24 replies to this topic

[DEVO]

Whenever I hear words like it dangerous or we need to keep things fair for lesser teams, I always think something is up and that the words being uttered are merely a distraction from the truth. It's interesting to see that Ferrari was the team complaining the loudest over the usage of Beryllium in engine components. Sighting hazardous conditions in the manufacturing process and to some degree making the metal sound like unattainium and unfair to smaller budget teams (not being able to afford it). Well would it be to anybody surprise that Beryllium is totally attainable now to the lesser teams because it's cost has dropped significantly??? Why would Ferrari do this? They knew that more teams would start to use this technology and that their performance gap would narrow, not to mention McLaren's engine probably perfected the usage of Beryllium in their engine. So Ferrari goes out and gets Beryllium banned from the sport while all along making a new engine (along with Shell) with ceramics and other exotic materials that is equal if not better then any Beryllium derived engine ever made. Guess what, the cost for such an engine is huge, the lesser teams now have the ability to buy Beryllium but can't, they can't make the same material for their engine as Ferrari did, because they don't have the resources, and Ferrari throws a monkey wrench into the works at McLaren. All this and they come out smelling like roses, I have to say that Ferrari is very clever and admire them for that.

BTW... if you want to read the full article it's in the latest issue of F1 Racing.

[Peeko]

The truth according to who?

[Alvega]

Devo, you may have a point in there.

Mauro Forghieri, who for many years was technical director at the Scuderia, some years ago was claiming in an interview that he had tried berilium brake calippers back in the seventies. Interesting how history can turn around...

[DEVO]

The truth according to me, i know everything. Actually read the article and see what you come up with. I don't know if there is a way to post the article on the net. Anybody?

[Grano]

Well it seems Ferrari only started complaining after not perfecting the Beryllium technique...

[mono-posto]

I haven't read the article, but does it mention that changes to the technical regulations has to be unaimously voted on by all teams?

Maybe you should take that into consideration.

[DEVO]

There was no mention about a unanimous decision made by all the teams. I will have to look at the article again but I think it was the FIA that banned it. Some other organization banned any material that exhibited similar qualities as beryllium, but that would have banned carbon fiber as well. So the FIA stated that any "metal" exhibiting the beryllium spec was banned. Anyway at the time the ban was made, beryllium was very expensive. If Ferrari had the foresight to see that the price would drop and that they would never perfect the usage of beryllium as McLaren had, then they really made a great move to get the ball rolling on banning the material.

[mono-posto]

I am sure that any team of the caliper of Ferrari or even McLaren can pull clout when they need to. But I am very nearly sure that a tech change needs to be voted on.

There could be a stipulation for the FIA to play supreme and override a vote, I'm not sure.

(By the way, I didn't mean the last line of my previous post to sound so course. I just re-read it and it came across a little snobby. Sorry )

[Ricardo F1]

Funny, but probably not true. Although had Ferrari won the WDC in 99 instead of 00 it makes you wonder whether this would have happened . . .

[AyePirate]

The FIA can use "safety" to make rules changes
whenever they feel like it

Ferrari's strategy has always been to seek to ban
any technology that they cannot come to grips
with. They tried to make a workable "fiddle brake",
they tried to incorporate BeAl into their engines.
When in both cases they failed the IQ test,
they had the FIA ban them.

Brilliant, Machiavellian

It must've been hard for Todt et al to keep
a straight face though when they used
the "environmental/health risk" argument to ban
BeAl.

They aren't exactly Scuderia Greenpeace/Birkenstock.

[bleakuzs]

Shell is a world leader in ceramic's. Speculation is that the new Ferrari engine uses ceramics, which by bannign BeAl, would give them an advantage. And with Mosley's safety witch hunt, any hint of some unsafe or hazardous material will see it promply banned.

[Samurai]

beryllium oxide (not the alloy itself though) is indeed evil stuff, but so are many things,
and like others are saying, I get the feeling this ban wouldn't have come around if it was Ferrari that were using it.
This will be a huge detriment to McLaren's performance. And I'm sure there'll be some numskulls (sorry ;) ), some rabid fans of a certain German driver who'll completely ignore this and be shouting that it was because TC leveled the field and removed McLaren's advantage. dUh!

[Clatter]

Shell is a world leader in ceramic's. Speculation is that the new Ferrari engine uses ceramics

That would be interesting as the rules already ban the use of ceramics in the engine.

[MacFan]

If the reasons given for the ban were not so dubious, there would be no reason for the conspiracy theories. As it is, the risk to anybody attending an F1 race or test session from the BeAl used in engines is minimal, and the risks in the workshop can easily be controlled.

[Samurai]

Originally posted by Clatter

That would be interesting as the rules already ban the use of ceramics in the engine.

I don't think you're right.
I think they are using an aluminum and ceramic alloy = Metal Matrix Composite (MMC) material, which seems to be quite close in performance (lightweight, thermal conductance) to Al/Be.

[david_martin]

Sammi, aluminium metal matrix composites are not ceramics. They are basically aluminium with a small volume fraction of an insoluble solid phase dispersed through the aluminium. Common things include silicon carbide and alumina, normally shaped either as spheroids or whiskers.

The biggest advantage of Be/Al is it possesses a very high specific stiffness (elastic modulus/density), allowing for stiff, lightweight reciprocating parts. Aluminium MMC's are definitely inferior in Be/Al in this respect.

[Mobile_Chicane]

who cares. They've already got other alloys to replace beryllium for sure.

