70 replies to this topic

[owenmahamilton]

There is an article on the main Autosport page talking about a future F1 that no longer uses carbon fibre in the manufacturing of the cars as a way of reducing the carbon footprint of F1. I don't have access to Autosport Plus so cannot read the whole article. Is there anyone on the forum who can access it and if so, does it come up with anything interesting with regards to what they could use instead? I'd hope that whatever they do use will be lightweight as even though carbon fibre is very lightweight (my wheelchair is made of it and it's amazing how much lighter it is) the current cars are pretty heavy.

[Ben1445]

Haven't seen or have access to the article but there are companies like Bcomp (https://www.bcomp.ch) who are already using natural fibres (such as flax) in motorsport such as GT3/GT4 and Extreme E. 

 

They appear to have some genuine advantages over carbon fibre in some applications. For a non-structural body panel you can achieve just as good weight and stiffness as carbon fibres for 85% reduction in the carbon footprint. Meanwhile, the fracture behaviour is more desirable than carbon fibre because it doesn't have as strong a tendency to shatter into ultra-sharp pieces, which can ultimately lead to cut tyres, accidents and general injury. 

 

Using natural fibres in major structural and safety critical components such as an F1 safety cell without a safety/performance detriment is a little trickier... but these are also components least likely to be damaged in accidents, replaced by package performance upgrades etc. 

Edited by Ben1445, 06 August 2022 - 11:22.

[Ben1445]

Edited by Ben1445, 06 August 2022 - 11:23.

[Sterzo]

The article is by Pat Symonds, and explores the possibility of using natural fibres such as flax instead of the synthetic fibres currently used. The problem is achieving the same strength-per-unit of weight as current fibres. He doesn't see much prospect of highly stressed parts such as suspension being replaced, but maybe other components could be one day. It's all dependent in any case on development of the necessary fibres.

[Secretariat]

Do teams employ any recycling efforts in their carbon fiber manufacturing processes? I like development of new tech, materials and so on, but it would also seem recycling would be a starting point to build from as well. https://www.composit...ed-carbon-fiber

[1player]

Will we see hemp-fibre cars like Henry Ford experimented with almost a century ago?

 

If this happens, here is my prediction: McLaren will be the first to have a cannabis-related sponsor.

Edited by 1player, 06 August 2022 - 12:30.

[Sterzo]

Will we see hemp-fibre cars like Henry Ford experimented with almost a century ago?

 

I have a copy of "The Motor" from 1905, in which the new Ferodo brake linings are proudly advertised as "Better than old rope." I thought of it when reading the Pat Symonds article, and am grateful to find I'm not the only mad one.

Edited by Sterzo, 06 August 2022 - 12:47.

[PlatenGlass]

Does carbon fibre have a particularly high carbon footprint? I mean, it's carbon, but that's not the point.

[OO7]

How a sustainable alternative to carbon fibre could offer other benefits to motorsport

[Bloggsworth]

Does carbon fibre have a particularly high carbon footprint? I mean, it's carbon, but that's not the point.

Isn't CF toasted polymer strands - I suppose one needs a very powerful toaster...

[pup]

Isn't CF toasted polymer strands - I suppose one needs a very powerful toaster...

The moment where Peter Windsor went wrong.

[Radoye]

Duroplast

[kumo7]

Duroplast

 

TRABANT

 

      the first bio-based-compositte car!!!   

 

 

 

Jokes aside, carbon fabric is not an issue, but the resin is, isn't it? Carbon fiber can be replaced with flax but will be heavier. Carbon Fiber is stable and abundant material, so it is good, when it accept resin of new sort, possibility with decomposition to take the fabric out of it, the it could start recycle the material.

Edited by kumo7, 07 August 2022 - 02:28.

[jjcale]

Why are we against "carbon"? .... and how does this affect that reasoning? 

 

.... esp if we are not burning the carbon and putting it into the atmosphere .....

[AlexS]

Does not matter. it is virtue showing, so commercial reasoning in one side in the other side the old civilizational shuffle and give again to change who have power.

[MikeTekRacing]

Cutting one race from the already exploading but growing calendar would save a lot more footprint via less travelling

[Ben1445]

Why are we against "carbon"? .... and how does this affect that reasoning?

.... esp if we are not burning the carbon and putting it into the atmosphere .....

