Bloomberg passed on an unsubstantiated report in Nikkei English News that claims Honda, Nissan and Toray Industries are teaming-up to develop new carbon fiber materials for mass-produced automobiles. Toray is the world's largest producer of carbon fiber. They're hoping to make it economically feasible to use the material in large enough quantities to reduce vehicle weights by up to 40 percent. Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry is kicking in ¥2b over a five-year period to help fund the research. It didn't say if this project would be an extension of existing carbon fiber nanotube research, or if it will explore new materials. Either way, with new tailpipe and fuel economy regs in the offing, the race to add lightness has begun, plug-in hybrid or no.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
So imagine everyone is driving carbon fiber cars.
In an accident or fender nudgie, doesn’t carbon fiber crack or does it bend like steel?
I always thought it was “as strong as” steel but cracked instead of bent.
What will this do to auto-repair costs?
Does anyone know if Carbon Fibre is recyclable?
I presume that the epoxy that makes the carbon fibre solid is made from oil. This will make economical carbon fibre parts difficult to achieve
From what I’ve read from F1 cars is that it has some bend but it will crack once stressed enough. They will have to revise the crash structures so that they are safe. F1 uses carbon fiber extensively and they drivers survive 200mph crashes in an open wheel racecar (but these are money is no object cars).
I wish the auto industry would have moved in this direction years ago as I’ve seen the average weight of a car from the early 90’s go up from 3,000 lbs to 4,500 lbs. No wonder mpg has not improved even though technology has.
What will this do to auto-repair costs?
The same thing as virtually all other safety-related advances in vehicle technology (ie: ABS, airbags, traction control, crushable bodies). The key is that the car is expendable, and the people much more expensive to repair. Note the dramatic changes in F1 crash technology; horrific accidents occur and the drivers walk away. Of course, the old F1 cars were much cheaper to repair…
I’d imagine we could still have carbon fiber cars with urethane bumpers for the odd parking incident and some side protection for the thoughtless folks who throw open their doors.
Honda Civic Sedan – 2628 lbs.
Chevy Cobalt Sedan – 3216 lbs.
That’s quite a gap to begin with.
BTW before someone starts whining about how the Japanese govt. subsidies Toyota, that 2b yen is about 18 million bucks. Not exactly a game changer.
Being a composite, I imagine the stuff would crush rather than splinter. I have see a few mashed Corvettes, and their body material crushes.
To the best of my knowledge carbon fiber does crush in, but in doing so, takes up an enormous amount of energy that could have instead been expended on the passengers. Essentially, it’s a “use-once” material. Then again, if you think about it, steel that has been bent severely in a crash won’t be safe to use again either, because IT’S ultimate strength will have been compromised.
As a fanboy of both Honda and lightness: DO IT! DO IT! DO IT!
seoultrain Says:
July 24th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Honda Civic Sedan – 2628 lbs.
Chevy Cobalt Sedan – 3216 lbs.
That’s quite a gap to begin with.
http://www.chevrolet.com/cobalt/specifications/
This site says the sedan is 2,747 lbs. Where do you get that figure?
Carbon Fiber is awesome… I hope they really go through with this!!
Colin Chapman called.
He left a message for Detroit:
“Install lightness”
hmm, weird.. I got that off carsdirect’s comparison feature. after doing some more research:
Leftlane news : 3216lbs
yahoo: 3216
Aol: 3216
car&driver: 3216
I can’t find a single site saying otherwise. I’ll keep looking.
Carbon fiber is stronger than steel and stiffer (less flexible). It does not yield or bend as much before failure as compared to steel or aluminum.
ttacgreg: yep, pretty much … see link: http://www.geekologie.com/2007/04/mclaren_f1_crash_test.php
crackers: carbon fiber and carbon fiber epoxy reinforced composites (say that ten times fast) are petroleum based and very energy intensive to produce. As for recycling, not really. Composites can be ground/chopped at the “end of life,” but not used to make new panels. “Composite recycling efforts in the past mainly concerned grinding, shearing, chipping, or flaking the composite into suitable size to be used as filler material in new molded composite parts. Pyrolysis, thermal decomposition of the polymer at high temperature, has also been studied as a preparation method before grinding. Using this approach, the composite is ground into a fine powder. This method may be suitable for certain types of composite recycling, such as in the automotive industry, whose composite parts typically contain large quantities of filler.” (for more info: http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/doingbiz/environmental/TechNotes/TechNotes2003-11.pdf)
Carbon fiber composites don’t yield like metal. They experience brittle fracture. Structural composites are much more sophisticated and stronger than the Corvette bodies. They have a very high strength to weight ratio but are usually covered in a gel coat to mitigate damage which adds a bit of weight. In an accident they either fail or don’t fail. There isn’t any in between. Material and manufacturing costs are higher since you have to deal with porosity and surface finish problems. Fatigue strength is far superior than metals.
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?
