Steel Treatment Paves the Way For Radically Lighter, Stronger, Cheaper Cars (gizmag.com)

Zothecula writes: Radically cheaper, quicker and less energy-intensive to produce than regular steel, Flash Bainite is stronger than titanium by weight, and ductile enough to be pressed into shape while cold without thinning or cracking. It's now being tested by three of the world's five largest car manufacturers, who are finding they can produce thinner structural car components that are between 30-50 percent lighter and cheaper than the steel they've been using, while maintaining the same performance is crash tests. Grain of salt: the positive claims here are mostly coming from the company responsible for the process.

Comments

Aka

[Anonymous Coward]

Rearden metal

Re:Aka

[Z00L00K]

What I think of when I see these new thinner steel variants is that they must be a lot more sensitive to rust.

Re:Aka

[danbert8]

Thankfully coatings technology is advancing faster than steel technology. Rust isn't nearly the problem in new cars today as it was before every steel component was coated at the factory.

Re:Aka

[Darwiniac]

Isn't this the same process developed a while ago by academic material scientists who, most likely, were funded by government grants? Not exactly the Randian ideal.

Re:Aka

[sinij]

Coating technology fails around seams and welds, where it is very difficult to apply. Also, coating technology fails around impacts (stone chips or collisions, but also manufacturing where pressing used).

You don't have to look far to see bad cases of rust on modern cars. For example, Mazda 3 are notorious for rusting through.

Re:Aka

[dl_sledding]

Rearden metal

Awesome answer.... Should not have AC'd it.

Re:Aka

[stoatwblr]

"Coating technology fails around seams and welds, where it is very difficult to apply"

Firstly: The coating is generally applied before sheets are pressed (Audi was the first to use galvanised steel, now everyone does it)

Secondly: Electrolytic dunking of the completed bodyshell ensures that every part ends up with protection.

Your Mazda might rust but that's primarily down to the assembly line practices, not the technology.

JDM cars have none of these technologies in the build process as they're designed for a 4-year lifespan and rust literally doesn't matter, whilst the same model built in the UK (or in Japan for export) will have extensive corrosion treatment applied and last 8-15 years before rust starts being an issue.

If it sounds too good to be true...

[Anonymous Coward]

It probably is.

(grain of salt: did not actually read the article)

Re:If it sounds too good to be true...

[Nutria]

Probably. But the US ARMAMENT RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERING CENTER did an evaluation of the process and gave it positive -- but not perfect -- marks in 2011.

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc...

What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

When new, this may perform great. But I guess rust will eat it like any other steel plate. And then it becomes quite important what thickness you started with.

Vajk

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Pentium100]

I'd like it if they used the same thickness as the regular steel, just making the car stronger.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[ArmoredDragon]

Problem with that is you don't gain the benefit of collisions that are probably less dangerous (less kinetic energy is required for movement) and no fuel savings (again, less kinetic energy.)

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[ArylAkamov]

Then you likely have to replace an entire body panel or structural member instead of welding a new piece in, depending on how skilled you are with welding thin metal.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[beelsebob]

Stronger cars are bad - we learned that long ago. What you want is weak (to the point of maximum energy absorption per unit acceleration) cars, and strong survival cells.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

And the kibitzers declare Rearden metal Full of Fail, right on schedule, according to Holy Writ.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, actually, they're saying it's not good to blindly strengthen a vehicle throughout, as that prevents the existing crash structures from working as engineered.

Maintaining the same strength of design is far more important to crash safety with the newer approach of 'ablative' vehicles that purposefully self-shred to dissipate energy, so this new metal will by definition result in lighter cars with thinner material layers in the first iteration or two.

And honestly that's thrilling to me: This means we could very well see cars as light as those from the 80's; at first we'll see SUVs and full-sized vehicles able to lose hundreds of pounds and gain some gas mileage to the point the manufacturers will be forced to re-design things further down the chain until sub-2000-pound vehicles happen regularly again at the cheap end.

- WolfWings, too lazy to login to /. in way too many years.

Re: What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[__aagigi1968]

No,that's want motorists want,what a lot of non car drivers want is car nice n soft and safe on the outside ad the inside full of nasty spikey,sharp,solid things for drivers to try and bounce off,also a ban on the use of seat belts..this will then encourage drivers to drive with other people's safety as their priority ,rather than getting from A-B as fast as possible while relying on modern car tech to keep themselves perfectly safe and fingers crossed for anyone they hit...

Re: What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[silas_moeckel]

Getting from A-B as fast as possible while keeping the driver safe is the purpose of cars.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[angel'o'sphere]

Reminds me at those guys in a german "tank" in Kosovo.

The commander was sitting with his torso half outside of the hatch. They passed a small bridge, something like 5m - 10m, just over a small ditch. The road edge/bridge edge broke away and the tank dropped down like 5m, turning on top of its head.

Obviously the tank commander was a causality.

Not so obvious, the crew as well ... why would anyone strap in inside of a tank?

Why this anecdote is related to the request to make cars stronger ... is left as an exercise to the reader.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Dereck1701]

Making metal parts extremely corrosion resistant is pretty easy, most manufacturers simply choose to go the cheap way to decrease sales prices and increase profits. While I am sure some manufactures would like for their vehicles to fail more quickly to increase their sales due to what has become known as "planned obsolescence". However hopefully they fear the fallout if their vehicles deteriorate too quickly, I think there was a well known instance in the UK where a manufacturer (Lancia I believe) built a car out of cheap metal that rusted quickly and were forced to buy back many of the cars they sold and their loss of reputation in the UK eventually forced them out of that market.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you can weld in a new piece, if you don't give jack shit about crash performance. If you do, then you can't do that on last years cars either.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[fredgiblet]

Because you hate freedom.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[turbidostato]

"When new, this may perform great. But I guess rust will eat it like any other steel plate. And then it becomes quite important what thickness you started with."

Much the better (for them). Programmed obsolescency out of the box. Big win.

Re: What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

If true, then cars would have no sound systems, or sound proofing. Things which add weigh and cost, and don't affect how safe or fast you can get from A-B.

So reality proves you wrong.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because a tank is a vehicle, like a car, but other than than - completely unrelated?

You're comparing a war machine with a high speed vehicle and think there is an apt comparison?
I think you're the one that should do the reading.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Pentium100]

Actually, the front of the car may remain weaker (in the event that I hit a tree), but the rear should be strong (for the event when someone hits my car when I stop to allow a pedestrian to pass). I wouldn't mind the extra fuel consumption to save some of the time it takes to repair my car after such accident.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know how fast tanks go now? They're no longer 'slow.' They're pretty damned speedy.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you want the back of the car to be strong? All the energy will dissipate into the sack of meat behind the wheel if it's too stiff. It's exactly the same principle as you running into a tree.

Also, what happens when a rear tyre blows out, and you enter a spin. Hitting a tree rear end first is still a distinct possibility.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

A causality, you say? I don't think sticking out of the hatch would have caused the bridge to fail.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the front of the car may remain weaker (in the event that I hit a tree), but the rear should be strong (for the event when someone hits my car when I stop to allow a pedestrian to pass). I wouldn't mind the extra fuel consumption to save some of the time it takes to repair my car after such accident.

Well then, I hope you don't (or do I?) ever bump into a tree while driving backwards. Or hit a tree with the back of your car while spinning out of control.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

the rear should be strong (for the event when someone hits my car when I stop to allow a pedestrian to pass).

So you want the back to be strong so that when you're rear-ended, the energy of the collision is passed on to the front of your vehicle, which may not crumple once the force is more spread out, and the ultimately into the pedestrian you stopped for? You want the rear to crumple for the same reasons the front to do so, so that occupants will experience a lower acceleration from the impact. This will also make it more difficult to break static friction, meaning your car will do a better job of staying in place.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're comparing a war machine with a high speed vehicle and think there is an apt comparison?

So if a very strong vehicle doesn't protect occupants at what you claim is a slow speed, how do you expect slightly and blindly strengthening a weaker vehicle will help at higher speeds? Do you also think people dying because they didn't use their seatbelt at 50 mph is completely irrelevant to faster travel?

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Balthisar]

We can't be too cheap, though. There are certain markets with a mandatory 10 year corrosion warranty requirement, for example. And there are other areas that are pretty much desert all year long. Depending on the particular destination market, we absolutely do build cars differently. In the vast majority of cases the processes are identical (e.g., ecoating, sealing, paint), but we'll use different coating weights (maybe bare for the Middle East, and 50g/cm^2 for Europe) on particular parts (e.g., the roof panel). Coatings (hot dipped, electro-galvanized, etc.) are really just an insurance policy. Sealing and ecoat are obviously the biggest contributors to sheet metal life, as well as drainage.

This latter is something people don't think about often. Your modern car has all sorts of intentional drainage areas that stop your car from rusting. Unless they get plugged up. Then dirty water accumulates, and it's not pure, clean water. It's stuff that will eat through paint and start causing premature corrosion problems.

