CNC VS CARBON FIBER
08-12-2010, 11:41 PM
#16
honestly in my opinion it doesnt matter people will say aluminum is heavier than carbon fiber but if you notice when a buggy/truggy is released with aluminum towers a company will usually make the opposite for example Mugen comes with carbon fiber same as Xray but Mugen and Xray's upgrade are aluminum towers or to Xray Swiss but a D8 comes aluminum and extream racing makes carbon fiber lol its basically prefrence. I prefer aluminum because it will last longer than carbon fiber.
08-12-2010, 11:55 PM
#17
honestly in my opinion it doesnt matter people will say aluminum is heavier than carbon fiber but if you notice when a buggy/truggy is released with aluminum towers a company will usually make the opposite for example Mugen comes with carbon fiber same as Xray but Mugen and Xray's upgrade are aluminum towers or to Xray Swiss but a D8 comes aluminum and extream racing makes carbon fiber lol its basically prefrence. I prefer aluminum because it will last longer than carbon fiber.
you prefer aluminum because you're always doing cartwheels all over the track... so yes, aluminum will last longer for ya...
08-13-2010, 07:48 AM
#23
For all I know, that "knockoff titanium" is probably a new alloy they patented, made of 40% recycled cardboard for cost & weight savings
On a more serious note, I'm curious as to why we don't see more magnesium parts for our cars? I think that could really help with reducing weight (roughly 30% lighter than aluminum) on parts like uprights, hinge-pin blocks, shock bodies, radio trays, wing mount cross-beams. Similar cost to manufacture, lighter weight and similar mechanical properties... What's not to like?
08-13-2010, 08:06 AM
#24
there are different qualities of Carbon fiber just as there are different qualities of aluminum. The cheapest CF up against 7075 aluminum will fail, and the same holds true for the cheapest Aluminum. You get what you pay for whether its CF or Aluminum. Its impossible to say what is better. The only thing you can look at is weight savings vs strength and IMHO the only place that strength comes into play is The shock towers. If you crash hard enough to bend/brake your radio/diff/or top plate it does not matter if you use Plastic, CF or Aluminum. Its about Bling and weight savings in all those areas.
08-13-2010, 08:08 AM
#25
this thread is funny.
08-13-2010, 08:55 AM
#26
On a more serious note, I'm curious as to why we don't see more magnesium parts for our cars? I think that could really help with reducing weight (roughly 30% lighter than aluminum) on parts like uprights, hinge-pin blocks, shock bodies, radio trays, wing mount cross-beams. Similar cost to manufacture, lighter weight and similar mechanical properties... What's not to like?
08-13-2010, 09:00 AM
#27
CF will always break some sooner than others. Alum can break too but it usually bends before it will break. So the few grams that you save with CF is it worth it? All depends on your driving. I am notthe best driver nor the worst but even the Boeing grade CF shock tower broke earlier this year at the nitro pit. The crash wasn't even that hard but it broke. CF looks way cool but personally it's not for me. I'll take a kHz tower over an alum tower any day.
08-13-2010, 09:20 AM
#28
I know what you mean though: back when I was big on Indycars, my friends and I would always see the Penske and Forsythe guys polishing the rims if they had been left out overnight in the rain because they had turned grey (as opposed to the polished look the team demanded.)That having been said, I wonder if it can be anodized? Somehow, I think that for a 33% weight savings, people might not mind the oxidized look so much, especially considering that the price is so close to aluminum. Think about it: it would probably be the best weight savings/strength per dollar in the whole hobby. When you look at what people are paying for titanium screws and carbon fiber knick-knacks to save a few grams, this makes nothing but sense.
