Will carbotitanium (like Pagani Huayra) make it to F1?

[Tim.Wright]

I find is strange, because deformation zones in F1 cars are made from carbon fibre with no additives, as far as I know. And considering the stringent tests they have to withstand, that seems to be the optimum solution. Carbon fibre effectively turns to dust on impact, dissipating maximum possible energy. Reinforcing that with titanium or otherwise might defeat the purpose...

Carbon fibre wouldnt normally be first choice as an energy absorbtion material because its too brittle. To make it function effectively as an energy absorber, you need to make it fail in a controlled and progressive manner which is very difficult. Materials like kevlar and glass would be better at absorbing impacts. The reason carbon fibre is used in F1 would be weight. The teams then pay a massive cost in terms of engineering time to make it work properly.

Carbon titanium could theoretically help with the impact resistence because Ti has a low young modulus and a high UTS which means it can absorb a lot of energy in a crash where the carbon fibre would just shatter.

So my guess is that its role in the Pagani is to allow a stiff and light structure which doesn't need a 1€ million development program to make it fail in a progressive way. I'd guess its not on the whole chassis too, just areas subjected to impacts.

Tim

[Tommy Cookers]

I find is strange, because deformation zones in F1 cars are made from carbon fibre with no additives, as far as I know.

there is a significant amount of high fracture work fibre (aramid etc) in the 'carbon fibre' F1 monocoque
are you saying that this is not in the deformation zones ?
(just asking, because it's easier than doing the research)

[flyboy2160]

Given that the recent Sauber cutaway showed the chassis extensively using Al/Gr sandwich panels, I don't think a few Ti fibers will make much of an energy absorbing difference compared to the most excellent Al honeycomb. Seems like ultra-tech hype to me.

[MOWOG]

and then aged (no doubt in fine oak casks)

No doubt!

[riff_raff]

I find is strange, because deformation zones in F1 cars are made from carbon fibre with no additives, as far as I know. And considering the stringent tests they have to withstand, that seems to be the optimum solution. Carbon fibre effectively turns to dust on impact, dissipating maximum possible energy. Reinforcing that with titanium or otherwise might defeat the purpose...

The purpose of a deformable impact structure is create a gradual deceleration rate as the structure plastically deforms. Aluminum is a good choice for this function since it has a high elongation rate, which means it bends quite a lot before it finally breaks. Carbon is not a good material for this function since it has a very low elongation rate, which means it bends very little before it finally breaks.

[timbo]

The purpose of a deformable impact structure is create a gradual deceleration rate as the structure plastically deforms. Aluminum is a good choice for this function since it has a high elongation rate, which means it bends quite a lot before it finally breaks. Carbon is not a good material for this function since it has a very low elongation rate, which means it bends very little before it finally breaks.

But the resulting effect is the same. The purpose of crash structure is to dissipate energy, and it is of no difference whether the dissipation is a result of bending or shattering.
In a street car though I think shattering is not so good, as passangers are not wearing the clothes which would prevent from getting a secondary injuries from splinters.

[Tommy Cookers]

stuff that shatters is stuff that has poor energy absorbtion in impact events
that's why it shatters

'carbon fibre' F1 monocoques have significant regions of tough (high fracture work) fibres eg aramid (a bit like Kevlar)
these have eg 20-50 times the fracture work of carbon ?
but are not particularly stiff

[timbo]

stuff that shatters is stuff that has poor energy absorbtion in impact events
that's why it shatters

You don't need absorption, what you need is dissipation. The more work is needed to shorten the length of deformable zone the better. The work is used to either break the chemical bonds (on shattering) or to displace atoms (via bending). The finer the splinters the more area of molecular bonds severed.

[aussiegman]

The use of spread tow fabrics has increased substantially in recent F1 constructions.

Carbon / kevlar spread tow fabrics are typically lighter and seem to perform better that traditional twill weaves for impact and crash situations as the aramid fabric tends to help hold the component together. I would not be surprised if these hybrid spread tows are used in impact and energy absorption/ dissipation constructions alongside the Al honeycomb crush structures adn the more traditional carbon only spread tow or various twill weave fabrics. Titanium threads or strings just don't seem to me that they would have a significant impact on fabric performance without a substantial % of the fabric thread which brings a weight penalty as well as other challenges

I've used the Textreme fabrics in splitters and panels and it has worked very well, especially the hybrid carbon/kevlar fabrics on a 107gr/m2 weight.

The Textreme hybrid fabrics are below