Ok, so youve got a huge bundle burning a hole in your back pocket, and you want your favourite car to last a lot longer.

Would it be possible to make a car out of something more robust? say Reynolds 853 or stainless?
If so, what would it cost, and how would the ride/comfort/characteristics change?

Imagine a lovely VW beetle or camper that was 25% lighter, and 90% harder to rust… awesome.

Has this ever been done on any level? Im not talking plain old galvanising..
IIRC, the DeLorean was a stainless body on galvanised chassis?

Landrover bodies are aluminium as are a good few sports cars.

Of course it is perfectly possible to build cars that last much longer. No incentive to do so in a capitalist society

Volvo amazon is the classic example of a long lasting car.

Volvo amazon is the classic example of a long lasting car.

yes, the bloke who fitted rear speakers on the parcel shelf of mine said he’d never had to cut through thicker metal.

they still rust though.

Of course it is perfectly possible to build cars that last much longer. No incentive to do so in a capitalist society

Strange that the capitalist society has developed ways of painting cars that make them rust less. Have made OE parts that last much longer, have greatly improved the reliability and have started offering 5 yr+ warranties…

Move to Cuba, TJ. Should be perfect for you.

Strange that the capitalist society has developed ways of painting cars that make them rust less. Have made OE parts that last much longer, have greatly improved the reliability and have started offering 5 yr+ warranties…

+1

Modern cars last for a very long time, are exceptionally reliable and extremely rust proof.

Really we should be designing in obsolescence, fatigue and corrosion so as to keep the jobs going. Wont someone think of the workers?!?!?

http://reynoldstechnology.biz/our_customers_sports_cars.php

“…the land-speed record vehicle Thrust 2.”
http://reynoldstechnology.biz/our_materials_531.php

Wont someone think of the workers?!?!?

TJ does that stuff. Meanwhile I’m ruthlessly exploiting the workers cos he’s busy replying to threads about famine baby tories marketing the downfall of the NHS because all the fat people have started/stopped/whatever wearing helmets.

Westfield trialed 853 suspension components, thin the conclusion was the weight loss want worth the extra cost. Especialy as on that sort of thing the stiffness is as important, so you need more material, so you put weight back on, etc etc.

Basicly normal steel is strong enough and stiff enough, and light enough, so why bother.

Delorean made stainless cars, droped like a bomb due to cost.

Plenty of aluminium sports/super cars, but again, it costs.

These days most cars seem to have reached the point where they get writen off in a crash before they get scraped due to mechanical failiures.

Of course it is perfectly possible to build cars that last much longer. No incentive to do so in a capitalist society

What society offers more incentive? Do we need a 5 year plan?

Of course it is perfectly possible to build cars that last much longer. No incentive to do so in a capitalist society

Complete twaddle.

You don’t own a car, do you? If you did, you’d know that modern cars (built in a capitalist society) are cleaner, faster, less thirsty, and much longer lasting than their counterparts of, say, twenty years ago.

I recall the mid-1970s, when cars were routinely rusting through at only three or four years. It didn’t really matter that much, as the engines tended to die at 100k anyway.

Modern cars are genuinely excellent. Even the bad ones are long-lasting in a way you could only dream of in the 70s and 80s. What’s driven this is competition amongst the manufacturers, who’ve competed to provide the best product. OK, they’re trying to get market share, so it’s not altruism, but no-one who actually uses a car nowadays would deny that they’re immensely better built and longer lasting than all that Leyland crap we used to have to put up with.

But don’t let the fact get in the way of your diatribe. No point in changing the habits of a lifetime.

These days most cars seem to have reached the point where they get writen off in a crash before they get scraped due to mechanical failiures.

Seeing the current thread about Audi headlights, it’ll be the breakage or failure of over-complicated ancillary jinglejangles that will put newer breeds of cars beyond economic repair, no matter how everlasting the engines and bodies are.

I know someone who’s insurance co wrote off their car over a pair of broken headlights (and no other damage) the headlight units easily exceeded the value of the car

Of course it is perfectly possible to build cars that last much longer. No incentive to do so in a capitalist society

Yep, LADA were definately known for making their cars from 853, being rust proof and never breaking down.

im in holland atm .. they seem to be mad for old cars ….

they have a penchant for old amazons , beetles and landys – im not just talking the odd one like in the uk … im talking on an average day i see 4 or 5 of each !

853 was originally developed for side impact bars in Volvo doors.

Money no object, I’d build it from the lightest, stiffest material I could get – that’d be carbon composite then

As in many things, stiffness is the key with car chassis, you can’t have too stiff

Seeing the current thread about Audi headlights, it’ll be the breakage or failure of over-complicated ancillary jinglejangles that will put newer breeds of cars beyond economic repair, no matter how everlasting the engines and bodies are.

I know someone who’s insurance co wrote off their car over a pair of broken headlights (and no other damage) the headlight units easily exceeded the value of the car

Possibly, but it’s getting better, and people dont put the effort into fixing cars anymore. Perfectly feasible to build an ECU from scratch (google megasquirt). Headlamps have always been expensive, but remember old LUCAS 7″/9″ ones? The bulbs weren’t even replaceable so the whole unit had to be replaced! If ford did that these days there realy would be uproar.

back to my original point, technicalities aside – could it be done?

Say, I want a car made entirely of 853, just because.

If so, would it handle/behave differently?
Would 853 make the chassis squirm/flex too much if built in the same gauge? Or would handling improve? (like on a bike frame!)

The DeLorean dived because of costs, but it was still done. Bare metal cars that dont rust = super cool.
I love the DeLeorean.

Remember: money is no object here.

