A CHASSIS STUDY

I have been collecting automobile-related patents for about ten years in order prepare
and publish comprehensive surveys of chassis and suspension patents. While working on
this I realized both that I might never finish the job and that it might be helpful to others if I
outlined right now the evolution of just one single small firm’s chassis concepts, as partially
reflected by its patents, and their relationship to the concepts of some of it’s immediate
contemporary competitors. Aston Martin seemed like a good place to start.1
SUPERLEGERRA
‘Superleggera’ refers Carozzeria Touring’s patented all-metal body framing
technique.2 It is based on the use of small, round cross-section steel tubes as a body frame.
The frame members are bent to closely conform to the final body shape; necessarily in two
planes of curvature. The body itself is formed from sheet aluminum, fastened to the tubes.
Superleggera also used sheet steel formers, especially at the door frames, so it
actually uses a mix of round steel tubes and light-gauge sheet steel formers and tabs, with
the formers and tabs welded to the supporting tubes.

FIG 1 1936 CAROZZERIA TOURING SUPERLEGERRA BODY FRAMING

1
AUTHOR’S NOTE: I have no special expertise with respect to Aston Martin automobiles; I have
simply gathered information from patent office files, various automobile-related publications, and
the internet. I welcome all corrections of facts and criticisms of my analysis. I plan to eventually
place my entire annotated index of patents on a website, along with the actual patents, for easy
public access.
2
Apparently patented in Italy in 1936. No US patent has been found.

1
 The aluminum body panels are attached to the body framework by wrapping
(crimping or clinching) the aluminum body panels edges around
(a) a tube or a flat steel tab welded to a tube,
(b) the flange of a sheet steel former, or
(c) a steel edging wire that is often welded to other steel body framing parts.

FIG 2 SUPERLEGGERA PANEL ATTACHMENT METHOD

The body panels attach to the body framing only at the panel edges. Touring did not
initially use of any mechanical fastener (screw or rivet) to hold the aluminum to the steel.
But without fasteners, the body panels eventually loosen from the body frame. Later
versions of Superleggera sometimes used small nuts and bolts as fasteners. Self-tapping
screws came later and pop rivets later still.
Steel-framed aluminum bodies have a high potential for galvanic corrosion problems.
The use of stainless steel, either for the tubular framing or for the fasteners is not the
solution. The galvanic potential between aluminum and stainless steel is essentially the
same as that between aluminum and other kinds of steel. The aluminum will still start to
corrode as soon as any moisture gets to the connections between the parts.
Corrosion can be minimized (one hesitates to say eliminated) by meticulously pre-
painting the framing before attaching the body panels, and also pre-painting the surface of
the aluminum body panel where it will wrap around a tube, flange or wire.
Painting over all the points of contact should prevent water from entering into the
interface, and avoid corrosion problems, but often did not. Italian and British body builders

2
tried to electrically isolate the steel tubes from the aluminum panels with adhesive tape,
tarred strips of felt or canvas, and bits of rubber.
Avoiding any galvanic corrosion at the fasteners would require pre-drilling the body
panel with a hole larger than the shank of the screw or rivet, more painting, and the use of
an insulated washer between the screw or rivet shank and head and the trapped aluminum
sheet – but this labor-intensive technique was apparently never used with automobiles.
CLAUDE HILL’S PATENT
Prior to 1938 Aston Martin automobiles had channel-section steel chassis and
wooden body frames. In January 1938 they made their first all-metal body frame - a frame
made mostly out of straight steel tubes. This produced an angular prototype called “Donald
Duck”.
Following this, Aston Martin’s chief engineer Claude Hill went on to develop a
method for attaching more nicely curved body panels to a straight-tube body frame. His
method had five elements.
1 The body frame is made entirely out of straight and single curvature square cross-
section steel tubes, welded together.
2 The aluminum body panels’ free edges are bent over these straight and single-
curvature body framing tubes and fastened to them with self-tapping screws. This
metal to metal (aluminum to steel) join is what attaches the body panels to the
body frame.
3 Aluminum or steel sheet metal formers are also attached to these tubes with self-
tapping screws. Each former has a flange that conforms to the curve of the body
sheet metal, without being attached to it. Examples are shown in figure 3 (patent
figures 5, 6 and 7) on page four. (Patent figure 7 shows a rubber T flange.)
4 Felt or rubber strips (items 16 and 20 in figure 4, on page five) isolate the former
flanges from the body sheet metal in order to eliminate rubbing and chafing. The
curved formers and felt strips provide support, but do not actually attach the body
panels to the frame.
5 Additional steel body framing tubes support (but were not attached to) the middle
of body panels.
This is all described in Hill’s British patent GB 520986 of May 1940. None of this
will sound particularly unusual to anyone who has studied 1950s and 1960s aluminum-
bodied Superleggera sports cars.
Superleggera body framing existed several years before Hill’s 1940 patent. As
patents are issued only to new inventions, Hill’s patent appears to be for the invention of the
particular version of all-metal body framing that uses only square cross-section tubes, bent
only in a single plane of curvature. This is different from Touring’s Superleggera, which
involved bending round tubes along two planes.

3
 It is absolutely clear from the text of Hill’s patent that Aston Martin had found it
‘impossible’ to bend square tubes to precise compound curves. (‘Impossible’ is the word
used in the patent, not my interpretation) This may have been because all the skilled body
men were off doing war work; making airplane parts. A secondary reason for this invention
may have been that round tubes were simply unavailable during wartime, and that square
and rectangular tubes were all Aston Martin could get.
It is probable that at least part of the problem was the size and wall thickness of the
tubes available. Aston Martin use fairly large (1” x 1” or larger) square cross-section tubes,
while Superleggera used somewhat smaller round tubes.
The illustrations on the following pages, taken from the patent, show what Hill had in
mind. Patent figures 5, 6 and 7 show how the aluminum body panels are arranged at some
formers.
The former strips 13-15, 17-18-19 and 22 are preferably of aluminum, and attached
to the steel tubes with self-tapping screws. The items marked 16 and 20 are felt or rubber
strips that isolate the aluminum former strips from the inner surface of the aluminum body
panels. The item marked 23 is “rubber, soft metal (sic) or other pliable or resilient material.”
The inner surfaces of the aluminum body panels are not fastened to any of these
tubes and formers: the panels are attached to body framing tubes only at the panel edges,
where they are fastened to them with self-tapping screws.

FIG 3 HILL’S BRITISH PATENT 520986 – PATENT FIGURES 5, 6 & 7

4
FIG 4 HILL’S BRITISH PATENT 520986 – PATENT FIGURES 3 & 4

5
 THE 1936-1939 ASTON MARTIN SPEED MODEL – TYPE C
The Aston Martin Speed Model Type C marked the introduction of Aston Martin’s
new all-metal body framing technique. It had balloon fenders and a very rounded body,
utterly unlike the earlier A and B types. The patent drawings of the new body framing
technique looks exactly like the Type C, and probably represent its actual framing.

FIG 5 ASTON MARTIN SPEED MODEL C

FIG 6 HILL’S BRITISH PATENT 520986 – PATENT FIGURES 1 & 2

The un-numbered arrows on the patent drawing are where the panel edges where the
body panels are bent over and screwed to the body framing. Note the traditional channel
section chassis beneath the body framing.

6
 THE 1939 ASTON MARTIN ATOM
In the 1930s all major automobile manufacturers were gradually feeling their way
away from separate frame and body construction toward unibodies. Citroen produced its
Traction Avant 7CV in 1934. Chrysler introduced a mass production unibody car, the
Airflow of 1934, and Lincoln the unibody Lincoln-Zephyr in 1936.
Niche constructors like Aston Martin were nearly all still building cars the old way,
used a conventional chassis made of channel-section steel pressings, and separate bodies. In
1939 Aston Martin’s Claude Hill developed a unibody technique that would suit a very-low-
production ‘craft-type’ builder. That meant no big sheets of metal going under giant presses.
He realized this in the Aston Martin Atom.
Hill’s unibody design used a welded framework of square and rectangular section
steel tubes as both chassis and body frame. It is described in his patents GB 52706 and GB
52707 of October 1940. The drawings in those patents appear to show the actual
construction of the Atom.

FIG 7 1939 ASTON MARTIN ATOM

The design was based on the use of two deep beams. Each beam consisting of a
lower (below-the-floor level) rectangular tube chord running from the front of the car to the
back, and an upper chord tube that rises up from the front-most part of the lower tube, then
passed up the A-pillar, over the doors, and then down at the rear to connect to the lower
chord tube at the very back.
I have shown below the 13 gauge 2” x 1 ¼” main chassis tubes or ‘beam lower
chord’ in light blue, and the 18 gauge 1 ¼” x 1 ¼” ‘beam upper chord’ #6 in green. The red
tubes are cross tubes connecting the lower chord. The roof bows are in dark blue.
Note that the deep lower chord tube bifurcates after the vertical door B pillar #19,
with an inner section #3 sweeping over the rear axle and an outer section #2 looping over
the rear wheel. All of the other more or less vertical tubes are there to keep the upper and
lower chords in the proper relationship.

7
 FIG 8 HILL’S BRITISH PATENT 52706 – PATENT FIGURE 1

FIG 9 HILL’S BRITISH PATENT 52706 – PATENT FIGURE 2

The aluminum body panels appear to be made up of large pieces with fairly shallow
compound curvature fastened to narrow hammer-formed steel adapter pieces at the panel
edges.
For example, the roof consists of a central section, supported by diagonal and lateral
cross tubes, and isolated from them with felt strips. The patent says that a hammer-formed
piece is shaped to connect to the top of the windshield. It is attached (probably welded) to
the front of the central section of the roof. Assuming that the patent specification describes
the actual car, the central roof panel is wrapped around and screw-fastened to tube 36 at its
rear; above the rear window.
Patent detail figure 3, on the next page, shows the hammer-formed piece that
connects the roof panel to the tubes at the top of the doors. That adapter piece is attached to
the 18 gauge 1 ¼ x 1 ¼ upper chord tube (tube #3 in Fig 8, above), and in the below patent
detail figure 3) by brazing, welding or with self-tapping screws.

8
 Item 4 in patent detail figure 3 is the down-ward curved edge of the aluminum roof
panel.
Patent detail figure 4 is the hammer formed piece at the back of the rear door, above
the belt line. Tube #16 in patent detail figure 4 is part of the deep beam’s bifurcated lower
chord.
There is also a hammer-formed piece at the back of the rear door, below the belt line,
where it meets frame tube #2 that arches over the rear wheel. This tube is part of the deep
beam’s bifurcated lower chord.
The patent does not specify how the rear aluminum body panels connect to the rear
of adapter pieces. No panel join line is visible in photographs of the Atom at this point.
The patent does not specify the adapter piece material, but it is probably steel

.
FIGS 10, 11 & 12 HILL’S BRITISH PATENT 52706 – FIGURES 3, 4 & 5
Patent figure 5 shows a further adapter piece 24/25/26 is located at the door bottoms.
We would call it a rocker panel, even though it is quite flat. It is attached by welds to the 13
gauge 2” x 1 ¼” main chassis tube (or ‘bottom chord’ tube). The patent drawings and text
do not specify how the front edge of this presumably steel rocker panel mates with the
aluminum front body panels.
The patents do not say that there is a fourth hammer-formed adapter piece at the front
edge of the front door, but there must be one there also. The middle door post (B pillar) is
simply described as being a steel hammer-formed piece.
In addition to the descriptions in the patents, contemporary literature describing the
Atom said that the body panels were attached using self-tapping screws and machine screws
with nylock nuts, an innovation that had only recently become available.

