alfadriver wrote:
In reply to Gearheadotaku:
Adjusted for inflation, car prices are lower.
I certainly agree with you, but..IMO there are other factors in play. At the risk of foundering the thread..Adjusted for inflation, most folks' salaries are lower as well.
But cost is definitely not my main problem with newer cars.
alfadriver wrote:
And in some cases, not adjusted for inflation, as well- compare a base 5 speed 2 ($14,530) or Fiesta ($13,200) to a 1991 Civic Si ($11,405)- for almost the same price, the 2 and Fiesta are cleaner, more powerful, faster, safer, and have a ton more content.
It's amazing how little the cost has changed in 20 years for some vehicle lines, especially if you take into account what has changed.
I find that my own dislike of current cars has more to do with the "drive-by-wire" stuff, the increasing amount of Seldom Helpful Interference Technology (which I'll admit, I'm not totally against for non-enthusiasts--I sure do like knowing that stuff is on my non-enthusiast daughter's Hyundai, it's probably how she got out of her teen years with nothing more than a sheared off mirror and a cracked rear bumper cover), and last but not least (in fact, it's the most), the continuing desire by manufacturers to add "convienence" features to the cabin!
I don't mind extra weight from increased impact/fuel economy regulations..but why does even a base model of a car have power windows/seats/cupholders/etc. ad nauseum?
Styling is definitely a subjective thing, so my opinion of what new cars look like is for BMW E36 M3..and shouldn't be relevant to the conversation. I'm hoping that if I don't bring it up again, I won't have a Stay Off My Lawn moment..
ransom wrote:
In reply to Conquest351:
I think that you're right that what we'll be looking at is more like injection-molded CF-reinforced plastic and not the pretty laid-up woven CF.
And while the latter is pretty, my favorite thing about it is its function. If it makes it cheaper and more available, the aesthetic aspect is the first thing I'll happily wave goodbye to.
Besides, as someone pointed out to me earlier today, one starts to develop a negative reaction to the look of the woven stuff just because it's become a modern day-glo windshield wiper or Yosemite Sam mud flap, at least in faux form...
I have a C/F hood for my Ti... when it goes on the car, it will be painted to match. I love C/F for it's light weight and strength.. I do not care for it's looks
I am all about adding lightness but... New car buyers want stuff like Bluetooth and 50 airbags and Electronic Stability Control and heated steering wheels and and and. Plus the Govt demands stuff like two stage airbags and Electronic Stabilty Control and and and. For me there are periods of styling that were brilliant. This is not one of those periods. However performance and quality have taken monster leaps. This is by miles the best time ever for performance, quality and technology.
mad_machine wrote:
I have a C/F hood for my Ti... when it goes on the car, it will be painted to match. I love C/F for it's light weight and strength.. I do not care for it's looks
And here is the rub for me.The beauty of CF is its stiffness to weight ratio but a hood does not require or supply a car with extra stiffness. A hood could be made of rawhide and still function perfectly. Similar weight savings could be achieved with fiberglass or other plastics at much, MUCH lower cost than CF.
The same goes with CF dashes, fenders, flares and most other aftermarket bits.
A Carbon fiber monocoque is an excellent use of the material. One that highlights its strengths. The others are like having titanium flatware or something.
93EXCivic wrote:
alfadriver wrote:
In reply to Gearheadotaku:
Adjusted for inflation, car prices are lower.
And in some cases, not adjusted for inflation, as well- compare a base 5 speed 2 ($14,530) or Fiesta ($13,200) to a 1991 Civic Si ($11,405)- for almost the same price, the 2 and Fiesta are cleaner, more powerful, faster, safer, and have a ton more content.
And not as fun to drive.
Go drive a 2 on a track or a twisty road. I did, and I bought one a week later.
http://www.autoblog.com/2011/12/09/gm-gets-serious-about-widespread-use-of-carbon-fiber/
Conquest is on the right track I think, and this is what GM is looking into. The biggest problem right now with making CF cheap for mass production is the long set times for the resins used. Using quick-setting thermoplastics (like the ones already used for many body panels on cars) reinforced with carbon fiber may prove to be not quite as strong/light as resins, but muuuuuch quicker and cheaper.
