34 replies to this topic

[z bleebox]

During the broadcast of the Belgian Gp, the commentators of the
Spanish TV (an awful source!!) said that some of the problems that Mclaren had along this season was due to the removal of berylium parts and their substitution for another base material from some pieces of their engines (i.e. pistons)

They said that they were forced to remove it due to the health protection of their mechanics.

As far as I know, berylium is dangerous during machining, but not during handling (taking some basic precautions)

Can anybody

a) comment anything about berylium on the mac engines?
b) comment anything about safety and berylium?
c) give us some light about F1 regulations and berylium?

thank you

[Christiaan]

As I recall the posters on this BB concluded that Be/Al alloy was used on cypnder wall linings. FIA banned it because of its high cost more than the safety aspects. There less than 5 reputable suppliers of Al/Be in the world and so that would make the expensive alloy less accessible to the poorer teams. The ban wasn't specifically on the Alloy but a ceiling for the maximum modulus of elasticty was set to 40GPa according to Article 15.1.2 of the FIA rulebook. The reason it was such a desirable material was its high stiffness and ultra light weight. Stiffness equates to reliability.


Unfortunately I can't find the original discussion n Al/Be, but these threads should give you more insight


1 and 2

[z bleebox]

great stuff!!

this is by far the best F1 BB

thank you very much

[desmo]

The rationale for the de facto Be ban was always pretty ill-defined. At first the primary motivation seemed to be for health reasons, but it became clear that if reasonable precautions were employed, Be was quite safe to use. Then we heard how it was to control costs, but Mario Ilien has stated that although the material is indeed initially more expensive, that components have a longer service life in Be alloy than Al making it a reasonable solution from a cost standpoint. Never mind the fallacy of controlling costs via the Technical Regulations. The specific modulus limit is IMO both ill-concieved and based on fallacious reasoning. Typical politics.

[Croaky]

Surely you're not saying that Be was banned because a certain German engine maker was gaining more from it than a certain Italian engine maker?

[BertlF]

Originally posted by Croaky
Surely you're not saying that Be was banned because a certain German engine maker was gaining more from it than a certain Italian engine maker?

[Christiaan]

I remember that the initial objection to Al/Be on safety grounds actually came from Ferrari. Ilmor and Cosworth were using it and it was quite clear that those two engines revved higher and were in fcat lighter than any other engine on the grid. Ferrari not been able to secure a reliable supplier of the alloy. When they finally found one they kept quiet but the small teams had started to complain about costs. FIA found a "clever" way to ban Al/Be because if they had banned it outright then it would have been clear that they had alterior motives. I remember when the 1st press release of the ban came out it specifically said "blah blah blah 40GPa , eg Aluminum/Berylium alloys"

The question came to me as to how they could regulate costs of engine materials. They can't really say that they will ban any substance costing more that $xxx per kilogram on the open market. In fact my biggest protest to FIA's "contolling costs via materials" logic is that I'd bet that the materials make up a 20% of the cost of an engine while design and testing overheads make up 80%

[imaginesix]

Originally posted by desmo
...but Mario Ilien has stated that although the material is indeed initially more expensive, that components have a longer service life in Be alloy than Al making it a reasonable solution from a cost standpoint

That doesn't help the teams who don't have the cold hard cash to buy the stuff in the first place though.

Originally posted by Christiaan
In fact my biggest protest to FIA's "contolling costs via materials" logic is that I'd bet that the materials make up a 20% of the cost of an engine while design and testing overheads make up 80%

Yes, but it's important to distinguish cause and effect here. If the proportion of total budget that is spent on design and testing is so high, it is only because materials and techniques are so highly restricted by the regulations in the first place.

Teams will always find ways to spend all their development budget, the only variable is determining which avenue will provide the biggest gain for the money.

The point is that there was more performance to be gained for every $100 spent on beryllium than from every $100 spent on R&D for existing technologies, putting the poorer teams to a greater disadvantage.

[Halfwitt]

Originally posted by imaginesix


The point is that there was more performance to be gained for every $100 spent on beryllium than from every $100 spent on R&D for existing technologies, putting the poorer teams to a greater disadvantage.

