Why are all cars based on monocoque chassis now? what happened

>>16408873
>Less leg room
>More weight
>Harder to make crumple zones on

>>16408873
>what happened to body on frame?
they stopped using it :^)

why would you want to use an inferior platform

>>16409036
This 100%. It's like expecting your wife to settle for an inferior small white dick when she could be getting the supreme pleasure a big black cock brings. Why settle for the inferior option?

>>16408873
>what happened to body on frame?
safety standards

Technology happened

File: die with glory.png (520KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

520KB, 600x300px

>>16409036
>body-on-frame
>inferior

- Survives impacts better
- It can be repaired when someone t-bones you because body panels aren't structural parts
- It's easy to modify
- The entire fucking car can be rusting to pieces but safety inspectors won't care as long as the frame is intact
- depending on application, stiffer and less flex
>B-B-BUT MUH CRUMPLE ZONES
>wanting to outlive your car

>>16409124
>when someone T-bones you
American mentality to car "accidents"

>>16408873
ask a car engineer

>>16409124
>depending on application, stiffer and less flex
No. Unless you are cherry picking the shittiest Chinese ecoboboxes to a tube frame race car.. no.

>>16411052
this

my foxbody hatch is stiffer than any frame car

>>16409124
>transfers more shock force of crash to the passengers

>you cannot repair bent and fatigued metal, it's weaker than it was before. Enjoy disassembling the car down to the fucking frame and welding in new sections or else the next time you get hit you will not likely survive.

>easy to modify - just drill a hole through these important structural members

>seriously trying to justify having a rusty shitbox

>stiffer
no

>less flex
you are a moron

Most SUVs and crossovers are body on frame

>>16409124
>- depending on application, stiffer and less flex

That's the wrongest thing I've read this year, even if that doesn't mean much. Monocoques are way more rigid and also lighter.

>>16411477
Lolno. Except a few murican examples based on old truck chassis every single car on the planet solt today is monocoque.

>>16409059
>Settle with a black person
Enjoy being broke your whole life

>>16409124
>- Survives impacts better

Irrelevant if the occupants die.

>>16408873
In a crash, the body popped off the spot welds holding it to the frame and hit the driver.

>>16411483
Then why do they fail horribly as trucks?

>>16411660
How do they fail? The only reason why it is still used in work trucks and the only advantage of the body on frame is that it is easier to repair when they take a beating.

>>16409036
>traditional
>inferior
REEEEEE

>>16411679
Then use your shitty civic to haul a payload of wood

>>16408873
Uni body chassis are lighter, stronger and safer than body on frame. Body on frame is only superior in durability and load capacity. It's easy to add load capacity to a body on frame vehicle, because the frame is the only load bearing structure . The frame will also soak up much of the twist and flex that is seen during high load driving such as towing or offroad use. Body on frame makes perfect sense for a truck, which is why all full size trucks, the Colorado, Tacoma and GM SUV's use it.

File: 1414223135983.jpg (11KB, 245x318px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 245x318px

>>16411701
Now you're showing that you know you are wrong and trying to steer the argument with something completely unrelated.

>>16408873
literally the government.
Frames are too heavy to reach mpgs

>>16408873
Cheaper

File: 1451166787677.png (800KB, 676x1076px) Image search: [Google]

800KB, 676x1076px

>>16408873
>tfw no tube frame cars

File: Peugeot 208 T16 Pikes Peak Interior Seb Loeb Cockpit.jpg (287KB, 650x433px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 650x433px

>>16411912
why even live