And, no surprise, he's totally wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite-reinforced_plastic#Recycling

there does seem to be some confusion here between 'carbon fibre' and Carbon fibre reinforced plastics. i think the confusion stems from the fact that 'carbon fibre' as it is generally known is the main form of CFRP

When i say 'carbon fibre' i mean the normal type of carbon fibre weave embedded in an epoxy or polyester resin matrix and then cured under heat/pressure or with a catalyst - and that is a carbon fibre reinforced plastic. - and due to those thermosetting plastics used it is not recyclable.

Embedding strands or rods of carbon fibre within a thermoplastic (i.e.one that can be re-melted and therefore recycled) is certainly possible (like glass reinforced nylon for example) though to my knowledge is not as strong or as rigid as a thermosetting polyester/epoxy resin.

the weight claims for the vehicle of 420kg also seem somewhat questionable given that the main reason a Prius weighs around 1,300kg is due to the battery packs - and this PHEV has a downsized engine with more batteries - are they using advanced lithium ion batteries to save weight. evene so, even the Loremo car is 450kg and that has no batteries or hybrid powertrain, so i think the 420kg is somewhat unrealistic - especially given increasing crash protection regulations.

...the coming Boeing 787 is made in Carbon as well. Mass produced helmets like the US "Fritz" are made in Carbon (plus Kevlar/Aramid) too.
But IMO, cars sould be made in wood again. As for safty, a speed limit should be intrioduced do deal with it. Btw, as Ford F150 demonstrates, heavy steel cars are not save. In this case, F150s should be limitet to a max. speed of 5mph, just to protect there drivers and co-drivers.

Here we are:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/10/toray-to-become-first-carbon-fiber-auto-part-maker/

Daniel, you wrote:

Toyota needs to improve its Prius as the image of the Prius as the market leading low emissions vehcile is starting to be embarrasses by even better and chaper non-hybrid vehicles like the Mini cooper D 104g CO2/km. and the VW polo bluemotion 99g CO2/km.

But consider this: the Toyota Prius is a VASTLY roomier car than both the Mini Cooper D and VW Polo Bluemotion. In fact, the interior space of the Prius is more comparable to a Ford Mondeo or VW Passat! Given that achievement the Prius is still an amazing achievement, a vehicle that comfortably seats four easily but gets excellent fuel economy.

i don't deny that the Prius is a great achievment and has become iconic as the first well known hybrid vehicle to be accepted amongst the public.

i think it's somewhat overstating it to say it is vastl; bigger. The polo and mini cooper are perfectly capabl;e of seating 4 people comfortably.

My point is that the Prius was state of the art a few years ago but has now been overtaken by non-hybrid technology in the Polo and mini cooper -direct injection engines, low rolling resistance tyres, intellgient alternators etc.- and because they are not hybrids they are considerably cheaper.(around £3,000)

Compared to an average 160g CO2/km £10,000 car the £17,765 Prius will take around 20 years before you even break even with fuel costs, let alone gain. Batteries and hybrid drivetrains are too expensive and heavy for low to mid sector cars where margins can be as low as 300 euros per car.

Entry level Prius is $23,223.00 US. There are still tax credits for low emission technology

Careful Daniel. While a Mini or Polo might fit four Brits comfortably, four Americans will likely be cramped in a Prius...

rob,

Actually, the Mini Cooper D and the VW Polo BlueMotion are pretty cramped cars that can barely seat four passengers, while the Prius has the type of interior space you associate with the European Ford Mondeo--they're not even the same class of vehicles in terms of interior space. And the Prius doesn't have issues with elevated NOx output and removing diesel particulates, either.

It will be interesting to see what Honda pulls off when their new small hybrid family car (which will use the Honda Fit/Jazz platform) arrives in 2009. Because it will be much lighter than the Prius I expect fuel efficiency to be very high indeed.

This is super good news, and an "ultra-light" Prius with well-over 100 mpg fuel efficiency should cause all greencar enthusiasts to start drooling!
This reminds me of the GM's 100-mpg carbon fiber ultralight concept car featured over 15 years ago. GM's greencar technology was pretty advanced back then...perhaps only having to yield to GM stockholders who own more stocks in Big Oil than Big Auto!

