Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Your favorite Apple, iPhone, iPad, iOS, Jailbreak, and Cydia site.


Thread: Apple May Bring Carbon Fiber to the iPad

  1. #21
    Livin the iPhone Life steve-z17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    2,263
    Thanks
    91
    Thanked 146 Times in 124 Posts

    Wait til people start dropping them and complaining about cracks. Then we'll get reports on not dropping them and polls comparing the aluminum to the carbon fiber and which one cracks the easiest. Same as the iPhone glass.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Essany View Post



    Are there disadvantages to a carbon fiber encasement? Yes. The iPad could possibly be much more prone to cracking or damage given the less sturdy foundation of the device's housing.


    Apple Insider
    carbon fiber is considerably 2-3x stronger than steel. this is such a typical misconception of carbon fiber. since the application process is similar to fiberglass the misconception is that carbon fiber has the same structural properties but it doesnt. also this would almost eliminate the heat from frequent use. also why would big exotic automotive companies (from ferrari to F1) would use this stuff? for looks? no but for functionality, for strength and for its light weight. sorry to sound a little bit like a **** but im a little bit enthusiastic of carbon fiber. hope this will shine some light on this misconception

  3. #23

  4. #24
    iPhone? More like MyPhone dale2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    san antonio, tx
    Posts
    181
    Thanks
    10
    Thanked 18 Times in 13 Posts

    I have never heard of carbon fiber being weak
    but to all the nay-sayers, this is apple we are talking about
    build quality and looks are everything to them

  5. #25
    Livin the iPhone Life mortopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pittsford, NY via Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,741
    Thanks
    549
    Thanked 622 Times in 346 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by pulloa View Post
    carbon fiber is considerably 2-3x stronger than steel. this is such a typical misconception of carbon fiber. since the application process is similar to fiberglass the misconception is that carbon fiber has the same structural properties but it doesnt. also this would almost eliminate the heat from frequent use. also why would big exotic automotive companies (from ferrari to F1) would use this stuff? for looks? no but for functionality, for strength and for its light weight. sorry to sound a little bit like a **** but im a little bit enthusiastic of carbon fiber. hope this will shine some light on this misconception
    And for rigidity, CFRP is absolutely wonderful. The huge problem with it in cases such as casings, is that it's a very brittle material and is not very impact resistant. For the exotic cars and race cars, the material is absolutely wonderful because of both it's rigidity and it's brittleness. The car is built with the expectations of NOT being wrecked or in collisions. However, CFRP does help in situations such as that as it's lightweight significantly reduces the momentum of the vehicle, and the brittleness helps to dissipate the massive amounts of energy one encounters in a high speed crash. Those F1 wrecks where the cars are torn to absolute shreds are not as horrific as they look (of course any high-speed wreck is serious business...), the cars are designed for everything to break off of the cockpit with relatively little force.

    I just dont' see this being a practical option for the iPad.

  6. #26
    carbon fiber would look and feel much better then what is used now, i hope this happens

  7. #27
    A futile development for a ridiculous device.

  8. #28
    I want to see this in the new macbooks not the iPad look at the shape it matches

  9. #29
    @ mortopher: if ur talking about brittleness, may i ask u one thing; wat do u plan on doing if the ipad is made of CF? i mean really it takes a lot of pressure and force to crack or break. i have a cpl CF cases for my iphone and other things and i admit it im not perfect; i have (do i dare say it) dropped my iphone with the case on a cpl times but u know wat aside from a few scratches here and there its still like new (the case not the phone). but u have ur opinion and we all have ours. u either like it or u dont or u either hate it or u dont. everyone is different

  10. #30
    Carbon fiber is very resilient against stretching or bending, but it cannot stand up to shock. Anyone that watches F1 racing knows this. When an F1 car crashes, the bulk of the debris is carbon fiber shards.

    Consider the application. Carbon fiber used on a F1 car is thick, especially in the frame. When made into thin sheets, carbon fiber flexes very easily and provides no protection against shock and little protection against minor bumps. It is not possible for Apple to make it rigid enough to use as a case while also maintaining visual aesthetics.

