Talk:Monocoque

message: Is still really still a stub? It seems like rather fine an article.
: - it was re-rated, by the Aviation WikiProject, Sep_2008 - SquisherDa (talk) 08:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: Monocoque and Unibody are NOT the same.  A monocoque vehicle uses the the outter skin as a support (.e.g. boats) a unibody uses the body framework (not the outside skin) for support.  Therefore, removing the 'unibody'section and creating a seperate article from it.  arfon 20:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Belay my last.  I'm leaving Unibody in with monocoque because I'm not sure it's not applicable now...  arfon 20:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were right to begin with. Unibody isn't monocoque and it deserves its own article. This article is also collecting misplaced stuff about bicycle frames and fictional space suits. A first step to recovering it up would be to move Unibody. Question is, what to call it. Is Unibody a trade-name? Meggar 05:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I previously took out the part about bicycle frames, but don't see anything about space suits.  I think splitting this into two articles, each with dabs to the other, is appropriate.  "Unibody" isn't a trade-name as far as I know.  Even if it is, we have many articles under trade names, so that's fine. StuRat 11:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this article needs the split. A monococque by definition is a stressed skin. You could remove all the skin panels from a modern car and it would still hold together just fine. They are only 36 thousands of an inch thick for goodness sake. I doubt that anybody has ever made a production monococque, from metal, ever.Greglocock (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - it isn't the same thing at all. Unibody redirects back to this article, perhaps the section on unibody could be moved to the redirect page, making it an article instead? - Ahunt (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In automotive circles the terms are often interchanged.  Many unibody cars have some stress skinned panels.  This can include rocker panels and window frames where the exterior surface forms a portion of a load bearing beam as well as things like the floor of a car where the panel acts as a flat stress skin.  However, other panels such as rear fenders are often incorporated into a unibody but don't carry any loads over their surfaces but may carry loads through the welded seams of those panels.  Another criteria for unibodies is they will incorporate many other body functions into that of the frame.  Things like door openings including hinge mounts and mount points for even things like speakers are all incorporated into a unibody.  In the case of a car like the Fiero where the chassis had no body panels the structure is often referred to as a space frame.  It should also be pointed out that few structures including most airplanes are 100% monocoque, unibody or spaceframe.  A perfect monocoque structure would have no internal ribs.  In general the term is used to refer to structures where a significant portion of the load is carried by the stressed skin.  A unibody may have some sections such as around the engine which look more like a ladder frame while other sections are very much like a automotive spaceframe (no body panels).  Finally, the spaceframe term is often defined as a purely triangulated structure where all elements are loaded only in tension or compression.  However, realistically this never happens as some portion of most "spaceframes" will end up in a beam bending condition.  129.59.75.131 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 15:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So are you arguing that it belongs in this article or that it is a significantly different and complex subject to have its own article? - Ahunt (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not proposing any sort of move but I think it's important to point out that most structures are a blend of various types.  The unibody entry previously stated that a unibody carried no loads through the surface/body panels.  That isn't true.  However it is true that not all the body surface will carry loads.  The same edit I think also said the Feiro was a unibody.  I would argue that it isn't since none of it's body panels were part of the car's space frame (perhaps the floor boards were).  So I think it should be clear that when talking about auto frames (and probably air frames too) the total structure will have a mix of the various frame types.  Very few would be purely one type or another.  With respect to a move to a separate frame section it may not hurt to have an auto frame section simply because many people are likely to be interested in that particular subject.129.59.75.131 (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits have improved the article a lot, and since people who are looking for monocoque need to find unibody, I think the current arrangement works.That is, I no longer think it worth splitting unibody out as a separate article. Incidentally, with a unibody it is probably wrong to say the skin is unstressed, it is often stressed, but its stiffness ads little to the overall stiffness of the car. Greglocock (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay let's leave it as one article then and see if it can be further improved - some more refs would be helpful in other sections. - Ahunt (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm indifferent on one article or two.  On one hand as it refers to automobile chassis I think it could be broken out and integrated into a single auto chassis article.  On the other hand with respect to a general topic on monocoque construction I think unibody should be mentioned a long with the understanding that in automobile circles the terms seem to be used relatively interchangeably and that most auto structures would incorporate elements of both hence the reason why the terms would be interchanged.  Sadly I'm not sure how many references you will find since we are talking about general terms here.  For instance most higher end formula style race cars from the 1970s were considered to be monocoque chassis.  However, most were not 100% monocoque.  They carried loads through stress panels but they also used some tubular sections such as around the engine (and the engine its self).  Also parts of the body were not stressed.  Those chassis were all called monocoque but they clearly had non-monocoque parts and design elements.  Basically so long as they had some monocoque element the engines called them monocoque.  It was at least enough to differentiate them from "tube frame".  Incidentally, the tube frame chassis also commonly used stressed skins such as the belly pan.  So a tube frame wasn't 100% tubes.  Furthermore, although the tube frames were often triangulated, they weren't purely triangulated.  As such they can't be 100% space frames even though people would call them space frames.  From a technical engineering perspective no one cares when you change from a pure monocoque stressed skin structure to a fabricated box section (unibody like) to a tube frame etc.  Engineers are more interested in does the system do it's job.  Some people get hung up on what "type" of frame they have when the reality is it's got elements of a number of different types.129.59.75.130 (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you make some very good points there. Even in aircraft design there are virtually no monocoque airframe structures, as almost all are semi-monocoque (see the top photo in the article for a very typical example). - Ahunt (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unibody 