420 kg curb wt. to carry a payload wt of ~380 kg is quite doable using carbon fiber, since the GM ultralight car also featured the same spec's over 15 years ago, and light airplanes made from carbon fiber composite are routinely capable of carrying a load comparable to its empty weight, and airplanes travel much faster, requiring much more powerful engine and subject to much higher level of vibration and physical stress that a car will never have to face, hence even much more structural demand on the airframe!

Carbon fiber is recyclable via high-temp pyrolysis or gasification, but since the frame is so durable and does not rust and having infinite fatigue limit, the frame can simply be recycled by removing all mechanical components and replaced with new engines, transmission, fabrics, seats, brakes, lines, hoses, etc, and with a new coat of paint, the car will become new again.

ok, if you want to accurately compare like with like, the Prius in terms of weight, size and performance actually equates to an entry level Ford focus.

1300kg weight, 2.7m wheelbase and similar 0-60mph and top speed.

Except that the focus cost UK £13,500 and the Prius UK £17,700. the Prius emits 104g CO2/km and the Focus emits 159g CO2/km. Therefore the it will take Prius over 10 years to recoup it's higher inital cost.

That is the premium you pay for low emissions technology and most consumers are simply not persuaded and rightly so as hybrid technology is a very expensive way of reducing emissions. Within the industry the Prius is regarded as a triumph of marketing over common sense.

Lower-tech lower cost solutions such as the Loremo car with a small downsized turbo diesle engine in a lightweight aluminium body shell are lower cost and much more likely to be the future in low to mid market cars where margins are far too slim at 3-4 % to emply hybrid technology which can add 20 to 30% to a cars price.

daniel says:

"Except that the focus cost UK £13,500 and the Prius UK £17,700. the Prius emits 104g CO2/km and the Focus emits 159g CO2/km. Therefore the it will take Prius over 10 years to recoup it's higher inital cost."

How can you put an arbitrary price on carbon. You can work the numbers for petrol use since that has a known cost. What you've done is pay for a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions. How can you put a price on that?

I'm all for lighter cars, but lets face it, there's a limit to what you can do down that route before you hit a dead end as long as you're using an ICE engine. Hybrid technology is a step towards PHEV and BEV (from clean electricity) that have real potential for reducing tail pipe emissions to nil. Anyone that says hybrid technology is a triumph of marketing over common sense is missing the big picture.

Daniel wrote: "That is the premium you pay for low emissions technology and most consumers are simply not persuaded and rightly so as hybrid technology is a very expensive way of reducing emissions. Within the industry the Prius is regarded as a triumph of marketing over common sense."

Hey Daniel, have you driven a Prius, lately?
It's more than just an abstract notion of emission-reduction. It's a totally new and exciting experience, like no engine idling, complete quietness at any traffic stop, AC with electric compressor gives you gentle and automatically-controlled cooling, rear-view camera backup, keyless automatic entry, low tire pressure warning system...much-reduced routine maintenance...and the list goes on...Can you get any of these features with the Ford Focus?
Oh, by the way, I'll be paying a lot less for the gasoline (petrol) so that after some years, all these exciting features and technologies will be FREE, PAID FOR BY THE SAVING IN FUEL COST ALONE!

Normally, people would have to pay a steep price to experience a new technology, like the iPhone, Razor phone, iPod, Lexus, MB, latest Pentium chips, etc. Only uniquely in the Prius that you get these for FREE, paid for by saving in operating cost of the car.

The Prius is starting to be embarrassed? You need to get your facts straight Daniel. The Polo Bluemotion achieves that level of C02 only thanks to some sacrifices, like no air conditioning. Besides, both the Cooper and Polo are smaller than the Prius.

With the Prius, you're not making any sacrifices. You have all the modern conveniences, luxuries, and options of a regular gasoline car, and you have enough interior room to sit 4 people comfortably as well as put some luggage in the back, and with all that the Prius still manages such great fuel economy and low C02 emissions.

Besides, the Polo Bluemotion and Mini Cooper D are brand new vehicles, while the current Prius has been on the market for almost 5 years now. The next-generation Prius is coming out soon, and that will improve upon the current Prius in many ways.

Not to dwell, but I think Daniel has a good point. You walk into a Toyota showroom and they offer you a top spec Yaris TR D-4D that does an astonishing 64mpg combined with space for 4 or 5, has 150Nm of Torque from almost idle, pumps out 119g CO2/km at 9,995 pounds. The Auris (Corolla) is a little bit more money but you have to take his point that it is significantly less than the 17 grand for the prius.

