How much weight would be saved if the average, everyday sedan was constructed with carbon fiber techniques rather than steel - frame, body panels, etc?
How much fuel would that save?
Of course, it would be more expensive, re-tooling, etc - any other design considerations that would make it impossible / unfeasible?
Would the result be a safer form of transportation?
What if they made semi-tractor trailers the same way?
http://www.google.com/search?q=avera...her+than+steel
"Each day well lived makes every yesterday a dream of happiness and every tomorrow a vision of hope. Look well therefore to this one day for it, and it alone, is life"
~ Sanskrit poem attributed to Kalidasa, "Salutation to the Dawn"
Brian's Wish
BMW has done a lot of research using CF. I've always wondered about the recyclability myself. Pretty straightforward with steel and aluminum, or any metal for that matter, but what do you do with carbon fiber?
It's a Hoosier thing, you wouldn't understand...
Originally Posted by Turn13
How much weight would be saved if the average, everyday sedan was constructed with carbon fiber techniques rather than steel - frame, body panels, etc?
How much fuel would that save?
Of course, it would be more expensive, re-tooling, etc - any other design considerations that would make it impossible / unfeasible?
Would the result be a safer form of transportation?
What if they made semi-tractor trailers the same way?
http://www.google.com/search?q=avera...her+than+steel
i would guess the steel companies won't let that happen!
From what I've been able to glean from various sources, a car can be up to 60% lighter if made from carbon fiber vs. steel. However, it will be considerably more expensive and harder to repair in the event of an accident. Some high-end cars like Ferrari, McLaren etc are largely made up of carbon fiber already. As to the recycling of carbon fiber, you can do for items like laptops, etc where strength isn't so critical.
seem to recall that boeing or some other airplain manufactuere also uses lots of cf on one of the planes instead of alumumumumum.
Yes, that would be Boeing on the 787 Dreamliner.
The McLaren MP4-12C utilizes a carbon fiber tub/chassis and weighs 1,434 kilograms (3154 lb). Of course, it's a two seater....
I would opine the average full-size sedan (Fusion, Charger, 5 series, etc) is at least in the 3600-3700 lb range. Heck, Challengers and Camaros tip the scale right at 4000 lb!!
I'm sure there would be some weight savings, but not as much as one would expect. A lot of the weight of today's cars can be found in creature comfort and safety systems. Sunroofs, air conditioning ducting systems (or even dual condenser units), uprated audio/video systems all add 'sneaky' weight. Airbag and curtain counts in (or approaching) double digits add more weight.
new sig pending
The method of manufacture that McLaren uses for the MP4-12C tub is quite interesting. I read an article about it somewhere...Road & Track, maybe?
The box semi trailers have an expected life of 4 years. They get abused. They are treated as a commodity item and they try to build them as cheaply as possible. Its not really the trailers need to be lightened up to reduce fuel consumption. Its more aerodynamics of moving a giant box through the air and the fact that current diesel motors actually burn MORE fuel than past motors in order to reduce emissions. You notice how you don't see that black cloud coming out of trucks these days? They basically have a secondary burn happening to get rid of that ugly black cloud. That secondary burn uses up more fuel. Using CF would be more costly and less beneficial for that application.How much weight would be saved if the average, everyday sedan was constructed with carbon fiber techniques rather than steel - frame, body panels, etc?
How much fuel would that save?
Of course, it would be more expensive, re-tooling, etc - any other design considerations that would make it impossible / unfeasible?
Would the result be a safer form of transportation?
What if they made semi-tractor trailers the same way?
http://www.google.com/search?q=avera...her+than+steel
Interesting thought though.
Not sure the longevity of CF and its ability to deal with road salt, sun, etc. I'd be nice if cars didn't rust, but then most people treat their cars as disposable items to use for a few years, then replace.
My toy weighs 2800 pounds. I could replace the steel hood, which weighs 52 pounds, with a CF that would weigh 8 pounds. Price: $800 without mounting hardware. To be able to use existing mounting hardware vs 4 hood pins, which would not be an easy sell to a general consumer, extra support is needed, so tack in an extra $360 to the above price. So maybe I drop 25-30 pounds, but it costs me $1160 + S&H and painting expenses to color match to the rest of the car. Oh yea, paint adds weight too.