Obviously carbon fibres don’t simply appear out of thin air. It takes a large of energy to take virgin material though an oxidisation and carbonisation process to produce them before they can be used in a composite.

If you can either recycle carbon fibres by removing it from the resin from an old part (not currently easy without degrading post-recovery mechanical performance) or using a natural fibre (in an application where it makes sense to do so) then you can reduce that energy consumption and the overall impact of the process.

This all goes hand in hand with developing more sustainable resins. Current carbon fibre recycling processes, to my knowledge, simply burn off the resin - this is good for neither the climate, our environment or the condition of the fibres you are trying to recover. Broadly speaking, there’s interest in bio-resins which aren’t based on fossil fuels/materials and which can degrade harmlessly at the end of a component’s useful life.

A resin which can be harmlessly dissolved without affecting the integrity of the carbon fibres would also be a beneficial thing to develop, since odds are there will always remains applications where carbon fibre will be superior to natural fibres.

Edited by Ben1445, 07 August 2022 - 07:46.

[Ben1445]

Cutting one race from the already exploading but growing calendar would save a lot more footprint via less travelling

Why not do both?

[Ben1445]

Edited by Ben1445, 07 August 2022 - 08:01.

[jjcale]

Obviously carbon fibres don’t simply appear out of thin air. It takes a large of energy to take virgin material though an oxidisation and carbonisation process to produce them before they can be used in a composite.

...

 

1) What exactly do you mean by this?  2) And why is this problematic?

 

3) And where do the alternative materials come from?   4)  And what is the difference in energy used in production?

 

.... 5) and what is the problem with simply using "energy"?  5) cant energy come from a wide variety of different sources including renewable energy and nuclear which have no impact on "climate change"?  

 

 

Edit - to be clear - I wish those behind these projects the best of luck. I support pretty much any and all R&D - it is possibly the most important thing that we need to do, as a civilisation .... I just dont understand the point of this one - which is not a biggie as I dont understand a lot of things .... but let 100 flowers bloom, as someone once said.

 

I look forward to being enlightened by the response from Ben (or any other knowledgeable person). 

Edited by jjcale, 07 August 2022 - 08:23.

[Ben1445]

Let's not be putting climate change in air quotes now. 

[Ben1445]

If anyone wants a pure motorsport event benefit in terms of safety and racing: 
 

"In addition to sustainability, natural fibres also bring safety benefits. When a part breaks, the edges are blunt so the debris doesn’t cut tyres – unlike with carbon splinters. Our partner YCOM has built and crash-tested a single-seater nose box, which would see benefits in this regard. Also, sportscar racing organising body SRO changed the GT4 regulations in 2019 so that non-standard aerodynamic surfaces like the splitter and diffuser - parts that are crashed first – must use natural fibres, which was a good step towards reducing the risk of punctures."

https://www.autospor...-parts/9713311/

[jjcale]

Let's not be putting climate change in air quotes now. 

 

Why not ... its only a theory. ... or has that changed since I last tried to get my head round it?

 

Anyway - dont get triggered ... I am really interested in what you might have to say about this topic.

[kumo7]

Cutting one race from the already exploading but growing calendar would save a lot more footprint via less travelling

 

I think this is very important element to discuss, in terms of World Series. Even if it were not World Series, then perhaps even so.

Like running a car for three hours demans so much fuels, but sending equipments by air and sending hundreds of stuff on air indeed consumes a lot more fuel.

 

If there would be more colab possible between the F1 team and air liners, perhaps, if not, a carbon fiber airplane...? Hope not this will explode during the flights.

 

Would be interesting if the entire F1 team start to camp on site... 

[Ben1445]

I look forward to being enlightened by the response from Ben (or any other knowledgeable person). 

Got a busy day ahead of me, so if anyone else feels like helping out jjcale here please be my be my guest. 

[Beri]

Why not ... its only a theory. ... or has that changed since I last tried to get my head round it?

Anyway - dont get triggered ... I am really interested in what you might have to say about this topic.

Since when has climate change not been a fact? It is very well documented with facts, figures, diagrams, maps, or whatever, over the past 100-ish years. That's from the moment that those numbers have been recorded.
So denying climate change, is impossible unless you don't know what you are talking about.

