F1technical.net

http://www.carbuildindex.com/20103/vide ... production

The movies are inside the factories where the carbon fibre, the cloth and the 3D-Prepregs are made. Then they show the composite manufacturing with a cycle time of 90s which is breath taking IMHO. It continues with the gluing of the carbon body shell in also less than 90 s. To me it looks like we have a whole factory with a typical cycle time of 90s. It means they should be capable of running 0.3 million vehicles p.a. through the factory at full song. ATM they are planning 10% of that. It is bloody impressive for the world's first mass produced carbon fibre vehicle body.

What's so advanced about mass producing a vehicle from a material with a higher embodied energy than the alternatives and which is also no where near as recyclable as the alternatives?

Carbon fibre is a fabulous material but it requires a lot of energy to make and there's not much you can do with it at the end of the product's life. It's also not that easy to repair compared to many of the alternatives. For mass production vehicles it's probably not that great.

Makes for fabulous headlines though...gives great fuel figures I'm sure.

it's just another EV/pretend-EV, there is no free lunch here
at best this vehicle is partly powered by remote heat engines running on (tax-free) fossil fuels
overall efficiency is not outstanding, whether measured in environmental, conservation, or economic terms
talk of electric running at 400 mpg equivalent is in carbon or energy terms simply fraudulent (as such would be illegal in the USA ?)
400 mpg is a measure only of its ability to harvest subsidies paid by the rest of us

there's little point in having EVs (whether of metal or CFC structure) until electricity all comes from low-carbon sources
one EU-commisioned plan envisages getting 200 million sets of EV batteries into our cars to use for energy storage
otherwise the power companies would need their own very large storage systems

perhaps those who disagree should justify their position by explanation rather than just down-vote this post ?

btw - how much of the fibre is carbon and how much is some other fibre with a higher fracture work ?

Tommy Cookers wrote:there's little point in having EVs (whether of metal or CFC structure) until electricity all comes from low-carbon sources

That depends on it's primary mode of operation really. If it's primary an ICE car, with harvesting the waste for electricity, then it's probably worth it (I imagine the added efficiency makes up for the increased mass). Fully electric vehicles I would tend to agree, however a full electric vehicle with it's power from coal fired power stations is still probably a lower CO2/km figure than a conventional ICE car?

Just_a_fan wrote:What's so advanced about mass producing a vehicle from a material with a higher embodied energy than the alternatives and which is also no where near as recyclable as the alternatives?

The issue here is not the embodied energy but the eco balance or total energy cost of ownership. There is very little doubt that a carbon fibre body shell has a positive life cycle energy balance. Hence the argument simply does not fly.

But advances in technology are not only about the ecological benefits but also about the pure technical achievements. To be able to make a carbon fibre based chassis every 90 s is a technological break through of unprecedented dimension. The only thing I can compare it with is Henry Ford's invention of putting the meat packaging tactic of the conveyor band production system into commission in the automotive industry.

Haven't they been making roofs for the M3 like that for some time now?

WhiteBlue wrote: But advances in technology are not only about the ecological benefits but also about the pure technical achievements. To be able to make a carbon fibre based chassis every 90 s is a technological break through of unprecedented dimension. The only thing I can compare it with is Henry Ford's invention of putting the meat packaging tactic of the conveyor band production system into commission in the automotive industry.

So are 20k rpm V10s

Lycoming wrote:Haven't they been making roofs for the M3 like that for some time now?

Not the same thing. The same process Applied to a path finding project. But the roof was only a feasibility study. I3 is the real thing.

WhiteBlue wrote: There is very little doubt that a carbon fibre body shell has a positive life cycle energy balance.

Whenever I read something like that, I think "if it is so obvious, why didn't the poster provide a link to some numbers to back up the statement?"

For example, this article; http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor. ... 0D001C9C6D. whilst admittedly based on Audi statements, doesn't agree with your statement and suggests that the break-even point (where fuel economy savings outweigh the production emissions) of a carbon fibre bodied car is around 800,000km.

Please can you provide a reference to back up your statement?

rjsa wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote: But advances in technology are not only about the ecological benefits but also about the pure technical achievements. To be able to make a carbon fibre based chassis every 90 s is a technological break through of unprecedented dimension. The only thing I can compare it with is Henry Ford's invention of putting the meat packaging tactic of the conveyor band production system into commission in the automotive industry.

So are 20k rpm V10s

Perhaps in your opinion but not in mine. The engine is history and will not be used by anybody in the future. The i3 Technology will be used by millions or Even billions of cars and benefit the society. Big differente in my view.

machin wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote: There is very little doubt that a carbon fibre body shell has a positive life cycle energy balance.

Whenever I read something like that, I think "if it is so obvious, why didn't the poster provide a link to some numbers to back up the statement?"

For example, this article; http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor. ... 0D001C9C6D. whilst admittedly based on Audi statements, doesn't agree with your statement and suggests that the break-even point (where fuel economy savings outweigh the production emissions) of a carbon fibre bodied car is around 800,000km.

Please can you provide a reference to back up your statement?

Audi made a reference to conventional Technology. Bmw uses a completely different Technology with a proprietory Processing and with figures that are secret but obviously very much lower.

Conventional technology uses hardening in a high temp autoclave for 24 h. Bmw uses heat in the press for 90s. For the Time I can only give you this indicator. I will back up my Position as soon as more scientific info becomes available.

The cure cycle is pretty minimal compared to the production of the fiber and the production of the resin as far as energy use goes.

Where are you getting this 90s cure cycle from?

Here Tim

BMW is probably using the new DOW RTM Resin. The 90s is a little misleading but its still a very fast resin shot.

http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?doc_id=272636

flynfrog wrote:Here Tim

BMW is probably using the new DOW RTM Resin. The 90s is a little misleading but its still a very fast resin shot.

http://www.designnews.com/author.asp?doc_id=272636

Huntsmann Araldite LY 3585 Epoxy
Huntsman XB 3458 curing agent

according to my sources