Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
Latest Boss Info
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="68fastback" data-source="post: 6381331" data-attributes="member: 44957"><p>I'm not a chassis engineer but I suspect there's several dimensions to devising an excellent, cost-effective, tortionally-rigid, structurally-sound, crash-worthy, lightweight, business-plan-friendly and <em>manufacturable</em> chassis. :shrug: </p><p></p><p>Several of those considerations (and there's likely others) seem to pull in conflicting directions and likely stand to make the overall design process complex, computationally/modelling-intensive and costly as well (??). And that's if the assessment of the fundamental requirements successfully anticipated the true wants & needs and unplanned/extended plan usage, etc. The rolling chassis <em>IS</em> the vehicle so to speak -- the rest is sort of various shades of tailored window-dressing in a sense. </p><p></p><p>One unanticipated chassis flaw can potentially put the entire revenue plan of a whole series of models (or even brands) in jeopardy. Good news travels fast but bad news travels even faster, is more interconnected, and decidely more prone to word-of-mouth exaggeration and media hyperbole, e.g. the Explorer Firestone tires/rolll-overs.</p><p></p><p>I would also like to hear a genuine chassis engineer's thoughts on this subject too -- great topic, John!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="68fastback, post: 6381331, member: 44957"] I'm not a chassis engineer but I suspect there's several dimensions to devising an excellent, cost-effective, tortionally-rigid, structurally-sound, crash-worthy, lightweight, business-plan-friendly and [I]manufacturable[/I] chassis. :shrug: Several of those considerations (and there's likely others) seem to pull in conflicting directions and likely stand to make the overall design process complex, computationally/modelling-intensive and costly as well (??). And that's if the assessment of the fundamental requirements successfully anticipated the true wants & needs and unplanned/extended plan usage, etc. The rolling chassis [I]IS[/I] the vehicle so to speak -- the rest is sort of various shades of tailored window-dressing in a sense. One unanticipated chassis flaw can potentially put the entire revenue plan of a whole series of models (or even brands) in jeopardy. Good news travels fast but bad news travels even faster, is more interconnected, and decidely more prone to word-of-mouth exaggeration and media hyperbole, e.g. the Explorer Firestone tires/rolll-overs. I would also like to hear a genuine chassis engineer's thoughts on this subject too -- great topic, John! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
Latest Boss Info
Top