The only reason your car has a metal structure today is due to money and tradition. We know for sure that we can make a totally composite chassis that is several orders of magnitude safer than a comparable car. We can make it both harder, AND make it absorb more energy so that your body changes vectors more slowly. In fact, what we are lacking is the ability to mix the metal parts back into the mix in such a way as to take advantage of applications where they would have an advantage.

Question everything you think you know about composites.

Seriously.

:)

The word “seriously” halfway through a post often indicates that the words or phrases preceding that word are not serious. For the humor-impaired, happy-smiley faces are available upon request. Example: :)

The rest of my post indicated a clear understanding of the facts you convey: a material is only as good as the design through which it is applied.

Didn’t GM do that in the Z06?

It is gratifying to hear that finally people are waking up to the fact that modern cars have become like many modern Americans – loaded with flab. This discussion would not even be taking place a few years ago. Weight is the enemy of performance, period. Whether your idea of performance is speed, gas mileage, or carbon dioxide production, it doesn’t matter. A strong, stiff, safe, light structure is the way to go. Honda used to design this way; my bet is they will be the ones to do it again.

Get rid of all of the sound deadening, all the heat insulation, all the interior plastic, all of the carpet, and you’ll have just about gained the difference between a conventional steel car and a carbon composite one.

I want to see a “sandpaper” textured floor and a bare metal roof. I want to see wires and ducts; that’ll also make it easier to take apart and put back together. I also want to get rid of any crash protection requirements requiring protection of unbelted occupants – those are as dumb as any motorcycle regulations aimed at protecting riders without helmets. Move the side impact sled’s bumper down to the height of a car’s bumper, then require that all personal-use trucks have bumpers at that height. Side impacts involving semitrucks and locomotives aren’t survivable anyway, get rid of rules that just make it a little easier to clean up.

They are looking at (short article) improving manufacturing processes. This means cheaper and faster and repeatable quality, does not talk about design. They will also work on design.

Ford will struggle to adopt VW 1.8t approach in the meantime.

Only Ford is worth talking about.

To tell the truth the Japanese will win, they already have, they have unlimited resources to move forward, and for domestic 2.8 we are on late stage deathwatch.

Certainly safety is one issue, but I think there are other issues as well. Perhaps there is a perception issue – I know Saturn suffered some with plastic panels (which the owners pretty much universally loved, but were hated on by the press). Maybe it’s just that designers and engineers aren’t used to using these materials? I know TVR claims that GRP is a great idea, and though they are an oddball company I have yet to see any real evidence either for or against their positions.

You would all do well not to spread false fear about a technology you apparently know little about.

CF is just a material. How well that material is applied is what will make the difference in safety. A CF structure that completely shatters and leaves you unprotected is simply a poorly engineered one. That result is also quite easy to get using metal if you don’t design, manufacture, and test properly.

Tell me I’m wrong, but isn’t the ideal, a carbon inner chassis “survival cell” with a deformative outer structure of aluminum/plastic/steel whatever.

I imagine the automaker that figures out how to automate the CF manufacturing process will be in a great position.

FORMER INSTRUCTIONS: if you’re in a highway accident, stay in your car; as secondary accidents are quite common, and you will be much safer in a damaged car than you would be sprinting across the roadway.

CARBON-FIBER INSTRUCTIONS: if you’re in a highway accident, leap out of the car as fast as you can; secondary accidents are quite common, and your car’s carbon-fiber components can only absorb one impact before splintering into fiber and dust. You’ll still probably still die sprinting across eight lanes of highway, but it’s a better chance than you have in what’s left of your car.

No, seriously, of course we’re talking body panels, not safety cage components…right? I really can’t see Honda building a flagrantly unsafe car. Ford maybe, but not Honda.

What will this do to auto-repair costs?

Most cars are totaled after an accident anyway. I imagine bumpers, and eventually fenders, will still be made out of thermoplastic. Nissan uses carbon fiber for driveshafts and frontal core supports already. With lower costs, CF could be extended to bonnet and boot lids, floorpans, roof panels, doors, dash support, seat frames, etc.

Robstar Says:

Why the sole focus on carbon fibre? I would have thought that aluminum would have a distinct weight advantage in addition to being better understood, cheaper to produce, and easily recyclable?

Aluminum is difficult to form and weld compared to steel. It also reacts differently, cracking when bent, etc. It’s also energy intensive to manufacture, produced electrifying ore until it melts. It may even provide a buffer to shield Japanese automakers from variable input costs.

As I mentioned earlier, it could be used in non-load-bearing areas of the car. Aluminum can then be re-allocated to control arms and subframes, where it would subtract the most weight relative to steel.

It can be done, it has been done, and it does not require carbon fiber.

There are still applications where CF or other composites are not the ideal product. However, the more you learn about designing with composites, the more you can eliminate other materials.

No matter what you do, making cars lighter will make them more disposable. The key is to find the best economy and safety for the fleet overall. If you double the cost of a fender replacement, but also half the likelihood of one. You come out even.

Soundproofing. You saw the Toyota ad where they had marching bands and cannons going off next to the Corolla with a sleeping badger inside.

Do you not want a comfortable and quiet ride?

Automotive tire recycling remains a big issue even though it has been worked on for decades. At best, used up car tires get down cycled, but they never end up as feedstock for making new tires.

I can imagine carbon fiber being used for a select few components on cars, but the whole vehicle … nope.

Both are much less expensive than hybrid or fuel cell technology

Thermoplastic resins for the matrix (which would eliminate autoclaving steps) have been studied for quite awhile, but just haven’t taken hold in the same way as thermosets because consolidating the resin all the way through the carbon fibers is difficult.

Nanocarbon fibers are still in the R&D stage, though many companies are interested in nano-engineered fibers that can take their mechanical properties to a higher plane of performance.

No silver bullets that I can recall mentioned regarding the recycling issue.

That’s quite a gap to begin with.”

It’s called structure. Mostly steel, in the form of lighter gauge materials. Imports generally use lighter gauge material and then coat it with rubber spray to damp the noise and “oil canning.”

Really though, there’s only a couple of ways to make that large a gap. Use less of the heavy stuff. Oddly enough it’s also THE more costly material.

How has this escaped the auto savvy public?
You’d expect this from general public.

http://www.caranddriver.com/car/make-model/honda-civic.html
(Civi Sedan) Curb Weight: 2628 lbs