Now this is a green movement I can get behind! I’ll take a 2500 lb M3, please.
http://www.caranddriver.com/car/make-model/chevrolet-cobalt.html
(Cobalt Sedan) Curb Weight: 2780 lbs
http://www.caranddriver.com/car/make-model/honda-civic.html
(Civi Sedan) Curb Weight: 2628 lbs
“Honda Civic Sedan – 2628 lbs.
Chevy Cobalt Sedan – 3216 lbs.
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.
I believe the 2747 for the Cobalt. 3216 sounds a bit high. Nissan needs this help more than Honda. Their Sentra weighs 2885 lbs with the manual. Wait…I take it back. Toyota needs it most. The old Corolla was 2530 lbs. Now it’s 2822. What did they add to the car that warrants a 292 lb gain?
I recently attended a carbon fiber/composites conference, and one of the areas of interest by companies for the longer term is using renewable precursors to replace petroleum derived polymers, primarily for the carbon fibers themselves but also possibly for the epoxy matrix resins. However, this is a long way off–lots of issues in getting polymers with similar performance from renewable sources. But early plastics, such as cellulose nitrate, were (and still are) derived from natural sources such as cotton fiber, so it’s not a total pipedream.
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.
Yeah, simplificating and adding lightness should be posted in every hallway at every manufacturer. That, and aero, would probably get one halfway to CAFE.
Both are much less expensive than hybrid or fuel cell technology
Recycling difficulties would be a huge barrier if they are not solved. The steel and aluminum which predominate in modern cars are nearly 100% reusable after relatively minimal treatment. The popular mini-mill steel mills all start with scrap steel as the feedstock.
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.
So can I get Carbon offset dollars for all that carbon sequestered in my Civic?
I believe the 2747 for the Cobalt. 3216 sounds a bit high. Nissan needs this help more than Honda. Their Sentra weighs 2885 lbs with the manual. Wait…I take it back. Toyota needs it most. The old Corolla was 2530 lbs. Now it’s 2822. What did they add to the car that warrants a 292 lb gain?
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?
Many, if not most, CF structures are made with a mix of different blends including fiberglass so that the end result can have strength and flexibility where you want each.
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.
There are almost no cars on the road today that could not be a foot shorter and 500 lbs lighter without any loss of functionality. For years GM has held the engineering secret of how to build a 225″ car that does not have a back seat an adult can comfortably sit in, or a three ton SUV with a back row suitable only for midgets.
It can be done, it has been done, and it does not require carbon fiber.
# Robstar Says:
July 24th, 2008 at 10:27 am
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:
# NickR Says:
July 24th, 2008 at 11:04 am
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.
This changes after-accident procedure.
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.
If I understand correctly, the raw materials for carbon fibre are actually pretty cheat, its the manufacturing process that is quite complicated and labour intensive.
I imagine the automaker that figures out how to automate the CF manufacturing process will be in a great position.
I don’t object to the extra weight at all. If they had stuffed 2-300 lbs of extra sound deadening material in my car it would be OK. The Civic could also use some.
I bought a 2009 Corolla XLE for commuting. Not only is it a very quiet car for what it is, they also widened it 1.5″ over the 2008 model. Supposedly better mileage than the ’08… I am getting almost 32 on average. The extra weight is well worth it in my opinion. Next to a Civic it is taller, wider and much quieter. I have two friends with 2006 Civics, one with 50K miles and one with 70K miles and they are loud and course feeling on the road. The steering was on the Civic was more fun but on Florida’s straight smooth roads, it didn’t make it up for me. … For what its worth all…
Most of you know this, but don’t forget it’s possible to make a car too strong. Keeping the soft squishy occupants in mind, the idea is to have the car “get wrecked” and absorb the energy of the accident. Several IRL drivers where injured in their “ultra safe” carbon cars from rear impacts until the series learned to install deformation packs on the back end.
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.
Jr. Mint, and others,
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.
This is great, but why don’t they use existing materials – aluminum, fiberglass, and plastic – where they can? I know the Corvette has some plastic body panels to make it lighter. Well, here’s hoping they get somewhere with the CF anyway. Anything for ligher cars.
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.
Perfect example of long range thinking. $18 million is a nice kiss.
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.
How come the Japanese appear to be the great innovators now, a position once held by the USA. Where would the motor industry be without the likes of Henry Ford who always stayed one step ahead of the pack. Maybe complacency set in by once lost the number one position is difficult to regain. In addition China looms high on the horizon.
capeplates- cars are old news. US innovation is all in high tech and medical/pharma fields.
davey49, you deserve a swift kick in the pants. People like you are why I can’t buy a 2000-lb car for less than forty-five grand.
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.
Get rid of all of the sound deadening, all the heat insulation…
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.
LndCrsher:
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.
Sorry, I didn’t catch your sarcasm. I still disagree with you though. We are totally talking about the safety cage.
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.
:)