Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryan4
I'm guessing that's one of the design elements that Airstream evaluated and determined would be better changed for mass production? I would have loved to see the frameless design.
|
As long as the cored composite construction is retained (I don't know if it has been), the use of the body as the structure, without a full-length frame, shouldn't matter much to production - the tongue and suspension (axle) would be bolted on then the trailer goes down the line like any other.
By the end, even Robert was
questioning whether or not the "monocoque" or "unibody" design without a full frame was desirable enough to justify the increased cost. It was helpful to keep the trailer low, assuming that there was no space needed under the floor; however, I'm sure Airstream realized - as many people had already commented - that the design was not a very useful RV without adequate space for tanks. Shifting the body up by the height of the frame provides the needed tank space... and a place for the spare tire.
There would not be much weight difference, since the "frameless" design only eliminates the main frame rails (the entire tongue, suspension crossmember which is part of the axle, and structure for the bumper were still steel) and requires more material in the composite shell for strength.
In Robert's prototype,
as he described (complete with photo) in FiberglassRV:
Quote:
The full size spare fits below the front nosecone storage box and between the towing delta frame arms. About a third of the spare crosses over into recess area built into the floor of the lower shell.
|
The spare has since shifted rearward, which is workable now that there is vertical space there.