I don't think mixing the two designs adds much to be honest. If designed properly there is no need for the bolts, and if designed poorly I doubt anything will hold it together. The only reason to use multiple attachment methods would be if they each add something the other can't. In this case either alone can be designed to be ok. At least for chainplates this is true, other structures have different issues.
For a chainplate it is possible to bury the carbon over a large area, first by embedding it inside the layers of hull glass, but also by spreading it out fore and aft. So the chainplate roving looks like a fan coming down the side of the hull. This provides a huge contact area, that is integral to the hull.
Auto parts have different issues. Bonding area may be restricted, high volume production requirements have to be met, and cost effectiveness is a bigger driving concern. Not that the two areas can't look to each other for ideas, but they really are different worlds. The auto industry for instance has pretty much rejected prepeg carbon for a number of reasons, where the marine and aircraft industry has adopted it as the best option. But then the marine industry won't need to build thousands of units a day, and the aerospace industry is much less price sensitive than any other.
|