We don't have to be vain about washing our cars, but washing our cars (especially in winter if snowy/salty environment) is just as much about making sure all of these drains stay free as it is about making the car look nice. And I mean a full, spray wash, not just a bucket wash on the exterior surfaces.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[solidraven]

I'll warm up the radio broadcast tower. Hope you finished your 70 page speech that doesn't cause people to fall asleep.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Pentium100]

No, I want the front of the other car to crumple.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Pentium100]

Well then, I hope you don't (or do I?) ever bump into a tree while driving backwards

I drive backwards at most probably 5km/h. The reason is that the car is more difficult to control and driving backwards usually happens in a parking lot or somewhere else where there is no space for acceleration.

However, the more I think about it, the more I realize that I probably would want my car to be brittle. That is, it should be sturdy enough to not be damaged in low speed collisions (I'd take a small bump on the head over a damaged car because the bump will heal by itself), but if the collision is high speed, then the car should be damaged (a lot) so I am not damaged (as much).

Most collisions where I live happen in cities, they are low speed collisions something like 40km/h at most (since whoever hits the other car usually tries to stop first). Then there are very high speed accidents where you would probably have to fill the car with bubblewrap for the driver to survive (head-to-head collision with a lorry, both cars at 90km/h for example, getting hit by a train, hitting a lamp post sideways with enough force to throw the engine 10 meters). .

Oh, I figured it out now...
I want two cars - one regular strength with the crumple zones etc for driving outside the city at higher speeds and one very strong car with thick metal and top speed of ~60km/h for driving inside the city at 50km/h). When going to other cities I would obviously need to use the weaker car, but that doesn't matter, I do not go to other cities often.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

And they're designed to demolish everything they go through at full speed
Imagine if cars were designed like this, the roads would be so peaceful!

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is how the occupants of the car/house they hit at 50mph come out of it - if the car is built as strong as a tank.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

The other car is a truck, it won't crumple no matter how much you want it to.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Pentium100]

In that case, if I get hit by a truck and my car is pushed on the pedestrian, the truck driver will be liable, not me. So, I want my car to be damaged just enough to absorb enough of the energy for the remaining energy to give me a some injuries (that would fully heal by themselves).

Isn't it possible to engineer a material (may not be iron, but something else) that stays stiff and does not dent if the force is below a certain threshold and absorbs energy by deforming or braking if the force was above that threshold? My car was hit by another regular car (not a truck) and the speed was not that high (the other driver was making a right turn at an intersection and did not see me stopped just before the pedestrian crossing), but they had to weld a new rear end to my car (the original one was pretty rusty and weaker than it should have been, but since this is an older car, the "weaker than it should have been" is probably comparable to the strength of latest cars). I almost wish they would weld a thick I-beam or T-beam in the place of the bumper (for the next time), but it would make the car look ugly.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really, Its just that people don't want to wear good seatbelts, have good seats and wear helmets. How much crumple zones are there on a Nascar?

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Mockylock]

"Stronger" isn't exactly worse when less material and more efficient manufacturing processes are in place. The rigidity should essentially stay the same with less weight. The problem, as you pointed out, is corrosion. With less material comes more risk of compromising rigidity. I suppose this isn't an issue in some places, but where I live it's a big deal.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Carewolf]

No, I want the front of the other car to crumple.

Yes, but what if the other car is owned by another moron like you that want the other car (in this case YOUR car) to be the one that crumples?

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is incorrect. You want strong cars, but also want engineered failure points. Old cars were strong without no engineering for failure. This meant the occupants absorbed the full force of impacts. Traditionally, engineered failure points are called crumple zones. Stronger cars which are properly engineered means safer occupants because the area protecting the occupants are strong, preventing foreign intrusion whereas the crumple zones absorb impact, preventing energy from passing to the occupants. This is why roll cages are, to this day, required safety equipment in most motor sports. Furthermore, stronger materials means less mass is required to achieve the same strength. This results in lower energies involved in crashes. This is good for all involved.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[matfud]

An awful lot. Pretty much everything outside the roll cage is a crumple zone. Apart from the engine. The roll cage is also smaller then the exterior of the car so there are crumple zones around the sides too.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[sinij]

Interestingly enough, this will make aluminum use in the cars niche again. Too bad for Ford, that made big investment into production.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[hey!]

Oh, for Pete's sake; being an automotive engineer doesn't automatically mean you're an idiot. You make the various parts of the car as strong as they need to be, but you make them lighter. Or if the car is somehow too light to be safe (e.g. in a car vs. car head-on), then you spend the weight you saved on something else that makes a difference.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it possible to engineer a material (may not be iron, but something else) that stays stiff and does not dent if the force is below a certain threshold and absorbs energy by deforming or braking if the force was above that threshold?

Yes - this is entirely possible. And it has been done already. My car is not made from steel plate. ABS plastic plates hang on a steel frame. The plastic don't dent unless hit with enough force to crack it. Which came in handy in a collision with a steel car of the same size. The steel car got a dent 10-20cm deep - as ugly as any crashed car. My car had no damage,except for the metal licence plate that got deformed. ABS plates bend a fair amount - and spring back when the force is removed. A harder crash might crack the plates - and deform the frame.

A car that don't dent at all from small accidents (like reversing into a pole or another car while parking) is trivially easy to make. But most car manufacturers don't want that - they want money from maintenance. Which is why they make bumpers "integrated" into the front plates, and put paint on the bumpers too. So now they get a paint job for the smallest of trivial accidents :-(

If a plastic car seems too radical - just add real bumpers. Bumpers that can take a full-force kick or a low-speed collision without denting or scratching. A technology perfected long ago - only to be discontinued in the eighties or so in order to "increase revenue" from repairs.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't hunt down any Red Barchettas with those big alloy things. Someones uncle will be p*ssed

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[angel'o'sphere]

Well, I'm pretty sure the tank had no dent ... but all of the crew where dead. .they only had to remove the blood inside.

Go figure ...

Or read the other replies to your 'stupid reply' :)

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm pretty sure the tank had no dent ... but all of the crew where dead. .they only had to remove the blood inside.

Go figure ...

Or read the other replies to your 'stupid reply' :)

Your reply is the misinformed one, unless you're one of these people that believe you should be the only one driving a heavy armored vehicle, so if you're in a collision, you'll walk away, not even looking back at the mangled bodies you just drove through?

You have an extremely strong and secure cell, with seatbelts that the occupants are in, and the rest of the body/metal around you is designed to crumple to take the impact of the force and dissipate a lot of it.

Curiously, what do you think would have happened if these tank operators had had seat belts and went full speed (50mph) into an object that is both immovable and much more solid than they are?

This is one of the scenarios that car manufacturers build their cars for.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[stoatwblr]

We've gone from strong bodyshells to weak to "strong in places".

5th gear in the UK ran some interesting crash tests comparing structural rigidity of things like older and newer model Renault Espace.

The newer model deformed and crushed in precise zones, protecting the occupants whilst avoiding damaging deceleration.
The older one folded up like a drinks can, offering little protection to the front seat occupants.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[matfud]

Nascar even have non flammable foam inserts around the sides to help cushion any impact.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[matfud]

And those comments are from someone who knows not what or why NASCAR exists. Just a brief glance at Wikipedia will answer those questions. It may also explain why F1 cars seem to disintegrate when they crash, but the drivers get out and walk away. Did you know that there are additional cables holding the wheels on to F1 cars so when they do have an accident the hubs and wheels remain loosely attached to the body. You do not want to kill the paying punters in the audience.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[See Attached]

At what point does the "lightness" and "Stiffness" become a liability? At some point, it could get to be a Superball.... The structure has to crumple predictably, and not sacrifice the passengers living space. OTOH, the weight savings for things like engines and transmissions might be great... there is no real benefit to a heavy powertrain. WHeels come to mind.. But ... OP brings p the point.. What is the corrosion pattern for this material? Wouild calcium chloride spell the demise of this material? I look at the shards of rusty steel dropping from my Ranger and has sad.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[beelsebob]

Yeh, next time you see a sports car crash, watch how much of it sacrifices itself to saving the survival cell. In fact, screw it, lets make this the next time you see a sports car crash...

https://youtu.be/eP1_POQPJVw?t...

Notice how the car pretty much self destructs, but leaves the survival cell 100% in tact. Result, a driver that walks out of a 300km/h crash.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[matfud]

The treated steel is only 7% stronger then the steel currently used. However it maintains its strength under cold pressing better. So you can have complex folded/bent/formed structures that are far far stronger then the mild steel equivalent.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[RockDoctor]

It doesn't work like that.

So, you have a nice crumple zone at the front, and a rigid back end to the car. Safety cell in the middle to protect the passengers.

You now have someone rear-end you. The bull-bar at the back takes the impact and transmits the loads to the stiff structure of the back end of the car. This protects your (non-structural) panels and bodywork and transfers the loads to the passenger cell. The passenger cell may need to deform to reduce the accelerations imparted to the passengers - this is what safety cells are intended to do. So you now have a car which has an undamaged back end and is being scrapped because of the deformation of the passenger cell.

Or you could move the loads further forward and have your rear-end shunt deform the front suspension and engine mountings. Same result - rear end shunt = scrapped car.

They do actually design vehicles this way. Because it is profitable. For the car supply chain.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[matfud]

They are called bumpers. They can handle up to about a 5 mph crash. More then that and they transfer the energy into the crumple zones of the car to keep idiots like you alive.
Best hope that the person who drives in to your car does not have lifted suspension and bull bars or you may find that your head is rolling around on the other side of the street..

