KGROWLER@aol.com had this to say:
>"The great disadvantage of the monocoque form, particularly in the case of
>relatively small production rates such as our own, is that, unless the
>general construction of the car is to be very orthodox, one must of
>necessity tie oneself to a body design too far ahead of production. By using
a
>self-supporting chassis (even though this may ultimately be welded or
>multiply-bolted to the body) development of chassis and body can proceed
>independently. The complete design then enjoys the benefit of flexibility,
>such that the style may subsequently be changed without interfering with the
>chassis, and vice versa.
...which explains why the body style didn't change a jot in 18 years. In
retrospect, we might very well have had an MGB replacement in say, 1972,
had BMC not been locked into that unibody platform. After all, the MGA
was only in production 7 years, and even that was a lot longer than its
predecessors. I am sure Syd & company in 1962 had no intention of keeping
the same vehicle in production for almost two decades. and Road & Track
was already looking forward to a replacement in their 1968 MGB road test
(which probably explains the discouraged tone of their subsequent
reports).
--
Max Heim
'66 MGB GHN3L76149
If you're near Mountain View, CA,
it's the red one with the silver bootlid.
|