(apologies if this seems cranky, but as someone who understands and creates designs that include monocoques, this monocoque abuse does get on my nerves a bit)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocoquehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocoque
If the technobabble mystifies you, a monocoque is when your frame and armour are one, or the armour is constructed such that the only thing that could be described as a frame would be some internal bulkheads to mount the motors and axles.
In robots, monocoques tend to be welded (from a single type of metal) or bolted/riveted (welding giving more strength and being more common) with a single panel being removable for servicing (I favour making this the base as its less likely to be attacked, but others have their own views), this is usually bolted or screwed on to the surrounding panels.
This should usually be sited away from positions where it can be it by high impact weapons :P
Firestorm and Inverterbrat were monocoques.
The other predominant technique in robot construction is to have a separate chassis with armour panels and components mounted to it (the one Paul hilariously misidentified as a monocoque some time ago). Tornado is the best example of this I can think of.
There are advantages to both types of construction, a seperate chassis can make the robot stronger but weighs considerably more (and is a lot easier to repair), while a monocoque is a lot lighter and can make up for the strength lacking in a separate frame by using thicker material.
It is possible to combine the two methods of construction and have a monocoque body with a subframe for weaponry support (look at DisConstructor and Dominator 2) but generally robots are either one or the other.
...this is how I understand it anyway, technically minded people should feel free to correct me if they know otherwise.Hope this is of some use.
(Message edited by joeychevron on November 17, 200![]()



). Tornado is the best example of this I can think of.
Reply With Quote



Bookmarks