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[matfud]

Probably the best example of why cars disintegrate
.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[matfud]

He did have a sprained ankle. But that is trivial after hitting a concrete barrier at 190 mph. There is a lot of engineering that goes into all cars. Not just F1 or nascar. That enables people to walk away from a serious accident.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't have to be thinner in order to be as strong and lighter. It could be also narrower ;) If it were, then it would be even relatively more corrosion resistant as it would not have so big surface area to collect rust. Though the rust was also my first idea as well before RTFA-ing.
Indeed it would be best if the part were designed from ground up with the new material in mind.

Re:What happens when corrosion eats 0.01in of it?

[Agripa]

And honestly that's thrilling to me: This means we could very well see cars as light as those from the 80's; at first we'll see SUVs and full-sized vehicles able to lose hundreds of pounds and gain some gas mileage to the point the manufacturers will be forced to re-design things further down the chain until sub-2000-pound vehicles happen regularly again at the cheap end.

The ironic part about this is that manufacturers deliberately *add* weight to their vehicles so that they can meet lesser requirements for mileage.

My neighbor and I had the same "light" pickup truck built around 2002 but he sold his and bought the new current replacement for it. Close examination of the two vehicles showed that his was made just heavier enough to remain in the "work" vehicle catagory for newer vehicles with a lower required mileage. So the government is encouraging heavier vehicles which are less fuel efficient.

Lateral aerodynamics

[Dutchmaan]

While light is wonderful for fuel efficiency, I'm finding that with each new generation of car I drive, strong lateral gusts of wind tend to pose more of a problem while driving. This is purely conjecture of course, but I just don't remember having these troubles in the past, where it's harder to immediately compensate for a sudden strong gust of wind that can literally alter your cars course in an instant.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm. It's more of a back to the future thing : does anyone have experience driving 60's VW van in a crosswind ?

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[zAPPzAPP]

Don't worry, they will find ways to fill up the free weight with more stuff.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[justcauseisjustthat]

Sooo true on smaller cars, lateral gusts and the turbulence created by large trucks.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they were right in the 50's. "A heavy car holds the road better." Not.
It has a lot to do with the location of the center of gravity with respect to the aerodynamic center of pressure. When you encounter a lateral gust, the car is pushed sideways by the wind. If the center of gravity is not at the same longitudinal location as the aerodynamic center of pressure, a rotational torque is generated as well. If the CP is slightly behind the CG the torque will rotate (weathervane) the car into the wind, canceling the side load. The car will be perturbed slightly but won't dart out of the lane. In the opposite case, the torque will rotate the car away from the wind, adding to the side load. This is what made the VW bus such a white-knuckle experience on a windy day.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[DesertNomad]

Stop driving with your knees while texting.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[LynnwoodRooster]

It's really not an issue - be loose, don't jerk the wheel fast, go with the flow. It's what we motorcyclists have been doing since the beginning. Sidewinds and big rig trailers - not really an issue once you trust the wheels to keep you upright.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[TClevenger]

While light is wonderful for fuel efficiency, I'm finding that with each new generation of car I drive, strong lateral gusts of wind tend to pose more of a problem while driving. This is purely conjecture of course, but I just don't remember having these troubles in the past, where it's harder to immediately compensate for a sudden strong gust of wind that can literally alter your cars course in an instant.

Well, given that cars are heavier today than the same model from 30 years ago, I'd guess that the problem is that cars are taller than they used to be and present a larger side profile to crosswinds.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[Hognoxious]

Try a Citroen 2CV. You have to brace your elbows against your body when a bike passes you.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[louden obscure]

I don't recall problems with cross winds while motoring about in my '68 bus, but damn headwinds often kept me to a sedate 45 MPH with the pedal mashed to the floor.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[Rei]

A car's vulnerability to lateral gusts is a combination of not just its mass, but also its cross section and its lateral drag coefficient. Unfortunately the effects of winds not directly aligned forward/backwards are often ignored on cars, which is unfortunate - even ignoring gusts, you can have a very streamlined car whose drag coefficient goes to heck because it starts facing crosswinds. Part of that stream that you're working so hard to keep laminar and attached suddenly plunges off over the edge of your car in an uncontrolled manner and detaches - that's not a good thing, and it doesn't take that strong of winds to happen! It's something that's starting to get increasing attention, and hopefully will even moreso in the future - because a car's vulnerability to gusts and its fuel economy are tied together in the real world, particularly in windy areas. Some well-placed vortex generators over the doors for example could really help with both, maybe a sort of horizontal kammback approach as well.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[kesuki]

there is a little thing that i recall from the 1980's called a 'spoiler' that gives more stability in high winds. and can be motorized, and automated for 'eco' mode driving vs, detected turbulence. in the 80's it was needed to get a car over a certain speed i am too lazy to look up the exact speed though.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[CrimsonAvenger]

Well, given that cars are heavier today than the same model from 30 years ago

Odd. Just checked the Lincoln Continental randomly, and its weight is half to three-quarter ton lighter than it was when I was a kid....

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

My guess is that you didn't even drive close to current speeds back then. Driving 60mph on a 30 year old car compared to a 10 year old one is a big difference.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct in theory.
In practice, the problem on those old VWs wasn't primarily longitudinal CoG/CoP alignment - it was positive roll steer from the horrible front suspension geometry combined with a large vertical CoG/CoP offset.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[viperidaenz]

Don't forget suspension geometry.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[guruevi]

Even the later 80's ones (they're all the same general box-shape) had that problem. Power steering eventually solved that in later models. Modern VW's even have steering correction so you can jump over a bump and your car will go where you are steering (not where your wheels are turning).

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

My dad called those volksie buses a 27-72. For 27 mph up hill and 72 mph down hill.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[MightyYar]

This is why I only drive directly into the wind.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

Whilst it steers you into oncoming traffic?
I think the poster was pointing out that it alters your path, not blows you off the road.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[TClevenger]

Odd. Just checked the Lincoln Continental randomly, and its weight is half to three-quarter ton lighter than it was when I was a kid....

I was referring to the small cars that the OP was talking about, but actually, the 2015 Continental is about the same or slightly heavier than a 30-year-old (1985) Continental.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

The Lincoln Continental was discontinued in 1980 and replaced with a new smaller car of the same name. Cars that started smaller and grew are more likely. Check a '70s Toyota Corolla and today, or a Ford Mustang, from 2500 to 3500 lbs between the '60s and today.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[thegarbz]

I picked a car at random too, Golf Mk2 was ~950kg, Golf Mk7 is 1250kg.

The smaller cars got heavier, and the larger cars have gotten smaller (not just lighter). But if you want to really stack the examples, a 60s era Austin Mini weighs 630kg, a current Mini Cooper weights 1200kg.

Cars have changed in all sorts of ways.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[oobayly]

Smaller cars have got heavier because they've gotten a bigger, but they've become less dense. It's happened to every small car out there, Fiesta, KA, Golf, Polo, Ibiza. Models get bigger, and they keep on coming up with a new small model to fill the gap. One explanation is that people tend to stick with what they know, but as they get older, they want and can afford a bigger car.

For example:
Golf mk2 : 3,985 mm x 1,665 mm - 910kg
Golf mk7: 4,255 mm x 1799mm - 1250kg

I can't think of any large cars that have gotten smaller. The current Range Rover is a monster (the Range Rover Sport is more similar to the original). A current 3-series is bigger than a 7-series from the 80s. Have you seen an 1993 E-class, beside a current one? In my opinion, car (or at least model) sizes are going one direction - up.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[jabuzz]

I doubt the majority of the extra mass is down to just the size. Making a car a few centimetres wider and longer will add a few kg at most because the while bigger it is mostly air you are looking at. The height being the most extreme example as you are just adding mass at the pillars.

The extra weight is coming from all the safety features. All those side impact bars and the like, along with all the electronic systems modern cars have. Even the tyres on a modern car are heavier than in the past. We have gone from skinny things to huge fat things. A classic Mini is something like a 165/60 R12 while a new Mini is a 195/60 R16.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[ChrisMaple]

Additional factors include the relative positions of the CoP and the center of the wheelbase, and the size of the wheelbase.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not your imagination. There's more wind now due to global warming.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[thegarbz]

In my opinion, car (or at least model) sizes are going one direction - up.

Individual models may, but the question is what are people driving? If I look at the road now compared to the 60s cars on the whole have most definitely gotten smaller. Even the famed Hummer now comes in several significantly smaller sizes than the classic of old. This gives the large models room to grow without cutting into the underlying revenue

Now that should be geographically qualified. America has an insane amount of huge cars so much so that we were joking that the first car we'll see coming out of the airport would be a Dodge Ram, Ford F350, or a Hummer. The joke became a bit real when it was the Dodge Ram and even more real when we realised that they were available in 6 wheel models in the USA.

Re:Lateral aerodynamics

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoken like a non-California driver.

You try compensating for straightline winds that are higher than 120MPH hitting your car suddenly while you're on the freeway, sending you from the HOV lane into the exit lane before you can react.

lighter, stronger, cheaper ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to love spin, more likely: Cars can be made at about the same strength with less material, thereby being cheaper to produce. But manufacturers will then charge you a premium for the benefits of a car that is "lighter" to even further increase profits.