But what is up for question, is what causes this. Many theories exist and personally I think that albeit the influence of humans has been extensive and has accelerated global warming, it is also a natural cause that once every X years the earth does warm up more than in the previous X years.
But despite this debate, the climate change itself is happening. No denying in that.

[pdac]

Duroplast

 

Looks fast

[pdac]

Cutting one race from the already exploading but growing calendar would save a lot more footprint via less travelling

 

I'm sure using a single compound, durable tyre for the entire season would save a lot too.

[pup]

Why not ... its only a theory. ... or has that changed since I last tried to get my head round it?

Considering it’s now called a climate emergency? Yes.

[pup]

To answer the original question, it doesn’t seem to be clear cut since there are advantages to CF that could reduce overall carbon emissions, such as making lighter vehicles, etc. And of course there are continual improvements in manufacturing efficiency and reducing emissions from production.

But overall, it’s a very energy intensive process (I read 14 times more so than steel), which releases quite a lot of noxious stuff, from outright toxic chemicals to carbon itself (50% of the carbon is actually burned away in the process). So yes, if they can create a market for alternatives like this, they may not only be better for the environment but also much cheaper if they don’t require as much energy to produce.

Edited by pup, 07 August 2022 - 11:44.

[noikeee]

Why not ... its only a theory. ... or has that changed since I last tried to get my head round it?.

Ffs jj

This kind of attitude is why we're all going to be ****ed by the climate

[maximilian]

Might Graphene make an appearance?

[HP]

Considering it’s now called a climate emergency? Yes.

What's the next level? We soon need to create new superlative words.

[pup]

What's the next level?

Lifeless rock.

[HP]

Might Graphene make an appearance?

Maybe. It would boggle the mind. Graphene is used as electric conductor, coolant and lubricant. If it also could work for sturdy car parts, that be extraordinary.

[pup]

I think graphene has its own set of environmental concerns, though I admit I don’t know much about it. But apparently in some forms it can be carcinogenic, in a similar way to asbestos.

[HP]

Lifeless rock.

That implies entire life on this planet ends at once. My take is under current circumstances there will be survivors, maybe 2-5%  and then at a certain level the earth gets a much needed break to slowly recover.

Edited by HP, 07 August 2022 - 12:07.

[HP]

I think graphene has its own set of environmental concerns, though I admit I don’t know much about it. But apparently in some forms it can be carcinogenic, in a similar way to asbestos.

I know manufacturing graphene can and has been be done in different ways. Natural occurrences are rare, growing it doesn't produce great quality yet.  IMO the manufacturing process I would pursue is from carbon dioxide reduction.

 

Potential is great, but application so far is small. 10 years ago the global value of the business was around $9 million. Haven't found more recent reports.

[wheadon1985]

I think the idea behind it is that because they are natural plant fibres, they are carbon negative because of the Carbon Dioxide they have taken in and held when they were a plant.

[jjcale]

To answer the original question, it doesn’t seem to be clear cut since there are advantages to CF that could reduce overall carbon emissions, such as making lighter vehicles, etc. And of course there are continual improvements in manufacturing efficiency and reducing emissions from production.

But overall, it’s a very energy intensive process (I read 14 times more so than steel), which releases quite a lot of noxious stuff, from outright toxic chemicals to carbon itself (50% of the carbon is actually burned away in the process). So yes, if they can create a market for alternatives like this, they may not only be better for the environment but also much cheaper if they don’t require as much energy to produce.

 

TY

 

But what about the alternatives? - wouldnt these also need a lot of energy to produce as well .... isnt the main difference that CF essentially uses oil products but the alternatives use plant based products - similar to petrol and ethanol ... so we are not talking about fundamentally different chemistry ... both are still basically carbon based products?      .... at least talking about today's tech.

 

No?

 

 

And BTW I am asking just asking what I consider to be basic questions as a non-science guy who does a bit of reading on lots of different topics ... and tries to think critically. 

Edited by jjcale, 07 August 2022 - 13:11.

[pup]

I am just asking…

Uhuh.

[PlatenGlass]

That implies entire life on this planet ends at once. My take is under current circumstances there will be survivors, maybe 2-5% and then at a certain level the earth gets a much needed break to slowly recover.

I don't think it was entirely serious. I don't think there is a realistic climate change scenario that wipes out all life on Earth, or even all humans. It's the grey goo you need to worry about...

