Audi A5 Prototype with Aluminum and Carbon Fiber Construction - Sheds 100kg

True. Weight is the killer in 99% of the cars sold today. Worser braking, acceleration, handling and fuel consumption. Good to see some manufacturers see the problem now (a bit late though).

Increased use of high strength steel for rigidity and crash properties is the main reason, not safety components alone.

On the subject of weight and power-to-weight ratio, there are several cars that defies this measurement as an instrument of actual speed... take the Nissan GTR and the BMW 135i, both are very heavy yet both out accelerates most of its competitors, and guess what; both have turbos In addition getting the power to the ground is also frequently overlooked hence why dual-clutch trannies and differentials are the benchmark for fast cars nowadays.

complaining about today's cars being heavy is a bit stupid. you want a lighter car, throw out all the things you don't need in your car and get a carbon fiber body kit. or just buy a Lotus.

Stop talking clappers. Composites are stronger than aluminium and steel. Their strength to weight ratio is unparalleled at this point in time. Composites have been deployed in high stress aerospace applications for the last 30+++++ years. High cycle aerospace applications are far more demanding during a life cycle (typically 25+ years nowadays) than automobile applications. What has held it back? 1) Cost. 2) Demand. 3) Cost. Deploying composites for large scale manufacturing of passenger vehicles has been cost prohibitive when the benefits are not quantifiable in millions or even thousands over the life cycle of the implementation. Basically composites have been too expensive relative to their benefits for a price sensitive sector like automobiles. AND it has only been recently that the push for complete composite airframes has driven the technology forward to the point that widespread deployment in automobiles is affordable or that a benefit will be realised in it's the forseeable future. Punching sheets of metal takes no time. Laying up fibre into a mould correctly, and baking it takes considerably longer (and requires more expertise). Especially when you are producing each part in the tens or hundred of thousands.

Vision7, you said "The roof skin is neither a structural nor load bearing component of the vehicle" The roof is indeed a structural component that provides a lot of strength to the entire body structure. Convertibles need to be reinforced underneath to compensate for the structural loss.

You're right skyskraper about the composites! Vision7, go to NASA and tell them they're wrong about the composites and that they're less durable than a steel they would laugh at you!

I like you sideskraper, you wouldn't happen to be a Mechanical Engineer? Vision7, composites have mainly been used on expensive exotics for the fact that their astronomical price can support the use of expensive materials. It's only due to economies of scale that they're now being used in *cheaper* cars. Also, vision, you must have never taken a basic engineering class. The roof is one of the most important sections for a cars rigidity as a whole. Sideskraper has said all the rest, so there is no more for me to say.

Nope, market analyst with aeronautical passion/tendencies. I dropped out of engineering in favour of astrophysics.

Wow, I didn't realize this comment would have received so much feedback so, firstly, I will thank you all for your comments. Secondly, having been researching and testing composites for the last 13 years, and having witnessed thousands of hours of testing, I can still say with confidence that the extensive use of composites in vehicles will not be a viable plan for the foreseeable future. Sideskraper: Your points are valid but you also bring up another very important point. The layup of composite material is incredibly vital to it's perceived longevity which can lead to a varying range of strength and fatigue characteristics from part-to-part. This degree of inconsistency which is far greater than steel or aluminum would be enough of a reason for manufacturers to stay away form the extensive use of such materials. In no way am I denying the strength potential of composites but I am bringing to light the fact that the strength not only lies in the material but the manufacturing and layup of it. And expertise in this product is not readily available, so we may even be reaching a point where skilled labour for large-scale production becomes an ever-increasing factor as well. Yet, another thing to consider. BrianWCF: The roof skin is not a structural component of the vehicle. The strength lies in the A, B, & C Pillars. To prove this, if your vehicle does not have a sunroof, climb up onto it and stand on the roof. Take note of the deflection and you'll understand my point. The roof skin is neither structural, nor load bearing. Kimbo: As a competitive cyclist, I can promise you that composite frames are not designed with a lifespan of more than two seasons in mind, regardless of whether you crash them or not that is why you are strongly encouraged to inspect your rig before and after every ride. The rule is, if you want a really light bike and you have a lot of money to burn (or have a sponsor buying your equipment) go carbon. If you want something that will last, go titanium, or steel. And for track cyclists who can put out over 1200 watts, there's still a reason why their bikes are not made of carbon fiber. If we also look to the world of Downhill, Freeride, and 4-Cross...no competitive bike is made of carbon fiber. CF frames offer greater vibration dampening over Aluminum and can be as stiff as Aluminum (depending entirely on their layup). Small vibrations from road feedback traveling through the frame and to the rider actually contribute to rider fatigue. A stiff CF frame will be on par with an Aluminum frame when it comes to stiffness but will not beat the rider up as much. Giant has tried to combine the best of both worlds with the Alliance frames which use Aluminum for its stiffness/responsiveness and CF for its dampening properties. So, in conclusion, I am not denying the incredible potential and wide-range of uses of composite material. I am simply saying that in some applications the use of these materials are just not feasible. Be it from a manufacturing, longevity, or financial perspective, it just will not work for the foreseeable future.

Well that brings me back to my original post. It all has to start somewhere. Without development of the technology for mass production of automobiles, it won't exist. An oak tree starts off with an acorn ;)

Then it looks like we're all standing around waiting for this acorn to turn into the oak tree. Over the last 13 years I've seen some absolutely incredible things that can be done with CF and I can't wait to see some of these things in mass production. In grade 9, I built an autoclave for a science fair project and started building custom items out of CF (back then one square meter of bi-weave CF would cost about $50) shortly after that. Now, I get to play with CF for a living. What I hope you all will see in the next while will blow your mind.

Interesting, Aeronautical, motorsport or leisure applications? ;)

For motorsports and leisure, most definitely. We're working on a few things at the moment that should reach the market by summertime of 2010. I can't really speak to them right now but stay tuned.

Carbon fibre bike frames are a poor example. They are specifically designed for lightweight/stiffness without the explicit requirement for impact resistance. A better example would be the Boeing 777, 787, and Airbus A380. All three of those air frames have a significant percentage of composite material (45-98%). Most other aircraft have a high percentage (20-40%) of composites in critical structures. The best example would be the modern F1 car and modern military aircraft (even military vessels). Just about the toughest vehicles on the planet. All rely on composites for their structures nearly completely.

Return a Cervelo frame with any mileage on it and see how well they honour that warranty. And having dealt with Cervelo on issues with a P3 frame, I speak from experience. I speak with confidence because I know what I'm talking about. Titanium actually has the highest power loss due to flexion (you don't see too many people on Litespeed frames there days, do you?). Aluminum's poor rate of fatigue will cause the frame to fail within miles if it had much flex in it. Remember the Ibis Bow-Ti? Titanium was used to build this frame because of it's unique properties. Ti bikes aren't known for their ability to transfer power effectively or efficiently.