Re:lighter, stronger, cheaper ...

[Tanktalus]

Right. Because all the manufacturers are colluding for higher prices, and won't try to compete with each other on improved price. All it takes is one of the big manufacturers to see an edge, and prices will drop. You won't see it from the #1 brand, most likely, but the #2 or #3 brand will see it as an opportunity to improve marketshare, and then the rest will have to keep up.

Re:lighter, stronger, cheaper ...

[gumbi west]

this is actually about fuel efficiency, not production cost. I'd bet it would cost (quite a bit) more given what a hard sell the manufacturer is making.

Re:lighter, stronger, cheaper ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet most of the increase in the price of new cars over the past 15 years has been the decline in the value of the dollar. It has helped prop up the stock market, even though everything costs a lot more than it did in the 90s. And wages have 'gone up' about the same amount, so it isn't like workers are really making more money now either...

Re:lighter, stronger, cheaper ...

[Anonymous Coward]

All it takes is one of the big manufacturers to see an edge, and prices will drop.

Therein lies the rub. Someone has to see an edge first. They have to 'see' that a huge capital investment will improve revenue in the next couple of quarters by more than the capital expense writedown. Good luck with that.

Sounds awesome, hopefully corrosion resistant

[justcauseisjustthat]

If it isn't corrosion resistant and brings a cars life expectancy down, it will be a big issue in the car industry. But look to bikes and industrial assembly lines for positive impact.

Re:Sounds awesome, hopefully corrosion resistant

[Anonymous Coward]

That's just positive for car manufacturers. When you have to buy a new car every year, that's a sweeeet sweeeet spot right there.

Re:Sounds awesome, hopefully corrosion resistant

[Anonymous Coward]

It will also be amazing tool for the construction industry.

Re:Sounds awesome, hopefully corrosion resistant

[phantomfive]

There are things you can do......some manufacturers put plastic along the bottom edge of the car, where the cars are most likely to corrode. And of course, you can always paint the car.

All in all, if you can find a way to make cars lighter, that's a huge win for agility, speed, and fuel economy. It's a good thing.

Re:Sounds awesome, hopefully corrosion resistant

[Anonymous Coward]

Auto makers know, if they try this, smaller players (korea/china/india) will take advantage and undercut them on price while maintaining decent reliability.

The real sweet spot is maximizing profit-per-consumer, which often means selling a lot of cars with finance plans luxury extended warranties. It doesn't necessarily mean selling more cars per person per year.

Now, some of these extended luxury warranties should probably be banned since they're often pure profit for the company, but that's another matter.

Re:Sounds awesome, hopefully corrosion resistant

[turbidostato]

"The real sweet spot is maximizing profit-per-consumer"

That's usually right and it is called "Customer Lifetime Value" or CLV for short.

But then, you have to compound it with post-Reagan era corporate politics: on cars, CLV may extend for decades while CEO terms are not, so you will see strategies in place that maximize short term profits even if that will cost dearly to the company in the long run. For a starter, you'll see car builders, and moreso those at midrange-premium (i.e. Germans BMW/Mercs/Porsche) more interested in gaining customers from their competitors than retaining current customers (as it happens in all mature global markets, i.e. also mobile telecom, after all, all of them get their MBAs from the same business schools).

"which often means selling a lot of cars with finance plans luxury extended warranties."

That's a different business, and also one shared in other mature markets: they are financial banks in disguise of telecoms or car builders -too much money from the math-unsavvy mobs to let it go.

Re:Sounds awesome, hopefully corrosion resistant

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations AC. You got post #51111111. Only your IP address can see this post. Email support@slashdot.org to collect your prize from Dice.com!

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[ArmoredDragon]

Actually cow belching plays a bigger role than the farts do:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...

My forecast

[Anonymous Coward]

This will come to nothing. In a few months time, nobody will remember it. Come on, prove me wrong; make an idiot of me.

Worked with this material

[Anonymous Coward]

I did some graduate work with this company (I'm a Welding Engineer) and it is indeed interesting, but I realllllly wish they would stop calling it Flash Bainite. There is 0% bainite structure in the material, it can only form with slower heating/cooling rates. Call it "flashite" or something else. The problem with the material is as soon as you heat the material back up you lose all of the bonus properties. Right now all of the panels/pieces that automotive would look to replace with this have lots of spot/mig welds on them, so those areas would be much weaker after the fastening work was done.

Re:Worked with this material

[gweihir]

And there this "magic" metal loses its magic. Not a surprise. As so many other "revolutionary" technologies, it may or may not find a niche. It will not change the game anytime soon.

Re:Worked with this material

[Anonymous Coward]

Un-repairable cars. Automotive industry gonna love this.

Re:Worked with this material

[ColdWetDog]

I did some graduate work with this company (I'm a Welding Engineer) and it is indeed interesting, but I realllllly wish they would stop calling it Flash Bainite. There is 0% bainite structure in the material, it can only form with slower heating/cooling rates. Call it "flashite" or something else. The problem with the material is as soon as you heat the material back up you lose all of the bonus properties. Right now all of the panels/pieces that automotive would look to replace with this have lots of spot/mig welds on them, so those areas would be much weaker after the fastening work was done.

If they just called it 'Flash' we would really hate it.

Re:Worked with this material

[Firethorn]

Right now all of the panels/pieces that automotive would look to replace with this have lots of spot/mig welds on them, so those areas would be much weaker after the fastening work was done.

Not to downplay your area of expertise, but note that you said 'right now'. Right now these pieces have lots of welds on them, but that's because it's the best option with current technology. There are alternative attachment methods. Bolts, screws, epoxy, slots, etc... Each has their own advantages and downsides.

Or they could just have the weld spots be thicker to accept the weld/lowered strength, while the majority of the part/panel is thinner.

Re:Worked with this material

[Anonymous Coward]

Modern adhesives may be able to help with that in certain circumstances.

Re:Worked with this material

[endoboy]

two possibilities:
    1) you're making it up
    2) you just violated the NDA that you signed

Re:Worked with this material

[Rei]

Couldn't they just have the pieces be locally thicker in the locations where there's going to be spot welds to account for the localized weaknesses?

Re:Worked with this material

[Anonymous Coward]

2) you just violated the NDA that you signed

There is a slashdot post about it, with a link to a press release.
I'm pretty sure the NDA doesn't extend to information made public.
It would be very hard for people still working there to get any actual work done if that was the case.
It would be particularly rough on the marketing department.

Re:Worked with this material

[Anonymous Coward]

How hot are we talking about? Would a car languishing in the sun in death valley in middle of summer for several days be enough to weaken it?

Re:Worked with this material

[Overzeetop]

So a bit like tempered or strain hardened aluminum. Weld it and *boom* all your strength gains are gone.

Most people not familiar with Aluminum look at the numebers, and the corrosion resistance, and are thrilled. Then they weld up something they like and bring it to me to tell them that it's strong enough for whatever project they're working on. I've actually had people (almost) yelling at me that their 6061-T6 handrail was just fine. Until we broke one for them, right at the welded base. At 1/3 of the required load.

Re:Worked with this material

[guruevi]

The problem in cars is the vibration. It's even evident on circuit board manufacturing for cars. Bolts and screws all have the problem that they vibrate lose, epoxy the same thing (it cracks), slots and epoxy also come apart with any type of warping (eg. impact) while bolts and screws can easily sheer through metal in those situations (they act as a really dull knife). Welding and soldering are the only methods that results in an equal or higher strength than doing it in one piece.

A metal that you can't weld or solder is unusable for most manufacturing processes that require the end product to sustain any type of force or impact. Even after the fact, how are you going to repair a car you can't use a torch on (rusty engine bolt results in the entire car becoming unstable).

Re:Worked with this material

[Firethorn]

(rusty engine bolt results in the entire car becoming unstable).

Well, I'd imagine since this process is heat sensitive, you wouldn't be using it on parts that may become hot like the engine itself.

As for the rest, there's a reason I said 'downsides'. Still, we're doing some amazing stuff with other options. For example, despite it being vibration central, we can keep bolts from loosening in the engine itself. Most of the problems can be worked around.

Re:Worked with this material

[Anonymous Coward]

I checked and there is a Ph.D in Welding Engineering at Ohio State. They appear to be the only one in the country. There is a non-thesis MS program as well.

Re:Worked with this material

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy who knows better than the person with the degree. As always.

Re:Worked with this material

[Anonymous Coward]

What NDA? You sign perpetual NDAs that say you can't ever speak about anything you've ever seen? No time limits, even if they are publicly released? Sounds like an illegal NDA.

Re:Worked with this material

[Balthisar]

How's the weldability compared to, say, DP600, or boron? Resistance welding in particular. We test "super materials" from time to time, and they're often challenging in mass production. One of the linked articles mentioned good weldability but presented no data, and of course if the material is highly dependent on the heat treating method, I'm curious what affect introducing welding heat has on the interface and the heat affected zone. Do we introduce weakness every time we weld? (Of course good body design accounts for welding surfaces, even when weakened.)

(Auto welding manufacturing engineer here, but I've not been asked to assess this stuff yet.)

I glanced through one of the linked articles, and according to one of the labels on the TEM there's bainite content. I'm not a metallurgist though and the image was quite low quality, so I only saw the label and didn't recognize any structure. Since you've actually touched the stuff, I'll take your word for it, though.