Who knows, since you can remelt and form thermoplastics, maybe they'll be able to make whole sheets of it ahead of time and simply heat/stamp it into the appropriate body panels just like they do with metal.
Well as you guys have mentioned, the structure of the car is where most of the weight is. If you can replace steel with something much lighter but as strong or stonger, then you have an win. The Carbon reinforced plastic or even the Forged Composite process Lamborghini and Callaway are playing with is the way to go for 2 reasons.
-
First - Less weight = go faster. We all know this.
-
Second - Carbon reinforced plastic and forged composites are stronger than a sheet of Carbon Fiber. The sheet is strong in really only 2 dimensions. Forward and aft and side to side. Up and down it's flexible and will eventually break. This is because of the layout of the sheet. The weave goes in 2 directions. The beauty of CRP (carbon reinforced plastics) and FCT (forged composite technologies) is the carbon fiber pieces are now randomly scattered throughout the piece in question. In FCT they take the carbon shreds and scraps and pieces and put them in a mold and inject the resin and really forge it under extreme pressures to form the needed piece. This material can then be milled or whatever just like a billet of aluminum. CRP uses the same technology, but doesn't forge the piece and uses carbon fiber more as a reinforcement to the plastic rather than a real structural component. Kinda like rebar is to concrete.
Now, if they're really going to get serious about it and start utilizing CF to it's full potential in a CRP, then they should look at using more CF in the mix and really use it as a structural component rather than just a reinforcement, OR figure out how to make CF able to be injection molded and use the plastic as the resin/catalist/reinforcement/bonding agent.
Just imagine the day when every old timer (us by then) will complain about the "plastic chassis" cars.
I want mine in Glued together Aluminum thank you very much.
ronholm wrote:
I want mine in Glued together Aluminum thank you very much.
So you want an Audi or Lotus then? Good call. LOL
ls1fiero wrote:
I am all about adding lightness but... New car buyers want stuff like Bluetooth and 50 airbags and Electronic Stability Control and heated steering wheels and and and. Plus the Govt demands stuff like two stage airbags and Electronic Stabilty Control and and and. For me there are periods of styling that were brilliant. This is not one of those periods. However performance and quality have taken monster leaps. This is by miles the best time ever for performance, quality and technology.
It really isn't computers that are adding weight - I have a 9oz phone in my pocket that has more cpu power than most cars. It has BT, Wifi, 32G of storage and a dual core processor that can run 3D games.
There is a lot of weight that can come out before we start replacing light stamped steel unibody with composites (we should anyway but... do the rest too)
A light car does not need PS. A light car with proper leverage on the pedals does not need power brakes. There is no reason for anything to have a cast iron engine today at all. Seats do not need to weigh 70lbs each. An ABS pump does not need to weigh 30lbs. It does not need 30llb 21" wheels or giant cast iron rotors or tie rods as thick as my forearm. A light car does not need driveline components to handle 400hp/500ft/lbs of tq because it needs substantially less power to do the same numbers.
Yogi Berra would say something like "When everything gets lighter - everything can be lighter".
mad_machine wrote:
ultraclyde wrote:
Cheaper carbon fiber is good all the way around for a bunch of industries. Bicycles anyone? Boats? Golf Clubs?
I have a C/F mountain bike.. it's 10 years old and made by Trek
You'll never catch me on a carbon fiber bike. Scary things happen when CF breaks. You suddenly have a pile of fluff where your handlebars or frame were.
What can appear perverse is that a good steel frame can easily cost more than a CF one. The cost isn't in the materials, it's in the craftsmanship.
ditchdigger wrote:
And here is the rub for me.The beauty of CF is its stiffness to weight ratio but a hood does not require or supply a car with extra stiffness.
Given the buffeting loads a hood sees, general flatness of shape (no good cross-section), and that they're only loosely attached to the car, stiffness is quite desirable.
