Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
The Mustang was unit-body. It was also conceived in 1964. I was comparing cars from the late 80's. Both were equally "developed" at that point in my opinion.
Unit-body construction began in the 1920's. It is not a "much newer" technology.
I disagree. I don't consider a technology mature until it's widely adopted. But, point taken.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Longitudinal strength at a given weight.
Again, what do you need me for?
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Exactly. In the case of longitudinal strength (which we agree on here), unit-body is NOT "stronger". Even for a given weight. It is more RIGID. Which is the point I've been making since the beginning! Rigid does NOT equal STRONG.
I'll accept that distinction. I agree that I was using the word "strong" a bit loosely.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
From Wikipedia:
Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
...Compared to older techniques, in which a body is bolted to a frame, monocoque cars are less expensive, lighter, more rigid, and can be more protective of occupants in a crash when appropriately designed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocoque
After some more research, I will concede this argument as well. I think my original source was either outdated or referring to an older time.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
A vehicle of greater mass needs more reinforcement, which is of course going to add MORE mass, so it is a catch-22 or sorts.
Exactly. That's why the comparison is not representative of the inherent crashworthiness of body-on-frame vs. unibody. That's all I'm saying.
The Mustang was unit-body. It was also conceived in 1964. I was comparing cars from the late 80's. Both were equally "developed" at that point in my opinion.
Unit-body construction began in the 1920's. It is not a "much newer" technology.
I disagree. I don't consider a technology mature until it's widely adopted. But, point taken.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Longitudinal strength at a given weight.
Again, what do you need me for?
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Exactly. In the case of longitudinal strength (which we agree on here), unit-body is NOT "stronger". Even for a given weight. It is more RIGID. Which is the point I've been making since the beginning! Rigid does NOT equal STRONG.
I'll accept that distinction. I agree that I was using the word "strong" a bit loosely.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
From Wikipedia:
Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
...Compared to older techniques, in which a body is bolted to a frame, monocoque cars are less expensive, lighter, more rigid, and can be more protective of occupants in a crash when appropriately designed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocoque
After some more research, I will concede this argument as well. I think my original source was either outdated or referring to an older time.
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
A vehicle of greater mass needs more reinforcement, which is of course going to add MORE mass, so it is a catch-22 or sorts.
Exactly. That's why the comparison is not representative of the inherent crashworthiness of body-on-frame vs. unibody. That's all I'm saying.
