Worth mentioning that another natural material - paper - has been used in composite sportsplane monocoques in combination with polyester resin (also a little fiberglass matting) - the Taylor Paper Glass TPG composite process. Using kraft paper. I've mentioned this stuff before. It's just a personal fascination and crusade.
"While not actually papier-mâché, the paper-glass composite developed by Moulton Taylor for the Aerocar Micro-IMP homebuilt aircraft in 1978 did rely on a laminated structure of fiberglass and paper held together with a polyester adhesive to build the fuselage. The unique construction was intended to allow the home builder to purchase full-scale plans, printed on heavy paper, and use the plans themselves to build the structure of the aircraft."
Wikipedia
Boats, canoes, racingshells and railway wheel hubs were built of paper and 'glue' in the late 1800's. It's true. You know; papier-mache: it's not just for kids. There's all kinds of possibilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papier-m%C3%A2ch%C3%A9
Lets not forget the plywood monocoque Protos F2 or the Marcos sportscars,quality 3mm marine grade: nothing but the best veneers and glue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcos_(automobile)
Marcos Sportscar Monocoque. Definitely wood. Yes people paid good money for ... wooden chassis.
NAtural fibres can be in the form of flax or hemp or sisal. The haven't got the properties to be made into structural parts as of yet but they are getting there as lots of research is being done. That article I posted about the racing greens has an example of a 3d woven material made from naturl fibres.
Carlos wrote:Worth mentioning that another natural material - paper - has been used in composite sportsplane monocoques in combination with polyester resin (also a little fiberglass matting) - the Taylor Paper Glass TPG composite process. Using kraft paper. I've mentioned this stuff before. It's just a personal fascination and crusade.
"While not actually papier-mâché, the paper-glass composite developed by Moulton Taylor for the Aerocar Micro-IMP homebuilt aircraft in 1978 did rely on a laminated structure of fiberglass and paper held together with a polyester adhesive to build the fuselage. The unique construction was intended to allow the home builder to purchase full-scale plans, printed on heavy paper, and use the plans themselves to build the structure of the aircraft."
Wikipedia
Boats, canoes, racingshells and railway wheel hubs were built of paper and 'glue' in the late 1800's. It's true. You know; papier-mache: it's not just for kids. There's all kinds of possibilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papier-m%C3%A2ch%C3%A9
Paper Railway Wheels - It's really true - see - I got a link
Lets not forget the plywood monocoque Protos F2 or the Marcos sportscars,quality 3mm marine grade: nothing but the best veneers and glue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcos_(automobile)
Marcos Sportscar Monocoque. Definitely wood. Yes people paid good money for ... wooden chassis.
Put this motor in it.
"FERARI V12 365GTB/4 WOODEN DAYTONA MOTOR ,FULL SIZE , MADE OUT OF RARE WOODS ,ONLY 12 MADE BY BILL DIETZ IN MOSS LANDING CALIFORNIA ,THESE ENGINES WERE MADE OVER A 3 YEAR PERIOD ,USING PHOTOS AND A ACTUAL DAYTONA ENGINE , THE MOTOR WEIGHS 50 LBS IT TOOK OVER 400 HOURES PER MOTOR TO BUILD ,EACH IS SERIAL NUMBERD HIDDEN IN THE BLOCK ,THE BLOCK IS MADE OF PHILLIPPINE MAHOGANY ,THE PRESSURE PLATE AND PULLEYS OF WENGE ,THE CARBUETORS ARE TEAK WITH MAPLE VELOCITY STACKS AND THE OIL FILTERS ARE MADE FROM PADAUK ,THE STARTER AND TWIN DISTRIBUTOR CAPS ARE WALNUT WHILE THE DISTRIBUTOR ITSELF,AS WELL AS THE CAM END COVERS ,ARE MADE FROM HONDURAS MAHOGANY ,ALL THE SCREWS ,BOLTS ,AND STUDS ARE BIRCH AND THE WASTER PUMP AND INLET ARE MADE FROM HAWAIIN KOA ,THE OIL FILTER BASE IS WALNUT ,HE SPRINGS AND COILS ARE NAUTURAL WOOD CANING AND OTHER BITS ARE MADE FROM OAK."
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute
Another things that may happen and is currently under investigation in the aerospace industry are SMAs (shape metal alloy). SMAs, which are made with some combination of aluminum, nickel, titanium, copper, and zinc are being investigated for flexible wing tips etc and with the addition of moveabe aero parts these may see a use in F1.
Well, "new" is a relative concept. Even Shape Memory Alloys could be considered to be traditional materials by now. Right now I'm up to my ears of nano-things: everyday you heard of a possible new application and a professor or two claiming their work will change the world. Anyway...