If they are too stupid to spend the $100 on Beryllium-Aluminium alloy than on two hours design time, then that is their problem. Ferrari were the main complainants, not because of cost or danger, but because the company that effectively controlled the supply of the metal would not supply Ferrari on an exclusive basis. I've said this before: I love Ferrari, but this was a sh*tty tactic on their behalf, and really in the interests of nobody other than Ferrari.

[imaginesix]

If a race team's budget for development is $200 000 after all other necessary expenses are covered, and an engine re-design to make use of beryllium cost $300 000, how 'stupid' does a team have to be to recognise that they can't afford it?
If a richer team's development budget is $1 000 000, they will have no problem simply diverting the funds necessary to the more performance-improving beryllium avenue.
I didn't invent a world where the more technicaly restricted race series produce closer racing, I just live in it, baby.

[Halfwitt]

There was an article in either RCE or RT saying that Al-Be components were in the main more durable than the 'basic' aluminium parts, and overall costs would probably be similar. This is in addition to their lightness and strength. It is probably the lightness that leads to the decreased overall friction and not some frictional property of the material itself, which is easily altered by plating or coating the part.

Furthermore, most of the teams redesign engines every year anyway, so the development costs are already large. And I don't think Ferrari were doing this because they were bothered about Minardi's low budget. This was Ferrari getting shirty because someone wouldn't give them exlusive rights to the stuff. Don't kid yourself this is a cost saving move instigated on behalf of the less well-off teams.

[ehagar]

Originally posted by desmo
The rationale for the de facto Be ban was always pretty ill-defined. At first the primary motivation seemed to be for health reasons

I always found that arguement totally bizarre. As a whole product, Beryllium is completely safe, provided it isn't used in a role that would likely cause wear (and thereby lead to small particle inhilation). The guy at Brush-Wellman who sold Beryllium for motorsport applications uses a Al-Be stir stick with his coffee!

[random]

I'm sure carbon fiber brake dust is just fantastic for the lungs but you don't see any attempts to ban it.

For whatever reason Mad Max (mosley) decided he wanted to ban beryllium. But the only way he can change the rules without the unanimous agreement of the teams it to use the "safety" cudgel.

When the teams renegotiate the Concorde Agreement, I certainly hope they will plug this immense loophole that allows the FIA to change the rules at a whim. At the very least, a majority of the teams should have to agree to any "safety" rule change.

[desmo]

If I remember correctly the Be- ahem specific modulus of elasticity limit, was indeed passed with the consent of all the teams and was not introduced via Max's beloved "safety" short circuit of the deliberative process. I'd happily drink out of a Be cup if Brush Wellman will see fit to send me one!

[random]

Hmm... I think you're correct as to the current reason it's banned Desmo. However I distinctly remember Mad Max posturing about the unsafe nature of Be.

Possibly the teams agreed (and made their own rule) because they knew Max would just ban it with the safety loophole if the teams didn't ban it themselves.

[Yelnats]

The FIA has been thrown into a complete flap as they can't get their hands on the new material Toyota is designing their 2002 F1 car from. The rumour is that they are using a new NASA created material named unobtainium. The FIA hasn't banned it because no one has found a source for it. And of course Bernie has been driven to distraction. He was hoping to corner the market and become much richer, perhaps surpassing Bill Gates or even Queen Elizabeth!

The chemical formula for this material is very hush hush but I have it on good authority that it contains a good dose of E=Mc2 with a pinch of PI*R Squared to round it off. It has negative weight and mass and is infintely stiff in both tension and compression. Of course Toyota has been having a devil of a time machineing this material and are running short of the only material that will cut it, neverbeenium.

[random]

No worries, I have it on good authority that Unobtainium has already been banned. The modulus of elasticity rule covers it quite nicely.

