Australian consortium wanting to spend up to $750mill to acquire Holden plant

[Road_Warrior]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

Not a car engineer by any stretch, but for many years I have always wondered why modern cars are monocoque chassis? Why couldn't we tear a leaf out of the history books and build a solid modular space frame or ladder chassis with front suspension and IRS bolted in as modules. The frame could utilise modern lightweight materials and be designed to absorb crash impacts. Installing an engine would be a case of fabricating a bunch of brackets and braces to secure to the frame. Then a standard ISO pattern or even a Lego-themed assembly could be used to attach whatever body style you want to this chassis. The frame could stay the same for eternity, with the IRS, front suspension and powertrain components being continually developed, and the wheelbase or track could be adjusted by manufacturing parts of the space frame or ladder chassis in different lengths. The body styles could be assembled overseas and interior options could be built up as modules running a simple CAT5 or even a power/data/earth configuration. With this setup, average joe doesn't need to buy a new car... He could upgrade his car which he has setup and modified with the latest body style or a different one as his needs change. Couldn't this all work or am I just crazy ?

Ok I'll bite. The only real benefit a Body-On-Frame (BOF) configuration has over monocoque or unitary is durability for load carrying applications. There's a reason all the car makers are still persisting with BOF for commercial vehicles - because they handle the abuse a lot better and support the variable needs of a commercial vehicle platform very well.

Passenger cars don't need this, because they're not lugging a tonne of bricks around in the tray or whatever, so monocoque is the way to go. Not only is a monocoque chassis lighter and cheaper to make, it can be designed to be just as flexible and almost as tough as a BOF platform.

Not only do they not need the weight and toughness factor, they also have to comply with rigid safety standards that commercial vehicles do not.

Look at the Falcon for example. Here is a RWD, front engine platform that supports 4 different engine types, plus an AWD SUV. Holden's Zeta platform is another. Supports 2 engines, a LWB, SWB and sort of supports a coupe.

A monocoque platform can be scaled just as you describe with the BOF system, but the product doesnt have to pay a weight penalty or need extra plant at the manufacturing end to build it (read: more dudes on the line or more expensive automation). You can continually evolve the expensive bits like suspension units and engines and leave the rest pretty much static, or whack on a new top hat if you want fresh sheetmetal - sort of what Ford did from BF to FG, just with a lot more work in some areas and less where they should have.

[Spammy]

Body on chassis creates real issues with weight/safety/NVH and body stiffness. Really only useful for trucks these days.

[danzvtil]

let it go guys, there is NO car of ANY type that could be built in Australia at a volume that would make money.There are NO export markets-camry exports are a legacy that was set up when the dollar was at a profitable level, that ship has sailed.
A consortium of people with money in their pockets chanting "we think we can, we know we can" doesnt suddenly make building cars a goer.

[Maka]

Originally Posted by danzvtil

let it go guys, there is NO car of ANY type that could be built in Australia at a volume that would make money.There are NO export markets-camry exports are a legacy that was set up when the dollar was at a profitable level, that ship has sailed.
A consortium of people with money in their pockets chanting "we think we can, we know we can" doesnt suddenly make building cars a goer.

Let them have a go, if successful great, if not at least they had a go! Time will tell if this is a goer.

cheers, Maka

[zilo]

I read halfway down the page..."Family First"

That killed all credibility in the scheme.

[Cashie]

I was hoping Tesla would show interest for building RHD Model S, X and Gen 3 here. Musk has indicated he needs another factory. The conditions are similar here as the existing factory in California.

[Taily]

Originally Posted by Spammy

Body on chassis creates real issues with weight/safety/NVH and body stiffness. Really only useful for trucks these days.

Wrong beyond belief except for Euro/Aus ANCAP rating, but even that can be designed around to a point with envelopment strategies (weak spots designed to fail in differing directions) designed in to the supporting chassis.... The chassis doesn't even have to be a conventional ladder design that a body is bolted to, and in fact is becoming more common to see conventional "chassis rail" (Load Bearing Member/Structure these days....) inserted into and through the body so that not much (if any) is externally visible. Do you have any evidence of the voracity of what you have written?

You might be surprised that a few on the boards have been actively involved in vehicle R+D. I worked at Fishermans Bend under secondment between 1990-1 doing just that for the VR upgrade. You might be surprised that around 3/4 of that car was a change from the preceeding VN although they look similar and share common componentry. I was involved in the IRS module design. My qualifications? I'm a run of the mill motor mechanic that went and did a parallel study Mechanical Engineering degree during the evening at the same time.

Regards,

Dave

[Bossxr8]

Pipe dream.

[zoesgift]

this "consortium" would be better served urinating into the wind....