9
 In addition to its radical chassis-less construction, the Atom had a new 90 HP
pushrod two-liter engine and a four speed semi-automatic Cotal electromagnetic
transmission, and, for the first time in an Aston Martin, independent front suspension. The
Atom looks very small in its photographs, but actually has a 102” wheelbase. It was rather
heavy for its horse power at 2,680 lbs.
The Atom was immediately recognized as a revolutionary improvement in the design
of very low-production automobiles. But it was war-time, and England was fighting for its
life. Only one was ever made, but Aston Martin’s people put 90,000 miles on it, so it
certainly was not an engineering failure. Its major problem was that it was apparently
extremely noisy inside.
While the Atom was a four-door car, it also suggests how one might also make a
two-seat closed sports car with a tubular steel body/chassis framework and an attractive,
well-curved, aluminum body - at a reasonable price. For this reason alone it deserves study
by locost builders.
THE 1948 ASTON MARTIN TWO LITER SPORTS MODEL

FIG 13 1948 ASTON MARTIN TWO LITER SPORTS MODEL

In 1948 Aston Martin used an Atom-derived chassis for the construction in an open
two-seat sports car, called the Two Liter Sports Model. In some respects it was a step
backward, in that it was did not use the Atom’s deep-beam closed-car unibody design; it
used instead an open car with an Atom-derived multi-tube chassis made out of straight
rectangular and square steel tubes - with a conventional, but steel framed, separate body.

The Atom design was based on deep beams that included an 18 gauge 1 ¼ x 1 ¼ inch
upper chord tubes that passed over the tops of the doors, and 2 inch deep 13 gauge lower

10
tubes. The Two Liter Sports Model was to be an open three-seater, so the Atom chassis
design had to be modified.3

Hill described the new chassis as “a simple construction that would lend itself
to comparatively small-scale production, for a car capable of 90 M.P.H., having first-
class steering and roadholding, and really comfortable riding." He described the
frame as made of ordinary low-carbon rectangular and steel tubing, and “so simple
that two men can make up a complete frame in ten days”. The joints were gas or arc-
welded according to their position.

The lower tubes, forming the frame side-members, were of 3 inch deep 13-
gauge steel, with 2 ½ inch extensions, while the secondary superstructure tubes were
still 18 gauge. Unlike the atom, no attempt was made to fit the body panels to the
chassis frame; these steel panels were carried on special adaptors. The unbodied
chassis weighed 1850 pounds.

The prototype car was very extensively road tested without a body. Aston
Martin then equipped a fresh new chassis with a narrow cycle-fendered aluminum
roadster body and entered it in the 1948 24 hour Spa race. There was no time
available in which to shorten, and so lighten, the chassis, so the 9-foot wheelbase was
retained, but this was helpful, given the car’s very big fuel tank. No higher axle ratio
than 3.9 to 1 was available, so 19 by 5.50 rear tires were used, with 18 by 5.50 tires in
front.4 The race-ready car had a 2130 dry weight. It won in the two-liter class
covering 1,729 miles in the 24 hours. It went through the entire race on one set of
racing Dunlop tyres, and averaged 20 miles per gallon.

A video on the internet contains a glimpse of what is probably the chassis of the 1948
Spa winning prototype. The front of the chassis in the video looks pretty much like the front
of the chassis of the subsequent Two Liter Sport production model, but the main frame
tubes from the doorpost back are very different.
The chassis in the video has only two main tubes, while the production Two Liter
Sports model’s chassis illustrated in automotive magazines shows that the main chassis
tubes were doubled. That is, there were two parallel lateral tubes on each side of the chassis,
side by side beneath the floorboards, separated from each other by a couple of inches.

3
Three passengers seated abreast.
4
The subsequent production model had a 4.1 to 1 rear axle and 16 by 5.75 tires.

11
 FIG 14 1948 ASTON MARTIN SPA MODEL FRAME

FIG 15 1948 ASTON MARTIN TWO-LITER SPORTS MODEL CHASSIS

The picture on the next page is apparently the actual race winner as re-bodied for sale
after the race as the “Spa Model Replica”.

12
 FIG 16 1948 ASTON MARTIN ‘SPA MODEL REPLICA
Both the published draws and photographs of a partially disassembled Two Liter
Sport production model undergoing restoration clearly show two closely spaced parallel
tubes under the floor on each side of the chassis. The inner of the two tubes appears to run
approximately from the firewall all the way back to the tube kick-over above the rear axle.
The photographs also show additional framing at the door posts as well as an X member
beneath the floor, not visible in the drawings in automotive magazines.
The Two Liter Sport production model had a 108 inch wheelbase and an all-steel
body. It was pretty big and quite heavy for its 90 horsepower two-liter four cylinder engine.
Fifteen were produced between 1948 and 1950. Some years after it was superseded
by the Aston Martin DB2 and DB2-4, the Two Liter Sports Model was retroactively and
rather pointlessly re-named the DB1.
THE 1950-1953 ASTON MARTIN DB2
Two-Liter Sports Model was replaced by smaller, lighter and more powerful 96 inch
wheelbase DB2. It was the first production Aston Martin to use the Lagonda 2.6 liter six-
cylinder engine. In addition to having the bigger and more advanced DOHC engine, the
DB2 had an improved frame, and a very attractive aluminum superlegerra coupe body.
Two DB2 prototypes with four cylinder two liter engines and one with a six cylinder
engine were entered in the 1949 Le Mans race. The first production model DB2 appeared in
1950. A factory team raced three specially lightened six-cylinder 2.6 liter DB2s in the 1950
Le Mans race.
The very first DB2s have been described as having a “shortened Two Liter Sports
model chassis”. Regardless of what the prototype DB2 chassis may have been, the chassis
of the production model DB2 differed from the Two Liter Sports model in many respects.

13
 First, and most importantly, the main chassis tubes on each side are placed one above
the other, rather than side-by-side. Since the two DB2 chassis tubes on each side are placed
one above the other, rather than side by side beneath the floor, the DB2 chassis has a deeper
beam, an obvious improvement over the Two Liter Sport chassis.

FIG 17 1950 ASTON MARTIN DB2

The lower main chassis tube is rectangular, the upper is square. The suspension looks
very similar to the Two Liter Sport model: twin trailing links in front and a beam rear axle
located by trailing arms and a Panhard rod. The springs are coils all around. The DB2 had
what should be called a multi-tube chassis. Definitely not a ‘space frame’! Many of the
chassis tubes are clearly stressed in bending.

FIG 18 ASTON MARTIN DB2 CHASSIS

14
 Like the Two Liter Sports model, the DB2 had a slim X member, useful to prevent
chassis lozenging and for the transmission support, but not nearly deep enough to add much
to torsional rigidity. Although the DB2 was a lovely car in many respects, its chassis was
torsionally somewhat flexible by today’s standards.

FIG 19 ASTON MARTIN DB2 CHASSIS X-MEMBER

The DB2’s separate aluminum body is attached to the frame through rubber vibration
isolators in front of and behind the doors, at a level below the door sills. The entire front
third of the body is hinged at the front, and tilts forward for access to the engine.
Four hundred and eleven DB2s were produced during a three year period (1950-
1953), before it was replaced by the very similar DB2-4, the justly famous Aston Martin
“four-seat sports car”. There are numerous photographs and videos of the DB2, and also the
DB2-4 Marks I, II and III on the internet.
The last version of the DB2 was the DB2-4 Mk III. It was much more powerful and
somewhat faster than its grandparent, but was also much heavier: far too heavy to be
competitive as a sports racing car. It was essentially a sporting luxury GT car.

15
 FIG 20 ASTON MARTIN DB2 BARE FRAME
Note that the main chassis members are set several inches inboard of the outer edge
of the door sills. The tops of the chassis members are about five inches higher than the
interior floor. As a result, one has to lift one’s feet rather awkwardly over the frame before
sitting down.

FIG 21 ASTON MARTIN DB2 SILL DETAIL SHOWING HIGH FRAME

16
 Note in the image below the path followed by the upper (square cross-section)
chassis tubes within the cowl structure: they work, more or less, to transmit loads from the
diagonal upper tubes of the front part of the chassis, seen in FIG 20, to the horizontal upper
tubes of the mid-chassis. They probably cannot contribute much to torsional rigidity.

FIG 22 ASTON MARTIN DB2 COWL INTERIOR

THE 1958-1963 ASTON MARTIN DB4

Notwithstanding that Aston Martin had reached a sweet spot in the marketplace with
the DB2, it eventually moved away from the DB2 chassis design in both its racing and
production models. After eight years of building the very good looking DB2 and its
immediate occasional four-seat successors, Aston Martin introduced its real successor, the
truly beautiful DB4.
While the main structural members of the DB2 were rectangular and square tubes,
the DB4 (and subsequent DB5 and DB6) used a platform chassis. FIG 24 is a particularly
good picture of a modern platform chassis.

The DB4 platform chassis employs two deep hat-section side beams, with their open
sides facing out, and closed over by vertical plates. (These plates are shown in FIG 25 as
shiny)
Placed much further apart than the tubes of the DB2, these deep beams resulted in a
chassis with improved torsional rigidity, and easier driver and passenger access.

17
 The new platform frame also widened the interior space. While the floor was still
well below the tops of the chassis side members, one no longer needs to climb over such
very tall frame side members in order to sit down, as one did with the DB2.

FIG 23 1958 ASTON MARTIN DB4

FIG 24 TYPICAL PLATFORM CHASSIS (MERCEDES-BENZ 190 SL)

18
 FIG 25 ASTON MARTIN DB4 PLATFORM CHASSIS

FIG 26 DB4, DB5 & DB6 RIGHT & LEFT STRUCTURAL HAT MEMBERS
The DB4’s Superleggera steel body framing, welded to the platform chassis, and
aluminum body undoubtedly contributed to the structure’s overall efficiency.

19
 Data on the car’s torsional rigidity with and without the body framing and aluminum
body panels is unfortunately not available.

FIG 27 DB4 SUPERLEGGERA BODY FRAMING

THE ASTON MARTIN 1951 DB3 AND 1953 DB3S

The 1958 DB4 and its successors were luxurious grand touring cars. Turning the
clock back seven years, to 1951, we return also to what Aston Martin was doing in racing.
The frame of Aston Martin’s 1951 sports racing car, the DB3, was totally unlike that
of the earlier DB2, or later DB4: it was a very simple twin tube chassis – using four-inch
diameter, 14-gauge round main tubes.
Like the DB2, it had a twin trailing arm front suspension. No longer coils, it had
transverse torsion bar springs at both ends.
The new de Dion rear axle was located by twin trailing links on each side and a
Panhard rod. It had eleven-inch inboard rear brakes.
It was not especially successful, and was replaced in 1953 by the smaller, lighter,
much prettier, but generally somewhat similar DB3S.5 For the DB3S, the track was reduced
from 4’3” to 4’1”, the wheelbase from 7’9” to 7’3”, and the weight from 2010 lbs to 1850
lbs.

5
The DB3S chassis was designed by William Watson.

20
 The DB3 initially had a 2.6 liter engine, but the DB3S eventually had a bigger 2.9
liter engine, an engine that was also constantly improved over the life of the car.
All the chassis tubes were of about the same size (4 inches), but of smaller gauge: the
main tubes 16 instead of 14 gauge. The main tubes were now also ‘cranked’ - bent slightly
upward toward the front, starting roughly at the plane of the dashboard - rather than straight,
lowering the whole car. An alloy final drive replaced the prior cast iron one.