[moog101]

Originally posted by Yelnats
The FIA has been thrown into a complete flap as they can't get their hands on the new material Toyota is designing their 2002 F1 car from. The rumour is that they are using a new NASA created material named unobtainium. The FIA hasn't banned it because no one has found a source for it. And of course Bernie has been driven to distraction. He was hoping to corner the market and become much richer, perhaps surpassing Bill Gates or even Queen Elizabeth!

The chemical formula for this material is very hush hush but I have it on good authority that it contains a good dose of E=Mc2 with a pinch of PI*R Squared to round it off. It has negative weight and mass and is infintely stiff in both tension and compression. Of course Toyota has been having a devil of a time machineing this material and are running short of the only material that will cut it, neverbeenium.

Hmm I wonder what an alloy of the two would perform like?

We could call it Bloodystongtium

[marion5drsn]

After reading about Unobtanium, Neverbeenium and Bloodystrongnium I immediately called my supplier for some stress analysis of these materials and found that they can only be machined by using diamond-blasting techniques. I then put in an order for 15 tons of this special diamond dust and cornered the market! Ferrari will be completely out of the picture when I sell the product only to Mercedes. The only problem is that my supplier is in deepest darkest Russia and I find them difficult to deal with at this time. They only answer the phone when they see fit and sometimes not even then.

I need this for my new and very special super faster than the speed of light Desmodromic
Cam/valve action. Yours, Lamont Cranston

[Yelnats]

random.. I didn't want to get into details in case somebody gets fired but Unobtainium is a member of a new class of programable materials that activly respond to forces in predefined (or redefined) ways so test results are pretty meaningless.

One might say unobtainium is the traction control of the materials world as far as the FIA is concerned.

It functions very similar to muscle tissue with individule fibers racheting past each other to take up tension or compression in a predefined way. Of course there is electronics involved, a sort of ECU for materials, a MCU so to speak. I can't get much deeper than this at the moment as there are patent rights involved here and of course theres the Mosad to consider.

And marion5drsn... even Toyoyta was financially strained to buy into this technology, so you'd better have deep pockets.

And moog101.... Bloddystrongium? Bloody good idea!

[vorda22]

i know this is old, but over at our board we are having a discussion on what exactly were the reasons behind a ban on beryllium in f1 engines in 2001

assuming the actual production of beryllium based parts was carried out in a safe environment, was the beryllium in current state inside an f1 motor a danger to the surrounding mechanics, drivers, and even fans after?

i mean could small dust of beryllium break off and disperse thorugh the exhaust so people around could breathe it in?

even more, was there a danger that due to an engine breaking down or burning up, the people around it could inhale or come in contact with the dangerous beryllium that causes respiratory problems or cancer?

so i guess what im trying to find out, was beryllium banned because it posed immediate threat in f1 race, or just cause the alloy used had a beryllium name by it, and then it was associated with problems people who were exposed for a long time to it without much protection?

i guess you know about hte debate that the banning benefited certain team, while it left other struggling for performance

thanks for your time to explain

[desmo]

I've merged this into an old thread from the archives on topic. There's more that's been said, just try the BB search function.

[zac510]

I have some good articles in old RaceTech mags of that time. Unfortunately I don't have them handy so I'll try to go off of my memory!

Not much I can add that hasn't been said in this thread already. The risk really was 'safety' but a bit of cost too. Its use was becoming more and more prolific through out the engine, brake calipers, etc and had the potential to be used for suspension uprights and more. Costs were to be in the region of $20000 for a set of V10 pistons (iirc). Once they started using the material for bore liner material (or for the block outright) the potential for more beryllium dust to be released and associated health risks increased.

I don't think Ferrari were as behind on engine development as people pretend they were but they certainly 'lost' less when the material was banned.

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by imaginesix
If a race team's budget for development is $200 000 after all other necessary expenses are covered, and an engine re-design to make use of beryllium cost $300 000, how 'stupid' does a team have to be to recognise that they can't afford it?
If a richer team's development budget is $1 000 000, they will have no problem simply diverting the funds necessary to the more performance-improving beryllium avenue.
I didn't invent a world where the more technicaly restricted race series produce closer racing, I just live in it, baby.

