mohanrajs26
- 1
- 0
Can we built the small passenger car body using ANY WOOD which is STRONGER and CHEAPER?
If so, name the wood.
If so, name the wood.
The discussion revolves around the feasibility of using wood as a material for building car frames, specifically whether there exists a type of wood that is both stronger and more affordable than current materials used in car manufacturing. The scope includes theoretical considerations, practical applications, and comparisons with existing materials.
Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the viability of wood as a material for car frames, with some asserting its impracticality while others cite historical examples of successful use.
Participants express uncertainty about the specific properties of various woods and polymers, and there are unresolved questions about the safety implications of using wood versus metal in car construction.
mohanrajs26 said:Can we built the small passenger car body using ANY WOOD which is STRONGER and CHEAPER?
If so, name the wood.
brewnog said:Morgan have been doing a good job making sports cars using ash frames for one hundred years. They're still good by today's standards.
Mech_Engineer said:Let's be honest- the Morgan cars are bought for their styling, not because of their competitive performance or impressive Ash frame technology...
brewnog said:Nonsense, I've been successfully campaigning one this season and don't even like the look of the thing! Although if by "competitive" you mean "with other marques" then you may have a point. Still, faster round a track than lots of stuff made solely from 'modern' materials!
odmart01 said:realize that these cars won't absorb as much energy from collisions like a metal does. malleability of metals are critical for this.
Borek said:Lightning struck is so rare it can be safely ignored as a problem.
Mech_Engineer said:The OP's original question was if a "car's body frame" could be made out of a wood which is stronger and cheaper. In my opinion, the answer is still "no."