Talk:Unit construction

POV

While Triumph and BSA used and advertised unit construction, they did not invent it. Many other manufacturers have used it. The article only needs to mention the BSA/Triumph divide between "unit" and "pre-unit". Including the "unit construction" article in BSA and Triumph categories seems a bit POV as well. A Unit Construction article should not be about manufacturers, but the engineering, no? Seasalt 13:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

But one needs to ask: Who propagates the engineering if not the manufacturers? indeed it is the manufacturers, so, IMHO, the important ones and their bikes should be mentioned, as they are, if they were proponents or significant manufacturers of this type of engine design. While the article could do with more information it is not badly balanced though the New Imperial could do with some more meat. ww2censor 15:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I can agree to disagree. That's just how it looks when I read it.Seasalt 13:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can. Let's see if anyone else has any strong feelings about this, but let me ask, where will we put the info about BSA & Triumph unit construction, if not here? Do we divide it up into the appropriate manufacturers article? ww2censor 13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got no problem with the large amount of Triumph and BSA info--it gives an excellent way to look at the history of Unit Construction. But the utter lack of mention of its use by many, many other modern manufacturers is a problem. And, why is it categorized under BSA and Triumph?--Pi3832 13:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Rereading it again make me see that the BSA section is certainly too long and detailed in the overall article balance. Certainly other manufacturers could have some small sections if there is enough information available (that's the problem; finding info). The BSA and Triumph info from the history could possibly be gathered into the individual sub-sections and the BSA should probably be reduced by about 50%. Any excess, or the full, information for each manufacturer should be copied into the main articles as mentioned by [User:Seasalt|Seasalt]]. Do you want to work on that Pi3832 in the order suggested? Regarding the cats, I seem to remember that I did that because I though it was an appropriate cat to include it under especially for people interested in those manufacturers. ww2censor 14:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Excess material in BSA should be in BSA. Its really the BSA bit that overdoes it. Seasalt 11:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Collected some material, but not happy with it. User:Seasalt/Unit Construction Has Chadwick properly distinguished between semi-unit and unit, looking at his Triumph "facts" in particular. A recently acquired Motorcycle Encyclopedia does not distinguish, and is no help in that respect. Seasalt 12:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I just completed a merge and redirect of Unit single engine design (motorcycle) to here. As best as I can tell all the referencable content is already here and referenced. Jeepday (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

BMW NOT unit construction

R and K series have a separate gearbox bolted to the crankcase. The term bolt-up unit construction is sometimes applied as was the case with the original BSA A7 where the separate gearbox bolted to the crankcase. Also consider the Nimbus where the gearbox and engine use a common oil supply but the gearbox is again bolted to the engine. Most of the American fours used a true unit construction. Given the opening definition can 2-strokes be considered unit construction as most used premix or a separate oil supply to the crankcase? M-72 (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it's wrong to call BMWs etc "unit-construction" even though I'm sure lots of people did so.

It's problematical calling the small 2-strokes "unit-construction" because the new ones after the war were always built like that. Because they were so much smaller/shorter, they were able to use geared primary drives, which never needed drive tensioning. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

A proposal to remove 2 photos

Proposed - the first two photographs be taken out of this article. They don't show unit-construction, they show engine/gearbox assemblies that don't have a primary drive because the drives are aligned and simply splined one on another. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost no mention of automotive unit construction

Unit construction is a term used to describe motorcycle or motor car engine design where both the engine and gearbox are an integrated unit within the same casing. - first line of article.

No mention thereafter is made of the use of unit construction in automobiles.

Are there no references to the use of unit construction in the BMC Mini, the Lamborghini Miura P400 (except the SV), and early Fiat front drive cars, or has no-one bothered to look for them?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added {{WikiProject Automobiles}} with an attention flag, to get this on their radar. Some sources treat 'unit construction' as meaning monocoque while others use it to refer to the engine and transmission. Speaking of which, this is a little off. --Dbratland (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made a whole mess of changes including this one.

As best I know, the whole business of "unit construction" is a marketing term by Triumph and BSA in the late 50s/early 60s to distance themselves from Norton, Velocette, Matchless/AJS et al who weren't investing in the new (and much bigger/more complex) machining centers needed to deal with the much bigger sizes of the new castings.

I don't know to what extent it applied to cars, I don't think it was ever such a big deal (not least, because the punters couldn't actually see and admire the differences).

I suspect that small 2-strokes became unit-construction because they were all based on German designs stolen after the war, but nobody ever bothered referring to them as something new and special. It's a bit misleading to mention them but I've left that untouched. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting, but you do realize that your assertion that "unit construction" was made up in the 50s or 60s is written right below my link to a discussion of the pros and cons of unit construction in an article published in 1913? --Dbratland (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The concept of "unit construction" goes back to the first castings, at least, and in some fields it means "monocoque". It's perfectly valid in reference to car engine/gearbox units, though I suspect it's never been much used there outside the design office.

"Unit-construction" was seized on by some British motorcycle manufacturers in the 1950s as a marketing tool and this is (perhaps) the most commonly recognized use.

If people think there are other important uses, then by all means write them up, provide a disambiguation page, and re-name this article "Unit-construction (motorcycles)" or similar.

Let's try and avoid a situation such as in the Scooter article where the same word is used for two (or more) rather different concepts and one article tries to cover them all. It doesn't work.

And before we get the objection "it's not referenced that unit-construction is used in related but quite distinct ways" let me say that that's not something we have to prove. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Vehicle frame covers unitized body construction as applies to automobiles. --Sable232 (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)