[Spammy]

Originally Posted by Taily

Wrong beyond belief except for Euro/Aus ANCAP rating, but even that can be designed around to a point with envelopment strategies (weak spots designed to fail in differing directions) designed in to the supporting chassis.... The chassis doesn't even have to be a conventional ladder design that a body is bolted to, and in fact is becoming more common to see conventional "chassis rail" (Load Bearing Member/Structure these days....) inserted into and through the body so that not much (if any) is externally visible. Do you have any evidence of the voracity of what you have written?

You might be surprised that a few on the boards have been actively involved in vehicle R+D. I worked at Fishermans Bend under secondment between 1990-1 doing just that for the VR upgrade. You might be surprised that around 3/4 of that car was a change from the preceeding VN although they look similar and share common componentry. I was involved in the IRS module design. My qualifications? I'm a run of the mill motor mechanic that went and did a parallel study Mechanical Engineering degree during the evening at the same time.

Regards,

Dave

I think you need to differentiate between unibody/unitary and body on frame/ladder frame mentioned above.

[Taily]

Originally Posted by Spammy

I think you need to differentiate between unibody/unitary and body on frame/ladder frame mentioned above.

I need to do something do I? OK, lets put it this way, I was using very small words to explain a concept to a person who clearly does not understand much about a subject s/he are making rather generalised statements about... It is good to see you can google though...

What I was saying is those lines are blurring again as two diametrically differing designs are melding into one type of design (in fact we are revisiting the semi-monocoque design but in a different way and calling it unitary). Load paths are being bourne by a traditional perimeter framed seperate chassis, however that load bearing structure is being completely encapsulated by a semi monocoque design where the seperately constructed traditional "ladder frame" chassis (the one you seem to have such an issue with) is then built around and incorporated into the body, rather than a body bolted to it. Much of this work can be attributed to composite use which is becoming more common in load bearing areas. So kind of makes your previous post look a bit childish doesn't it?

Many of the exotics are beginning to use it as it provides "unitary" strength beyond current build methods... One thing though, any damage to the load bearing structure the car becomes an instant unrepairable write-off - one of the reasons we are yet to see this construction method used in everyday vehicle manufacture. Be aware it is coming though...

I've been out of engineering for many many years but the concepts are still the same as they were 15 years ago when I walked away from it. It is just that we are seeing a generational change who are revisiting previous ideas and coming up with new catchy names...

[Spammy]

Originally Posted by Taily

I need to do something do I? OK, lets put it this way, I was using very small words to explain a concept to a person who clearly does not understand much about a subject s/he are making rather generalised statements about... It is good to see you can google though...

...

Thanks mate -- I covered most of this when I studied Mechanical Engineering at UNSW.

[Alan D Segal]

I think you'll find the VP was after the VN, and then it was followed by the VR, too.

[Spammy]

So Ford, GM and Toyota have all given up on trying to make cars here despite being 3 of the biggest manufacturers in the world and with bucket loads of government donations to help them along. But don't worry -- a bunch of bible bashers will be able to make it work with no govt backing.

And my a-r-s-e plays the banjo

[PlukaDuck]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

I don't know anything about the plants, but wouldn't the ford plant be a better one to buy?

Being smaller? No new business would surely need a facility as big as holdens. Wouldn't it make the fixed running costs so much higher?

Possibly already sold to an ozzie company

Bio-tech cure for Geelong loss: Drug maker in Ford plan

http://geelong.starcommunity.com.au/...-in-ford-plan/

[Maka]

Originally Posted by Spammy

So Ford, GM and Toyota have all given up on trying to make cars here despite being 3 of the biggest manufacturers in the world and with bucket loads of government donations to help them along. But don't worry -- a bunch of bible bashers will be able to make it work with no govt backing.

And my a-r-s-e plays the banjo

You've shown your very talented, can you play stairway to heaven or the song remains the same? At least those bible bashers put their hand up to try & save jobs. Theres more to the demise than just face value.

cheers, Maka

[Taily]

Originally Posted by Alan D Segal

I think you'll find the VP was after the VN, and then it was followed by the VR, too.

Re-read what I wrote. If I meant to say VP I would have said the "previous model" or the "model it replaced".

[zilo]

Originally Posted by Cashie

I was hoping Tesla would show interest for building RHD Model S, X and Gen 3 here. Musk has indicated he needs another factory. The conditions are similar here as the existing factory in California.

Yep.....and will happen sooner or later.

[Vormund]

And now he has 3 factories to choose from post 2017.

I do notice Toyota Group has a small stake in Tesla... (0.27%)

edit: Interesting bit about the NUMMI plant from wiki:

The NUMMI plant ceased operations on April 1, 2010 ending the Toyota-GM joint venture. California's last automobile manufacturing plant saw its last car, a Corolla, roll off the assembly line.[27]
On May 20, 2010, Tesla Motors and Toyota announced a partnership to work on electric vehicle development, which included Tesla's partial purchase of the former NUMMI site, mainly consisting of the factory building.[8][10] Tesla CEO Elon Musk said the Tesla S sedan will be built at the plant.[28] When Tesla took over the location in 2010, they renamed it the Tesla Factory.