A ridiculous thought.
Why not (apart from cost) make car chassis stronger by making them out of quenched and tempered carbon steel rather than mild steel?
The strength would rise from 250 MPa to 560 or 690 or 750 MPa.
Much more safe against crush injuries.
mollwollfumble said:
A ridiculous thought.Why not (apart from cost) make car chassis stronger by making them out of quenched and tempered carbon steel rather than mild steel?
The strength would rise from 250 MPa to 560 or 690 or 750 MPa.
Much more safe against crush injuries.
Next you’ll be wanting rustproofing that works.
‘Planned obsolescence’, my boy, ‘programmed deterioration’, these are the phrases the kept the wheels of industry turning.
captain_spalding said:
mollwollfumble said:
A ridiculous thought.Why not (apart from cost) make car chassis stronger by making them out of quenched and tempered carbon steel rather than mild steel?
The strength would rise from 250 MPa to 560 or 690 or 750 MPa.
Much more safe against crush injuries.
Next you’ll be wanting rustproofing that works.
‘Planned obsolescence’, my boy, ‘programmed deterioration’, these are the phrases the kept the wheels of industry turning.
rust proofing is very good these days. don’t see many cars with rust at the borrom of doors or in the tailgate.
Cars are designed to crush. The cab area should remain intact. Of course it depends on speed and immovability of the object being hit. Some cars have a boron steel as a turret. Thin but very hard.
captain_spalding said:
mollwollfumble said:
A ridiculous thought.Why not (apart from cost) make car chassis stronger by making them out of quenched and tempered carbon steel rather than mild steel?
The strength would rise from 250 MPa to 560 or 690 or 750 MPa.
Much more safe against crush injuries.
Next you’ll be wanting rustproofing that works.
‘Planned obsolescence’, my boy, ‘programmed deterioration’, these are the phrases the kept the wheels of industry turning.
Rust-proofing does work. It didn’t work 20 years ago, but does now.
As for planned obsolescence, I would have agreed with you until I found Honda.
mollwollfumble said:
A ridiculous thought.Why not (apart from cost) make car chassis stronger by making them out of quenched and tempered carbon steel rather than mild steel?
The strength would rise from 250 MPa to 560 or 690 or 750 MPa.
Much more safe against crush injuries.
How do you know they aren’t? Modern chassis are made from several grades of steel depending on where they are. The stronger steels are used where less crumpling is desired and vice-versa to get the overall crush/crumple rates/amounts/directions desired.
mollwollfumble said:
A ridiculous thought.Why not (apart from cost) make car chassis stronger by making them out of quenched and tempered carbon steel rather than mild steel?
The strength would rise from 250 MPa to 560 or 690 or 750 MPa.
Much more safe against crush injuries.
Do you know what sort of steel they use?
mollwollfumble said:
captain_spalding said:
mollwollfumble said:
A ridiculous thought.Why not (apart from cost) make car chassis stronger by making them out of quenched and tempered carbon steel rather than mild steel?
The strength would rise from 250 MPa to 560 or 690 or 750 MPa.
Much more safe against crush injuries.
Next you’ll be wanting rustproofing that works.
‘Planned obsolescence’, my boy, ‘programmed deterioration’, these are the phrases the kept the wheels of industry turning.
Rust-proofing does work. It didn’t work 20 years ago, but does now.
As for planned obsolescence, I would have agreed with you until I found Honda.
the average car these days are on their last legs at around 400 000km. in that time you probably have never replaced the wheel bearings. The tie rod ends. Universal joints. You have probably never put a grease gun to any part.
JudgeMental said:
mollwollfumble said:
captain_spalding said:Next you’ll be wanting rustproofing that works.
‘Planned obsolescence’, my boy, ‘programmed deterioration’, these are the phrases the kept the wheels of industry turning.
Rust-proofing does work. It didn’t work 20 years ago, but does now.
As for planned obsolescence, I would have agreed with you until I found Honda.
the average car these days are on their last legs at around 400 000km. in that time you probably have never replaced the wheel bearings. The tie rod ends. Universal joints. You have probably never put a grease gun to any part.
JudgeMental said:
When we traded in the near 20 year old Toyota it had no rust and had had almost nothing mechanically done to it. It did have a long list of intermittent electrical problems.
mollwollfumble said:Rust-proofing does work. It didn’t work 20 years ago, but does now.
As for planned obsolescence, I would have agreed with you until I found Honda.
the average car these days are on their last legs at around 400 000km. in that time you probably have never replaced the wheel bearings. The tie rod ends. Universal joints. You have probably never put a grease gun to any part.
Re chassis: Today, almost all cars, SUVs, and even some pickup trucks feature unibody construction.
Yes. Most cars these days don’t have a chassis as such.