FIG 28 1951 ASTON MARTIN DB3 SPORTS RACE CAR CHASSIS

FIG 29 1953 ASTON MARTIN DB3S SPORTS RACE CAR

21
 The DB3S’s de Dion axle tube was transversely located by a sliding block, instead of
a Panhard rod. In 1955 the rear brakes were changed from inboard drums to outboard disks.
The front brakes had already been changed from drums to disks.
Engine power and reliability was gradually improved through successive steps. The
body went through at least three changes, becoming in the process more and more attractive.
The DB3S had a beautiful body designed by the then twenty-five year old Frank Feely.
There were both works cars and a small series of customer cars, including a very
limited edition GT Coupe. Somewhat limited in power compared to their mostly Italian
competitors, the DB3 and DB3S were initially more noted for their nice handling than for
their maximum acceleration or top speed. As race cars, they had a somewhat troubled
history marked by accidents and various mechanical failures. But they gradually taught
Aston Martin volumes about engine and chassis development work and race team
management.
THE ORIGIN OF THE DB3 AND DB3S FRAME DESIGN
There was nothing particularly unusual about the DB3 and DB3S frames. They both
had simple twin tube frames, patterned, to some extent, after the somewhat similar 1949
Jowett Jupiter production car chassis, pictured below. Note especial the twin trailing links
and transverse torsion bars for the rear suspension, also used on the DB3 and DB3S.

FIG 30 1949 JOWETT JUPITER CHASSIS

22
 The Jupiter had been designed at ERA by the team of Robert Eberan Von Eberhorst
and his British protégé David Hodkin6. The subsequent Hodkin-designed 1952 ERA G-type
Formula 2 race car had a somewhat similar two-tube chassis. It was unusual however in that
it used 6” deep oval cross-section magnesium-zirconium alloy frame tubes.
Von Eberhorst was design consultant on the G-Type. It was an immediate and
dramatic failure, due mostly to engine problems, and was then taken over, in 1952, by
Bristol. Bristol then created the Bristol 450. That car used had a similar chassis, but used
4½” round steel frame tubes, rather than 6” deep oval magnesium-zirconium alloy tubes.
The new chassis turned out to weigh just about the same as the light alloy chassis, but was
of course much less expensive and much easier to fabricate.

FIG 31 1952 ERA G-TYPE

6
ERA is “English Racing Automobiles”, a highly respected English car maker that existed from
1933 to 1954, and is not “ERA Replica Automobiles” of Connecticut, which has been in existence
since 1968.

23
FIG 32 1952 ERA G-TYPE REAR FRAME AND DE DION REAR SUSPENSION

FIG 33 1952 BRISTOL 450 SPORTS RACING CAR FRAME

24
 Von Eberhorst had worked on the pre-war Auto Union formula one cars, all of which
had simple twin tube frames and Porsche-designed twin trailing arm front suspensions.
The Jowett Jupiter had a horizontally opposed four cylinder engine mounted ahead of
the front wheel line. This did not allow enough space for a twin trailing arm front
suspension, so it instead had a conventional short and long arm type suspension, with short
fore-and-aft torsion bars. This suspension was designed by none other than Roy Lunn, who
was then working for Aston Martin.
The ERA G-type and Bristol 450 both had coil-spring short and long arm type front
suspensions.
Von Eberhorst was widely recognized as one of the world’s leading theoreticians on
questions of suspension and handling.7 He played a major part in the design of the DB3 –
but apparently not in the subsequent DB3S.
The 1939 Aston Martin Atom already had a twin trailing arm front suspension, so
Von Eberhorst was not the one who brought it to the DB2, DB3 and DB3S.
The Porsche-designed Auto-Union A, B and C Types had had swing axle rear
suspensions, but the Von Eberhorst-designed final Type D Auto Union had a de Dion rear
suspension. This feature was carried over to the ERA G Type, the Bristol 450, and then to
the Aston Martin DB3 and DB3S.
The ERA, Bristol and Aston Martin methods of locating the de Dion tube varied a
lot. The ERA used a low-mounted triangular link (See Fig 32) which gave it a very low rear
roll center. Bristol found this suspension totally unsatisfactory. It modified it quite a lot and
eventually achieved a wonderfully balanced chassis that demonstrated no rear axle steering
effects at all. The details of these David Summer-designed de Dion tube location linkages
have apparently, and unfortunately, never been published.
The DB3 rear suspension had twin trailing links on each side and a Panhard rod, the
DB3S twin trailing links on each side and a sliding block. De Dion rear axles with twin
trailing link arrangements of this sort all have certain geometry problems, but these can
generally be minimized by the use of long arms.
The 1952 ERA had the then very new inboard rear disk brakes, a feature carried over
to the Bristol 450. The DB3 and DB3S initially had inboard drum rear brakes, but the
DB3S gradually evolved to outboard disk brakes all around.
ASTON MARTIN’S MOVE TO A SPACE FRAME
In 1956 the DB3 and DB3S were replaced by the space-framed Aston Martin DBR1.

7
The author of this paper spent years trying to learn enough German to read and understand some
technical papers on racing car physics that Von Eberhorst had written in the late 1930s, and that
had been published only in German engineering journals. One of them laid out the design
concepts that later appeared in the Porsche-designed Cisitalia – the car that was in many respects
the logical culmination of the pre-war Auto Union race cars. Finally got to do so in an MIT
library around 1958.

25
 Chassis torsional stiffness is absolutely necessary if the front and rear suspensions are
to work together to produce consistent and predictable understeer and oversteer. Changes in
suspension geometry and roll stiffness at each end are of course important, but become
nonsense if the chassis is torsionally flexible and behaves like a long undampened spring.
Directional stability, maneuverability and controllability in turns, within the limits of
drivers’ reaction times, are now understood to all depend quite fundamentally on chassis
torsional stiffness. How much stiffness is needed depends on what the car is going to be
used for and its polar moment – distribution of masses.
With simple tubular chassis like that of the ERA G-type, the problem is very simple.
Doubling the diameter of the tubes, while halving the wall thickness, results in very little
change in chassis mass. But the torsional stiffness will be greatly increased. For example,
a 6” tube with a 0.05” wall has over four times the torsional stiffness of a 3” tube of the
same material, with a 0.1” wall. (Of course any tube with a 0.05” wall may buckle under
bending loads, but the principle of increased torsional stiffness is correct.)
An alternative to increasing chassis tube diameters is to separate the same mass of
metal into multiple separate tubes, spaced some distance apart. Simply placing them
vertically apart increases beam stiffness, but not torsional stiffness. Channel sections, I-
beams, Pratt and Warren beams are not torsionally stiff. To be torsionally stiff, the material
in the chassis side members must be distributed in two dimensions around the members’
horizontal axis – in other words, the chassis side frames must be fully developed three-
dimensional structures.
The ‘Space frame’ is a well-defined geometric concept: a three-dimensional structure
made entirely of straight linear elements, connected at nodes, with every element either in
pure tension or pure compression, and with no bending forces on any element or at any
node. The most common space frame is made up of intersecting tetrahedra. A tetrahedron is
an inherently rigid three-dimensional structure made up of four triangles, in which every leg
of every triangle is either in compression or tension, with no bending forces at any nodes.
Tying tetrahedra together in a sequence produces an inherently rigid structure.

FIG 34 THIS IS A GEOMETRIC SPACE FRAME

26
 Car manufacturers nowadays often refer to whatever they build, unibody cars
included, as having ‘space frames’. That is linguistic nonsense. An assembly of tubes
fastened together in a two-dimensional plane is not a space frame. Neither is a combination
of two such assemblies fastened together at right angles to each other. The Jaguar C-type
frame shown below is just that. It is NOT a geometric space frame, regardless of what
automobile builders choose to call it.
For lack of a better term, I will refer in this paper to all such structures as
“Automotive Space Frames”.

FIG 35 1951 JAGUAR C-TYPE AUTOMOTIVE SPACE FRAME

Torsionally rigid true space frames cannot be created simply by placing two two-
dimensional structures at right angles to each other. The Jaguar frame illustrated above has
good beam stiffness and resists lozenging at the floor level, but is not inherently highly
torsionally stiff, especially in the cockpit area, because it had not been designed as a fully-
developed three-dimensional geometric space frame. Its torsional rigidity derives simply
from the inherent torsional rigidity of the individual fore-and-aft running chassis tubes, and
bending resistance at various nodes.
The C-Type Jaguar was introduced in April 1951. I found no record of any patent
application for it. The first very important Jaguar chassis patent after April 1951 was the
May 1954 patent for the D-Type, discussed on page 49, below. There is also a July 1954
Jaguar patent for an independent rear suspension, attached to the rear of a chassis that looks
very like the C-type. But both the C-Type and the E-Type had live rear axles. This
suspension does not resemble in any way that of the subsequent production model E-type. It
might possibly have been tested on the highly experimental 1957 2.4 liter Jaguar E1As.
In March 1952, less than a year after Jaguar’s C-type, Mercedes trumped Jaguar with
space frames 300 SL

27
 FIG 36 RUDOLF UHLENHAUT’S 1967 US PATENT 2797954
The figures above are from Rudolf Uhlenhaut’s 1957 US patent 2797954, assigned to
Daimler Benz. The application was made in May 1953. It shows a true three-dimensional
geometric space frame. I have been unable to locate the earlier German version of this
patent. It shows a chassis similar to those of the 1952-53 Mercedes Benz 300 SL and 1954
300 SLR. Both of those chassis were well known in England when the DBR1 was
designed.

28
 The basic concept described in the Daimler Benz patent was the use of intersecting
tetrahedra. As noted above, tetrahedra are inherently rigid three-dimensional structures
made up entirely of triangles, in which every leg of every triangle is either in compression
or tension, with no bending forces at any nodes. Tying tetrahedral together in a sequence
produces an elongated but inherently rigid structure – just what is needed in a race car.

FIG 37 PATENT DETAIL OF A CHASSIS SIDE FRAME

Uhlenhaut’s space frame patent drawings were idealizations. The photographs of the
actual 1954 production model Mercedes 300 SL on the next pages show that in the real
frames there were some tubes that are stressed in bending – and that are obviously intended
to be so. This is particularly true in the area of the rear engine mount and the area from the
back of the cockpit to those frame components that secure the rear axle and rear suspension
elements. The reason is that “the perfect is the enemy of the good”, and that “ideal” chassis
structures can turn out to be much less than ideal when you have to actually build them. In a
word, simply much too complicated.

29
FIG 38 MERCEDES BENZ 1954 300 SL PRODUCTION COUPE FRAME

FIG 39 TOP VIEW OF 1954 300 SL PRODUCTION COUPE FRAME

FIG 40 SIDE VIEW OF 1954 300 SL PRODUCTION COUPE FRAME

30
 There were places on the 1952 prototype 300 SL frame where nine tubes came
together. Welding or brazing these assemblies together without distortion must have been
challenging, to say the least. Each tube was of a different length. Start to braze a node, and
each tube going into that node will expand in length, by a different amount, upsetting the
clearances at the other tubes’ fish-tails.

FIG 41 DETAIL OF 1952 MERCEDES 300 SL PROTOTYPE’S FRAME

Mercedes Benz’s amazing craftsmen were able to build these chassis – a total of just
eleven 300 SL race cars, a smaller number of 300 SLR race cars, and a few thousand 300 SL
coupe and roadster production cars.8
Whatever fabrication problems the 300 SL frame presented, the important thing to
understand about it is that it represented a very serious effort to achieve chassis torsional
rigidity in the cockpit area.9
FIGS 38 and 39 show that the side frames of the 1954 production model 300 SL
around the cockpit are indeed a series of interconnected tetrahedra.