Yes i know the boot is smaller in both the Yaris and Corolla, but I take his point at the same CO2 output level.

Except that the focus cost UK £13,500 and the Prius UK £17,700. the Prius emits 104g CO2/km and the Focus emits 159g CO2/km. Therefore the it will take Prius over 10 years to recoup it's higher inital cost.

Look - someone's playing a favorite game around here -- Apples and Oranges.

If you're going to make an equal comparison, you need to use a Focus version which is a 5 door hatchback with an automatic transmission with similar performance. The Prius goes 0-100 kmh in 10.9 seconds, so one would need a 145PS 2.0 liter Focus with a 4-speed automatic to hit near that number (10.7 seconds). That vehicle costs £17,795, compared to £18,127 for the Prius. The fuel cost difference between those two vehicles will pay back in about 6,000 miles.

The Focus model you mention goes 0-60 in 13.6 seconds and has a manual transmission. Even choosing that for comparison, the payback from fuel savings is under 60,000 miles.

The Focus also puts out 2-6 times the pollutants.

420 kg and 500 cc engine, thats unbelievable. Then the cost should be only around 10K.

But they should extend the glass further forward.

"420 kg and 500 cc engine, thats unbelievable. Then the cost should be only around 10K."

Believe it, Max, since the Prius 2 is 1300 kg with 1500-cc engine. The ratio is the same. No doubt, the new 500-cc engine will have higher specific hp per displacement, as smaller engines always do in comparison to bigger engines. It's just the law of physics. Smaller engine will turn higher rpm's and can develop more hp for the same piston linear speed.

Daniel Billinton, you said in your comments:

"However, i find it extremely unlikely that the carbon fibre 'body frame' will make it into production. Carbon fibre composiites are a very labour intensive and costly process compared to pressed steel or aluminium panels and not suited to mass production at all.- hence why carbon fibre is only used to save weight on low volume high end supercars and racing cars."

True, but sooner or later, economies of scale eventually would figure into this and lower the price.

Nice try Jack. Did you even read the paragraph on "Recycling" of carbon fiber composites that you referenced.

You reference under the headline Recycling says you can shred carbon fiber structural things like Laptop cases. And try to find find a secondary used for the shreds, like what? Especially when we are talking prodigious quantities like 16 million or more car bodies each of several hundred kilograms, scrapped per year in the USA alone. What use for "shreds" can you envision exactly in the quantities you propose?

If it burns it emits dioxins, which are active cancer causing matériels, last time I Looked. That course of action is not a good green viewpoint, Jack...

Your recycling article turns out to be the same type of re-use that Southeast Asia peasants do for a few scrap tires by cutting the tire tread up to make sandals. Somehow their sandal re-use is dwarfed by the number of scrap tires available. That is not recycling anyways. Technically its called "Tertiary Reuse" in the sustainability Green community.

Instead of melting some 16 million metal car bodies annually for recycling; we are going to make shreds filler for what possible purpose then? To bury in a land fill?

That shred filler isn't very useful as filler for very many uses such as concrete aggregate even; as it adds little strength and adds flammability and poison issues to the resultant concrete.

That also means wunderkinden, that every new carbon fiber car body is an unsustainable one-time-only use of energy and materials.

What kind of sustainable Greens are you anyways? Don't you want to save the World?

.

Stupid baiting no name trollboy...

Takes one to know one, jack :)

Back on topic -

As far as carbon fiber is concerned, I honestly think that in the long term, it is going to be used for bodywork and only a few structurally crucial parts of the car. Even in the most advanced supercars - Ferrari Enzo, for example - the carbon fiber is used in addition to an aluminium honeycomb which forms the foundation for the rest of the chassis.

If carbon fiber becomes more affordable, it would be good to use it for roofs, floors, driveshafts, etc. For slightly less critical stuff like hoods/bonnets, boot/trunk lids, high strength Lexan would be much cheaper, and still offer great weight savings.

Takes one to know one, jack :)

Oh hey - it's Mr. I Make Numbers Up Then Call People Names. Stalking me from thread to thread now that your arguments in one thread have been shown to have no factual basis?

Jack,

"People who live in glass houses..."

I have asked several times, very courteously, for you to simply desist from trolling, and you won't be trolled.

In another post I thanked you personally for a referenced article that you supplied.