Re:Worked with this material

[thegarbz]

epoxy the same thing (it cracks), slots and epoxy also come apart with any type of warping (eg. impact)

And yet there's several well known performance cars which are epoxied and not welded as the primary method of holding together the chassis.

Don't pretend that this is an insurmountable problem. It's like those people who say you can't use Aluminium for cars despite the existence of several Aluminium cars on the road.

Re:Worked with this material

[Anonymous Coward]

This is so wrong it's ridiculous.

You realize aircraft have even more severe vibration requirements than passenger cars and they get by just fine with fasteners and adhesives? The Dreamliner is nearly all composite - which you can't weld - and yet it was somehow made airworthy....

Welding is certainly not the only way to attach 2 pieces of metal reliably.

Re:Worked with this material

[LienRag]

Not Steel-10 then, maybe more like Steel-3?

So will be get a 30% heavier

[future assassin]

feeling in our wallets?

Sounds like BS

[gweihir]

If it was this easy, others would have found this long ago. Hence it likely is not. That "major manufacturers" are testing it says exactly nothing. Manufacturers are testing all kinds of new material all the time, with 99.9...9% not panning out.

Re:Sounds like BS

[Anonymous Coward]

that is the dumbest statement on slashdot all day. if it were this easy the native americans would have figured out the wheel long ago! everything is easy in hindsight dipshit.

Aluminium

[Budgreen]

This is a fight by big steel to try to stop the conversion to aluminum based parts, because its cheaper.

Re:Aluminium

[Nutria]

by big steel

Nope. A lone inventor.

to try to stop the conversion to aluminum based parts, because its cheaper.

Where's the problem? Competition spurs advancement.

Re: Aluminium

[Budgreen]

There is no problem with competition.

But if you dig into how its being handled its pretty harsh all around. Automotive market is huge.

Re:Aluminium

[Rei]

While 30mpg isn't impressive, you shouldn't do the fallacy of comparing euro mileage figures with US mileage figures. Here's the three common errors:

1) (UK only): Imperial gallons are larger than US gallons.
2) (All europe): The NEDC is a more lax driving cycle than the EPA cycles and generally yields figures that are about 15% better.
3) (Diesels only): Europe uses diesels far more than the US. While diesel engines are indeed higher efficiency than gasoline engines, it's not as much as a direct MPG comparison would suggest - diesel is also a denser fuel than gasoline, aka you burn more mass of fuel per gallon that you burn. While that's irrelevant in terms of the price one pays at the pump, if what one cares about is CO2 emissions or the consequences of oil production, then it is relevant.

But back to the original case... no, 30mpg is not at all impressive this day in age.... even US 30mpg gasoline.

Re:Aluminium

[Anonymous Coward]

While 30mpg isn't impressive, you shouldn't do the fallacy of comparing euro mileage figures with US mileage figures. Here's the three common errors:

1) (UK only): Imperial gallons are larger than US gallons.

Which I covered.

2) (All europe): The NEDC is a more lax driving cycle than the EPA cycles and generally yields figures that are about 15% better.

OK, so my eurobox would only get 43 mpg. Still better than 30.

3) (Diesels only): Europe uses diesels far more than the US. While diesel engines are indeed higher efficiency than gasoline engines, it's not as much as a direct MPG comparison would suggest - diesel is also a denser fuel than gasoline, aka you burn more mass of fuel per gallon that you burn. While that's irrelevant in terms of the price one pays at the pump, if what one cares about is CO2 emissions or the consequences of oil production, then it is relevant.

And so we get to the nub. Diesel is actually easier to produce than gasoline. The CO2 produced per unit weight is also better in Diesel engine.

But back to the original case... no, 30mpg is not at all impressive this day in age.... even US 30mpg gasoline.

So it appears you agree with me. Enjoy your -1.

Re:Aluminium

[Overzeetop]

In the OP's defense, he's driving a 6 cylinder, 3 liter engine that's 13 years old and is probably cranking in the neighborhood of 250 peak horsepower. I'm going to venture a guess that's more than twice what yours produces. Not that it needs it (or even half of it), but for what it is, it's not a bad metric.

Re:Aluminium

[Anonymous Coward]

...is probably cranking in the neighborhood of 250 peak horsepower.

How often?
American buys over-specced model because all the ads tell him he's not a real man unless he does. Movie at eleven.

Re:Aluminium

[PPH]

Oh, I've seen beemer drivers. They use that power quite often.

Re:Aluminium

[TechyImmigrant]

...is probably cranking in the neighborhood of 250 peak horsepower.

How often?
American buys over-specced model because all the ads tell him he's not a real man unless he does. Movie at eleven.

I got my 350z because I like convertibles with high power/weight ratios. It can't have been the ads, because I don't remember watching car ads since cutting the cord a few years ago.

Re:Aluminium

[Anonymous Coward]

the poster is proud of being too poor to afford gasoline. my car uses more gas per mile and it is okay because gas is affordable and a cheap econobox is not what I want to drive. if I wanted to drive a piece of shit car with fading paint, failing trim, and crap handling then that is what I'd buy. they're literally proud of owning an inferior car and think this makes their penis bigger. some of us just enjoy luxury and style and driving something that is fun to drive because we don't have to worry about our genitalia size. the dude's obviously got an inferiority complex or he'd have not brought up his car and how he felt it was better. yes, we can all afford to buy a shitbox if we want a shitbox but some of us would rather have something that is quality and going to last. i can buy shoes from walmart or bass. which do you think i prefer?

Re:Aluminium

[Rei]

So it appears you agree with me. Enjoy your -1.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was talking with an asshole, someone who would take a post where clearly no offense was meant and turn it into personal attacks.

The CO2 produced per unit weight is also better in Diesel engine.

This was accounted for in "while diesel engines are indeed higher efficiency". Usually in the ballpark of 15-20% for typical passenger vehicles in normal driving. The rest of the difference is generally the fuel density difference.

Diesel is actually easier to produce than gasoline.

It of course depends on the feedstock - some feedstocks have more light fractions (gasoline) while others have more heavy fractions (diesel). But indeed heavier fractions are more common and usually a bit cheaper, so they're used more commonly at present. I believe that the US average is currently around 9% of the feedstock's energy value is spent in the conversion to diesel vs. 15% for gasoline. But these numbers vary from year to year and it's been a while since I checked them last.

As for the future, the trend could go in either direction. Feedstocks like Venezuelan ultra heavy and Canadian bitumen naturally lend themselves toward heavier fuel oil fractions like diesel. On the other hand, synfuels generally naturally lend themselves toward lighter fractions like gasoline. So the question is where we'll get our oil from in the future.

Re:Aluminium

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was talking with an asshole, someone who would take a post where clearly no offense was meant and turn it into personal attacks.

I wasn't attacking you.

Re:Aluminium

[Rei]

Then what is "Enjoy your -1" supposed to mean?

Re:This is good news... apk

[gweihir]

There is a sucker born every minute...

Aluminium

[Anonymous Coward]

How does it compare to the aircraft grade aluminium used in cars for weight, strength and corrosion resistance? My BMW 530i (2002 E39) body is mostly aluminium and doesn't rust, is plenty strong and is right at 4000 lbs with me behind the wheel for a standard sized four door sedan. I get 30 MPG out of it as well. If this stuff is cheaper to produce than aluminium and offers the same corrosion resistance, strength and weight, maybe it will be good for the iron/steel industry.

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[harperska]

Aren't cows carbon neutral, though? Since they are not producing carbon through gastro-fusion, all the carbon they fart and belch must first be ingested in the form of plants which obtained their carbon by extracting it from the atmosphere.

It is taking its time, early reports from 2011

[RichMan]

Earlier reports came out in 2011
http://www.gizmag.com/stronger...

Claims less energy inputs, less expensive equipment to make and shape and stronger results.
If the money savings and benefits are there I would have expected it to have been scooped up and monetized by now. Unless there are real IP issues preventing it from getting accepted.

Drat! I was imagining maglev cars on steel roads

[crepe-boy]

How many others mis-read this as promising a steel pavement, and thus levitating vehicles.

healthy skepticism

[xx_chris]

Material science is definitely not my area but the only articles I can find on this revolutionary process are in GizMag.

http://www.gizmag.com/stronger...
http://www.gizmag.com/flash-ba...

There is a patent application from 2008:

https://patents.google.com/pat...

But then there is a .mil evaluation:

http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc...

Could easily be legit

[Solandri]

Most of the recent advances in metallurgy are coming from amorphous solids. Normally metals form crystalline grains. I know, it's weird to think of metals as crystals, but if you slice them and look at them under a microscope, they're grains of metal crystals of uniform atomic arrangement. These grains give metals a lot of their characteristics. For instance, work tempering (metal getting harder and more brittle the more you bend it) comes from these grains sliding against each other with each bend, until the edges and corners of the grains catch against each other and won't slide anymore. The size, shape, arrangement, and atomic composition of these crystals is what gives each metal and its heat treatment its unique characteristics.