message: Surely boat hulls are relevant here. I don't have the knowledge for it, but if someone does it would be a good addition. -- cmh 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I added a section on boats and ships. StuRat 00:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boats 

message: Article says "In contrast to real-life examples."  I'm highly dubious that there are any "real-life examples" of powered suits like the ones in the anime.  If no one knows of such an example, perhaps this should be reworked.
Septegram 02:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even in the linked fiction articles it doesn't say anything monocoque; not that the term could in any way be applied to a suit. Removed. Meggar 05:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Fiction 

message: Aren't all bicycles basically monocoque?  The structure and shell of the bicycle have always been one and the same, right? I'd like to know whether the term monocoque is meaningful in the context of the cycling industry or just a bit of lingusitic fireworks.  Don't they really mean "lugless" or "seamless"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.96.187.10 (talk • contribs) 
:Just about no bicycles are monocoque. They are frames. The word refers to the overall structure. An egg or the fuselage of a large aircraft are monocoque; frames can't be except in advertising. Here are some examples of real ones  Meggar 03:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a few streamlined recumbent bicycles (and probably tricycles too) where the oily bits are directly attached to the – usually carbon-fibre – structural body, though in order to make the use of standard bike bits easier there'll often be a metal or composite sub-frame for attaching the steering to. The Lotus 108, as used by Nice C Boardman at the 1982 Olympic Games, is often touted as a “monocoque” because it’s not made from sticks joined together, but it isn’t one. Mr Larrington (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Bicycles

message: "the Douglas DC-3, the first aircraft that could move cargo without a subsidy." What does "subsidy" mean in this context ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.173.68 (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify "subsidy" 

message: Strictly speaking, the bits from the DP01 are not load bearing elements of the "frame".  They are coverings for the monocoque parts that do indeed bear the stress.  The parts shown only bear the "weight" of the aero downforce (top cover, bottom tray).  Twohlford (talk) 04:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which image are you referring to? I didn't find one named DP01? - Ahunt (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Monocoque shell of Panoz DP01 Champ Car."  The pics are of the shell, which aside from channeling air, are not load bearing members any more than the front and rear wings.  A better pic would be of the DP01's tub (or the tub of any open-wheel formula car built since the late 1960's). Twohlford (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DP01 pic bad example 

message: I added a section on laptops using unibody at the end. I hope no one minds terribly, and feel free to revert it if you wish. Tuoder (talk) 18:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Laptop computer section 

message: I have deleted Igloos and Yurts as examples.  An igloo is not a stressed skin, it is a very pure form of arch and works entirely in compression as do most masonry domes, which also are not monocoques.  Yurts a quite clearly collapsible frames that are clad with non-structural cloth and skins, definitely not monocoques.  A dome is not a monocoque if it works in compression only.  A test of whether a structure is really a stressed skin is whether it maintains its integrity when compression and tensile stresses are reversed; a masonry dome turned upside down clearly falls apart, a reinforced concrete dome turned upside down might stay intact with a bit of luck and therefore we might be inclined to say it was a monocoque and it would indeed be one if the reinforcing had been designed specifically to allow inversion; in practice the reinforcing is designed to prevent buckling and allow the shell to be made thinner, structurally a concrete dome still acts as a simple arch in compression and the fact that it might hold together when in tension is purely accidental not an intended result of design so I don't believe it could be considered a monocoque.  A reinforced concrete boat hull on the other hand is specifically designed to take changing compressive and tensile forces in all directions and is indeed a monocoque. Ex nihil (talk) 09:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yurts and igloos not monocoques 

message: According to the cutaway on this page, the Airflow has a very obvious internal frame. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airflow 

message: Are there not examples of metal skinned aircraft where the skinning was heated before being riveted into place?
I know I have heard of this somewhere but cannot provide a reference. It's my understanding that this pre-tensions the structure and makes it more rigid.Flanker235 (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heat treating aluminium for pre-tension 

message: As it says in the article, a "unit body" ISN'T a monocoque; it is a method of creating a frame structure out of stamped sheet metal, and adding unstressed skin over it. A true monocoque very plainly is made up with stressed skin, and no frame. There are almost no cars with any kind of stressed skin panels, unless you want to count cars with carbon-fiber cabins and no skin paneling. If anything, unit bodies are Semimonocoque, although I think that is dubious as well. A unit body is a car with an INTEGRATED FRAME, rather than a SEPARATE frame; having a frame and lacking stressed skin means it's not a monocoque, period. So why does "unit body construction" redirect here, when the article just points you to "Vehicle frame"? "Unit body" and "unibody" bring you directly to "vehicle frame". Can't it at least be consistent?.45Colt 19:46, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks for pointing that out, it must have been missed in the cleanup here.NiD.29 20:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "unit body construction" redirect here? 

