http://www.autosafety.org/article.php?scid=176&did=905

 

Works for me!

 

And for side impact -Ultralight steel. Stronger, lighter, no cost penalty.

http://www.ulsab.org/ulsac/index.htm

 

And Ultra-light steel suspensions. Cost the same as stamped steel, as light as aluminum.

http://www.ulsab.org/ulsas/index.htm

Put 'em all together....it seems we've probably trimmed several hundred pounds off the Camaro at no significant additional cost. It can't be that easy?

Any engineers want to chime in?

 

this makes too much sense so.....

 

Yeah, sounds way too good to be true, therefore it prolly isnt able to be done for some reason or another. Using all of these technologies would allow GM to build a lightweight car that is extremely safe...something that would make it stand out in the auto industry...something GM hasnt done alot of lately.

 

Knowing GM, the other automakers would do it first, then GM would follow suit. There would be no weight advantage because the Camaro would still be heavy as crap compared to the other automobiles coming out with the same technology.

 

The foam part of the article is a bit misleading. You wouldnt per say, make a roof out of a special foam to make it stronger. When foam is used in composite materials, its used as a sandwich material.

Say you have a plate of material... may steel, or composite. A thicker piece of material is going to have a higher bending stiffness. It is the material furthest from the neutral axis (think centerline for simplicity) which has the most weighting in material bending stiffness.

Say you have a half inch thick plate of steel which has all the necessary strength properties, but you want to make it stiffer without adding lots of weight. (ie, using a plate of pure steel twice as thick) You can simply take 2 quarter inch plates and sanwich foam inbetween them. The foam is weaker than the steel, so it doesnt add any tensile stength, but now since the steels pieces are further from the central axis, you have a stiffer plate. This is good for a roof beause they bend, not pull apart during a roll over. Sandwiches are used all the time in high stiffness/low density applications.

 

Oh yeah, and this says link says the process matches the mass of aluminum. A matching mass does not mean a matching weight. It claims a weight savings up to 34%. I'm willing to bet that on the majority of commonly parts that manufacturing process marginally lighter.

Converting to that system may require the redisgn of a few componets, new toolign and machinery. Say you save 15% weight on your suspension converting to that system. Is that a cost effective move for a high volume, affordable car like a Camaro?

I'm willing to bet GM is doign everyting in their power to keep weight down and employing all of the cost effective technologies that they have at their disposal.

In regards to these steel links, if the technology is new, you probably wont see it for a few years out.

 

I think the foam is injected or pumped...as a 'foam'... into a roof structure, like an A pillar, and then hardens.

 

I see. It would still serve the same purpose as I described though. The steel a pillar is made up of will have all of the strength. The foam just fills in the empty space, making the material stiffer (more resistant to bending) than if there was a thin sheet of just metal, and lighter than it would be if it was solid a-pillar.

Other popular sandwhich materials are balsa wood (ie. Z06) and aluminum honey comb. Foam, depending on whats used is going to be one of the cheapest and easiest materials to work with becuase like you said, it can be injected.

 

I've heard that Ford is already using structural foam in the roof of Mustang and F150.

 

Could you explain the part about a matching mass not being the same as a matching weight? Is there some jargon that I am missing because I thought that in a constant gravitational field the phrases are essentially the same thing?

 

I think it has something to do with dencity?

 

Whoops. I was wrong.

My fault there. When I read the link late last night I mis-interpreted what they were saying. I though they were trying to say they could take a piece designed in aluminum and "cookie cutter" the design using steel.

They're saying they use less total steel in the new design to achieve similar weight savings to designing the exact same part in aluminum.