McLaren invented new carbon fiber tape to build even more complex parts
thedrive.com
thedrive.com
> it’s pioneering the use of an aerospace industry technique known as Automated Rapid Tape Carbon
McLaren is also currently leading the F1 world championship (after one race) after having won the constructor's championship last year. So whatever they are doing merits understanding.
Still impressive what they’ve accomplished to respond to an utterly dominant RB.
Which brings us back to Checo. There's a strong argument to be made that he, driving the dominant car for the first six races and probably second best car for the remainder of the season, should have been able to score enough points to keep McLaren from winning the constructor's championship. He did not and Red Bull cut him loose at the end of last season.
The second seat at Red Bull has been a brutal spot to be in since Verstappen came along. Arguably their car is very tailored to his preferences, and it's hard for another driver to get the most out of it, or even set it up to suit their preferences. Whatever the case, it's been a bit of a revolving door.
And I remember Christian Horner said something to Zak Brown that seems to fuel fire inside him. And McLaren have been improving since then.
And back to the topic, I was rathe hoping this is some new tech we could reduce the weight of F1. It is still way too long and wide. Even accounting for the upcoming 2026 changes.
I wish we could go back to Pre 2009, sub 600kg much smaller F1 cars.
Some people think applying old concepts to new areas counts as invention, some don’t. Debating the point isn’t useful because there’s no objective truth to get to.
We humans desperately want binary definitions, but things like this are gradients coupled to imperfect terms.
But here too, arguing on invention vs discover is pointless because there’s no common truth…
More generally, if there's no common truth then that itself cannot be a common truth...
That would mean an invention can become a discovery, potentially millennia later, if we discover (no pun intended) that the thing already existed in some form. I think few people would agree with that.
Also, the same ”discover or invent?” question is frequently asked about mathematics, where “exist in the known universe” is very much open for interpretation. Euclidean geometry ‘existed’ in the known universe for centuries, for example, until Einstein found out that it didn’t.
I don’t know if I’ve ever seen such deliberate “no point as there’s no common objective” written to describe an opposing argument of ideals
This is most of philosophy :) arguing about the definitions of words especially in the edge cases. But it does matter, because how we quantify, reward, and protect "invention" matters, to do that you need an accurate definition, and boring folks to hash over what counts and what doesn't.
Around here people care a lot about patents and what should be patentable, and that really revolves around what is and isn't actual innovation, actual invention. Sometimes a thing is truly new and unique, other times it's a trivial obvious change, most of the time it's ambiguous and having precise language to determine which one and to what degree a thing is, can make all the difference.
(To me personally, it's popularization, but in startup economy, it's pretty much the definition of "innovation".)
What is being debated is not whether the given label applies, but whether the label should apply (which really means what the label means), which are subtly different things. The outcome of such a debate is an improved definition or at least an improved understanding of the sense in which others use the label.
I take it you don’t think it pointless to have an argument about whether or not something is ‘racist’, for example.
> I take it you don’t think it pointless to have an argument about whether or not something is ‘racist’, for example.
In the abstract, it probably is, unless the point of the argument is to determine whether to make meaningful change. "Are oranges racist?" - pointless. "Is this policy racist, in that it disproportionately affects X minority group?" - meaningful.
Say we all agree this is an example of innovation and not invention - now what? What was the outcome that warranted the argument at all?
Think of any political debate during an election. There's no truth. It's more for the audience.
Let the audience know who you are!
> McLaren develops aerospace-inspired ART method for volume composite super car engineering
https://www.compositesworld.com/news/mclaren-develops-aerosp...
I guess my royalty cheques will be rolling in any day now.
It's still very cool to see the technology propagate to other industries though.
I was under the impression that work with carbon fiber should be in a purpose-built facility, enclosed, negative pressure with dedicated, purpose built air handling and filtration equipment. You would want to compartmentalize and contain any potential dusts and fibers.
Not sure if this process doesn't generate such fibers, or if there are other engineering controls present? From the picture and video, there don't appear to be much in the way of controls at all. Depending on the dusts generated, I think I would fully enclose this machine.
