Mattias Hellöre wrote:
sigismond0, so basically all frames are monocoque by your definition. In the bike world there´s two vastly different build methods for carbon frames.
One are tube to tube and the other one is monocoque without joints in the front triangle.
It's not my definition. That's the actual definition of the word. Most carbon frames are
monocoque! Metal bikes are not monocoques due to the way the tubes meet each other and where stresses fall.
Sigismond0, we are getting deep into semantics here. So to be extra pedantic back, I used the term in a literal sense where Mono = single & Coque = shell.
In a broader sense I guess you could make the case that a joined multishell structure is monocoque...It rather dilutes the concept though.
By your definition of a monocoque the Cervelo RCa is still not a monocoque by virtue of the fact that it uses bulkheads;)!
In short I believe that terms like 'monocoque' are best understood in the simplest most literal sense..
Again not my definition. It's not really a broad sense, diluted concept, or anything like that. The word has an actual meaning and you really ought not argue that it means something that it doesn't. Carbon bikes are monocoques unless there's some other structure inside them, like older frames with alloy reinforcements within the tubes or if the structure is like welded bikes. Most carbon frames have mitered lugs which are seamless to the tubes on both the inside and outside, which is still a monocoque. You're making a distinction between one-piece and multi-piece construction, which has exactly nothing to do with whether a structure is a monocoque.
You're all welcome to use whatever made-up or "literal" meaning you like; however, you ought to keep in mind that when you use technical terms incorrectly, you're spreading disinformation to everybody that reads it and doing a disservice to the forum.
If you want to make the distiction that other manufacturers use multi-piece construction, say that they use multi-piece
construction and that you have a one-piece
main triangle. If you intend to use an engineering term like monocoque, use it correctly. Doing anything else is just plain wrong.
(Just to clarify, I've nothing against anybody here nor am I trying to make any statements about the superiority of one-piece vs multi-piece construction. It just grinds my gears when people use words to mean something they they absolutely don't mean, and I have to do my part to ensure that anybody who reads this thread is fully informed.)