    If Apple were to use carbon fiber, the two possible outcomes would be a durable but bulky design or a visually pleasing but weak design. History proves that Apple will go for aesthetics, and the final result will be a device that is thin, lightweight, and sexy yet much more fragile and significantly more expensive than its predecessor.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Rokesomesmeefer For This Useful Post:

    mortopher (11-20-2010)

  12. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by mortopher View Post
    The huge problem with it in cases such as casings, is that it's a very brittle material and is not very impact resistant. For the exotic cars and race cars, the material is absolutely wonderful because of both it's rigidity and it's brittleness. The car is built with the expectations of NOT being wrecked or in collisions. However, CFRP does help in situations such as that as it's lightweight significantly reduces the momentum of the vehicle, and the brittleness helps to dissipate the massive amounts of energy one encounters in a high speed crash. Those F1 wrecks where the cars are torn to absolute shreds are not as horrific as they look (of course any high-speed wreck is serious business...), the cars are designed for everything to break off of the cockpit with relatively little force.
    Actually Formula 1 wrecks are like that because the cars are designed to take a load in certain directions, and are designed to fail in certain directions in case of a crash. EVERY racecar IS designed to be wrecked, have been for at least 30 years. Momentum, as you say, has nothing to do with it's crash properties. It's used because it's extremely strong and lightweight, and not because it's lighter thereby causing less damage in a crash. A 1300 pound car made primarily of CF has the same inertia as 1300 pounds of feathers when both are going 180 mph. It's how the material reacts to the impact load and how it's both laid and designed that determine how well it holds up. F1 car parts are designed to withstand a certain load with CF, that isn't a property of the composite that they rely on in a crash, they are designed that way because it's both lightweight and extremely strong and are designed to prevent the transfer of energy in a crash to the driver. Meaning they are specifically designed to fail in certain directions to shed parts to take that energy transfer away from the driver.

    They could very easily design uprights and other suspension components to take a fairly large whack without breaking. Yes, carbon fiber is brittle if cheaply made (look at the import 'tuner' crowd for those parts) and if it's designed to take a load in another direction that the force that is applied without care for anything else. If Apple designed the case to be strong around the corners and strong in a certain impact direction, say directly towards the front if it were to be dropped flat on it's back, then they wouldn't have too much trouble.

    The wings on those cars resist tons, literally, of force in a vertical direction to withstand that force to create downforce. If they wanted they could design them to take a direct load from the front as well. The reason they don't is weight, not because it's a brittle material. Weight has more importance to them performance wise than safety wise, they use they least amount they can to pass mandated crash testing and not an ounce more because that kills the performance. With a minimum weight of 1300ish pounds they build the cars at around 1100 pounds and use the rest of that minimum limit to place ballast. The amount epoxy used to bond carbon fiber sheets together directly affects it's strength as well, after all it is a woven thread. If you look at the TF110 Toyota Formula 1 car in bare form you can see that the weave is different depending on it's location and load applied to it. If carbon fiber cracks it's because it cheaply made, not because of the properties of the composite or it's not designed properly for the loads that are placed on it.

    I work on aircraft that have panels and structures made of carbon fiber composites and I know for a fact you can whack them really hard with a hammer without damage. They are thick panels so they are strong, but even the thin composite (some parts as thin as a quarter inch), is amazingly strong considering it's weight. The ejection seats have backrests that are made of thinly laid carbon fiber composite and I've dropped them from almost ten feet in the air directly on a corner and it didn't even scratch it. Cheaply made CF composite cracks. If it's strong enough to withstand almost 1000C as a Formula 1 brake disc, and those take 6 months each to make(!), it can withstand a five foot drop if made properly and withstand the heat produced by an iPad, which isn't alot by any stretch. They could manufacture one easily in fact. Only problem is it's not cheap and easy to obtain, wouldn't really be cost effective for something that doesn't really need the strength and weight properties of CF.
    HK-Z on Game Center