Most teams ran beryllium components as pure replacement parts; replace an aluminum piston with a similar designed AlBeMet piston. Mercedes was most likely the only engine manufacturer that made engines with beryllium in mind, taking maximum advantage of the material.

Since most smaller teams tend to lease an engine rather than make them theirself, cost of the materials and new development isn't an issue, but they would sure be the last ones to get the advantage of beryllium in their engines.

Even though beryllium is expensive, it isn't THAT expensive. Pure Be powder cost somewhere around $1000/kg. Pistons was typically machined from billets (HIP'ed Be and Al powder) but possebilities included cast or forged versions with a composite containing 40-60% Be by weight. The amount beryllium needed per piston is quite limited, you won't need more than 200 gram composite, that's 80-120 gram Be per piston. That's about $100 worth of beryllium per piston. Sure, the manufacturing costs will be higher, but still beryllium would be very cost effective.

There is however a risk that beryllium compsites would find their way into other components, where the amount of berylium needed isn't that small. If it can be used to make liners, why not use it to make the block and heads? Perhaps it also works in radiators, uprights, gearbox casing and so on.

Some info about beryllium. The first article is reprinted from Race Tech.
http://www.beryllium...ts/maab-013.pdf
http://www.brushwell.../06-04 sock.pdf

[Wuzak]

In 1997, IIRC, Ferrari ran Al-Be brake callipers.

At the end of the season Al-Be was banned from anything not part of the engine. But , also if memory serves, the engine manufacturers were put on notice that Al-Be components in the engine would be disallowed in the future, and the date and time was laid out. The banning of Al-Be wasn't an 11th hour thing - there was some warning.

Anyway, during the time from 1998 to 2001 Ferrari developed Al-Be components for their engine, and obviously did a better job of designing alternatives for the day that the ban came into effect.

[12.9:1]

Beryllium is neat stuff but is it necessary to expose some of the lowest paid members (and their families) of the F1 world to potentialy deadly substances for the sake of sport?

As for the links to Brush Wellman inc.

It's always enlightening to read a discourse on health matters written by Solicitors. Brush Wellman inc. has seen lots of litigation over many decades, all about something that's "completely safe"

Why not Beryllium?

It's a deadly poison! chronic beryllium disease (CBD) or berylliosis - can affect about 1/4 of people exsposed to Beryllium dust or fume, and be deadly to about 2% of humans receiving even minute quantities, these people are genetically predisposed to a powerful immune response, particularly in the lungs, leading to progressive inflammation and scarring of lung tissue resulting in death typically after years of suffering, as there is no cure.

With much higher exposure levels as with machinists, 16% to 20% will develop beryllium sensitization, requiring removal from further exposure - which could result in the chronic condition - CBD

About: chronic beryllium disease (berylliosis)
http://www.njc.org/d...lium/index.aspx


Why do people get so excited about beryllium?

This is from the states, I'm sure elsewhere - say the Soviet Union, Briton etc. have also covered this up.

Beryllium disease scandal in USA: The Chemical Industry Archives
http://www.chemicali...beryllium/1.asp

Are there really sick people ?

Beryllium Support Group
P.O. Box 2021
Broomfield, CO 80038-2021
Phone/fax: (303) 412-7065
E-mail: webmaster@beryllium.org
Beryllium Victims Alliance
504 Michigan Ave.
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
E-mail: Wheezin2@aol.com
E-mail: fostergs@usit.net
E-mail: burlin@icx.net
Beryllium Disease Support Group of Ohio
P.O. Box 55
Oak Harbor, OH 43449
E-mail: theresan@umich.edu
Tucson Arizona Beryllium Support Group
1323 N. Anway
Marana, AZ 85653
E-mail: akasha@azstarnet.com
The Beryllium Awareness Group
E-mail: terry_cherney@rl.gov
E-mail: c_w_chuck_wildman@rl.gov

Wherever there's a Beryllium industry!

.

[Greg Locock]

while we're at it, carbon fibre dust and epoxy are also going to kill or disable fabricators.

