HI Luke,
Yes, in one way it is perfect, but it is also so flawed in others as to be almost funny. The concept of a CNC machined chassis is laughable, there is not one single benefit in doing it that way [except for showing that it could be done].
If you want to compare materials directly, then a simple aluminium honeycomb monocoque chassis using 70's technology would have been vastly superior. It would be significantly lighter, vastly cheaper and the resultant structure would be much more rigid and not require the intense effort that you describe.
The Rolls Royce philosophy that you speak of deals with the benefits of simple pure design, using appropriate materials [and in appropriate ways and places]. A simple aluminium tube, gram for gram is stronger and more rigid than any piece of CNC machined solid [that spans the same distance] and old tech laminate structures blow the tube out of the water.
What they have done is to take a flawed concept and made it work with an inordinate amount of detail. But it is detail that is required because the design and construction method are not appropriate for the purpose - please don't confuse over-engineering with great design - they are not the same thing. Good design seeks to simplify and remove any extraneous material, over engineering simply tries to mask the previous error with more complexity [and the subsequent snowball effect that follows]. I would love to see it put on a chassis jig and have its torsional stiffness rated - I don't think it would rate very highly. And lets not talk about comparative costs of construction.
The body work is beautiful and full of the sole of the workers who formed it, but the chassis is a maze of over detailed substructures, each trying to mask the mistakes of each other.
An example of the type of thinking I am trying to describe is probably well illustrated one simple process that took place during the Cold War Space Race between the US an the USSR. Both countries knew that their astronauts needed a reliable tool to write with in space [for navigation calculations etc]. The US spend untold millions of dollars trying to invent a pen that would write zero gravity, they put teams of their best engineers on the task and spend years trying to perfect it. The Russians simply gave their Cosmonauts pencils.
That is a good design solution vs over engineering. The US spent a fortune trying to make a flawed concept work without looking for a simple solution to the problem. You can't always throw money at a problem and expect a superior result. Mostly the extra money just means extra complications and management issues, but it is the way in the US where bigger is always better.
Don't get me wrong, I like the Cobra [especially the body work], but I think they got caught up in the process of construction and the end result whilst beautiful in its complexity shouldn't be confused with a considered, elegant [and potentially timeless] design solution to the problem. It will make a beautiful museum piece in the future, but it won't change the way cars are constructed [except for the mega rich wanna-bees].
VMX 42
P.S. don't worry Firko, it probably won't happen again…