[HartleyHare]

I just hope that all this is the end of the FIA supporting Ferrari. They won both WCs this year so the ridiculous delaying of the TC rules (contravening FIA regulations on mid-season rule changes, except for safety reasons) should be the final act. I fear it won't be, though.

Fingers crossed...

[Amadeus]

Sure hate to throw some cold hard scientific fact into a perfectly good conspiracy theory folks, but:

Beryllium
Advantages:
Lighter than Aluminum, Stiffer than Steel
Light weight atomic weight is 9.0122
Second lightest of the metals (only 1/3 as heavy as aluminum)
Density is 1.85 grams per cubic centimeter (similar to magnesium)

Stiffness or rigidity about 6 times stiffer than steel - can withstand great force before bending

High melting point (1285 C) compared to other light metals
holds its shape over a wide temperature range

High heat-absorption capacity a pound will absorb as much heat as 5 pounds of copper

Nonmagnetic
Dimensional stability
Good corrosion resistance
Lowest thermal neutron absorption cross-section of any metal
High permeability (transparency) to X-rays
Can be machined to close tolerances

However:
It is expensive and too brittle to work with in some applications.

The most significant disadvantage of beryllium as an industrial material is the toxicity of its dust, fumes, and soluble salts.

Beryllium’s brittleness is the down side of its advantageous stiffness. Brittleness also increases the hazards associated with beryllium’s toxicity. Unless ventilation and other controls are used, small particles and chips of insoluble beryllium-containing materials break off during machining and other processes and spread through the air in the work area. Inhalation of these tiny particles is the type of exposure that can lead to chronic beryllium disease

Exposure to beryllium particles can cause a serious illness in certain people. This illness is chronic beryllium disease, or CBD—an irreversible and sometimes fatal scarring of the lungs.

Medical studies show that even small amounts of beryllium particles of a size that can be breathed deeply into the lungs may trigger an allergy-like sensitivity in 2-5 percent of people exposed.
About 1 to 3 percent of all people exposed to beryllium develop CBD. In studies of people in certain occupations where historically exposure to beryllium was greatest (for example, studies of machinists in beryllium operations), this number rises to as many as 10 to 14 percent.
There is currently no widely available test to find out who is sensitive to beryllium before exposure occurs.
More than 100 current and former employees of Department of Energy (DOE) sites have CBD. The percentage of people who were exposed and became ill is much larger than similar percentages known for other DOE workplace health hazards.
CBD is seen only in individuals who have experienced some exposure to beryllium particles, dust, or fumes.

The URL for this article is too long to post but all you need to do is go to Ask Jeeves www.Askjeeves.com and type in beryllium. There is a load more stuff in there on this material. If someone (Ferrari, McLaren or even Minardi or Arrows) started using Asbestos or Uranium there would be a clamp down. Beryllium carries substantive and scientifically proven health risks and that alone is grounds for banning it regardless of who uses it, how much it costs or how performance enhancing it it.

Sorry to burst another great conspiracy theory




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Amadeus]

Originally posted by Mobile_Chicane
who cares. They've already got other alloys to replace beryllium for sure.

BTW as you can see above beryllium is not an alloy.

[david_martin]

Amadeus, the material that has been used in F1 engines and is now banned is a Be/Al alloy not pure Beryllium.

[Amadeus]

Originally posted by david_martin
Amadeus, the material that has been used in F1 engines and is now banned is a Be/Al alloy not pure Beryllium.

Yep, but the danger was never to race fans trackside inhaling this stuff after an engine blowup, it is to whoever is involved in the manufacture of the componants, and Be/Al still contains the active element implicated in CBD.

I suppose the real root question here is where does the FIA responsibility for safty end? Is it just drivers and other trackside, or can they legitimatly 'steer' the teams into using safer materials during production and so reducing the hazzard to race personnel right through the car manufacture? As I said above I can't see anyone being allowed to use asbestos, so why use something that could be as bad?

And why o why use a safety related materials ban to bash Ferrari?!

I admit to being just a bit pedantic about Mobile Chicanes post though!;)

[130R]

The bottom line suggested by this thread, in any case, is the FIA favouratism of Ferrari and Ferrari's machiavellian efforts to gain competitive advantage.

To some its agood thing, to others it isn't -- and even some deny it!!

[Amadeus]

Originally posted by 130R
The bottom line suggested by this thread, in any case, is the FIA favouratism of Ferrari and Ferrari's machiavellian efforts to gain competitive advantage.

To some its agood thing, to others it isn't -- and even some deny it!!

Oh come on!!! Name 1 team that doesn't use "machiavellian efforts to gain competitive advantage"!! F1 is a political world, and all the teams are political in it.

Some people see consiparacy theories, others don't. Some people like N'Sync, some want to punch thier lights out - different strokes. I watch F1 cause I like the tech and I like the racing, conspiracy theories are a giggle but if they were true doen't you think that the other teams would be making a bit more of a fuss about it? In proffesional snooker there is a breakaway body made up of disgruntled pros, in football the English Premier League was formed by clubs who wanted more autonomy - even in US racing thier has been a breakaway. If there was a genuine grounding to the grumblings of conspiracy and favoritism you would see the FIA running F1 with just Ferrari and McLaren et al in a rival race series.

[Eau Red]

there's no reason to hold this against ferrari. they acted within the rules. as did mclaren when they called attention to ferrari's malaysia '99 barge boards. it's part of the game and nice guys finish last. you have to be severly dominant in any sport before you can afford to be generous to your competitors. mclaren and ferrari both understand this.