But, contrary to your below mythology, does not have an "unlimited life."
You are correct, life is not unlimited; it is, however, more than likely beyond your life span. So from a practical point of view it is. Besides, it's not the carbon fiber which fails or delaminates its the epoxies which are used. These days, exposies are incrediable and most have unrated lifespans because it's unknown how many decades or even centuries they'll last. Long story short, it's unlimited until proven otherwise. As those decards and/or centuries have not passed yet, it's not "proven otherwise."
And what would it cost (not just the material, which is very expensive, but the manufacturing processes,) to make a car out of this? Oh, right. A small fortune. Nevermind:)
You should of stuck with nevermind before you posted....but oh well. Actually, the cost is less than using steel and aluminum. The auto makers have already started working with the materials to determine thinks like life cycle, fade, repair, and the associated economics, retooling, re-education, etc. Like most large changes which effect vast aspects of a working economy, it takes time...none the less, it's very viable and cheaper than steel...especially given the cost of processing metals these days (given the high energy costs).
You realize that strength is not the principle concern with car bodies anymore, right?
Can you say Duh!? This is pretty stupid that you even offered this. Crumple zones can easily be provided with plastic. Duh. This is NOT rocket science! It's simple physics which can easily be modeled on computer...gasp...just as they currently do. Doh!
No, it doesn't.
Addressed above. Literally...no, pragmatically...yes.
And those chassis have specific flight hour allotments after which they MUST be scrapped, genius.
I'm a private pilot! I know! They do not! Genius! How stupid are you!?
Which is reasonable since they spend MANY fewer hours in operation per year than a typical automobile and are built to standards that allow for six and seven figure price tags. Cars do not fit that profile.
You're a moron. First of all, many, many planes see far, far, far more abusive hours than most cars ever will. Most cars spend the vast majority of their life at idle...or near with little to no vibration and little to no stress. Planes on the other hand spend most of their measures flight hours at WOT...many rough landings, bad weather, wind sheer, etc...etc...etc... It is not uncommon to find planes with 4000-7000 hours on them still flying. And those hours don't include the decade(s) sitting in hot summers and cold winters. The difference between a car and a plane is the amount of TLC it receives over the years...and the fact that constant inspections are required...and the fact that engines are periodically rebuilt..etc...
Secondly, most planes are actually built inferior or equal to cars in every respect. In fact, many, many planes actually use auto parts; especially if we're talking about older planes. Hell, for piston planes, fuel injection still has LOTS of cool factor. Heck...an engine which automatically adjusts the air/fuel mixture is bleeding edge; and very costly to boot (look up FADEC).
Had that been a car built to a price point you or I could afford, the driver would be dead as dead can be.
Moron. You really are clueless.
Says a guy whose supposed argument was just completely debunked.
What a moron. Says a guy whose supposed argument was just completely debunked. When you grow a brain try to come back. Until then, stick this crap you make up back up your ass...we all know that's where you pulled it from.
[ Parent ]