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be misquoted and used against you.
Here's an interesting article on changes to the carbon fiber manufacturing process (forged composites) that may bring more carbon fiber pieces to production cars.
http://www.autoweek.com/article/2011...NEWS/110719991
It won't help highway mileage all that much. At 70mph aero is dominant but you sure would accelerate and handle better
There is a different technology called a Particulate Trap or Filter. Basically exhaust gases pass through a media that allows the gaseous part to go through but the particles (the black stuff) get caught in the trap. Periodically you go through a burn out cycle to literally burn the particulate. However, that is not done while operating the vehicle.
Check here...
Aluminum is more viable....cars like the Audi A8 and Jaguar XJ8 have shown large cars with aluminum unibodys can be suprisingly fuel efficient and perform well. I recall Audi building a (IIRC) an A4 or an A6 a few years ago in aluminum and then testing it to an identically equipped (engine/tires/wheels/suspension/etc) normal steel bodied car, and the lightweight car did very well in comparassion.
The most frustrating thing about CAFE standards is that the government wants these crazy fuel economy standards, yet keeps mandating more and more safety standards that ad weight to the car. I like the lightweight, stripped out, econobox method of high fuel economy over a heavy car full of batteries and electric motors. The 2009-2010 Chevy Cobalt XFE is my perfect fuel effiecient car in my book...under 15k purchase price, naturally aspirated 155hp 4 cylinder, tall final drive ratio, 7.5 Second 0-60, roll up windows, manual locks, and 37mpg highway on the EPA cycle. Now all the companies are going to small motors with turbos to keep power up and get good mileage (like the new 1.4 turbo Cruze XFE), the problem is in real world driving except during freeway cruising, the turbo is going to spool up and your going to get the same or worse mileage than a N/A bigger motor.
Another thing that the auto makers seem to finally be getting is to make taller gear ratios; I've driven 4000lb Grand Marquis/Crown Vics and got a true 30mpg 70mph cruise out of them because with 2.73 gears they are running at 1555 rpm at 70mph even though they only have a 4speed auto. My 5 Speed Manual Mustang V6 that was geared fairly tall got better mileage with an old technology 4.0 SOHC V6 (30mpg+) than my 4 cylinder 5 speed manual Ford Fusion with a sophsicated 2.3 DOHC 16v 4 cylinder and my current 4 cylinder 5 Speed Manual Ford Escape (rare than any limited edition Mustang lol) 2.5 DOHC 16v, since for some reason car companies are afraid to gear smaller motors not to rev at 3000rpm at 70mph, thinking drivers are incapable of making a downshift to make a pass.
One caution is that you have to be very careful about microcracks and corrosion. I don't think aluminum is as forgiving as steel in those respects.
I think the problem is more that this is not the kind of car that most people want buy. Today even the econoboxes are outfitted very different from how they used to be because it sells. I'm not saying that no one will buy the car that you suggest, but I suspect the numbers are small.
A couple of points: bigger engine = more weight. First, adding a turbo, plumbing and some stronger internal parts is probably not enough to cancel out the difference. Secondly, the EPA test cycle is the same regardless of the kind of engine (boosted or N/A) as far as I know. So, a smaller turbo motor can be more efficient that a larger N/A motor. However, in order for what you say to be true, the test cycle has to be nowhere close to real life. If that is the case, that's not the fault of the engine technology; that's a fault of the test method. An analogy might be studying to pass the test versus studying to learn something.
Maybe, but I also think that many people are afraid of buzzing an engine. When the pitch of the sound starts to rise, people think that they are killing the engine. I can see people not wanting to cruise at 3000 because they may not rev it that high before a shift. As I have never owned a vehicle with an automatic, I'm very sensitive to how others drive manual transmission cars when I am a passenger. I suspect there is a lot of misinformation or outdated information out there.
How does this system work?
Hereya go...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_filter
Back in '08 I traded in a '04 Ford F-250 with a 6.0L diesel for a F-250 with the 6.4L diesel and DPF...sold it eight months later. The DPF killed power, driveability, and mileage.
yeah true... steel is much more heavier ... and carbon fiber is a lot more nice!
For every "Drive Safely" sign, shouldn't there be a "Resume Normal Driving" sign? !!!
See or Top Gear videos sometime!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks