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