message: I don't understand why the removal of the extra "to" has been reverted.  It just seemed so obvious to me that it was a typo.  If there is supposed to be that extra "to" so the subject matter is correct I apologize but could this please be explained?  Because I apparently wasn't the only one who thought it was a typo since I was thanked for the edit. Solri89 (talk) 04:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You were correct to remove it, it was poor grammar. It seems to have been strictly a mistake in putting it back in, but the editor has fixed it now. - Ahunt (talk) 11:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the extra word "to." 

message: These also have a monocoque body, one of the earlier post-war designs. Tomos proofed at 50cc racing that the frames were sturdy and lightweight enough.Basvossen (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Reference?- Ahunt (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the shell does something more than connect all the parts together as a frame, it is just a frame and not a monocoque. Whether it used sheetmetal or fiberglass or plastic or round tubes doesn't change that, even if monocoque was (mis)used by the marketing people. Re-read the definition - "external skin" implies that there is more inside than an empty void - even if it is just a possible cargo area. I did some google image searches and Tomos had many bikes that used a sheetmetal frameset - but only the 1971 50cc bike with a polyester shell might pass the definition (it has as much claim as the Ossa) but it is still described as a frame. The closest I found with Puch was the Steyr-Daimler-Puch MS 50 on the other hand which has no claim whatsoever as even the fuel tank is external to the frame. Whether it was sturdy and lightweight or proven doesn't matter all that much, but to be used as an example here since we aren't attempting a comprehensive listing, only the best known examples should be mentioned, and those that were influential, and not every last instance, and Tomos isn't exactly well known outside of Slovenia. - NiD.29 (talk) 04:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Puch and Tomos motors and mopeds 

message: I removed the Moose image because it is an example of a stressed, tensile only, skin and not a monocoque.  Having it in there introduces confusion about what monocoque is.  It clearly shows the compression structure localising on the internal frame.   I am sure we can find better examples of monocoque that really are monocoque.  Ex nihil (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As the caption on that image explained, it was there to illustrate "semi-monocoque" and was a good example of that. The article now mentions semi-, but has no example for readers to see. I propose it be put back in. - Ahunt (talk) 13:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Put it back if you really believe it should be there but not at the top where we need an example of what true-mono is rather than what it isn't.  The way the page read previously it seemed to talk more about non-monocoque than true monocoque.  I have tried to re-balance this, especially considering that non-monocoque is well handled at Stressed skin and elsewhere.  The Moose picture may have a place (it is copied from Stressed skin where it does have a place) and maybe it could appear well down in this article when considering things that are exceptions to the main heading.  Personally, I think many readers have trouble visualizing true and semi-monocoque and are likely to interpret the Moose picture as relevant to monocoque when actually all it shows is a frame.  I would hide negative examples.  My view is that the article is better off without it but needs to lead people to the semi-mono page and it is dealt with there.  Far better if we just found a really good picture of true monocoque and put that in.  I am having a look at a Mosquito shortly and will see if I can get inside, even that has frames inside. Ex nihil (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, well let's see what you come up with for new illustrations and see if it fits in again or not. - Ahunt (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed Moose image 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monocoque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111225911/http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/falcon1.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/falcon1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Monocoque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130224095756/http://www.velocite-bikes.com/carbon-fiber.html?sl=EN to http://www.velocite-bikes.com/carbon-fiber.html?sl=EN
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: A monocoque-framed motorcycle was developed by the Spanish motorcycle manufacturer, Ossa, for the 1967 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season.... 
I think that if the Ossa brand had its founder and the factory in Catalonia (capital, Barcelona) it can be said that the motorcycle was Catalan. It's like saying that the Clydesdale Bank plc is a commercial bank in Scotland. Formed in Glasgow in 1838...In the same way it can be said that the motorcycle manufactured in catalonia is Catalan. Also Spanish, but the Catalans are a country that wants to be recognized, not erased. Thank you, and sorry for my poor english.--Castell (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: While I can appreciate your attempt to use Wikipedia to promote Catalan nationalism, the nation that Barcelona is located in is Spain, not Catalonia. - Ahunt (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish or Catalan machine 

message: I've just been watching The Motorbike Show (Series 10, Episode 4) on ITV (TV network), UK television) and presenter Henry Cole used the word monocoque (three times) to describe a 1980s one-piece motorcycle tank/seat unit from a renovation project. Henry Cole is not someone I admire and I rarely see his show. This usage is new to me - in my experience, I only knew tank and seat unit or integrated unit. The pic shows the type of bike and tank/seat unit, but with a different engine to Coles' project.
If anyone sees other uses of the term monocoque used similarly, please report it. Thank you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monocoque used (incorrectly?) by a motorcycle broadcaster