An amorphous solid is cooled from a liquid to a solid so quickly it doesn't have time to form crystalline structures. This gives the material different characteristics from its crystalline form, some better, some worse. From the name, "Flash Bainite," I'm guessing forming this stuff involves rapid cooling of the steel in a controlled manner to produce just the right combination of crystalline structure mixed with amorphous steel to yield the higher strength associated with amorphous solids, without the extreme flexibility and lack of ductility (won't stay in the new shape). This ability to rapidly cool materials in a precise and controlled manner has been a recent development due to advances in computer control. In the theoretical sense, it is easy. But actually doing it in practice on an industrial scale has been very difficult until recently.

Re:Could easily be legit

[Bob the Super Hamste]

For those who want to have fun with amorphous solids that have been cooled rapidly there are Prince Rupert's Drops. The bulbous end is incredibly tough a, I've pounded one into concrete with a 4lb sledge hammer, but break off the tail and they shatter into small fine shards. They are pretty easy to make with some practice, just take some soda glass (not pyrex) make a molten drop with a propane brazing torch (smaller drops are more likely to succeed), and drop into a column of water (1 quart mason jar works fairly well but a taller column of water would work better).

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[fodendaf]

You're right of course, but the concern is over the methane they produce, not carbon dioxide. methane is hundreds of times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh, the cow poster. Quite the little autist you are. No, I didn't mean artist.

Ford puts used engines in the new Mustangs to $ave

[Anonymous Coward]

They use a special metal spray to build up thickness on worn surfaces, and sometimes install liners in used engines and install them in new cars. Sorry, facebook video only... https://www.facebook.com/Power...

Planned Obsolescence

[Irate Engineer]

Before the days of unibody construction, usually the lifespan of a car was dictated by how long it took for the frame to rot, up here in New England anyway. I had a series of Subarus through the 1980s and 1990s that had perfectly running powertrains, but I had to retire them when the frames rotted away. If I got 150k miles out of them I was lucky.

Now I've had a few cars (an Impreza and a Honda Civic) with unibody construction, and now they seem to be limited by powertrain. The Impreza made it to 250k miles before the rings went, followed by the transmission. The Civic is still rolling nicely and passing emissions inspections at 300k miles, though I did have to replace the head gasket last summer.

I suspect the manufacturers are realizing that quality cars == low turnover == infrequent return customers. They'd love to make the automotive equivalent of a "One Hoss-Shay" that self-destructs after 100k miles as you drive past the dealership.

Re:Planned Obsolescence

[mjwx]

I suspect the manufacturers are realizing that quality cars == low turnover == infrequent return customers. They'd love to make the automotive equivalent of a "One Hoss-Shay" that self-destructs after 100k miles as you drive past the dealership.

You're basically describing European cars. Planned Obselecence is a big thing over there. They want to make sure things last just long enough to ride out the warranty period. Obviously not vital components like the drive train (well at least not intentionally) but things like sound proofing, electric seats and mirrors, heaters and other things that will annoy you when they break.

Japanese manufacturers dont have to worry about that as they get obsolescence built into the law in Japan (Shaken law). In this regard, they want their cars to be highly reliable as they want them to get a good resale price when exported out of Japan after 3- 5 years.

Plus Japanese businesses think for the long term. They know that a reputation for reliability is a huge advantage when it comes to new car sales.

Re:Planned Obsolescence

[Anonymous Coward]

Scoobys are a bit of an outlier; they have a well-earned reputation for rust resistance.

Re:Planned Obsolescence

[Anonymous Coward]

Thing is, car sales isn't how dealerships make their money.

It's all in servicing. I know of one dealer in my area that's running a competition: bring your car in for service before (date), and you go into a draw to win a new car. They're struggling to get enough people through with car services, so they're running the competition to get more people in the door, in the hope that at least some of them will keep servicing their cars with the dealership.

Me? I'll meet the terms of the competition, and if I win the car, great - but regardless of whether or not I do, it'll be straight back to the third party car service place for future servicing. The price the dealership charges simply isn't worth it without that incentive.

In that sense, having quality cars that keep running for decades is no big deal: it just means more services out of a single car. Though all-electric vehicles will play merry hell with that particular business model.

Re:Planned Obsolescence

[turbidostato]

"You're basically describing European cars. Planned Obselecence is a big thing over there. They want to make sure things last just long enough to ride out the warranty period."

I certainly don't know your mileage, but I don't know what you are talking about: ten years for a car and 100K miles with just basic maintenance is the rule, with a majority of cars going well beyond that. Mine, for instance, is 14 y.o., 110K miles and very good health.

Re:Planned Obsolescence

[Anonymous Coward]

the highest mileage on a car is a volvo. saabs regularly got 500k. a late 80s honda will get 250k or better. bmws hit the 250k mark and always have. mercedes can get the same range.

i.e. the poster you're replying to isn't bright

Re:Planned Obsolescence

[Anonymous Coward]

only because you're young

Re:Planned Obsolescence

[mjwx]

My first car was a 97 Honda Civic VTI, I bought it with 270,000 KM on the clock, sold it with 297,000. Current car is a 2001 Nissan 200sx (S15, yep the car so Awesome that America will not allow it's import) that's just ticked over 110,000 and as long as it's looked after, has at least another 200,000 left in it. I've seen several Toyota Hiluxes with over 500,000 on the clock and still going.

Japanese cars will keep going for ages, especially Toyotas, on very basic maintenance. European cars, not so much. Its rare to find an Astra with 150,000 K's on it, a lot of VW Golfs on their second tranny before 50,000 KM.

Re:Planned Obsolescence

[Anonymous Coward]

They're struggling to get enough people through with car services, so they're running the competition to get more people in the door, in the hope that at least some of them will keep servicing their cars with the dealership.

I also know a dealer in my area, who has done similar car drawings for years. He's done it because a third company approaches him offering to do the car drawings for a small fee, and often includes some marketing material too. So it is basically like hiring an ad agency, except the agency handles all of the drawing stuff and paying for the car if someone wins and collects it. The marketing company usually comes out ahead, because for a variety of reasons people don't come forward with the winning ticket or find the winning key/number in mailed ads. The result is such drawings are done for service promotions, new car promotions (a chance of winning a second car), or just to come in the door with no obligation (in which case it is the sales floor, not the service department).

Re:Planned Obsolescence

[Anonymous Coward]

So you've been driving for 10 years and think you've got a handle on things? What a fucking joke.

Anything made in the time you've been driving and intended for mass market consumption will make it to 200K or beyond, and as always, when third- or fourth-hand buyers are shopping, their choices will be self-selecting for the ones that are worth continuing to own.

Re:Planned Obsolescence

[hackertourist]

Before the days of unibody construction, usually the lifespan of a car was dictated by how long it took for the frame to rot, up here in New England anyway. I had a series of Subarus through the 1980s and 1990s that had perfectly running powertrains

Um, those 1980s and 1990s Subarus all had unibody construction. The only 'cars' that didn't by then were American SUVs, which were built on truck chassis to skirt gas guzzling taxes.

Re:Planned Obsolescence

[turbidostato]

"European cars, not so much. Its rare to find an Astra with 150,000 K's on it, a lot of VW Golfs on their second tranny before 50,000 KM."

Now, I know you are trolling.

Re:Planned Obsolescence

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I'm driving a 13 year old vehicle with 155,000 miles on it. My jeep ceased to run with 379,000 on it and it was 19 years old, my previous car had the automatic transmission go out on it (that was a fun car to beat on so that probably had a lot to do with it's premature failure) at 260,000 mile and was 16 years old. 100,000 miles is nothing and I have even driven 1980s shit boxes with that kind of mileage (88 Ford Bronco II with 252,000, 85 Olds cutlass supreme with 257,000, 87 Buick Century with 214,000). Only one vehicle I have ever owned didn't make it over 200,000 miles and that was the 96 BMW 318ti I had but that got rear-ended and was spun into a fire hydrant and got totaled out. Sticking to the basic maintenance schedule will do wonders for vehicle longevity, as will washing and waxing the things, putting more effort into maintenance means fewer problems and the vehicle will usually suffer a catastrophic failure, or be so old and worn that even a simple repair will become a major undertaking because of rusted connectors and fittings.

Re:Planned Obsolescence

[Bob the Super Hamste]

a lot of VW Golfs on their second tranny before 50,000 KM.

Well maybe trannies just like the VW golf? Like how Subarus are supposedly cars lesbians like?

Yes that is a joke and up until last year I hadn't heard the Subaru thing until I suggested one to my sister (she wanted a car but had to have all wheel drive and be black) when she was seeking advice.

corrosion, welding and dings

[harvey the nerd]

...might turn an advanced material vehicle into a Coors can on wheels. Some high strength steels are notoriously susceptible to corrosion, welding and/or post-impact problems.

Unwelded, single piece objects with any necessary protective coatings, or in single use applications, are rapid to develop. We can be excited and apprehensive about these type of advances.

Re:corrosion, welding and dings

[Rei]

From the article, it's not a special alloy, just a heat process. I don't know if that would affect the corrosion rate, mind you - obviously it's concerning if they use less metal. Still, bare minimum, it shouldn't affect one's ability to galvanize it.

Re:corrosion, welding and dings

[rbrander]

I believe the point is that every member would be thinner. It might have a faster or same or even slower corrosion rate, but still have a shorter lifespan.