Is it just that there's no shearing of the fibers? Or have they have worked with so many composites for so long that they no longer care?
I don't know how this one implements it, but I'd be curious to know :)
It's not even that expensive if you consider that it's maybe 5k extra now that even a basic car can cost $40000
Having said that, the chrome moly top tube on my road bike broke without warning. Granted I did get hit by a cop car doing 80kph in a 50kph zone. Strained a thumb too.
If you want a bike to give to your grandkids when you die get Ti or some form of steel.
However, I still worry about getting my carbon hiking poles stuck in a crack, them breaking and then impaling myself on the sharp break
> If you do ride your bike enough, you're almost certainly replacing frequently enough that it will never be an issue.
True for the light athletes that take care during usage and "upgrade" often. Part of the motivation to upgrade is security.
Be more careful if you ride in urban/outdoor with potholes and like to keep using a piece a hardware when it fits your needs.
As a bike mechanist we checked meticulously every second hand frame we sell and find some cracks time to time. Those happen (CN and Aluminum). Direct to the bin.
More importantly: check your rims, especially as we entered the disk era and don’t change them so often. They also do get cracks and fail catastrophically.
I am familiar with the failure mode of bonded frame, we had a number of vitus bikes in the family and usually they just become so noodly you stop before the bond is giving up totally. To be honest I am more concerned about the fatigue of the aluminum fork legs which is the reason I recently ordered a steel fork for the next time I am riding it.
With the ubiquity of frames at the high amateur level, if there were still issues you'd hear more about them.
Re CF frames... one neglected point is that even when you do crunch them into a rock, they're repairable, whereas Al frames aren't worth repairing due to the heat treat needed. My own CF XC MTB has a repaired chainstay.
whoa
And while I'll give that there was variety between vendors, some of them were doing sophisticated layups with multiple grades of wave that withstood a torture tests far beyond the ANSI bike tests.
In fact you could argue they were overbuilt compared to Western brands (at a cost of 100 - 150g) since they didn't want to deal with warranty claims.
Truly amazing, cheap, good quality mass market carbon products.
That's the single strongest advertising for a product I've seen in a while.
As a customer, I also don't want to deal with warranty claims. Overbuilt = as it should be. Excessive optimization ("value engineering") = bad, waste of resources, and producer of trash.
(Excessive optimization also limits what you can do with a product, and is potentially unsafe, as normal use could exceed structural or operational limits of the product, breaking it, and potentially hurting the user.)
(Okay, I feel like I'm gearing for a long rant about sorry state of physical goods on the market, so I'll just stop now.)
The 'carbon core' chassis are a combination of steel, aluminium and carbon fiber parts bonded together with adhesives. It is primarily used to improve chassis stiffness, not necessarily for weight savings.
Unfortunately it wasn't well received by the public, most critics seemed to agree that it's a bit of a gimmick feature. As far as I can tell BMW is no longer using the carbon core concept anymore. It was announced at the time that the 5-series would get a carbon core chassis as well, but I don't think that ever happened. The technology also hasn't trickled down to their performance cars lineup as most had hoped.
To me it's kind of saddening that people are willing to pay top money for carbon fiber body panels and interior trim, but when applied to the chassis (where it actually matters) they become sceptical armchair engineers.
Anecdotal, but a friend of mine who worked at BMW dealership at the time told me that the i3 didn't sell as good as BMW had anticipated, but since they had already invested heavily in the tooling to produce the i3 carbon chassis parts they needed to look for other applications. Apparently this is what led to the carbon core chassis concept for the then upcoming G11 7-series.
where does it come from? Equinox EV is $35K MSRP and with $7.5K tax credit you get under $30K. Of course if $5K extra is not that expensive for you then i guess your "basic car" is a bit less basic than one may think :)
I remember buying a carbon fiber squash racquet back in college when money was tight without breaking the bank (although I did break the racquet when accidentally hitting the backwall instead of the ball once though)