Carbon fibre can have quite good fatigue resistance if designed correctly, it has a very high flex mod and good tensile strength. It compares with steel on a size for size basis and easily beats steel on a weight for weight basis.
HAVING SAID THAT, I do agree with Greg, specifically for the following reasons:-
It has VERY LOW ELONGATION AT BREAK, hence the design is extremely critical of even distribution of stress.
Packaging restrictions can force stress concentration areas into the design.
The resin that binds the fibres is degraded by heat, the extent of the degradation depends on the particular resin.
The properties are VERY DEPENDANT ON FIBRE ORIENTATION.
Properties quoted for a single fibre cannot be extrapolated into a composite structure, as the load is never shared equally with all the fibres in the cross section of the composite. Also the resin matrix plays a part in the properties of the composite.
Often data sheets quote the properties of a single fibre, not the properties of a composite.
Even data sheets quoting data for composites use data from a perfectly oriented sample, made under ideal conditions and with a test piece designed to optimise the properties. This is rarely if ever achieved in the real world, and many designs and processes fall far short of data sheet properties.
My recommendations.
Use good steel, remove as much excess from the design as possible, then use it to your hearts content.
Use aluminium, save some weight, but check it regularly for cracks.
If you have an F1 level of budget, experiment with carbon fibre prototypes, but expect breakages until, when and if you sort it out. Do extensive testing where neither life nor limb are threatened by a failure.
Regards
eng-tips, by professional engineers for professional engineers
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.