8
The 300 SLR’s frame was somewhat more closely related to the Mercedes Benz Formula One car
than to the production 300 SL. The 300 SLR had what was, in its day, great torsional rigidity.
Reportedly 4000 lb-ft per degree. It was also very strong, and survived a lot of ‘battle damage’ in
several races, including the Mille Miglia, and went on to win. Close examination of photographs
of the 300 SLR chassis show that from the midpoint of the cockpit back to (and including) the
rear transverse bulkhead the main chassis tubes were not part of a geometric space frame, and
were designed to be in bending. There wasn’t enough space for space-framing there.
9
The production coupe frame was 1620 mm wide and 380 mm deep at the doors. The later quite
similar production roadster frame was 216 mm deep at the doors.

31
 The cockpit area framing of the 1954 production model 300 SL was inherently more
torsionally rigid than the cockpit area framing of the 1951 Jaguar C-Type race car, because
it had been designed from the beginning with three-dimensioned torsionally-rigid space-
frame side beams.
The fact that Mercedes could and did build these cars does not necessarily mean that
one should copy them today. There are other ways of achieving chassis torsional stiffness
that are not as demanding; not so fraught with the possibility of distortion-related building
failure. Specifically, semi-monocoque construction, discussed below.
AN EXPERT’S ADVICE AGAINST SPACE FRAMES
Writing in the May 1955 Road and Track, the late Ken Miles compared his highly
successful twin-tube framed R1 MG Special with his then brand new R2 space-framed
special, later quite famous as the “Flying Shingle”:
I do not recommend the "space" frame as a sports car chassis. In
a single seater racing car where the frame can be kept reasonably
narrow and the ratio of depth to width is about unity there is a good
deal to be said for this type of frame. In a sports car where there
must be a cutaway for the door and a hole in the top large enough to
accommodate two people the inherent strength of this structure is
largely destroyed, and it is only too easy to finish up with a frame
which consumes an inordinate amount of tubing and still has
insufficient torsional rigidity.
The simple "ladder" type of frame incorporating large diameter
tubular cross members has tremendous torsional rigidity, and if it is
strong enough in torsion then it has ample strength as a beam. The one
disadvantage of this type of frame is that it provides no support for
the body shell which will inevitably slightly increase the weight of
the body. In my opinion however, this increase in weight is more than
justified by the tremendous reduction in manufacturing costs and
greatly improved accessibility and ease of repair.
For sheer efficiency the answer probably lies in a frame of the
general layout of the "D" type Jaguar, where the curved side of the
body has been boxed in to form two immensely rigid tubes running
alongside the cockpit area, but the complications of designing
adequate stress distribution into such a frame, quite apart from the
manufacturing difficulties involved, place it out of reach of any but
the most ambitious constructor of specials.’

32
 THE ASTON MARTIN DBR1
The DB3S was replaced in 1956 by the Ted Cutting-designed DBR1. It is often
described as having a space frame, but might better be described as having a triangulated
multi-tube frame, or ‘automotive space frame’, in some respects somewhat like that of the
Jaguar C-type.10
Mercedes-Benz had had won races with the six-cylinder space-framed 300 SL
prototypes on 1952 and 1953, so the space frame concept was well known and had been
around for a while before the DBR1 hit the road.

FIG 42 1956 ASTON MARTIN DBR1

The DBR1 continued with the DB3-series transverse torsion bar, trailing-link front
suspension, and its de Dion rear axle, but shifted the rear brakes to the hubs, to improve
cooling and avoid overheating the new and possibly sensitive transaxle. The de Dion tube’s
method of location and springing were also completely revised
The DBR1 was much lighter, much more powerful, somewhat faster and, with
development, more reliable than its DB3S predecessors. It was, by the end of its life, very
successful, winning at both the world sports car championship and Le Mans in 1959.
Changes in regulations limiting displacements to three liters at a time when Aston
Martin finally had a very good engine of that size certainly helped Aston Martin achieve its
final success. The gradual development of a highly experienced team management under
John Wyer was also an extremely important factor.
Comparing the successive Aston Martin sports and sports racing cars over the period
1938-1959 one can see that the cars became lighter and more powerful, and also usually

10
I understand that Aston Martin enthusiasts will strongly disagree. In any case, I have no interest
in getting into disputes with anyone over what is and what is not a ‘space frame’.

33
somewhat smaller with each successive generation.11 The DB3 and DB3S were big
improvements over the most raceable DB2s, but they were still too big (read air resistance)
and simply too heavy for their power, compared to the mainly Italian competition. The
magnesium-bodied, (triangulated) multi-tube framed DBR1 changed all that.
Between 1951 and 1969 Aston Martin expended a tremendous amount of effort
developing many different versions of the same general type of engine. Also on brakes,
transmissions and suspensions. Although often unlucky in races, it persevered. The
combination of constant development work and testing through racing gradually resulted in
better and better cars. But even considering all this, the lap times alone suggest that by 1959
the DBR1 was in fact simply a better car than the much more complex, incredibly
expensive and very famous 1955 Mercedes 300 SLR, a fact that speaks volumes about the
progress actually achieved by such a small company.

OTHER, SMALLER, 1956-57 AUTOMOTIVE SPACE FRAME CARS

Lotus introduced its model 11 in 1956. It exhibited the same fundamental defects as
the 1951 Jaguar C-type: its chassis was basically two two-dimensional rigid frames at right
angles to each other. This arrangement simply cannot produce great torsional rigidity.

FIG 43 1956 LOTUS 11 LE MANS ‘AUTOMOTIVE SPACE FRAME’

11
The DBR1 was actually slightly longer and wider than the DB3S, but lower, and had an
apparently more aerodynamically efficient shape. Very pretty, it certainly looked more
streamlined.

34
 The Lotus 7 was introduced after the seriously race-worthy Lotus 11. The 7
was intended to be a cheap ‘clubmans car’ that might be raced a bit on weekends. It
always had a live axle and was never intended to be a high-powered giant killer.

FIG 44 LOTUS 7 SERIES 1 CHASSIS

FIG 45 LATER CATERHAM 7 AUTOMOTIVE SPACE FRAME

Caterham was licensed to continue the Lotus 7 production, and gradually
improved it, bring in first a De Dion rear suspension, and then IRS. It also increased
chassis rigidity, and went to much more powerful engines.

35
 The Lotus 7 derivatives and the various sevenesque Locosts all have ‘two-
dimensional’ Jaguar C-type automotive space frames – chassis that simply cannot produce
high torsional stiffness across the cockpit area and or over the engine bay, where it is most
needed.
It is important to reiterate that a real space frame is a structure made up entirely of
straight linear elements, connected at nodes, with every element either in pure tension or
pure compression, and with no bending forces on any element or at any node.

FIG 46 AUDI A2
The Audi A2 shown above had a very nice modern aluminum chassis, but
notwithstanding Audi’s press releases, it was certainly NOT a ‘space frame’. There are
bending forces everywhere, especially at the nodes.
The problem with this quite widespread misuse of terminology is that it tends to lead
toward a misunderstanding and even a miscalculation of the forces and stresses that are
present in a structure. The mathematical models used to calculate what is going on in the
Audi chassis require the full understanding and use of advanced computer-based modeling

36
tools – far more advanced tools than are required for the analysis of a true geometric space
frame, or even a not-quite perfect space frame like those used in the production model 300
SL and the Aston Martin DBR1.
With this discussion of space frames in mind, we ought to now examine more
carefully the mid-section of the Ted Cutting designed multi-tube-framed 1956 Aston Martin
DBR1, below.
One can see that it does not having fully three-dimensional tetrahedral side frames. It
has to have been at least somewhat torsionally flexible in the cockpit area.

FIG 47 DETAIL FROM 1956-1959 ASTON MARTIN DBR1

37
 The DBR1’s torsional rigidity in the cockpit area results from the inherent torsional
rigidity of the several main chassis tubes running fore and aft, and their resistance to
bending from side to side at the nodes.
But this chassis compensates a bit by placing the two rear torsion bar front
anchorages far forward, so that at least some of the torsion forces applied to the rear
suspension are actually resolved toward the middle of the chassis, rather than aft of the
cockpit. Ingenious!
Compare the above-illustrated basically two-dimensional DBR1 side frames on the
previous page with the three-dimensional side frames of the four-year older Mercedes
300SL shown below.

FIG 48 1953 MERCEDES BENZ 300 SL PROTOTYPE’S THREE-

DIMENSIONAL SIDE FRAMES MADE UP OF CONNECTED
TETRAHEDA PROVIDE TORSIONAL RIGIDITY

38
 ASTON MARTIN’S CONTEMPORARIES
I believe, but have been unable to prove, that the photograph below is of the Cooper-
Bristol MK I under construction.12 It was completed in January 1952. It deserves to be
better known because it preceded in time and to a considerable extent inspired John
Tojerio’s specials. AC purchased, for a pittance, a license to build Trojerio’s 1953 car,
which then, in modified form, became the 1953 AC Ace. And of course many years later
that car metamorphosed into the AC Cobra / Shelby Cobra. The main difference is the use
of round rather than rectangular chassis tubes.

FIG 49 EARLY COOPER=BRISTOL FRONT-ENGINED RACE CAR

Cooper subsequently added secondary upper tubes to his simple rectangular box-
section ladder chassis to in order to increase beam stiffness and to hold the body panels. See
Fig 50, on the next page.
Cooper’s major racing successes were coming from smaller, motorcycle-engined,
rear-engine cars, and his customers wanted more of the same. The very first such Cooper
Formula 3 models had the then standard Cooper-type rectangular-tube ladder chassis,
enhanced by small secondary upper chassis tubes.
These eventually evolved into Cooper’s well-known multi-tube chassis: four widely
spaced, fairly large, heavy-gauge round tubes of equal size, not at all triangulated as space
frames.13

12
Re-designated the Cooper T20 many years after it was built.
13
Typically, two 1 ½” diameter, 16 gauge tubes, roughly 14” apart, vertically.

39
FIG 50 LATER COOPER-BRISTOL FRONT-ENGINED RACE CAR

FIG 51 EARLY COOPER MULTI-TUBE CHASSIS

40
 Note the total absence of triangulation on the Fig 51 Chassis. Cooper’s race cars
were criticized on theoretical grounds because of their use of fairly large, heavy-gauge
curved tubes – one critic referred to them as “pre-buckled”. Note also the front suspension
pickups shown in Fig 51 – they imposing suspension loads on the tubes in mid-span - loads
that would stress them both in bending and torque. Even if the pickups were perfectly
adequate for the loads imposed by the springs in cornering, they seem likely to be severely
stressed due to impact loads imposed by the shock absorbers at bumps.
Bending loads were present at most of the Cooper’s chassis tube intersections. But
this was neither accidental nor simply bad design. Cooper’s experience had been that
welding (or more exactly brazing) several large-diameter heavy-gauge tubes together at a
single node tended to produce structural failures.
So he told his chief designer Owen Maddock to NOT do that. See below.

FIG 52 COOPER F1 CHASSIS REAR THREE-QUARTER VIEW

Cooper’s customers were aware that Cooper frames were not supposed to be space
frames; they were supposed to simply be structures that actually worked – structures that
Cooper could and did make with the facilities and people they had and that racers could
afford and also repair when they broke.
It may, or may not, be significant that these Cooper frames, like the 1952 Mercedes
Benz 300 SL were put together by bronze-nickel brazing, rather than welding – as were the
early Lotus cars.
One occasionally saw Cooper frames that someone had tried to ‘improve’ by welding
in small diameter diagonal tubes here and there. There is no evidence that these
modifications helped in any way.