Ductile iron water pipes appear to corrode about 30% slower in mils/yr than the earlier cast iron; but the cast iron pipes, less strong, were twice as thick, so they're still in service as ductile iron pipes 20 years younger are failing. You can cathodically protect the earlier metals too...and all other things (like that) being equal, the thicker piece of metal is around longer.

Since your loss of value is many years away in most environments, it may be economically minor in cars, which are expected to depreciate to zero in under 20 years anyway.

Re:corrosion, welding and dings

[DriveDog]

Expected to, and increasingly, designed to. Unfortunately, new general-purpose autos and more specialized vehicles are being built the same way. If I drive an ordinary moderately-priced sedan for 200k miles for 15 years and it's just about dust, I figure I've gotten the value out of it and my next will use less fuel, be safer, possibly more comfortable, and might have better performance. If I manage to buy a rather impractical sports car to drive less often and it rots to dust in 25 years and every component wears out, no chance of rebuilding them, I'm pretty upset.

Tensile vs compression strength

[Anonymous Coward]

Note the comment in the article that the statistics are for tensile not compression strength, which is what is important in a crash.

Re:Tensile vs compression strength

[Overzeetop]

You failed your deformables class in college, didn't you?

Re:Why do you say that?

[Anonymous Coward]

You may or may not be a sucker, but there is some hanky-panky going on in TFA. Steel that's "stronger than titanium", for instance, sounds like a fishy claim to this structural engineer. Steel has a modulus of elasticity of 29 million PSI while titanium's modulus of elasticity is only 16 million PSI. Volume-for-volume, even ordinary steel IS stronger than titanium.

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but i think GP also means that the cows did not produce the methane via Fusion.

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

But they produce methane from plant matter, thus indirectly turning CO2 into more harmful methane.

land of lawyers

[slazzy]

Maybe not going to happen in the land of lawyers for quite awhile, but it would be great if some company in the world could start using and testing in real cars.

bear cage

[Anonymous Coward]

but a bear is going to be released in the room!!!! either go in the super strong steel cage, or the flash bainite cage. SEE! you picked steel! WHY WOULD YOU BUY A CAR MADE OF FLASH BAINITE, IDIOT?!#%*(&!#%*&(!%#&*(

Sunday Night Drunken Brainstorming

[PopeRatzo]

If we could genetically modify cows to fart helium 3 instead of methane, we could use their gas to power fusion reactors.

Re:Sunday Night Drunken Brainstorming

[Ol Olsoc]

If we could genetically modify cows to fart helium 3 instead of methane, we could use their gas to power fusion reactors.

Spherical floating farting cows, and no doubt!

Re:Sunday Night Drunken Brainstorming

[orasio]

In order to keep they buoyancy, they won't be able to fart a lot.

Re:Sunday Night Drunken Brainstorming

[cyberchondriac]

But then you might have the problem of floating cows. Especially those with digestive problems and gastrointestinal blockages. Imagine the exasperation air traffic controllers, as if drones weren't bad enough; we'd have helium-heifers!

Re:Sunday Night Drunken Brainstorming

[Ol Olsoc]

In order to keep they buoyancy, they won't be able to fart a lot.

I had this sudden vision of a cow flying around like a regular ballon when we don't tie it off and let go of it. Wonder where Cow guy is?

Re:Sunday Night Drunken Brainstorming

[doccus]

Wonder where Cow guy is?

At BIN I am sure. So with Helium 3 I wonder if "Factory farms no longer fear the Moo Cow".. ?
Of course the genetic hybridization might just end up with tastier tomatos. That fart methane..

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[stooo]

cow poster :
http://www.healthstones.com/fa...

From the Gizmag comments...

[denzacar]

Q&A . . . Lots of great input, thank you. Hope the answers help.
1) The reason there is not more hype is pretty simple.
"Big Steel" emailed we can't even attend their public events because "Flash Bainite competes with their products" made in their $400M furnaces.
Big Steel and their Academic friends are dug in pretty deep to protect marketspace and profits.
We'd like to work with Big Steel when they're ready but for now favorable licensing is available to others in the supply chain.

2) As for corrosion, Flash 1600 has already passed the 400 hour salt spray test. Paint/bake and chrome plating work well too.
E-galvanizing is already used by OEMs so Flash will start in hidden structural parts (not Class A visible) so rust would have to get through other parts first.

3) The reason 7% stronger Flash can make parts 30-50% lighter is that Flash Bainite can be formed/bent into complex shapes at vastly higher strengths than other advanced high strength steels.
Flash's extra 7% strength for a given alloy is just a bonus. The US Army did 5mm thick Charpy tests and found no catastrophic ductile to brittle transition down to -40 degrees.
There's also energy absorption results on tubing that an OEM allowed to be presented a few years ago at Cambridge Univ which outperformed five leading vehicles' door beams by 15-20% at the same mass.

4) Stress Corrosion can happen in all AHSS but the Steel Industry and Auto OEMs know how to handle this.
SCC can happen when hydrogen migrates on the grain boundary surface area. AHSS is highly grain refined thus lots of total surface area.
Flash Bainite has notably larger grains so there is expected to be less SCC with much less boundary surface area for hydrogen to move on.

5) I completely disagree that Flash is brittle.
Aside from the testing at Auto OEMs withheld due to NDAs, look at the cover photo of the Crush Can at 48 Rockwell C and see how the Flash folded.
I am unaware of any other material at 48Rc that can fold to absorb energy without shattering.

6) I don't think Flash in a car is decades away with 2025's 54mpg fast approaching.
Three very large OEMs are asking for coils of steel asap and one is about ready for running changes.
While we are focusing on a modest production capacity in-house, we are very open to licensing Flash to others to meet the Auto needs . . .
And every other Industry looking for lighter, stronger, safer, less costly, readily weldable metal.
GaryCola 12th December, 2015 @ 9:43 p.m. (California Time)

Re:From the Gizmag comments...

[mlts]

I know where this technology would come in handy... the RV industry.

The RV industry doesn't have the economies of scale that the auto industry does, and they are very sensitive to the economy because their products are relatively expensive for the market they are aiming at. RVs also have a lot of different parts, being the union of vehicles and homes.

Where this metal would come in handy would be for building RVs, perhaps replacing fiberglass panels, especially roofs (which the average travel trailer uses a thin rubber membrane ), and the sides (delamination issues.) This would also save weight, by moving to this material in the RV's frame, as opposed to wood which is used now. As an added advantage, if there is water intrusion, the frame would not rot.

RV slide-outs come to mind as well. With the latest generation of cutaway van chassis models (Ducato/ProMaster, Transit, Sprinter/Crafter) having significantly less GVWR than the models they replace in the US, weight savings becomes even more important.

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since they are not producing carbon through gastro-fusion, all the carbon they fart and belch must first be ingested in the form of plants which obtained their carbon by extracting it from the atmosphere.

Cows in America are often fed corn. Corn is grown with fertilizer produced from petroleum. Corn is also an extremely water intensive crop.

Don't pretend that hamburger you eat is good for the environment. It's like if aliens raised people for soylent green and when global warming came, they ask "But all we do is eat humans? Aren't humans from the earth and hence carbon neutral?" Yeah, and the ipads they gaze at while munching buttered popcorn in their feeding troughs springs from trees.

Eating meat is about the most destructive thing we do to the environment by far (far more than cars), because we are the ultimate apex predator, hardly anything touches us and thus keeps us in check, and so our food chain has to be artificially supplemented for us to survive. Raising cows isn't the same as hunting some aurochs through the wild that nature fed, it's not some hug and kiss to mother earth.

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[chipschap]

Eating meat is about the most destructive thing we do to the environment by far

I hadn't heard this one before. I guess we all had better stick to alfalfa sprouts and organic broccoli.

Tell me, in that perfect green world, is fish permissible?

Or maybe the best thing would be for everyone to just die off and restore the balance?

Re: Cars are for Cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cows != meat. All foods are on a spectrum. On that spectrum, chicken is closer to most vegetables than it is to beef in terms of environmental impact.

You'll be able to change people's behavior easier if you dispense with the black & white approach that most vegetarian groups have used.

Example: reduce your meat consumption, especially beef. When you do eat meat, prefer chicken over pork and pork over beef. (This obv ignores eating things such as crickets or lamb, both of which I like but neither of which are particularly common in the American diet.)

And for you vegetarians, how about cutting down on nuts like almonds and especially walnuts, because of their water usage. Walnuts use more water than even beef. (Maybe almonds, too. I forget the numbers.)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Is this Reardan Metal at last? ("Atlas Shrugged")

[best2015]

Sounds like Hank Rearden's innovative alloy from Ayn Rand's ponderous tome. All the other steel foundries, with the government firmly in their pocket and seeing their monopolies threatened, gang up on Rearden to discredit his new metal as dangerous. In the movie, the government agent negotiating with Hank to buy the rights to the alloy (in return for not confiscating it), was played by Armin Shimmerman. While watching him I imagined that he would pop out and say "Our government is willing to pay a substantial amount..... the sum of one million bars of gold-pressed latinum!!" The Part 1 movie I thought was a pretty reasonable effort at making a decent film on a low budget, Part 2 was fairly poor and Part 3 a cinematic travesty.

Re:This is good news... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm APK and so is my wife!