[Canuck]

My supervisor, when starting out in the trade as a 1st-year apprentice, used to grind a CuBe alloy until he got cancer in his hand. Nice stuff. Of course I'd still like a Be alloy engine, I just don't want to make (or pay for) it.

That said, surely it can be worked safely - hell they engineer deadly chemicals and diseases every day - making something from dangerous stuff is a way of life.

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by Canuck
My supervisor, when starting out in the trade as a 1st-year apprentice, used to grind a CuBe alloy until he got cancer in his hand. Nice stuff. Of course I'd still like a Be alloy engine, I just don't want to make (or pay for) it.

That said, surely it can be worked safely - hell they engineer deadly chemicals and diseases every day - making something from dangerous stuff is a way of life.

I wouldn't grind beryllium copper without some precaution, but beryllium isn't carcinogen, at least there isn't anything suggesting that it is. But even the low beryllium content in beryllium copper alloys can cause CBD.

There are however many materials and chemicals used in the industry that have a negative health effect, and most of them are still used. If we take racing as an example, exhaust gases, fuel, brake dust are just a few potential dangers.

The problem is when the right precautions aren't taken, it doesn't matter if it's production of tetra ethyl lead of beryllium components we talk about, when there is a problem, it's often related to that someone has chosen to ignore the danger.

[12.9:1]

Again I ask, is it really necessary?

There are two things about this extraordinary metal that may be unique 1 - minute quantities will poison certain individuals. 2 - and there is then no cure, no stopping the progression.


All this may not matter in the heat of a cold war. But surely in a competitonon so compleatly shaped by rules, can't we just let this one stand.

Incidentally, the last time this subject came up, I had read of a woman who lived two miles from a beryllium processing facility, this was a new plant built with the latest containment technology, Brush Wellman if I remember correctly, Investigators could find no connection between her and plant workers - not though family, friends or delivery-men. Needless to say no one could imagine how the dust ? got into her, none the less she is dead.

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

My gf works with it regularly. She was skeptical when I first told her they used it in F1 engines.

It won't immediately kill you - but it takes weeks and weeks to get out of your system in low amounts. You simply can't have guys regularly working around an engine that has pistons grinding against the stuff and expelling it out the exhaust. Not to mention what you'd be breathing if a rod let go and you've got whole particles of it floating through the air.

[Terry Walker]

Amazingly, Beryllium poisoning was the subject of an Isaac Asimov short story called "Sucker Bait", published in 1954...

[J. Edlund]

Originally posted by Rubens Hakkamacher
My gf works with it regularly. She was skeptical when I first told her they used it in F1 engines.

It won't immediately kill you - but it takes weeks and weeks to get out of your system in low amounts. You simply can't have guys regularly working around an engine that has pistons grinding against the stuff and expelling it out the exhaust. Not to mention what you'd be breathing if a rod let go and you've got whole particles of it floating through the air.

I think they used some coating on the beryllium parts as they weren't suitable as friction surfaces. In any case, if an uncoated piston wears against a liner, wear particles would most likely end up in the oil rather than in the exhaust.

[Christiaan]

The way 12.9 puts it this stuff is really dangerous. I think if your gorl works with it Rubens, maybe you can get her to clarify the health and safety procs for her. I remember that an issue was raised of what would happen if the an engine smashed or exploded when it had Al/Be components. Would that put the driver/marshalls/spectators at risk?

[rgsuspsa]

Originally posted by J. Edlund


In any case, if an uncoated piston wears against a liner, wear particles would most likely end up in the oil rather than in the exhaust.

In a four-stroke engine, with wear particles generated during compression, expansion and exhaust strokes, that is a nonstarter. The intake stroke, possibly.

If wear particles are contained exclusively in the oil, what happens to them when oil vapors are expelled thru the exhaust, or thru a catastrophic failure which releases the alleged oil/wear particles/pieces mixture into the atmosphere?

As the world has learned to its regret, toxic materials are toxic, no matter how you slice it.
Eventually they migrate into the bodies of living beings, animal and human, and influence
the health of the entire food chain.

Ron Sparks