If so, would it handle/behave differently?

it’s be different for sure but there’s far too many variables to say in what way and by how much

I think that just saying just make cars of high quality steel is a bit simplistic. From what I understand (I’m no engineer) car companies are more and more using mixtures of low tensile/high tensile steel, aluminium and composites in cars where the best material is most appropriate to get the best compromise of cost/weight/rigidity.

BTW if money is no object – make the car out of carbon fibre. Like McClaren etc…

The Alfa Giulietta uses some bits of spangly steel to keep weight down

Well firstly it would be flexier (if you reduced the tube guages and butted to take advantage of its extra strength) or stronger (if you just used PG tubes in the same guage.

Flex in a car is nearly always a very bad thing for handling. So ultimatley you’d end up with a very strong car.

Bus as with bikes, you could build a stiffer/lighter one from Aluminium, so why bother?

Hmmm, valid points.

A carbon fibre VW camper van?. Cool no doubt. Souless? Possibly.

Steel is real.

BTW if money is no object – make the car out of carbon fibre. Like McClaren etc…

even the renault clio has light weight plastic wings.

531 was used for the front suspension subframe on the E-type jag and various spaceframe race cars.

Porsche 917;

The car had remarkable technology: Porsche’s first 12-cylinder engine, and many components made of titanium, magnesium and exotic alloys that had been developed for lightweight “Bergspider” hill climb racers. Other methods of weight reduction were rather simple, such as making the gear shift knob out of Balsa wood, some methods were not simple, such as using the tubular frame itself, as oil piping to the front oil cooler.

they did have to gas pressurise the frame as it flexed so much the welds tended to crack – if the drivers saw the ‘frame pressure’ drop too far they had to stop.

If so, would it handle/behave differently?

Depends how much of that pixie dust you used. If you got enough, it’d be a really springy but still stiff for power transfer….

People build steel hardtails mainly for character it gives the frame. People don’t build steel full sus bikes because the character of the frame is dictated by the suspension design.

As far as i’m aware, all cars have some sort of suspension…..

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/analysis/westfield-sportscars-develops-lightweight-chassis/1005509.article

http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/february97/features/steelcar/steelcar.html

“STRENGTH OR STIFFNESS?
Underlying these decisions regarding material selection is the overall design goal for the particular body structure component. “You’re designing either for strength or for stiffness,” Fekete said. “That’s what’s driving the thickness of the material.” The thickness of steel car parts is usually determined by the degree of required stiffness, but in about 20 percent of the applications the important property is strength. “If you’re designing for stiffness, an increase in strength level won’t give you anything because the elastic modulus of the material doesn’t change,” Fekete said.

“When you design for strength, you’re primarily trying to handle crash loads,” said Bruce Emmons, president of Autokinetics, an engineering services firm in Rochester Hills, Mich. “Suspension loads are also a concern, but they tend to be much lower magnitude than crash loads,” he said. “Generally, we want to use higher-strength steels in crash-sensitive parts such as impact beams, bumper bars, rockers, and B-pillar reinforcements. More recently, however, the focus has moved toward greater stiffness, which is desired for improved ride, vibration, and harshness [NVH] quality.” Higher stiffness targets are something relatively new in American car design, he said, joking that structural stiffness levels used to be set just high enough “to allow the car doors to close.””

nice info above guys.

and that Porsche 917 is astonishing.

quite a few steel FS.doberman(n?),fireeye.off the top of my head.
Ducati make the frame out of chromoly tubes.might be a good place to find out if 853 or similar would offer benefits.cheaper than welding up a car chassis.
I remember..the snark.(pedal)car made out of bicycle frames.In wales.
read about in..cyclopaedia.94 maybe.

http://reynoldstechnology.biz/our_customers_motorcyclists.php

http://reynoldstechnology.biz/assets/pdf/rtl_2010_moto_tech.pdf

This has to the most hilarious-most-thread ever. It would not be cost effective to make a car of those materials. Even the highest end stuff isn’t – they use carbon fibre etc.

TandemJeremy – Member
Landrover bodies are aluminium as are a good few sports cars.

Volvo amazon is the classic example of a long lasting car.

Not quite:

The bodywork was hand-made out of an aluminium/magnesium alloy called Birmabright, to save on steel.

Amazon lasted well due to durable (and antiquated) engineering – they still rust like ****.

853 is inherently flexy any more then aluminum is inherently stiff. Its all to do with the overall design of the frame and what the builder / desinger is trying to achieve.

You could build a really stiff frame (or car) out of 853 if you wanted

I think you will find that most of the structural steel components and chassis in a car are already made of the lightest stiffest steels that they can be, many of which are as “strong” as if not stronger than 853.

A great resource for the use fo steels in cars is found here.

The only reason 863 is expensive is because of reynolds marketign bullshit, they make similar and better steels in industry without the equivalent cost increase. (I’m not saying they are as cheap, but the percentages are much much less). Ask Brant who commented on this at on-one, anyone remember DN6 steel?

Is DN6 actually 853 in sheeps clothing then?

I know that Prius panels are made of thinner higher grade steel to conserve weight, but I don’t know what steel it is.

I’ve had a few chips and whilst the exposed metal has rusted it hasn’t gone under the paint at all, which was slightly surprising.

“DN6” is our piss take on the tube sets that come out of the Founderland Company in Taiwan – http://www.eco.com.tw/ – with different badges on.

One of those is Reynolds 520.

It is Founderland tubing, boxed and from the same runs, with the same QC checks as standard “Taiwan Chromoly”. You can get it in many different diameter, wall thicknesses, butting profiles.

It is however not 853. Which is a magical clever steel which claims to get stronger when it’s welded. Which is crackers, as George from G-Sport pointed out – if that were the case, surely it would be better to weld all over the tubing.

But it is better “after welding” than normal steel. And is stronger too. So you can use less of it. But then using less makes things flexier.

Any clearer?