41
 FIG 53 COOPER ENGINE BAY WITH A CURVED UPPER CHASSIS TUBE
LOTUS
While Cooper was making his theoretically non-ideal frames, Colin Chapman was
building lighter-weight, theoretically more ‘perfect’, and possibly more torsionally rigid
Lotus space-framed cars. With tubes half the diameter and half the wall thickness of the
Coopers, the frames on Chapman’s cars looked so much lighter than the Cooper frames that
people were sometimes afraid that they might break, and apparently they sometimes did.14

FIG 54 1962 LOTUS 22 FORMULA JR. CHASSIS

Note in particular the front suspension pickups on the Lotus 22 frame illustrated
below. While the suspension force vectors will constantly be changing, it would be fair to
say that they would almost never be passing through the centers of the space frame nodes,
so that major and constantly changing bending forces were applied to welds where they

14
The 1959 Lotus 17 had 5/8” & ¾” square and round 20 gauge tubes

42
should not have been applied. While this might not have been critical for ordinary
suspension spring loads during cornering on smooth surfaces, it apparently was a problem
with respect to impact loads imposed by shock absorbers on severe bumps.
LOLA
Looking very closely at Eric Broadley’s early cars leaves the impression that he
looked at the Lotus designs, and said “I can do better than that.” Chapman’s cars showed
great originality, imagination and daring. Broadley's Lolas, while often quite similar,
showed significantly greater attention to thoroughness in design details. The result was that
Lola suffered somewhat fewer failures on the track. Lola beat Lotus at the 1966 Indy 500.

FIG 55 LOLA FORMULA JUNIOR

There were many ‘did-not-finish’ results for Cooper, Lotus, Lola and others. It might
be useful if someone could identify which of these involved mechanism failures, and which
were actually some kind of frame failures. I have not been able to locate that kind of data.
BRIAN LISTER’S 1963 SPACE FRAME
Jaguar had some celebrated wins with its semi-monocoque D-Jaguar model. Then, in
the mid 1950s, for various reasons, including, but not limited to, a big factory fire, Jaguar
essentially dropped out of factory-sponsored racing. Others, including Brian Lister, carried
the Jaguar flag forward in a new non-Jaguar chassis.
Conceptually, the 1957 Lister-Jaguars were throwbacks to the 1951-1953 Aston
Martin DB3 and DB3S. They used D-Jaguar engines in very simple, big strong, round-
tubed chassis. (three-inch diameter, fourteen gauge tubes)
They were lighter than the D-Jaguars, had a much better rear suspension – de Dion
instead of a live axle, and inboard rear disk brakes. They were fairly successful, but had, by
any standard, low-efficiency chassis. Lister went forward with a better streamlined model,

43
with a body design from aerodynamicist Frank Costin. Drivers who had driven the D-
Jaguars reported that the Listers were clearly better cars, probably because of their rear
axles.
The Costin body had a more aerodynamically efficient shape than the prior Listers
but the car was still much too big. Further improvements were needed, especially in chassis
rigidity, overall size, and total weight. This parallels, conceptually, the improvements made
in going from the Aston Martin DB3 through the DB3S to the DBR1.
In 1963 Lister built a Costin-designed pure space frame Lister-Jaguar. The frame
weighed in at only 62 pounds – much less than high-efficiency semi-monocoque D-Jaguar
chassis, and less than half the weight of the prior big-tube Lister frames.
The new frame was extraordinarily rigid. It was not merely more rigid than the low-
efficiency big-tube Lister frames; limited racing results suggest that it was also more rigid
than the higher-efficiency semi-monocoque D-Jaguars. It was probably more rigid than any
of it’s possible competitors – including Aston Martin’s successful DBR1. Costin’s frame
design was more ‘theoretically pure’ than Ted Cutting’s 1956 Aston-Martin DBR1 frame,
and was, in a sense, the real British successor to the earlier Mercedes 300 SL and 300 SLR
space frames.

FIG 56 1963 LISTER-JAGUAR SPACE FRAME

A fully stressed sheet metal floor, not shown, completed the above structure. I have
been unable to determine whether it was welded-in steel or riveted-in aluminum.
But while the Costin frame may was theoretically superior to the Cutting frame, it
was much too expensive for the tiny Lister firm. Brian Lister said the Costin design
“soaked up funds like a sponge”.

44
 Aston-Martin was a real automobile company with a modest cash flow from car
sales. It could build and race cars without going broke. Lister simply could not afford to
build complex higher-efficiency chassis like Costin’s 1963 design.
The Costin frame was also probably a fabrication nightmare for craftsman
accustomed to the big tubes. Every node presented multiple paths for frame distortion. The
only available photo of the bare frame suggests at least a little over-all distortion.
The big-tube Lister-Jaguars had a de Dion rear axle, located by a vertical slide and
parallel trailing arms. The space-framed Lister had a Watt’s link and four leading arms for
de Dion tube location. Costin had previously used leading arms to locate the Marcos rear
axle. In the space-framed Lister leading arms avoided interference with the very complex
but extremely rigid intersecting tetrahedral side frames.
UNIBODY
Claude Hill’s Aston Martin Atom was an effort to develop an easy-to-build unibody
car from square steel tubes covered by an all-aluminum body. It came more than twenty
years after Vincenzo Lancia had invented and produced the first unibody automobiles.
Below are a photograph of the 1922 Lancia Lamda and a drawing from Vincenzo Lancia’s
1928 US patent 1694546. He also had an even earlier (1916!) US unibody patent 1372148.

FIG 57 1922 LANCIA LAMDA

FIG 58 LANCIA’S 1928 U.S. PATENT 1694546

45
 TOM KILLEEN’S SEMI-MONOCOQUE
While Lancia certainly invented unibody15, the United Kingdom’s Tom Killeen
invented the semi-monocoque car chassis, and he too had a patent to prove it: GB 735110
applied for in April 1952 and issued in 1953.
Killeen’s MG-engined K1 was introduced a little after the Trimax, a single-seat
monocoque race car that never really succeeded.
The K1 is historically much more significant, as it establishes him, beyond any real
doubt, as being the inventor of the semi-monocoque race car. And that car still exists,
preserved by some faithful collectors. It, and Killeen’s other projects, are discussed at some
length on an internet site.

FIG 59 TOM KILLEEN’S 1950 SEMI-MONOCOQUE K1

Just as in a monocoque aircraft, Killeen’s K1 has a stressed aluminum skin, stiffened
by lengthwise longerons (in this case steel hat sections), and transverse frames (here T
sections). Everything is riveted together. Suspension, engine, passenger and final drive
loads are all fed into the hat sections for distribution to the stressed-skin shell.
Killeen published his ideas in the motoring press and raced his little car. Other
builders like Aston Martin, Cooper, Lotus and Jaguar certainly all knew all about it – and
took note.
Figures from Killeen’s Patent GB 735110 are on the next page.

15
Joseph Ledwinka also patented an (almost) all metal body quite early, but it did not entirely
dispense with a separate chassis in the way Lancia’s design did.

46
FIG 60 & 61 FIGURES FROM KILLEEN’S BRITISH PATENT 735110.

47
 The problem with a chassis like this is the large openings for the hatch over the
engine and for the open cockpit. If a stressed-skin shell is not continuous, it must be
strongly reinforced at the edges of the openings. If the openings are quite large, the size and
weight of the edge reinforcements will eventually eliminate the inherent weight and stiffness
advantages that semi-monocoque shell construction has over a separate chassis.
The drawing of the North American P51 fighter plane middle fuselage, below,
illustrates this. Quite massive longerons and frames were required in the cockpit area. One
would call this a stressed-skin structure in the cockpit area by courtesy only. It is actually
more of a frame structure with an external skin functioning as a shear diaphragm.

FIG 62 P51 FUSELAGE STRUCTURE

FIG 63 P51 FUSELAGE INSIDE

48
 JAGUAR
The monocoque 1954 Jaguar D-type demonstrated one way in which the problem of
the cockpit opening for an automobile can be mitigated. The details below are from the
British patent GB 757443, applied for in May 1954.

FIG 64 FIGURE 1 FROM HAYNES’S BRITISH PATENT GB 757443

FIG 65 FIGURES 6 & 7 FROM HAYNES’S BRITISH PATENT GB 757443

The elliptical cross-section 18 gauge magnesium monocoque tub has two large-cross-
section sills: effectively two big triangular “tubes” (patent Fig. 6).that are integral to the
tub.16 The two sills are tied together by a large box-cross-section cowl. (patent Fig 7.)

16
Jaguar switched from magnesium to aluminum after the first few cars.

49
 A multi-tube front sub-frame provides accessibility where it is needed most. It
extends far back into the center of the tub, between the seats, and adds some stiffness in the
center of the monocoque. The design of this tubular structural ‘spine’ between the seats
evolved over time. In the later steel-bodied E-Type the front sub-frame is shorter, and
(mostly) ends at the cowl structure pickups.

FIG 66 FIGURES 2, 5 & 8 FROM HAYNES’S BRITISH PATENT GB 757443

50
 The use of a live axle and the presence of the transmission prevented the monocoque
tub from being continuous under the cockpit.17 There are two small cross-wise structural
members behind the seats, above and below the level of the final drive’s front snout, but one
must wonder whether they can be highly effective in tying the rear ends of the two sills
together, and adding to general torsional rigidity.

FIG 67 1954 JAGUAR D-TYPE, AS ACTUALLY BUILT

LOTUS’S MONOCOQUE
In 1962, ten years after he quite explicitly gave Tom Killeen the brush off, Colin
Chapman came round to Killeen’s ideas, and built the Lotus 25 monocoque race car, the
chassis of which was essentially two very large parallel sheet metal “tubes”.18

FIG 68 1962 LOTUS 25 MONOCOQUE CHASSIS

17
Jaguar did not build a monocoque car with IRS until 1957: the experimental E1A.
18
18 gauge aluminum, each tube roughly 12” high by 6” wide

51
 Chapman simultaneously built a space frame version, the Lotus 24, ‘just in case’.
The torsional stiffness results are interesting.
Space-framed Lotus 24’s torsional rigidity: 1000 lb-ft per degree
Monocoque Lotus 25’s torsional rigidity: 2400 lb-ft per degree
Chapman achieved a level of torsional rigidity with his monocoque chassis that his
space-framed cars had lacked. This must have provided a very significant net improvement
in performance in order to be adopted, since the monocoque structure involved very
substantial sacrifices in accessibility to various components, compared to a space frame.
Len Terry, a designer who worked both independently and with Lotus and several
others on quite a few advanced chassis, made the point that the 1962 Lotus monocoque
sacrificed some torsional rigidity potential by not having the exterior skin continuous over
the top of the car, except to the extent required for the driver’s upper body and the engine.
Notice, by comparison, on Fig 66, the extent to which the much earlier Jaguar D-type
monocoque tub did try maximize its potential torsional rigidity in the driver and passenger
areas,
LOLA’S SEMI-MONOCOQUE AND THE FORD GT40
The 1963 Lola GT (also known as Lola MK 6), below, and its direct descendant, the
1964 Ford 40GT, carried Jaguar’s integral monocoque sill structure to the next logical place.

FIG 69 1963 LOLA GT

When Henry Ford II decided that he wanted to become a big dog in auto racing, his
first move was to try to buy Ferrari. When that did not pan out he cast about for other
companies to buy or at least build from. Eric Broadley’s Lola, originally powered by a

52
Shelby-modified Ford Fairlane engine, seemed very promising. Lola did not have the
resources to develop it properly, but two of the cars and Broadley himself went to Ford,
where he worked with Roy Lunn, who had been responsible for the Aston Martin DB2, and
John Wyer, Aston Martin’s former technical director.
The outcome was the Ford GT40, a car that owed a great deal to the Lola GT. The
body was made by Abbey Panels, the firm that had made the Aston Martin DB3S bodies. It
took several years before the GT40 was developed into a world-beating race winner – but it
did so. It would not be unfair to say that the GT40 represented a combination of Eric
Broadley’s ideas about semi-monocoque construction, the Aston Martin group’s automobile
development and racing management experience, enhanced by a large slug of American
money and big new American engines. For a while Shelby was given the job of racing the
cars, but the most important development work apparently came from the Lunn and Wyer.
The first Lola GT had an all-aluminum structure. The GT40 (series 1, 2 and 3) all
had a British-built steel structure. Ford’s final GT40, the series 4, had a very high-tech and
very expensive American-built aluminum honeycomb structure, based on aerospace
technology. For people interested in locosts, the significance of the GT40 series 1, 2 and 3
lies in the substitution of a 23-gauge sheet steel monocoque for the much more difficult to
fabricate Mercedes-Benz style torsion-resistant space frame.
The sponsons or sills on each side of the chassis faithfully reflected Broadley’s
original concept. They were, if effect, two very-large tubes, and guaranteed that the chassis
mid section would have excellent torsional rigidity.
The anticorrosion measures used sometimes left a lot to be desired (just as was the
case with the Jaguar E-Type). Just a little corrosion on a very thin sheet steel chassis
seriously compromises its strength and safety, and presented huge problems for collectors
and restorers. Some of the better GT40 replicas use stainless steel, carbon fiber or
aluminum monocoques, rather than steel, in order to avoid the rust problem.

FIG 70 FRONT OF RIGHT-SIDE SPONSON OF FORD 40GT

53
 Note the use of lengthwise beading instead of lengthwise stringers normal in
aerospace structures. The use of bonded-on V-section lengthwise external stringers might
today be a structurally better alternative.

FIG 71 FORMERS INSIDE THE RIGHT SPONSON OF A FORD GT40

FIG 72 INSIDE GT40 SPONSON

Lola’s MK 6, Jaguar’s D-Type and Ford’s GT40 are all indirect descendants of Tom
Killeen’s 1950 semi-monocoque Model K1. In 1967, well after the Lola GT and Ford
GT40, Tom Killeen also produced a sheet-steel rear-engined monocoque: the Fraser GT also
known as the Killeen K9. Pictures are available on the internet.

54
 WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
Western Washington University has produced some Formula SAE cars that carried
the ‘two big tubes’ concept to its absolute logical conclusion, using two tubular carbon fiber
tubes with aluminum cross-pieces.

FIG 73 WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY FORMULA SAE CHASSIS

MERCEDES BENZ
The lesson of the Lola and Ford sheet-steel semi-monocoque sponsons was not lost
on Mercedes Benz. Long after Aston Martin left auto racing to firms with far more money,
Mercedes produced its model C111 and C112 prototypes. They never went into production.

FIG 74 MERCEDES C111 REAR THREE-QUARTER VIEW

55
 FIG 75 MERCEDES C111 CHASSIS DRAWING

OTHER SOURCES FOR MONOCOQUE CHASSIS DESIGN

Years after Lotus fielded the model 25 and its several monocoque successors
Halibrand and Timbs secured a US patent (3292968) on a monocoque race car chassis.
I have studied chassis patents extensively, and regret to report that Costin & Phipps’s
1965 book Racing And Sports Car Chassis Design, Terry & Baker’s 1973 book Racing Car
Design and Development and Forbes Aird’s 1997 book The Racing Car Chassis provide far
more useful insights into sheet metal monocoque limited production chassis than any or
indeed all of the available chassis patents.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
One might say that it took Aston Martin eleven years of hard work and several
intermediate steps to get from the quite simple 1948 Spa-Winning Two Liter Sports Model
prototype to the much more sophisticated 1959 Le Mans-winning DBR1.
And also that Aston Martin had to abandon its earlier frame ideas used in the Atom,
Two Liter Sports Model, and in its very nice looking and popular DB2 and DB2-4 in order
to ultimately get to the concepts used in its real money-makers – the expensive production
Grand Touring models – the DB4, DB6, etc..
Those grand touring cars used difficult to mathematically analyze platform frames,
something that would probably put off locost builders.

56
 Aston Martin also had to abandon its hard-won earlier frame ideas in order to get to
the DB3S and the DBR1. It takes managerial guts to leave behind what you have already
worked out and to proceed in a new direction – even a new direction that has given others
some clear successes.
What should be of the greatest interest is the way in which a quite small firm worked
through a series of different but related, concepts in an effort to make some cars that would
first win races and then customers, and that it did in fact accomplish both things, starting
with what were quite frankly very limited capital and facilities.
Aston Martin’s racing history also teaches that great design engineers always
consider ‘How much of an advance over our prior technology is going to be enough’, and
‘Can we build this thing with the materials, facilities and skills that we actually have – or
can get’?
The significance of the fact that Aston Martin’s 1959 version of the three-liter DBR1
actually beat the earlier lap times of Mercedes Benz’s more technically sophisticated three-
liter 300 SLR cannot be ignored. Sheer perseverance can sometimes beat almost unlimited
resources.

57
 APPENDIX A - ASTON MARTIN PROTOTYPES AND SPORTS-RACING CARS
1938 ‘Donald Duck’ Prototype. Re-bodied 2 liter Saloon.
1940 Atom Revolutionary prototype. New Four-cylinder 1970 cc
(82.55x92) 90 hp pushrod engine.
1948 2-liter Sports Model 1970 cc engine, independent front suspension, aluminum
body.
1949 pre-production DB2 Le Mans entries. Two with the 2-liter engine, one with a
6 cylinder 2580 cc (78x90) Lagonda engine.
1950 DB2 works cars Three with the Lagonda engine. Le Mans entries. Last
Aston Martin sports racer with beam rear axles.
1951 – 1953 DB3 Five works cars and five customer's cars. De Dion rear
axle. Initially with 133 hp version of Lagonda engine.
Later with 2922 cc (83x90) 163 hp version.
1953 – 1956 DB3S Eleven works cars with 84x90 2992 cc engine and twenty
customer’s cars with 83x90 2922 cc engine. Replaced
by DBR1, but one nevertheless placed second in 1958 Le
Mans race.
1956 – 1959 DBR1/250 Space Frame. Five made. Initially with new light alloy
2493 cc (83x76.8) engine that had delivered 280 hp in
Aston Martin’s Formula 1 car.
1956 – 1959 DBR1/300 With 2992 cc (83x90) 250 hp sports-racing version of
that engine. 1959 Winner at Le Mans.
1957 – 1959 DBR2 Initially with new 3670 cc (92x92) DB4 engines. Later
with 3910 cc (95x92) version. Later still with 4164 cc
(98x92) version.
1958 DBR3 One made - 2990 cc de-stroked DB4 engine.
1959 DBR4 Unsuccessful Formula 1 car.
1960 DBR5 Unsuccessful Formula 1 car.
1962 DP 212 through 215 Effectively the last of the six cylinder sports-racing Aston
Martins. Based on the DB4 GT, but lighter and with more
aerodynamic bodies. DP 215 also had independent rear
suspension.

58
 APPENDIX B - ASTON MARTIN PRODUCTION MODELS
1936 2 liter Saloon Four cylinder 1950 cc (78x102). 100 hp single overhead
cam engine
1936 – 1938 Speed Types A & B Same 2 liter engine. Classic 1930s beam axled, cycle-
fendered sports cars.
1937 - 1939 15/98 model Same engine. Visually, like an overgrown MG TD. Last
Aston Martin with wooded body framing.
1936 - 1939 Speed Type C Streamlined, balloon fenders. Eight made. Same engine,
110 hp. Introduction by Aston Martin of metal body
framing.

1948 – 1950 2-liter Sports Much later called the DB1. New four-cylinder 1970 cc
(82.55x92) 90 hp pushrod engine, independent front
suspension, all-enveloping steel body.

Seven inch trailing-link i.f.s. with coil springs some

eight or nine inches long, of 4 1/2-inch outside
diameter and of 15/32-inch gauge. Armstrong lever
type hydraulic shock-absorbers, with their arms
forming the upper link of the suspension-system
parallelogram.

The Front coil springs are some eight or nine inches

long, of 4 1/2-inch outside diameter and of 15/32-
inch gauge. Armstrong hydraulic shock-absorbers are
used, their arms forming the upper link of the
suspension-system parallelogram.

Live rear axle located by trailing arms and a Panhard

rod. The rear springs are of the same size as those at
the front, but are of 1/2-inch gauge.

Ride frequency 90 cycles per minute at the front and

100. Roll centers are at ground level at the front and
at hub-level at the back. Anti-sway bars are fitted in
front and at the back.

1950 – 1953 DB2 411 produced. Six cylinder 2580 cc (78x90) 105 hp
Lagonda engine. Later with 125 hp ‘Vantage’ engine.
Excellent reception from motoring press and by the

59
 American market. Running gear very similar to the Two-
liter sport model.
1953 – 1955 DB2-4 MK I 565 produced, including about 450 '2+2 hatchbacks' "the
four-seat sports car". Six cylinder 2580 cc Vantage
engine. Later with 2,922 cc (83x90) 140 hp version of
that engine.
1955 - 1957 DB2-4 Mark II Optional higher compression 165 hp engine.
1957 – 1959 DB2-4 Mark III Later with 195 hp version of that engine
1958 - 1963 DB4 1,210 produced. Aston Martin's entry into the high-end
(almost) mass production sports car market. Six cylinder
3670 cc (92x92) 240 hp engine.
1961 - 1963 DB4GT 302 hp version of that engine
1963 – 1965 DB5 1,023 produced. Luxury grand tourer. Six cylinder 3995
cc (96x92) engine
1965 – 1971 DB6 1,967 produced. Same engine, and still used live rear
axle.
1967 – 1972 DBS 787 produced. Same engine, and still used live rear
axle(!).