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to KartRacer For This Useful Post:

    mortopher (11-21-2010)

  14. #32
    Livin the iPhone Life mortopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Pittsford, NY via Dallas, TX
    Posts
    2,741
    Thanks
    549
    Thanked 622 Times in 346 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by KartRacer View Post
    Actually Formula 1 wrecks are like that because the cars are designed to take a load in certain directions, and are designed to fail in certain directions in case of a crash. EVERY racecar IS designed to be wrecked, have been for at least 30 years. Momentum, as you say, has nothing to do with it's crash properties. It's used because it's extremely strong and lightweight, and not because it's lighter thereby causing less damage in a crash. A 1300 pound car made primarily of CF has the same inertia as 1300 pounds of feathers when both are going 180 mph. It's how the material reacts to the impact load and how it's both laid and designed that determine how well it holds up. F1 car parts are designed to withstand a certain load with CF, that isn't a property of the composite that they rely on in a crash, they are designed that way because it's both lightweight and extremely strong and are designed to prevent the transfer of energy in a crash to the driver. Meaning they are specifically designed to fail in certain directions to shed parts to take that energy transfer away from the driver.

    They could very easily design uprights and other suspension components to take a fairly large whack without breaking. Yes, carbon fiber is brittle if cheaply made (look at the import 'tuner' crowd for those parts) and if it's designed to take a load in another direction that the force that is applied without care for anything else. If Apple designed the case to be strong around the corners and strong in a certain impact direction, say directly towards the front if it were to be dropped flat on it's back, then they wouldn't have too much trouble.

    The wings on those cars resist tons, literally, of force in a vertical direction to withstand that force to create downforce. If they wanted they could design them to take a direct load from the front as well. The reason they don't is weight, not because it's a brittle material. Weight has more importance to them performance wise than safety wise, they use they least amount they can to pass mandated crash testing and not an ounce more because that kills the performance. With a minimum weight of 1300ish pounds they build the cars at around 1100 pounds and use the rest of that minimum limit to place ballast. The amount epoxy used to bond carbon fiber sheets together directly affects it's strength as well, after all it is a woven thread. If you look at the TF110 Toyota Formula 1 car in bare form you can see that the weave is different depending on it's location and load applied to it. If carbon fiber cracks it's because it cheaply made, not because of the properties of the composite or it's not designed properly for the loads that are placed on it.

    I work on aircraft that have panels and structures made of carbon fiber composites and I know for a fact you can whack them really hard with a hammer without damage. They are thick panels so they are strong, but even the thin composite (some parts as thin as a quarter inch), is amazingly strong considering it's weight. The ejection seats have backrests that are made of thinly laid carbon fiber composite and I've dropped them from almost ten feet in the air directly on a corner and it didn't even scratch it. Cheaply made CF composite cracks. If it's strong enough to withstand almost 1000C as a Formula 1 brake disc, and those take 6 months each to make(!), it can withstand a five foot drop if made properly and withstand the heat produced by an iPad, which isn't alot by any stretch. They could manufacture one easily in fact. Only problem is it's not cheap and easy to obtain, wouldn't really be cost effective for something that doesn't really need the strength and weight properties of CF.

    My mistake, I should not have meant it's brittleness... I had been up for 30+ hours so I wasn't thinking too clearly. Thank you for correcting me.

    Regardless, I don't see them being able to make an iPad back panel out of it without having increase the price of the device significantly. The back only weighs 0.3 lbs, nowhere near enough to go to an extreme material such as carbon fiber in order to save weight. As someone else mentioned, I'm wondering where their acquisition of LiquidMetal will come into play with this.

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to mortopher For This Useful Post:

    KartRacer (05-11-2011)

  16. #33
    I agree, cost is the problem. Aluminum is cheap and recyclable, CF composite is neither. Just as you said, there's no advantage because the thing doesn't weigh very much to begin with. I believe this is just another one of Apples placeholder patents. I'd love to have a very beautifully laid CF composite backed iPad, but wouldn't want to pay the price.
    HK-Z on Game Center

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •