Uhhnnn... But they always told us : "Carbon fiber... a lot stronger than steel and a lot lightweight than steel, so now we can build cars much more stronger and much more lighter."
So it's not so stronger and lighter at same time. And based in your information I conclude the pices of CF need to be much more ticker to compare or surpass steel.
It would take countless layers (and $$$$$) to get really 3 times stronger than steel. Unviable for DIY projects of eco vehicles (unless we accept a not resistant final work).
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Strength claims are based on weight, not thickness or volume. As you know, the strength of both steel and CF depend on what kind it is.
I think there is huge potential in the automotive industry to implement CF, but costs must come down and the automation process must improve.
|
Sorry to disagree with you now. But a rocket it's mostly fuel in weight, so if you cut for the weight of the empty body of a rocket in 99%, it would still be incredible heavy (98,99% of weigh if with fuel added), due the weight of fuel.
A Airplane would take some benefit.
But a car, with only 10% of fuel weight of total weight, and so a90% of weight for the car's body (shape/reels/motor...) and if we could cut 70% of the body weight, the final car (with fuel) would be 40% of the initial car's weight with fuel.
You had reversed the fuel weight important analysis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Weight is relatively unimportant for automobiles compared to other vehicles. As I've read elsewhere, the larger the percentage of a vehicle is comprised of fuel, the more important it is to reduce weight. Rockets are about 90% fuel by weight, so exotic lightweight materials are cost effective. Airplanes are about 40% fuel, so they have a medium need for lightweight materials. Cars are only 10% fuel, so they don't benefit as much by expensive forms of weight reduction.
|