Structural Integrity of Carbon Monocoque chassis like the Enzo Porsche GT? Dangerous?

I'm not talking about perfect safety. A buddy from high school told me today how their neighbor, a soccer mom, was just killed in an auto accident. When death strikes at home safety takes on a new priority.

Years ago (mid-1980s) a leading Porsche engineer was killed in a side impact collission while driving a 911. Porsche redesigned its cars to afford greater protection following the loss of one of their own.

 

Regards the Etype again, I don't believe that it was referred to as a tube framed car, plus the 2 times that I have personally involved with crashes, they broke at the a-pillar, the monocoque part failed, one time due to the corrosion. I am sure that the coupes are much better and stiffer.

 

Tristam, I am well aware of many developments in the works and coming for competition and production vehicles. None of it is coming from NASA. Aerospace materials have aerospace prices, and offer little in terms additional benefit to what is currently available.

Expect to see continued growth in aluminum structures and fiber reinforced plastics of many kinds.

There is no exotic breakthrough material coming anytime soon. Things are evolutionary, not revolutionary in this field currently.

By the way, steel rusts, aluminum oxidates and fatigues, and carbon bonds weaken with UV and time...and humans age and die. Its called entropy. Nothing is perfect or lasts forever.

Whats out there is pretty damn good. I dont understand your continued quest for some magic material that can save everybody...whats your goal here? have you become an activist for the NHTSA?

 

..."You can't fix stupid." - Ron White

 

"By the way, steel rusts, aluminum oxidates and fatigues, and carbon bonds weaken with UV and time...and humans age and die."

What is the weakness with Titanium honeycomb? In an automotive application I'm unaware of any relative weakness.

Aluminum is great but has many shortcomings.

The goal? Find the best chassis material. And as for a $95k Ferrari tub, I don't know that NASA materials are that much more expensive.

 

The cost of composite parts, or even metal, is MUCH more than the materials in the finished piece.

 

Titanium honeycomb panels you mean? Do you know anything about joining or welding titanium? It has to be done in an oxygen free atmosphere. the cost of welding a chassis would make carbon look cheap. So it then would be bonded together, and then you are relying on bond strength between joints. This is very far from ideal. It is a very bad idea to put bonded joints in load paths. Do you really believe that an all titanium chassis would be cheaper than carbon?

An advantage to carbon composite structures is that the entire structure can be developed to share load paths in almost limitless directions. metal structures are directionally loaded.

"I don't know that NASA materials are that much more expensive"....I do know, and they are. You are now talking about MMC (metal matrix composites) and other forms of synthetic engineered materials that can include everything from berylium to artificial diamond. None of which is produced in quantity or convienent method to produce small production hypercars from.

$95k for a full carbon honeycomb chassis is a good deal. You should go try and make a full titanium chassis if you dont believe it. Good luck make it stronger, lighter, or more crashworthy than Porsche or Ferrari. (or mclaren or bugatti)

You continue to ask a question that has been answered both here and by the automakers who are putting their development dollars in aluminums and carbons. What is it you think you know that all these automotive professionals who choose carbon and aluminum dont?

 

Wow! you're my hero.