I would start by mention Ferroics (multiferroics, to be exact). That's something relatively new, at least for me, or the first paper (I think) appeared in 1994. They are not very promising for F1, but, hey, you never know. At least you could write a page or two about them, of course to be used in switches, computer memories and things like that.
Any Wiki search will inform you about them, but, to summarize, they are ferric materials (iron-like) that change their magnetic, electric or elasticity (and, allegedly, their toroidicity, or whatever is the word) when you change one of those "parameters". In english, (as I understand it), you can change the magnetization by passing an electric current into the material. How can they give you 0.1 seconds per lap escapes me, but you can write a paper with the words "magnetic frustration", which is a noble goal in itself...
Then I've heard of metamaterials. Nice word, almost as poetic as "magnetic frustration".
Metamaterials (and, then, the Wiki article is better than this post) are also new, the term being coined as recently as 1999. They are "composite materials that achieve material performance beyond the limits of conventional composites". In english, they are materials that reach their properties not by their chemical composition but by their structure. The talk started when the first metamaterial with "negative refraction" was developed. If you create a negative refraction material, as any Star Trek fan knows, you can devise the famous "Klingon invisibility cloak". That would be very useful (specially if KERS come back) because they cannot block your car if they cannot see you... not to mention that they wouldn't be able to copy your winglets, diffussor and wings if they cannot take pictures of them. Imagine the bonanza for aerodynamic engineers: they would have to develop every aerodynamic component by themselves.
Ames laboratory created a metamaterial with negative refraction but ONLY FOR RED LIGHT. Of course, is pathetically clear that the guys at Ames are tifosi: why couldn't they create a metamaterial for silver light or white and blue one? Of course, any person in this forum knows the answer: they are allied with FIA and Ferrari, the pigs.
Previously the had succeded in bending infrared light (heat) only: very useful for press conferences, where the heat must be deflected sometimes. Flavio Briatore and Fernando Alonso could use this kind of cloaking device, for example: they seem to get red in the face frequently.
Finally, for a college paper, I would mention amorphous carbonia. Not only I really can dig the word "carbonia" (is this a new planet? a new pop singer?) but you can use a couple of pages blah-blah-ing about how you can create ultra hard glass with ordinary carbon dioxide. The implications for the global warming can give you a couple of paragraphs. I don't know what to do in racing with ultra hard glass, but maybe in ordinary cars with ordinary windows they could be used. Of course, as amorphous carbonia is as hard as ordinary diamonds, it could make a good material for a chassis, as long as you don't hit it with anything: it might break in pieces. Perhaps it would be useful for the core of the tub, perhaps it could be used in the wheel covers: if you touch the wheels of your adversary you could shred them to pieces. Check Wikipedia for this one, also: you can read the BBC article on it in the References section, including how this thing will save mankind, make woman more beautiful and convert ordinary men in people like us, dignified, smart and able to talk for hours about things you only have heard vaguely about.
Production cars mostly use mild steel for chassis and body panels for very practical reasons:
-the price of mild steel is low and very stable over time. The material cost for other metals like aluminum vary widely over time, mostly due to the fact that they require lots of energy to produce, so their price fluctuates with energy prices.
When the auto OEM's decide on a material for use in their cars, they must make a prediction on what that material will cost 4 or 5 years in the future. The auto business is very competitive, so if their cost estimates for materials are even slightly off, it can mean the difference between profit and loss on that vehicle component.
-mild steel is very easy to form into the smooth shapes that auto bodies require. Aluminum and composites are very difficult to form into the ultra-smooth body panels that modern car buyers demand. That's why a Corolla has smoother fenders than a Corvette.
-mild steel can be stamped and spot-welded into car bodies and chassis at a much greater production rate than composites. This is a very important consideration when you have to crank out a part every 30 seconds, 24/7.
As for the future of materials in F1, they are cost cutting and outlawed some materials like AlBe alloys for engines and brake calipers. Carbon composites cost around $35/lb, titanium alloy is around $50/lb, but AlBe casting alloys were almost $300/lb. Of course, SiC ceramic is still legal for things like wheel bearings and CV joints, and it goes for about $600/lb. So who knows?
Good luck.
Terry
"Q: How do you make a small fortune in racing?
A: Start with a large one!"
Saturns are (were? frikkin GM orphans make me sick... Asuna, Geo, etc, no wonder they are bankrupt) made form plastic panels, I would guess injection moulded as that is cheap and easy to set up.
If you your car sits in a wet garage under a tarp, it might get molded.
Before I do anything I ask myself “Would an idiot do that?” And if the answer is yes, I do not do that thing. - Dwight Schrute
Why stop there! 