60
 APPENDIX C - SOME CHASSIS TUBE SIZES
1937 Alfa Romeo 158/159
1947 Maserati 4CL
1947 Cisitalia (Porsche 360)
1947 1.5 liter Ferrari
1947 BRM
1950 2 liter Connaught
1951 4.5 liter Ferrari
1951 Aston Marin DB3
1952 2 liter Cooper Bristol
1952 ERA G-type
1952 2 liter Ferrari
1952 2 liter Maserati
1953 2 liter Cooper Bristol
Coopers typically
1953 Aston Martin DB3S
1953 Bristol 450
Lotus 11
1955 Mercedes 300SLR
1957 Lister Jaguar
1959 Lotus 17
Lotus 19
1960 Lotus F1
1960 Gilby A Type
1961 Lotus 21 F1
1962 Lotus 24 F1
1962 Lotus 25 F1
1965 AAR Eagle (Indy)
1965 AAR Eagle (Formula 1)
1967 Shelby CanAm
parallel rectangular section tubes with four cross-members
parallel round section tubes with a few cross members
space frame, four 1.36” diameter tubes, 16.5” apart
two oval tubes, 3.65” deep, 0.10” wall thickness (12 gauge)
2.5” tubes, above one another, joined by pierced side plates
two 3.75” diameter tubes, 1.6mm walls
two oval tubes, 4.7” deep x 2.25” wide
two 4” diameter, 14 gauge tubes (0.083” wall)
ladder of two rectangular section tubes, with added round tube
bracing above
two 6” deep oval magnesium-zirconium alloy tubes
3,500 lb-ft/degree torsional stiffness !!
two oval tubes 4.4” x 2.15”, 1.5 mm (0.059” wall)
two 3.15” tubes, 1.5 mm (0.059” wall)
four 1 ½” diameter, 16 gauge tubes (0.065” wall)
four 1 ½ or 1 ¼” diameter, 16 gauge tubes (0.065” wall)
two 4” diameter, 16 gauge tubes (0.065” wall)
two 4 ½” diameter tubes
space frame 1” square lower tubes & ¾” round upper and
diagonal tubes
3-dimensional space frame of 25 mm x 1 mm wall thickness
tubes - 4000 lb-ft/degree stiffness
two 3” diameter, 14 gauge tubes (0.083” wall)
space frame 5/8” & ¾” square & round 20 gauge tubes
space frame 1” & ¾” 16 & 18 gauge tubes
space frame 1” & ¾” 18 gauge tubes (0.049” wall)
space frame of 20 gauge tubes (0.036” wall)
space frame – only 700 lb-ft/degree stiffness
space frame – only 1000 lb-ft/degree stiffness
monocoque 2400 lb-ft/degree stiffness
monocoque 16 gauge SWG aluminum
monocoque 18 gauge SWG aluminum
monocoque 18 gauge aluminum
61
1972 FIA Rules Formula 1 monocoque skin minimum 16 gauge
1979 Lotus 79 series 2 monocoque 5000 lb-ft/degree stiffness

While a frame’s torsional stiffness is much more than the sum of all of the individual
longitudinally aligned chassis tubes’ torsional stiffness, it is still useful to compare the sum
of the stiffness of all of the longitudinal chassis tubes in the cockpit area between one frame
design and another.
The 1953 Aston Martin DB3S had two 4” diameter, 16 gauge (0.065” wall) tubes.
The Coopers of the same era had four 1 ½ or 1 ¼” diameter, 16 gauge tubes.
The general formula for the polar second moment of a hollow tube is Pi*(D4 – d4)/32,
where D is the outside diameter and d is the inside diameter.
Applying the numbers of tubes, their outside diameters and wall thicknesses, (all at
the cockpit section), to this formula we get a polar second moment for the Aston Martin
that is over ten times that of the Cooper. From this we must conclude that the overall frame
torsional rigidity of the Cooper must have depended fundamentally on the geometry of the
frame, and the bending resistance of the tubes and the stiffness of the node joints, rather than
the inherent torsional stiffness of its four tubes.
In plain English, this means that in multi-tube chassis, the exact geometry of a frame
is more important than tube size or gauge, and that simple twin-tube chassis can be quite
torsionally stiff, if only the tube diameters are big enough. This is exactly what Ken Miles
was trying to tell us at page 32, above.
If the frame geometry in the cockpit area is fundamentally flawed, as it is in the Lotus
7, Lotus 11 and in most locosts, excellent frame torsional resistance will be impossible.
.

62
 APPENDIX D – GAUGES

SWG stands for “standard wire gauge”, a British scale. Most British sheet steel and some
British steel tube products were specified in SWG. British steel mechanical tubing was
usually specified as Birmingham or Stubb’s Iron Wire Gauge, which were very nearly the
same thing as SWG.

American steel tubing comes in a variety of wall thicknesses: 0.049”, 0.065”, 0.083”, 0.095”
and 0.120” all being common, and are sometimes referred to in an approximately accurate
fashion as 18, 16, 14, 13 and 10 gauge. For engineering calculations the actual wall
thickness should be used.

GAUGE SWG BIRMINGHAM US STEEL SHEETS

10 0.1345” 3.42 mm 9/64”
11 0.1196” 3.04 mm 1/ 8”
12 0.1040” 0.1090” 0.1046” 2.66 mm 7/64”
13 0.0920” 0.0950” 0.0897” 2.28 mm 3/32”
14 0.0800” 0.0830” 0.0747” 1.90 mm 5/64”
15 0.0673” 1.71 mm
16 0.0640” 0.0650” 0.0598” 1.52 mm 1/16”
17 0.0538” 1.37 mm
18 0.0480” 0.0490” 0.0478” 1.21 mm
19 0.0418” 10.6 mm
20 0.0360” 0.0350” 0.0359” 0.91 mm
22 0.0280” 0.0280” 0.0299” 0.76 mm 1/32”
23 0.0269” 0.68 mm
24 0.0239” 0.61 mm

63
 APPENDIX E - REFERENCES

PATENTS CITED IN THE TEXT

1372148 AUTOMOBILE LANCIA no assignee 3 22 1921

1694546 MOTOR CAR LANCIA no assignee 12 11 1928

GB 520986 IMPROVEMENTS IN OR RELATING TO BODIES FOR MOTOR OR

OTHER
VEHICLES HILL ASTON MARTIN 3 30 1939

GB 527067 IMPROVEMENTS IN OR RELATING TO AUTOMOBILE STRUCTURES

HILL ASTON MARTIN 10 1 1940

GB 527068 IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO BODIES

HILL ASTON MARTIN 10 1 1940

GB 735110 IMPROVEMENTS IN, OR RELATING TO, MOTOR ROAD AND LIKE

VEHICLES KILLEEN no assignee 8 17 1955

GB 757443 MOTOR VEHICLE CHASSIS HEYNES JAGUAR 9 14 1956

GB 780657 IMPROVED SELF-PROPELLED SPORTS OR RACING MODEL MOTOR-

VEHICLE HEYNES JAGUAR 9 16 1965

2797954 MOTOR VEHICLE BODY IN FRAMEWORK CONSTRUCTION,

ESPECIALLY FOR SPORTS CARS
UHLENHAUT DAIMLER BENZ 7 2 1957

3292968 RACE CAR CHASSIS HALIBRAND & TIMBS no assignee 12 20 1966

Note: patent numbers with the GB prefix are British, all others are American

SELECTED CHASSIS PATENTS OF HISTORICAL INTEREST

385087 SELF PROPELLING VEHICLE BENZ none 6 26 1888

540648 ROAD VEHICLE DURYEA none 6 11 1895

1143635 AUTOMOBILE BODY LEDWINKA J. BUDD 6 22 1915

1808560 PRESSED METAL VEHICLE BODY LEDWINKA J. BUDD 6 2 1931

64
1808561 PRESSED METAL VEHICLE BODY LEDWINKA J. BUDD 6 2 1931

1876905 VEHICLE CONSTRUCTION

FREEMAN & DUESCH RESENGIN 9 13 1932

2012057 VEHICLE SWALLOW PRESSED STEEL 8 20 1935

2107385 VEHICLE FRAME MADDOCK MIDLAND STEEL 2 8 1938

2122444 AUTOMOBILE BODY TJAARDA BRIGGS 7 5 1938

2140476 COMBINED BODY AND CHASSIS UNDERFRAME

LEDWINKA J. BUDD 12 13 1938

2159332 MOTOR VEHICLE LEE CHRYSLER 5 23 1939

2165033 CHASSIS OF MOTOR DRIVEN VEHICLES

DAUBEN DAIMLER BENZ 7 4 1939

2167376 AUTOMOBILE BODY SCHULZ AUTO UNION AG 7 28 1939

2168436 CHASSIS FRAME FOR VEHICLES BRUSS BUDD 8 8 1939

2177896 MOTOR VEHICLE LEE CHRYSLER 10 31 1939

2177897 MOTOR VEHICLE LEE CHRYSLER 10 31 1939

2192075 MOTOR VEHICLE AND ITS MANUFACTURE

GREGOIRE none 2 27 1940

2225976 MOTOR VEHICLE BODY CADWALLADER CHRYSLER 12 24 1940

2253193 CHASSIS FOR VEHICLE, ESPECIALLY TUBULAR CHASSIS FOR

MOTOR VEHICLES NIESSEN DAIMLER-BENZ 9 19 1941

2269451 AUTOMOBILE BODY CONSTRUCTION

FORD (HENRY) FORD M.C. 1 13 1942

2389907 VEHICLE STRUCTURE HELMUTH MIDLAND STEEL 11 27 1945

2551528 MOTOR VEHICLE FRAME DARRIN none 5 1 1951

4811812 REAR FRAME FORMING PART OF A SUPPORTING STRUCTURE OF

A MOTOR VEHICLE CASSESE FERRARI 3 14 1989

65
4811970 FRONT FRAME FORMING PART OF A SUPPORTING STRUCTURE
OF A MOTOR VEHICLE CASSESE FERRARI 3 14 1989

4869539 SUPPORTING STRUCTURE FOR A MOTOR VEHICLE CASSESE

FERRARI 9 26 1989

Note that the frame shown in 2168436 was used in the pre-war BMW 327, the post-war
Bristol 400 series, and the Arnolt Bristol.

CLAUDE HILL PATENTS SECURED AT HARRY FERGUSON RESEARCH

2775307 FRONT WHEEL SUSPENSION FOR MOTOR VEHICLES

HILL 12 25 1956

2816616 VEHICLE WHEEL SUSPENSION HILL 12 17 1957

2914045 INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE HILL 11 24 1959

2936035 VEHICLE BRAKING SYSTEM HILL 5 10 1960

3235021 RACING MOTOR VEHICLE WITH FOUR WHEEL DRIVE AND

CONTROLLED DIFFERENTIAL HILL 2 15 1966

3339661 MULTIPLE WHEEL DRIVE VEHICLES WITH MEANS PREVENTING

TORQUE BEING TRANSMITTED BACK TO THE ENGINE HILL ET AL
9 5 1967

3378093 CENTRAL DIFFERENTIAL GEAR UNITS HILL 4 11 1968

3400777 MOTOR VEHICLES MOVING FOUR WHEEL DRIVE HILL 9 10 1968

3407893 MOTOR VEHICLES HAVING FOUR WHEEL DRIVE

HILL ET AL 10 29 1968

3492890 FOUR-WHEEL-DRIVE MOTOR VEHICLES HILL ET AL 2 3 1970

Note: Some of these Ferguson patents were the basis for the drive train for the STP-Paxton
gas turbine Indy car.

A Claude Hill reference

http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article/issue/april-1949/15/claude-hill-
designer-of-the-post-war-aston-martin

66
Aston Martin History Introduction
http://www.ecuriebertelli.com/AMhistoryInt1.html

The Southerland Era part 1

http://www.ecuriebertelli.com/AMhistoryInt3.html

The Southerland Era part 2

http://www.ecuriebertelli.com/AMhistoryInt4.html

1936 15/98 model part 1

http://www.ecuriebertelli.com/AMhistorySutherland_3.html

1936 15/98 model part 2

http://www.ecuriebertelli.com/AMhistorySutherland_4.html

The 1936 110 hp 2-Liter engine

http://www.ecuriebertelli.com/AMhistorySutherland_1.html

1936 Speed model (types A & B)

http://www.ecuriebertelli.com/AMhistorySutherland_2.html

Aston Martin Speed Model Type C (Static Picture)

http://www.car-revs-daily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/1940-Aston-Martin-Speed-
Model-Type-C-6.jpg

1939-1940 Aston Martin Atom “Back to the Future”

http://cdntb.astonmartin.com/magazine/july-2014/heritage/index.html

1939-1940 Aston Martin Atom

http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/21906/lot/357

Influential Aston Martin concept heads to auction

http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2014/03/28

1939-1940 Aston Martin Atom

http://astonmartins.com/car/the-atom-2

1940 Atom Prototype

http://www.ecuriebertelli.com/AMhistorySutherland_7.html

Aston Martin Atom (In Motion)

http://anyskin.tumblr.com/post/143501973917/fuckyeahconceptcarz-1939-aston-martin-
atom

67
Aston Martin Atom (Still Photo)
https://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Aston-Martin-Atom-Factory-Prototype-
Concept-Car-1.jpg

Aston Martin 1948 “Spa Winner Replica”

https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/22792/lot/83/

1950 Two Liter Sports aka DB-1

http://www.aston.co.uk/carsales_index/php/action/details/car/293/Aston-Martin/DB1

Aston Martin Two Liter Sports Model Company Brochure

http://astonmartins.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/aston-martin-db1-brochure.pdf

Aston Martin Two Liter Sports Model

https://auta5p.eu/lang/en/katalog/auto.php?idf=Aston-Martin-2-Litre-DB1-771

Aston Martin DB2 (1950) OXO13

https://www.netcarshow.com/aston_martin/1950-db2/1024x768/wallpaper_04.htm

Aston Marin DB2/4 MK II – includes some chassis photos

http://www.themotorhood.com/themotorhood/2015/8/27/dynamic-duo-1957-aston-martin-
db24-mk-ii

2004 - Numerical and Experimental Analysis of Formula SAE Chassis University Of

Queensland Jonathan Blessing
http://users.telenet.be/AudiR8/Numerical%20and%20Experimental%20Analysis%20of%20
Formula%20SAE%20Chassis.pdf

2009 - Design And Optimization Of A Formula SAE Racecar Chassis And Suspension MIT
Reid F Allen
https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/55072

2010 - Composite Suspension for Formula SAE Vehicle

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/346d/df10f8447c7fdd56c4fbadfdefdff8021ef5.pdf

2012 - Design and Optimization of a Formula SAE Racecar Worchester Poly

https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-042612-
103255/unrestricted/2012_Formula_SAE_Final_Report.pdf

2013 - Analysis Of Composite Chassis Chalmers University

http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/191830/191830.pdf

2015 - Design_and_Optimization_of_a_Formula_SAE_Vehicle Worchester Poly

68
https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-042915-
031015/unrestricted/2015_Design_and_Opt_of_FSAE.pdf

2015 - Design And Optimization Of Undertray For Formula SAE Race Car Using CFE
Analysis Girish Bangalore Jalappa U of Texas
https://uta-ir.tdl.org/uta-
ir/bitstream/handle/10106/25399/BangaloreJalappa_uta_2502M_13340.pdf?sequence=1

2016 - Design_and_Optimization_of_a_Formula_SAE_Vehicle Worchester Poly

https://web.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-042816-
104301/unrestricted/Design_and_Optimization_of_a_Formula_SAE_Vehicle.pdf

2016 - Torsional Stiffness And Natural Frequency Analysis Of A Formula SAE Vehicle
Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer Chassis Using Finite Element Analysis Manuel Hermann
Cal Poly
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2883&context=theses

2016 - Chassis Torsional Rigidity Analysis for a Formula SAE Racecar

https://deptapps.engin.umich.edu/open/rise/getreport?pid=104&fv=2&file=Chassis+Torsion
al+Rigidity+Analysis+for+a+Formula+SAE+Racecar.pdf

2017 - Torsional Stiffness Measuring Device

https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=mems411

2017 - Torsional Stiffness Comparison of Different Tube Cross Sections of a Formula SAE
Car Space Frame
https://www.matec-
conferences.org/articles/matecconf/pdf/2018/12/matecconf_icmme2018_04002.pdf

2018 - Vertical Bending Strength And Torsional Rigidity Analysis Of Formula Student Car
Chassis
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5024109

69
FIGURES PAGE

FIG 1 1936 CAROZZERIA TOURING SUPERLEGERRA BODY FRAMING 1

FIG 2 SUPERLEGGERA PANEL ATTACHMENT METHOD 2
FIG 3 HILL’S BRITISH PATENT 520986 – FIGURES 5, 6 & 7 4
FIG 4 HILL’S BRITISH PATENT 520986 – FIGURES 3 & 4 5
FIG 5 ASTON MARTIN SPEED MODEL C 6
FIG 6 HILL’S BRITISH PATENT 520986 – FIGURES 1 & 2 6
FIG 7 1939 ASTON MARTIN ATOM 7
FIG 8 HILL’S BRITISH PATENT 52706 – FIGURE 1 8
FIG 9 HILL’S BRITISH PATENT 52706 – FIGURE 2 8
FIG 10 HILL’S BRITISH PATENT 52706 – FIGURE 3 9
FIG 11 HILL’S BRITISH PATENT 52706 – FIGURE 4 9
FIG 12 HILL’S BRITISH PATENT 52706 – FIGURE 5 9
FIG 13 1948 ASTON MARTIN TWO LITER SPORTS MODEL 10
FIG 14 1948 ASTON MARTIN SPA MODEL FRAME 12
FIG 15 1948 ASTON MARTIN TWO-LITER SPORTS MODEL CHASSIS 12
FIG 16 1948 ASTON MARTIN ‘SPA MODEL REPLICA 13
FIG 17 1950 ASTON MARTIN DB2 14
FIG 18 ASTON MARTIN DB2 CHASSIS 14
FIG 19 ASTON MARTIN DB2 CHASSIS X-MEMBER 15
FIG 20 ASTON MARTIN DB2 BARE FRAME 16
FIG 21 ASTON MARTIN DB2 SILL DETAIL SHOWING HIGH FRAME 16
FIG 22 ASTON MARTIN DB2 COWL INTERIOR 17
FIG 23 1958 ASTON MARTIN DB4 18
FIG 24 TYPICAL PLATFORM CHASSIS (MERCEDES-BENZ 190 SL) 18
FIG 25 ASTON MARTIN DB4 PLATFORM CHASSIS 19
FIG 26 DB4, DB5 & DB6 RIGHT & LEFT STRUCTURAL HAT MEMBERS 19
FIG 27 DB4 SUPERLEGGERA BODY FRAMING 20
FIG 28 1951 ASTON MARTIN DB3 SPORTS RACE CAR CHASSIS 21
FIG 29 1953 ASTON MARTIN DB3S SPORTS RACE CAR 21
FIG 30 1949 JOWETT JUPITER CHASSIS 22
FIG 31 1952 ERA G-TYPE 23
FIG 32 1952 ERA G-TYPE REAR FRAME & DE DION REAR SUSPENSION 24
FIG 33 1952 BRISTOL 450 SPORTS RACING CAR FRAME 24
FIG 34 THIS IS A GEOMETRIC SPACE FRAME 26
FIG 35 1951 JAGUAR C-TYPE AUTOMOTIVE SPACE FRAME 27
FIG 36 RUDOLF UHLENHAUT’S 1967 US PATENT 2797954 28
FIG 37 PATENT DETAIL OF CHASSIS SIDE FRAME 29
FIG 38 MERCEDES BENZ 1954 300 SL PRODUCTION COUPE FRAME 30
FIG 39 TOP VIEW OF 1954 SL PRODUCTION COUPE FRAME 30
FIG 40 SIDE VIEW OF 1954 300 SL PRODUCTION COUPE FRAME 30
FIG 41 DETAIL OF 1952 MERCEDES 300 SL PROTOTYPE’S FRAME 31
FIG 42 1956 ASTON MARTIN DBR1 33

70
FIG 43 1956 LOTUS 11 LE MANS AUTOMOTIVE SPACE FRAME 34
FIG 44 LOTUS 7 SERIES 1 CHASSIS 35
FIG 45 LATER CATERHAM 7 SPACE FRAME 35
FIG 46 AUDI A2 36
FIG 45 DETAIL FROM 1956-1959 ASTON MARTIN DBR1 37
FIG 46 1952 MERCEDES BENZ 300 SL PROTOTYPE’S THREE-
DIMENSIONAL SIDE FRAMES MADE UP OF CONNECTED
TETRAHEDA PROVIDE TORSIONAL RIGIDITY 38
FIG 47 EARLY FRONT-ENGINED COOPER-BRISTOL 39
FIG 48 EARLY FRONT-ENGINED COOPER- BRISTOL RACE CAR 40
FIG 49 EARLY COOPER MULTI-TUBE CHASSIS 40
FIG 50 COOPER F1 CHASSIS REAR THREE-QUARTER VIEW 41
FIG 51 COOPER ENGINE BAY WITH A CURVED UPPER CHASSIS TUBE 42
FIG 52 1962 LOTUS 22 FORMULA JR. CHASSIS 42
FIG 53 LOLA FORMULA JUNIOR 43
FIG 54 1963 LISTER-JAGUAR SPACE FRAME 44
FIG 55 1922 LANCIA LAMDA 45
FIG 56 LANCIA’S 1928 U.S. PATENT 1694546 45
FIG 57 TOM KILLEEN’S 1950 SEMI-MONOCOQUE K1 46
FIG 58 FIGURES FROM KILLEEN’S BRITISH PATENT GB 735110 47
FIG 59 FIGURES FROM KILLEEN’S BRITISH PATENT GB 735110 47
FIG 60 P51 FUSELAGE STRUCTURE 48
FIG 61 P51 FUSELAGE INSIDE 48
FIG 62 FIGURE 1 FROM HAYNES’ BRITISH PATENT GB 757443 49
FIG 63 FIGURES 6 & 7 FROM HAYNES’ BRITISH PATENT GB 757443 49
FIG 64 FIGURES 2, 8 & 5 FROM HAYNES’ BRITISH PATENT GB 757443 50
FIG 65 1954 JAGUAR D-TYPE, AS ACTUALLY BUILT 51
FIG 66 1962 LOTUS 25 MONOCOQUE CHASSIS 51
FIG 67 1963 LOLA GT 52
FIG 68 FRONT OF RIGHT-SIDE SPONSON OF FORD 40GT 53
FIG 69 FORMERS INSIDE THE RIGHT SPONSON OF A FORD GT40 54
FIG 70 INSIDE GT40 SPONSON 54
FIG 71 WESTERN WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY FORMULA SAE 55
FIG 72 MERCEDES BENZ C111 REAR THREE-QUARTER VIEW 55
FIG 73 MERCEDES BENZ C111 CHASSIS DRAWING 56

71
 Copyright Notice
All patent drawings in this paper are believed to be in the public domain.
Each and every photograph and drawing in this paper, other than the patent drawings,
is either copyrighted by someone other than the author of this paper, or is an author-cropped
or otherwise author-edited version of a photograph or drawing copyrighted by someone
other than the author of this paper.
All such un-edited and un-cropped material is incorporated in this paper only under
the fair use doctrine, and subject to the restrictions of that legal doctrine.
Apart from his use in this paper, the author assigns any rights he may have to
cropped and edited versions of photographs and drawings to the holders of the copyrights to
the originals.
The author disclaims any and all copyright or other interest in any other photograph
or drawing in this paper.
“Fair Use” refers to a limited and transformative copying for the purposes of
commentary or criticism, and that does not deprive the original copyright owner of income
or any new or potential market. “Transformative” refers to the adding of new meaning,
insights and understanding of the original material. It applies especially to scholarship and
research.
If the owner of a copyright to any illustration used in this paper believes that I have
used that illustration improperly, please contact me by e-mail using the subject line
“CHASSIS STUDY”, identifying the specific figure number and any facts connected with
his ownership of the copyright (for example the URL on which the original was posted) so
that I may decide whether to remove it. I will act on all such claims promptly.
The text is by the author and is co-licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-
ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License. Permission is
granted to copy, distribute and/or modify the text under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License and, unless otherwise noted, the GNU Free
Documentation License, unversioned, with no invariant sections.
Last revised January 2, 2020
Ralph Gallagher
ralphgallagher@att.net

72