mac,we discussed the stiffness of the Monocoque engine interface some time ago and someone said this was not allowed to be a real stiff connection so as to avoid vibrations to harm the engine.
To my mind the mac really ha a stiffness problem in his chassis and I feel it was caused either by a engine installation trying to help a soft engine or the engine itself.
Now Mac and the stars seem to work togethzer again ,and hey we never doubted the abilities of the persons involved...but did you spot Neway looking something like 10 years older since last year...I would not have liked to getthat flak...
Dennis: 'McLaren will beat Ferrari in Germany'
Wednesday July 21 2004
Ron Dennis is feeling smug ahead of this weekend's German GP as he firmly believes the victory is already as good as McLaren's.
Having recently tested new upgrades for the MP4-19B in Britain and Spain, McLaren head to Hockenheim with a modified version of their already revised B-spec car and, according to Dennis, a faster version.
"Put it this way: the car will definitely be faster at Hockenheim that an Silverstone," he told The Times.
However, the Brit also admits he does have a few doubts but those all depend on whether or not McLaren's rivals have been able to improve their packages between the British GPs and now.
"Whether it will be capable of beating the Ferraris, only time will tell, but based on our experience of grand prix racing, there will have to be something in the pipeline coming from BAR or Renault or Ferrari," he said.
"If nobody has anything particularly revolutionary to introduce - and we haven't seen anything in testing either at Jerez or Silverstone to support the possibility - I think we feel that we will take a step forward that won't be matched by our competitors."
"As a team, we exist to win. We're very cautious about saying anything that constitutes a prediction that could subsequently embarrass us, but the fact is that we have made a faster racing car at a time when we've been moving to the technology centre, while continuing to race the 'A' car."
He added: "We would be delighted to come away from Hockenheim with a result, but knowing how it was achieved would really amplify the emotion."