Re: Why do you say that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Structural engineer that confuses strength with stiffness? Hmmm. And surprised that steel is stronger than titanium? Titanium's advantage is in its low density, not a particularly high strength. A good 4130 is definitely in the same ballpark as titanium, likely better. I would also expect a structural engineer to recognise that heat treat has a HUGE effect on steel properties, and is really complicated. It does not seem outlandish to me to hear someone has discovered some process that is an improvement over existing ones.

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[Ol Olsoc]

Eating meat is about the most destructive thing we do to the environment by far

I hadn't heard this one before. I guess we all had better stick to alfalfa sprouts and organic broccoli.

Tell me, in that perfect green world, is fish permissible?

Or maybe the best thing would be for everyone to just die off and restore the balance?

If a basic trait that humans have evolved to have is destructive to the environment, then the problem doesn't lie with eating meat.

Too many people is the problem. We are no more evil for eating meat than any other predator.

Re: Cars are for Cows.

[TechyImmigrant]

Cows eat grass if they are raised properly. They are carbon neutral.
I don't know why people don't eat lamb much in the USA. It's a far far superior meat.

Been hearing for years now

[nikkipolya]

I have been hearing about this Flash Bainite for years now. This news is too old and was covered in Gizmag many years ago (http://www.gizmag.com/stronger-steel-in-a-flash/18882/).

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[Z00L00K]

Fish is never an alternative to a good beef.

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[Joce640k]

"Other predators" don't have knowledge, education or communication.

And not many of them are cutting down the rainforests to make more space for their herds of food.

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[Joce640k]

And humans aren't carnivores, they're omnivores. No human needs to eat meat every single day. It causes health problems if you do.

Once a week or so seems about right, biologically speaking.

Re:This is good news... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I install your wife on my Android phone?

Re:Why do you say that?

[righteousness]

What kind of structural engineer are you who don't seem to know the difference between strength and stiffness?

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[dunkelfalke]

Humans aren't predators. Predators have a very different dental formula - they have carnassials (which humans lack) and much larger fangs than humans. They also have much stronger jaws.
Chimps are animals that are most closely related to humans and they eat mostly fruits, nuts and leaves. Meat is only a small part of their diet, even though their fangs are much larger than human fangs.

If it were really that good...

[Anonymous Coward]

Tesla would be investing in its development.

Think about how Apple invests in new technologies like liquid metal and scaling up sapphire glass production (though that one didn't end well for the partner).

You have no idea...

[Kartu]

Metal used for car's body costs about 1500$ per small car (e.g. Fiesta).
They are already quite good, lasting well over 10 years without any corrosion whatsoever. (zin coating etc)

Replacing it with stainless steel would increase costs 5 fold => 7500$ per car body.
Not viable.

And to "increase profit"... Many manufacturers are struggling to barely make it even.
Only luxury cars have good margins.

Re:You have no idea...

[Dereck1701]

What part of my post suggested building cars out of more expensive materials? Simply powder coat or paint exposed parts with a more durable coating. When done on a manufacturing scale it shouldn't add more than a percent or two to the cost of the individual coated parts, probably less than $50 to a whole car.

Re:You have no idea...

[DriveDog]

Pickups in general have a high margin. Priced one lately? For vehicles with dead-simple Hotchkiss rear ends, stamped-steel front suspensions, and nothing but sheet metal behind the cabs, they're awfully expensive.

Re:You have no idea...

[Kartu]

Pickups do. That's what keeps certain manufacturers afloat.

Re:You have no idea...

[Kartu]

It isn't as cheap as you describe it.
And if you'd read my post carefully, you'd realize I've said they already DO the coating with zinc.
That's why you have some manufacturers give you 10+ years (some do 15) warranty on the car body.

Lee-oh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on!

With a 2CV (or its posher friend the Dyan 6) everyone in the car had to lean out to keep it upright on bends!

(I include this for reference... http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/citroen-2-cv-leaning.jpg )

Re:Lee-oh!

[Hognoxious]

They do roll alarmingly - the suspension is soft - but I'm told the centre of gravity is quite low so it's actually hard to turn one over. I thought better of performing an experiment, but it seems plausible as it's a ladder chassis construction & the shell weighs bugger all because it's made of kitchen foil.

Re:Why do you say that?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have issues. Have you considered decaf?

What will the Aluminum industry think?

[olddoc]

I have owned cars made with large amounts of aluminum. Aluminum cars are very expensive to repair after accidents. I wonder how this metal will compare with Aluminum. If I could have a lightweight, inexpensive to repair car it would be great: less expensive to drive and to insure. This technology won't displace carbon fiber in Lamborghinis, but how about Aluminum in Audis, Fords and Teslas? How about Boeing and AirBus? Could this replace a lot of aluminum?

Re:Why do you say that?

[ChrisMaple]

Strength of metal is generally regarded as ultimate tensile strength (or other similar measures), whereas modulus of elasticity is a measure of inverse stretchiness. Nonetheless, your point stands: titanium is weaker than most mild steels, and less than 1/10th the strength of high strength steels.

Re: Cars are for Cows.

[Joce640k]

Nobody wants to be seen as a sheep farmer in the USA. They're all too macho for that.

Aluminum

[Anonymous Coward]

Or they could simply use aluminum, which Ford is doing successfully on its new line of trucks.

Like maraging steel

[Anonymous Coward]

The steel is similar to a maraging steel, but much easier and cheaper to produce. Instead of eliminating carbon and adding other alloying elements to form intermetallics like in maraging steel, they keep the carbon trapped as carbide particles for long enough to complete the heat treatment. Therefore only little alloying required. Nice! As already mentioned, the weakened welds limit the use of this material. Re-doing the heat treatment is not an option because the process relies on ultra-fast heating and cooling. Perhaps point welding is fast enough to keep sufficient strength?

Salt

[krsmav]

With a barrel of salt, or better an oceanful. In a year or so, it'll reappear as one of those inventions "they" don't want you to know about.

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[Ol Olsoc]

"Other predators" don't have knowledge, education or communication.

All life is precious, every single bit of living matter in the universe, from Single cell organisms, to plants to animals. Do not be so smug and condescending that you think that because you are not eating things with faces that you are not killing life forms.

It is the ultimate moral bankruptcy of vegans to assume they are somehow practicing moral superiority by saying "I only kill and eat plants". You are every bit the killer that those you detest are. You are a killer. Things die in order for you to live.

And it will remain that way until we become chemoautotrophs. I mean, you could go on a breatharian diet, but that tends to remove you from the gene pool.

You even take the completely ridiculous assertion that other animals do not have knowledge , education, or communication - so it is okay for them. Is it? Why cannot those of the moral high ground make certain that frank carnivores stop thier parctices, that animal they kill is just as dead as if a human killed it. Take a frank carnivore, and in making them an intelligent vegan, oinly feed them those foods oyu think are acceptable to kill. See how that works out for them. They will die, no matter how you rationalize it, they are designed to eat meat. It does not make them evil, and if you try to force them to eat only veggies, you will have killed them despite your assumed moral high ground. And humans are omnivores, no matter what you think. There is no logical way out for you.

Since all life is precious, and since all creatures except chemoautotrophs can only survive by killing other life forms, We simply must accept that it is how we survive. So go forth and kill something to eat today, and be grateful for it, as it allows you to survive..

Or eat a rock, whichever you wish.

Ex short term vegan here. Impossible for my metabolism to handle, and the other vegans were impossible to be around. So now I eat as humans were designed to eat. My digestive tract works correctly, and I go to no strange and unnatural lengths for my nutrition.

Bainite? No, something else.

[blackanvil]

Calling this Bainite is confusing, as the time/temperature charts show that you only really get bainite when you hold at above 400C after quenching from above critical temperatures -- which does not match the described process. I suspect it's not really bainite, but some sort of martensite/ferrite/pearlite mix. When making knives with a bainite structure, the resulting blades, usually from a high carbon tool steel such as L6, are very springy, and do not exhibit plastic deformation before breaking (i.e. they do not take a set when bent, and tend to break before taking a set unless taken to an extreme or heavily tempered). That said, it sounds like a great step forward for sheet metal working.

Italian cars in the 70's-80's

[Anonymous Coward]

The Italian manufacturers, particularly Alfa Romeo bought steel from the Russians that had been quenched in salt water. It didn't matter what you did to protect an Alfa Sud (the first hatch back ever) those puppies just rusted.

Re: Cars are for Cows.

[swalve]

Superior to what? Rat meat?

Re: Cars are for Cows.

[TechyImmigrant]

Superior to what? Rat meat?

Superior to Beef, Buffalo, Chicken, Pork, Veal, Venison and Moose.
It's not superior to snails though.

I haven't tried rat meat. I doesn't sound appetizing.

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cows in America are often fed corn. Corn is grown with fertilizer produced from petroleum. Corn is also an extremely water intensive crop.

Most of the corn that cattle are fed is in the form of silage instead of hay made of alfalfa or other grasses. The water usage is only a problem if land is irrigated in order to grow it. By that measure, most of the fruit, vegetables, nuts, etc that come from California also have a huge impact on the water table. Vegetarians in that state should compost themselves immediately to save the environment.

Re:Cars are for Cows.

[DeputySpade]

Fish is never an alternative to a good beef.

... Except on Friday!