Ladder chassis vs monocoque chassis

  • Thread starter Thread starter marellasunny
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Chassis
Click For Summary
The discussion clarifies that a ladder chassis and a box chassis are not the same, with the former being a separate frame for the body and the latter being a structural base for body panels. Monocoque chassis integrate the body and chassis into one unit, providing higher torsional stiffness compared to ladder chassis. A recent article discusses converting a monocoque chassis into a box chassis, which is feasible due to the simpler construction and testing of a box chassis for a shortened vehicle design. The conversion allows for easier modifications compared to creating a new monocoque structure, which is complex due to its varied material strengths. Overall, the conversation highlights the differences in chassis types and the implications for vehicle design and modification.
marellasunny
Messages
245
Reaction score
3
1. Do the terms 'ladder chassis' and 'box chassis' mean the same thing?

I know that a monocoque chassis is different from a ladder chassis, because LandRovers and Jeep's have a ladder chassis structure with the body as a separate entity on top. Whereas a mid-size commercials have a monocoque structure with the body and chassis integrated as one.

But, in this recent article, a man has converted a "monocoque chassis into a box chassis".http://www.thehindu.com/business/Industry/nano-takes-a-new-avatar/article4782240.ece How is this even possible? considering that a ladder chassis/ box chassis is separate from the body.??

Just as a FYI, a ladder chassis frame has very low torsional stiffness comparing to monocoques.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
A ladder chassis is a platform on which you put an entire body, like this:

56fullframe6.jpg


A box chassis is a structure on which you add the body panels, like this:

A monocoque chassis is a structure which incorporate the body panels (or at least some of them), like this:

Mazda-SKYACTIV-bodyshell-2.jpg


In the article you've mentioned, it says:

The MAK 5 is about 19 per cent shorter in length compared to the original Nano

By doing so, the original monocoque structure was completely altered. It is much easier to calculate, test and built a box chassis that will be put within the new shorten body, than to try to built a completely new monocoque chassis because monocoque chassis are usually done by using materials of different strength placed in strategic places (represented by the different shades of blue in the previous picture). This is often done in race cars that are re-inforced:

ajec_car_build_1_470x300.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
chassis

Jack..excellent...very helpful...:approve:
 
amazing visuals
 

Thread 'A practical way to vaporize fuel for high MPG?'

Here's a video by “driving 4 answers” who seems to me to be well versed on the details of Internal Combustion engines. The video does cover something that's a bit shrouded in 'conspiracy theory', and he touches on that, but of course for phys.org, I'm only interested in the actual science involved. He analyzes the claim of achieving 100 mpg with a 427 cubic inch V8 1970 Ford Galaxy in 1977. Only the fuel supply system was modified. I was surprised that he feels the claim could have been...
View full post »