Force India VJM02

[CMSMJ1]

The VJM02 is definitely not a McLaren chassis, whilst clearly taking some cues from recent McLarens its lines are not identical in any respect.
Take the line from under the raised chassis back towards the splitter, this is different and a structural part. Thus a key sign the tubs are different.
Also, McLaren use steeply inclined front torsion bars accessed through the top of the tub, the FI torsion bars are nearer horizontal and accessed through the front bulkhead.

I said read the THREAD again, NoConcept.

/snip
And even with these discrepencies, it may be modifications done to seperate the IP for legal reasons. I do not know for sure, and I can safely say that neither do you. Unless you work in the FIF1 factory, it is all still speculation... Even by Scarbs.

/snip

The world is not flat mate...the FI is not a McLaren either..

It does look like it will be a decent motor so roll on the end of the month

[bassimon]

They are completely different monococques - with completely different lay-ups which define completely different torsional properties.

To proof that to this comunity kilcoo will have to post the plybooks or anything similar of both monocoques so that we all can compare. I do not expect that to happen for obvious reasons even if kilcoo has access to such documents.

To recap, if someone thinks that these cars share the same chassis, they are the ones who should be providing proof.

I agree with you. Nevertheless i want to give some basis for arguing pro/con this "same chassis theory". Not having another opportunity (except believing kilcoo - what i do not consider the worst ) we got stucked to picture analysis.

Therefor i like to post two pictures which show both cars from nearly the same angle and compare some points. I am aware that Conceptual may call me another photograph surveyor but this is what in my opinion most of this board is about. Unfortunately Force Indias white on white doesnt help much for the cockpit area but i simply failed to found a better pic.




Comparing both pictures the following catched my eye:
-The rockers have different position. Not only that the rocker axis on the FI is neraly parallel to the ground - the attachment point is more in front than at the McL. Only for this reason the tubs cant be the same while the rocker applies the biggest force to the monocoque.
-Follow the upper profile of both tubs from the cockpit opening on to the front. While the McL is horizontal and slightly falling down from the rocker attachment onwards the profile of the FI heads slightly upwards and discibing a big radius until the nose.
-The keels between splitter and monocoque which i consider as part of the tub are completely different.
-the difference in height between the upper rim of the cockpit sidewall and the head restraint is completely different. unfortunatly you cannot see it on these pictures due to the white on white.

I hope my post helps to return to what we can judge on. Just want this thread to be less sarcastic and get back closer to the original topic.

[scarbs]

I hope my post helps to return to what we can judge on. Just want to be this thread less sarcastic and get back closer to the original topic.

Amen... =D>

[Jon]

What a funny thread...

The VJM02 is definitely not a McLaren chassis, whilst clearly taking some cues from recent McLarens its lines are not identical in any respect.
Take the line from under the raised chassis back towards the splitter, this is different and a structural part. Thus a key sign the tubs are different.
Also, McLaren use steeply inclined front torsion bars accessed through the top of the tub, the FI torsion bars are nearer horizontal and accessed through the front bulkhead.

[kilcoo316]

To proof that to this comunity kilcoo will have to post the plybooks or anything similar of both monocoques so that we all can compare. I do not expect that to happen for obvious reasons even if kilcoo has access to such documents.

My reasoning for it is - even with the same ply books - with the different tool geometries the different fabric deformations in draping will result in different real ply angles - and there is not a thing McLaren or Force India could do to make them identical.

Thats just the world of composites.


(But I think you already know that)

[Conceptual]

To proof that to this comunity kilcoo will have to post the plybooks or anything similar of both monocoques so that we all can compare. I do not expect that to happen for obvious reasons even if kilcoo has access to such documents.

My reasoning for it is - even with the same ply books - with the different tool geometries the different fabric deformations in draping will result in different real ply angles - and there is not a thing McLaren or Force India could do to make them identical.

Thats just the world of composites.


(But I think you already know that)

By this logic, wouldn't that mean that no 2 McLaren chassis would be identical either then?

And Scarbs,

Great bit of information with your prayer of thanks. Of all the people that inhabit this space, I hold your analysis above all others. It would have been great to hear you comment on the possibilities of shared parts, modified parts, co-developed parts or anything else that you could have stated with your inside knowledge to put some of this to rest.

For the first time, I must admit that I feel a bit let down by your last post.

I guess that it just goes to show that belief weighs more than fact here.

Thanks!

[scarbs]

Conceptual,
I like this forum as it tends to invite more reasoned arguments and people able to alter their points of view when the cars are examined closer.

I had written up a larger post to highlight the differences and how FI might have come to the design they ended up with. unfortunately this thread has already descended in a looped argument and decided to hold back the posting while the flaming died down.

Hence the 'amen' to someone moderating the thread (normal service wil be resumed if this thread takes a different path).

[xpensive]

"By this logic, wouldn't that mean that no 2 McLaren chassis would be identical either then?"
You have a gold-star in my book for that one conceptual.

[kilcoo316]

By this logic, wouldn't that mean that no 2 McLaren chassis would be identical either then?

No - because they are laid up on the same tool...

(At least - in a perfect world they will not be different)


But - I can assure you, due to the myriad of problems in composite manufacturing, there will be small differences between the chassis - no doubt this is related to drivers preferring one chassis over another.



If you don't know what I mean by drape - a simple anology - if you throw a chequered tablecloth over a table, it sits in whatever way it lands.

Now, stick a glass on the table and throw the same table cloth over it - no matter what you do, you will never get the same angles of chequers you had before - due to the presence of the glass deforming the fabric.

[bassimon]

My reasoning for it is - even with the same ply books - with the different tool geometries the different fabric deformations in draping will result in different real ply angles - and there is not a thing McLaren or Force India could do to make them identical.

Thats just the world of composites.

absolutely agreed. I just did not take to account that someone could seriously try to use the same ply book for a different mold. Remember that not only real ply angles but overlapping areas too would not fit anymore for the most plies.

Conceptual wrote:By this logic, wouldn't that mean that no 2 McLaren chassis would be identical either then?

No - because they are laid up on the same tool...

(At least - in a perfect world they will not be different)


But - I can assure you, due to the myriad of problems in composite manufacturing, there will be small differences between the chassis - no doubt this is related to drivers preferring one chassis over another.

=D> just what i wanted to add. you just were a minute faster.

[xpensive]

When I work with design-engineering as well as manufacturing of small-series machinery for a living, I would like to add a point or two. In all modesty of course, don't worry.
In cases when there are parameters involved which are not perfectly quantified to begin with, you try to compensate for that in the design office by a stringent QA of the end product, sometimes with a terrible scrap-rate.
I should be immensly surprised to learn that McLaren did not have an extremely small window of tolerance for the final mechanical properties of their F1 composite-tub.

Driver preferences can vary too, Prost and Mansell used to move around chassis number-plates as mind-games.

[kilcoo316]

I should be immensly surprised to learn that McLaren did not have an extremely small window of tolerance for the final mechanical properties of their F1 composite-tub.

Oh they will have an extremely high tolerance on the parts - but due to the nature of composite manufacturing processes - there will still be problems.


It is just the way it is - and the problems will remain very significant for larger scale manufacturers (think Airbus, Boeing & Bombardier) until CNF impregnated resins along with e-beam curing become mature enough.

F1 teams get around some these problems by having much tighter tolerances due to their small scale manufacturing nature - but there are some that are just impossible to circumvent.

[megz]

3 pages too late but hey!

[Shaddock]

Around in circles

[kilcoo316]

3 pages too late but hey!
<SNIP>

Arguments are good!


Better to vent here than somewhere where it might matter more!