You oughta see how much an early RX-7's hood flops around when at speed. The edges raise alarmingly at high speed. And then there are the people who remove all of the stiffening ribs from their hood to save that critical 1/4 pound of weight. I remember the breezy weekend in Tulsa where there was a Metro or Sprint or something that the hood wouldn't stay on its prop, would just fold over and slide off of it.
Heh, I've head that the original Vipers would bow the hoods up considerably at high speed, and I think those WERE carbon fiber.
Bringing back a thread cuz I found something cool...
That's the Lamborghini Urus, and all that marble looking stuff is Forged Carbon Fiber. Looks pretty cool huh? They are able to make the whole interior out of pieces they stamp out. This will be the FIRST production vehicle to use this technology.
Awesome. Very sci-fi. How long till there's a vinyl-wrap with this pattern all over ricer hoods?
nderwater wrote:
Awesome. Very sci-fi. How long till there's a vinyl-wrap with this pattern all over ricer hoods?
If Lamborghini doesn't act like total douches (cuz they own the patent), the technology should be very affordable and hoods shouldn't be that expensive. That's a big "IF" though...
Max_Archer wrote:
93EXCivic wrote:
And not as fun to drive.
Go drive a 2 on a track or a twisty road. I did, and I bought one a week later.
He'd probably be upset that the 2 would hang with if not outright walk away from any of the cars he likes / owns on the same track.
pres589 wrote:
Max_Archer wrote:
93EXCivic wrote:
And not as fun to drive.
Go drive a 2 on a track or a twisty road. I did, and I bought one a week later.
He'd probably be upset that the 2 would hang with if not outright walk away from any of the cars he likes / owns on the same track.
I sincerely doubt anyone has ever been upset about his Yugo or diesel Mercedes wagon being out run. 
MG Bryan wrote:
pres589 wrote:
Max_Archer wrote:
93EXCivic wrote:
And not as fun to drive.
Go drive a 2 on a track or a twisty road. I did, and I bought one a week later.
He'd probably be upset that the 2 would hang with if not outright walk away from any of the cars he likes / owns on the same track.
I sincerely doubt anyone has ever been upset about his Yugo or diesel Mercedes wagon being out run.
For some reason I seriously doubt I would be upset. Same with the Spitfire. I don't like old cars cause they are fast, I like them because they are different and they put a smile on my face the way no new car has yet (can't say I have driven them all).
In reply to Conquest351:
That stuff in the Lambo looks awesome! I want to know how the material strength of that compares to carbon fiber done the traditional way. From what I have read it seems that it is a lot like injecting molding plastic except that instead of plastic you have loose fibers and resin.
Conquest351 wrote:
nderwater wrote:
Awesome. Very sci-fi. How long till there's a vinyl-wrap with this pattern all over ricer hoods?
If Lamborghini doesn't act like total douches (cuz they own the patent), the technology should be very affordable and hoods shouldn't be that expensive. That's a big "IF" though...
I think Lambo (also I think Callaway golf clubs are involved) would make more money selling the rights to patented technology then producing their own cars that they would be stupid not to.
93EXCivic wrote:
Conquest351 wrote:
nderwater wrote:
Awesome. Very sci-fi. How long till there's a vinyl-wrap with this pattern all over ricer hoods?
If Lamborghini doesn't act like total douches (cuz they own the patent), the technology should be very affordable and hoods shouldn't be that expensive. That's a big "IF" though...
I think Lambo (also I think Callaway golf clubs are involved) would make more money selling the rights to patented technology then producing their own cars that they would be stupid not to.
Yes, it's a cooperative effort between Lamborghini and Callaway Golf Clubs. I also agree that licensing the patent/process to other manufacturers would be in the best interest of all involved.
In reply to 93EXCivic:
As for the process, I think it's more along the lines of injection molding, but also forging via compressing the mold under intense pressure and heat. I read it was in the magnitude of several hundreds of tons of pressure. The final product can be milled like aluminum, steel, or plastic. They said after the forging process, extremely small details like lettering, lines, etc. will be clearly visible and need no further machining. Pretty much you cast a finished product with minimal cleanup necessary to bolt it in. Reduces waste material, reduces time needed to make the product production ready, all that good stuff.
