That sounds more like a road failure than a pothole. Glad the roads where I live are better maintained. I doubt if many design/material combinations could survive an encounter with that cavity unharmed.
Well, my question is are the weight reduction goals to reduce the entire vehicle's weight, or just the unsprung weight, and how those two differing strategies impact fuel efficiency. Reducing unsprung weight is always a good thing, mostly for NVH. Reducing wheel/tire weight does have some positive MPG impact, but mostly during accceleration, it actually can work the other way during deceleration, where a heavier wheel/tire can help maintain momentum. Using carbon in a wheel is a very challenging application...perhaps putting carbon in other areas to reduce weight might be much more cost effective way to the same effect, perhaps using carbon in suspension components, thus satisfying some of the total weight reduction goals AND unsprung weight goals, although admittidly not as dramatic as carbon wheels.
Yep, actually, that's the stretch of road I was thinking of. So many people I worked with had their aluminum rims destroyed on the way back from meetings in Detroit. And guys coming back with a sore head because they hit the roof during the ordeal.
I guess maybe the carbon would be safer then...after both rims plough into the hard edge pot hole, smash into a tangled mess of shards and fibres, you could glide to a stop on the underbelly or your car since the chassis would now be about flush with the road surface adjacent to the pot-hole.
But point taken about the resin choice that would have some "give" to it.
Sven...the durability of carbon fiber is in the resin system chosen. When extreme stiffness is the design requirement, the proper resins are brittle. When tension/compression strengths are the requirement, a more resilient resin can be used.
As for cost...I'd expect 2-4x the cost of aluminum, depending on the production quantity.
kf2qd, carbon weighs a heck of a lot less than steel: the strength-to-weight ratio most often quoted is 4-5x, which is the main point for using it in automotive lightweighting as the article mentions. The video at the bottom of the article shows the pothole impact test.
Chuck, once again no pricing information was available, but I'd be very surprised if it cost the same or less. TJ, I think calling diamonds a form of carbon is stretching the definition in terms of what's practical in a manufacturing sense.
The pictures of the aluminum wheel dented at 50mph on the pothole simulation compared to the 60mph without effect looks good.
Sven is still right, when these wheels fail, they will likely fail miserably. But it appears they won't fail easily. Of course, I lived in Detroit for a while and very little made it through the tire killer on southward I-94 - a pothole about 3 feet long and at least a foot deep (has since been fixed). There were cars lined up along the road just past that pothole. I wonder how this would do against something like that?
Having read many questions about alternate materials in some custom and kitcar forums, How does the weight of the carbon wheel compare to that of a steel wheel? And how well will they stand up to the standard North American pothole? While aluminum and carbon fiber do have their place, often it is necesssary to add weight to achieve the desired strength of the original steel wheel. Maybe not as pretty...
While they may have a certain "sex apeal" it would seem that this application could leave something to be desired in terms of the abuse the wheels have to endure as a normal part of their life cycle.
Gee, I don't know - why would you pay the price for carbon and then not show-it-off? Isn't that part of the glamour? I do know that people have added pigment to the resin on some carbon assemblies. It is, after all FRP, so you can make the plastic any color you want. I'm much more impressed with the fastenings. So far, if you want to connect a carbon fiber assembly to something, you must either bond it, or use fasteners which typically create such high point loads that the carbon assembly fractures. There is great potential in this technology though I'd guess cost will be the major factor in implementing it.
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.