4 ms·

The Fordson tractor of 1917 appears to use the engine block and transmission case as basic structural members of the tractor. Not a fast vehicle, but tough.

calmbonsai 9mo ago
Eh, the monocoque was circa early 1960s and the Otto cycle was circa 1860s, but the Model T was 1900s.
- CastIron888 9mo ago
  Not old enough? How about a steam engine with the front axle bolted to the boiler? A steam boiler is subject to considerable stresses already and adding dynamic forces to the shell can't be a good idea? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Kemna_road_roller.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Kemna_ro...
  - calmbonsai 9mo ago
    Heh, that's not a monocoque, but it's definitely directly bolting the engine to one suspension component. WJW. We've come so far.
    - CastIron888 9mo ago
      You can see in the picture the boiler is taking the load of the machine. There is no additional chassis. That's less frame than a Ducati has between the front and rear wheels. Without speaking to the wisdom of stressing batteries mechanically, the idea of using drivetrain components as structural members of a vehicle is as old as self-propelled vehicles. Hell, even a chariot sees the horse taking a part of the vehicle load.
      - calmbonsai 9mo ago
        Merely "using drivetrain components as structural members" is not a monocoque, but it's a start. You're correct on the chariot. A monocoque incorporates ALL components as stressed members so even a classic Lotus Esprit would fail that strict definition given that both hood and trunk are free-floating cantilevers, but point taken.
        CastIron888 9mo ago
        Oh, I see. I was responding to the more general statement: >You do not want the stressed members of any structure being a salient contributor to its power-train. Not related, see mammalian, reptile, fish, and insect physiologies. A steam traction engine is certainly at a different level to an F1 car, in both performance and engineering. On the other hand, I think adding dynamic load to a steam boiler is riskier than doing so to an internal combustion engine.

calmbonsai 9mo ago

Eh, the monocoque was circa early 1960s and the Otto cycle was circa 1860s, but the Model T was 1900s.

CastIron888 9mo ago
Not old enough? How about a steam engine with the front axle bolted to the boiler? A steam boiler is subject to considerable stresses already and adding dynamic forces to the shell can't be a good idea? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Kemna_road_roller.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Kemna_ro...
- calmbonsai 9mo ago
  Heh, that's not a monocoque, but it's definitely directly bolting the engine to one suspension component. WJW. We've come so far.
  - CastIron888 9mo ago
    You can see in the picture the boiler is taking the load of the machine. There is no additional chassis. That's less frame than a Ducati has between the front and rear wheels. Without speaking to the wisdom of stressing batteries mechanically, the idea of using drivetrain components as structural members of a vehicle is as old as self-propelled vehicles. Hell, even a chariot sees the horse taking a part of the vehicle load.
    - calmbonsai 9mo ago
      Merely "using drivetrain components as structural members" is not a monocoque, but it's a start. You're correct on the chariot. A monocoque incorporates ALL components as stressed members so even a classic Lotus Esprit would fail that strict definition given that both hood and trunk are free-floating cantilevers, but point taken.
      - CastIron888 9mo ago
        Oh, I see. I was responding to the more general statement: >You do not want the stressed members of any structure being a salient contributor to its power-train. Not related, see mammalian, reptile, fish, and insect physiologies. A steam traction engine is certainly at a different level to an F1 car, in both performance and engineering. On the other hand, I think adding dynamic load to a steam boiler is riskier than doing so to an internal combustion engine.