Upload
presspley
View
804
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Composite Material
Substitution in Formula 1
Implications for Industry
Mark Preston
Managing Director
Introduction
• Motorsports uses a large amount of composite material
• Industries such as Aerospace have ambitious targets
• Automotive targets are based around carbon reduction
• Safety is a key driver of composite substitution in F1 –monocoque is an example of this
How is Motorsports Relevant to Us?
• Question most often asked
• What are the key aspects of F1?
• How does it compare?
• How does F1 deal with innovation, risk and development
F1 – Basic
Technical Facts• 2,500 kg downforce
• 350 km/h top speed
• 5g deceleration
• 750 BHP @ 18,000 RPM
• 425kg without engine and driver
• Typical 80-900° C operating temperatures
• + 70% carbon parts – structural and cosmetic
Typical Manufacturing
Schedule• Design – 4 weeks
• Moulds – 2 weeks
• First off parts – 1
week
• Testing – 1 week
• TOTAL = 8 weeks
Pace of DevelopmentWorld Record Performance Change for Athletes in Mens and Womens 100m and 200m
90
92
94
96
98
100
102
104
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Norm
alised %
Change
Mens
Womens
Mens 0.1% / year
Womens -0.25% / year
Normalised Percentage Change in Lap Time
88.00
90.00
92.00
94.00
96.00
98.00
100.00
102.00
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year
Norm
alised %
Lap Tim
e C
hange
-1.4% / year
100m & 200m World Record
Vs.
F1 Lap Time Decrease
0.2% vs. 1.4% per year
F1 Budgets £50-250m per year
Pace is driven by innovation
F1 Innovation Cycle
• Ideas pipeline
• Up to 20 iterations of parts per year
• “Prototyping competition”– Volume < 5 off
– Design / Manufacturing Cycle 8-14 weeks
• Sign off techniques allow parts to be delivered straight to the track
• High risk, high visibility of failure (500m viewers worldwide)
Manufacture
Lab TestRace
Design
Risk / Failure
• Is F1 really high risk?
• Risk is composed of 2 elements
– Uncertainty (probability of
success/failure)
– Consequences (of an event)
• Risk Assessment Matrix
• Failure types
– Performance - Technical Failure
– Programmatic - (cost, timing)
Pictures: “Estimating the Risk of Technology
Development”, Dr. Alan W. Wilhite, Center for Aerospace
Systems Analysis (CASA)
Risk in F1
• Has risk changed?
• YES!
• Success is 99% Failure -Soichiro Honda
– “Why haven’t you failed anything yet, you’re not trying hard enough”
– Typical engineers response/questions “How many chances do we get before people panic?!”
Photos: Jim Clark at Lotus and Red Bull factory 2009
NASA Technology Readiness Levels (TRL)
F1 Safety Progression
• Fire extinguishers
• Seat Belts
• Helmets
• Monocoque
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1954 1960 1965 1971 1976 1982 1987 1993 1998 2004 2009
Cummulative Lives Lost
Monocoque Development
• Mono – single
• Coque – shell example = egg
• Cocoon for the driver
• Seatbelts
• Internal padding
Sketches from “The Egg of Columbus”, thechaparralfiles.com
Why Composites?
• Specific Modulus
• Geometric Efficiencies
• Manufacturing
– Late calls
– Intricate shapes
No Return?
Weight
Safety / Performance
Tubular Chassis
Folded Aluminium
Modern Monocoque
Is it possible to return easily?
F1 - Evolution of Carbon
Substitution
Gearbox
Wings
Monocoque
Suspension
Bodywork
Engine Parts
Load / S
ize
Time / Risk / Competitive Advantage
Increa
sing
comple
xity , r
isk,
load, t
emper
ature
Rear Top Wishbone
Problem:
• Aerodynamics – smallest size possible
• Temperature – rear of the car near exhausts
• Cost – reduce the price of flexures
• Stiffness – reduce the joints
• Strength – Make it one piece
Weight Reduction
Original Steel Part - 100%
Carbon and steel - 52.7%
Full carbon - 41.7%
787 Dreamliner
• High Composite Target
• High risk
• Very public
• Recent problems will make it harder to return – Mitsubishi has responded with aluminium return
• Why should there only be 1 chance at failure?
• Consequences are high
• Can motorsports provide an “Open Source” innovation opportunities?
Blue Sky Thinking
• Cognitive differences
• “Fail often, fail early”
• Open innovation
• “Killer App” – could F1 provide in composites?
• Can there be a way to provide the necessary learning in a different sector?
• If so, can aerospace truly benefit from motorsports and sports?
Summary
• Composite substitution in Formula 1 has gone further than most industries
• The benefits to safety have been large
• There are many examples of parts that would face large performance losses if returned to metals – the monocoque is one example
• Innovation in F1 and other sports can transfer to aerospace reducing risk