[jjcale]

Uhuh.

 

I have my biases - like everyone else .... but my questions are pretty simple ones and dont require the taking of any position other than providing an answer - if possible. 

 

The last one that I directed as your post is a little bit more complicated than the first set but, even so, its not a hard one from a technical point of view - if you know the answer .... and there is no shame if you dont have that information available to you - as this is cutting edge tech. 

 

But that doesnt make it a difficult question - or a trick question.

 

So for now, I simply dont understand why "plant based" would be fundamentally different chemistry from "oil based" (since oil is supposed to be just be basically plants/animals that died millions of years ago) ... and so why would "plant based" require much less energy to make the end product if we are starting from basically the same chemicals for the inputs. 

 

I dont know the answer to this - hence the question. 

 

If you cant answer it ... cool ... but no need to be snarky. 

Edited by jjcale, 07 August 2022 - 14:43.

[pup]

Except if memory serves, you’re attracted to these threads like a moth to a flame, just to ‘ask questions’. Doesn’t really fool anyone, you know?

[kumo7]

I have my biases - like everyone else .... but my questions are pretty simple ones and dont require the taking of any position other than providing an answer - if possible. 

 

The last one that I directed as your post is a little bit more complicated than the first set but, even so, its not a hard one from a technical point of view - if you know the answer .... and there is no shame if you dont have that information available to you - as this is cutting edge tech. 

 

But that doesnt make it a difficult question - or a trick question.

 

So for now, I simply dont understand why "plant based" would be fundamentally different chemistry from "oil based" (since oil is supposed to be just be basically plants/animals that died millions of years ago) ... and so why would "plant based" require much less energy to make the end product if we are starting from basically the same chemicals for the inputs. 

 

I dont know the answer to this - hence the question. 

 

If you cant answer it ... cool ... but no need to be snarky. 

 

Plant based is something you can reproduce with natural cycle, while oil based utilized the oil that is far to complex (at a moment) to create in the natural process that is known to us. 

 

Cars should be lighter and should burn less fuel to achieve the speed. So new Pu rule for VAG is a huge back wards engineering, unless there will be new numbers on the table. 

[jjcale]

Except if memory serves, you’re attracted to these threads like a moth to a flame, just to ‘ask questions’. Doesn’t really fool anyone, you know?

 

I thought was a discussion forum ... how do you have a useful discussion if everyone has the same point of view. 

 

Obviously, I am a sceptic ... and my questions reflect this. 

 

I also think questions are more polite than making assertions - why you have a problem with "questions" is not obvious to me. 

 

Anyway - Thanks for your first response ... I dont know if you just cant answer my follow up or if my follow up is not useful - so you ignored it ... or if I am overestimating your knowledge. Mildly annoying.

[jjcale]

Plant based is something you can reproduce with natural cycle, while oil based utilized the oil that is far to complex (at a moment) to create in the natural process that is known to us. 

 

Cars should be lighter and should burn less fuel to achieve the speed. So new Pu rule for VAG is a huge back wards engineering, unless there will be new numbers on the table. 

 

At some point we will move beyond oil - as the last Saudi king put it - the stone age didnt end because we ran out of stones ... it ended because we found something better. 

 

My scepticism (in so far as I understand this concept) is that this initiative seems to be an effort to substitute for an oil based product with a product with a reasonably similar make up from a renewable source. .... I dont think that is intrinsically a good or bad thing - esp as so little carbon fibre is currently used (compared to other uses of oil based products) for this innovation to make any useful difference to anything - at least in the relatively short run (but who knows what the far future holds ....). ...so I dont see it as game changer - or even something significant. 

 

My various questions in this thread are meant to get more info to test whether or not I am on the right track regarding the above. ... thanks for your response.

[Rob G]

 

 

 

 

 

Just imagine the half-painted F1 cars of today with this brown material exposed instead of carbon fiber. 

[pup]

I kind of like it, but I wonder since it’s an organic material if it can be bleached and dyed any color.

[Cliff]

Isn't CF toasted polymer strands - I suppose one needs a very powerful toaster...

Which you’ll need for toasting any other fiber..

I feel this is just some ploy to score sustainablility points just because it has the word carbon in it..

Then again, what do I know 🤷🏼‍♂️