Beryllium in engines drama

[Andi76]

FERRARI had bigger bore and shorter stroke, while Illmor had smaller bore and longer stroke, these chosen configurations (1998), the one chosen by illmor when combined by said parts manufactured from said alluminium-berllium, gave the illmor an advantage in overall design, thermal and combustion efficiency/compression ratio advantage, cooling needs, and weight. By 1999 FERRARI had secured its own supply of the same said materials, but instead of using said material which would have resulted in still a greater advantage with the bore/stroke combination they were using, they decided to pursues the 'heath' reasoning. This because although the cited material dust was a known threat, but provided proper manufacturing procedures were followed, it was not an issue. The prospects of a component failure in use was not clear-cut.

If beryllium would stay legal i think ferrari would have lost the 2000/2001 championship and / or would be doomed to quickly design a lower bore engine . To close the door permanently fia prohibited any material above a given strenght , not only beryllium .

The health issue was a genius foul play by ferrari since it was labeled as a safety issue , and safety issues could be decided by FIA alone .

Ferrari was highly benefited by FIA with this decision .

I don't think they would have lost the titles, because Ferrari was also working on using beryllium in engines in those years, even if they were of course behind in development and had problems achieving the same parameters with beryllium as Mercedes. Anyway - Ferrari used Beryllium and the 049 engine took the radius of the cylinder bores to an extreme with the help of beryllium. It was used to stiffen the structure. It is therefore incorrect to assume that Ferrari did not use beryllium in its engines, and also the rumor that persists to this day that Ferrari did not have or find a supplier for beryllium. Ultimately, Ferrari already used beryllium in the brake cylinders in 1997. In fact, it was a problem to obtain it in sufficient quantities and at reasonable prices, but they did have access to it. 


Ultimately they reached their limits in 1999 and they didn't know how Mercedes could achieve the same RPMs with a longer stroke, but these were normal development problems which could probably have been overcome. You'd have to be a clairvoyant to say how much Ferrari could have found in performance by using more beryllium, which they were working on if it wasn't banned, but it's quite likely that they could have made a bigger leap. Whether Mercedes could have made an equally big leap the other way around is unlikely, but thats reading tea leaves. Of course, Mercedes lost the most in 2000 and 2001 because they used beryllium the most excessively, but one must not forget that others also lost, albeit less, just as the other would have lost if beryllium had not been banned (which is not quite correct because in fact it was not explicitly beryllium that was banned if I remember correctly, but materials with a higher modulus of elasticity of 40 Gpa) had more to gain than Mercedes through the increased use of beryllium. 


So it would have been quite a possible scenario that Ferrari would have solved the problems with the use of beryllium in the course of 1999 and made a similar leap in 2000 as Mercedes did in 1997 in Barcelona, where they introduced the "beryllium engine", with the same extra 25 hp of power and 300-500 rpm, they would suddenly have been ahead of Mercedes in both areas, as they were in 2001 anyway. Mercedes would certainly have had fewer reliability problems, for sure, but that wouldn't really have made any difference as far as the World Championship was concerned. But as I said - all this is reading tea leaves. 


The bottom line is that the ban was right, because apart from the natural attempt to weaken the opponent there was another little-known reason why Ferrari wanted a ban.

One is the fact that Mercedes and McLaren's statements regarding beryllium were not fully correct. Work and handling was not that harmless and there were figures from the US Department of Energy which stated that 20,000 people could have been exposed to beryllium in US Department of Energy facilities alone during the 90's and there was an ongoing investigation. The results were not made public until later, but it was already known that some of the workers had repeatedly tested positive for beryllium (by April 2001, 15,327 workers and former workers had tested positive for beryllium sensitization - a total of 483 of those tested repeatedly tested positive and 156 of this group were definitely diagnosed with CBD or showed CBD symptoms) and had CBD (Chronic Beryllium Disease) symptoms. The US Department of Energy and various health authorities around the world had major concerns and the US Department of Energy was formed to look into the issue. Naturally, this caused a great deal of concern among the workforce, who naturally spread the word.


So it was a big issue at the time and there was plenty of evidence that beryllium use was dangerous and by no means as safe and simple as McLaren and Mercedes would have us believe. In addition, there was almost an accident at Ferrari during processing, where Ross Brawn actually asked himself whether this, performance or not, was the way F1 should go. In view of these facts, the ban on beryllium was absolutely right and, contrary to the claims that Ferrari's intention was only to weaken McLaren and Mercedes, the health aspect was predominant and even some of the Mercedes employees were not unhappy about it. An accident can always happen, even with the best precautions, and there was no guarantee that beryllium could not be released at the track due to damage to the coating. I don't know to what extent the rumors circulating at the time that beryllium particles were detected in the pit lane were true. In any case, there was much more behind Ferrari's efforts to have beryllium banned. With Ferrari's capabilities it would be presumptuous to assume that the initial problems could not have been overcome quickly. And if you know the whole picture and the background of the time in relation to beryllium, you have to say quite clearly that it was absolutely right what Ferrari did and that they rightly asked themselves the question whether in a sport, which F1 ultimately is, you have to expose your employees and possibly your fans to such a risk. So it was rather reprehensible of McLaren as well as Mercedes to play down the risks, even if their arguments that nothing would happen if it was handled correctly were not wrong. So if you look at the overall picture at the time - the available figures where workers were exposed to beryllium, the discussion outside F1 about it, facts of near-accidents that showed how quickly something happened and the rumors about beryllium dust particles in the pit lane and an undeniable risk - it was not only legitimate for Ferrari to seek a ban, but actually right and commendable.Weakening Mercedes and McLaren was certainly a nice side effect which of course also played a role, but that doesn't change the fact that it was ultimately the right thing to do and it would have been irresponsible to expose the employees to an unnecessary risk. Because as history proves, it was unnecessary. It was possible without beryllium and without the risk of releasing one of the most potentially toxic substances.



Unfortunately, thanks to the great and objective reporting of the completely impartial F1 media, many F1 fans only remember that Ferrari did this to weaken Mercedes. But this is simply not true; there was much more to it than that, which must be seen as morally correct, responsible and ultimately positive. And the fact that the FIA is highly benefiting Ferrari is exactly the kind of one-sided view of things that the impartial, highly respected F1 media unfortunately practise time and again and thus imply to people and fans. Objectively speaking, the FIA could not have made any other decision in the interests of everyone. Because it was absolutely right in everyone's interest if you look at all the facts and dangers available at the time and put them in relation to the necessity, which, if you are honest, is close to zero as history proves.

[ACRO]

@ andi76

Thanks for your good and informative posting even when in crucial parts i respectfully disagree with you .

If health worries would be the real reasons FIA would ban just beryllium and not ANY ulta high tensile material ( +40 gpa ) .

Imho it was indeed done to save ferrari from running in a dead corner with their extreme bore/stroke ratio at that times .

Without beryllium it was ilmor who was pushed into this dead corner .

[hollus]

For what it is worth, regarding safety risks:
Right around those years, I started going to synchrotron facilities to use their X-ray beams. And they had beryllium windows, which are quite good at allowing X-rays through, separating the under-vacuum synchrotron ring from the room where X-rays were used.
At the time, the safety training was that if anything, absolutely anything were to happen to those beryllium windows, you leave immediately, seal the room, and then ask how to proceed. No ifs, no conditions, you leave and close the door behind you, someone else, trained, will deal with the mess.
Probably a bit hysterical and unnecessary, and those windows were made of essentially pure beryllium, but it was taken that seriously.

[Tommy Cookers]

@ andi76
.... FIA would ban just beryllium and not ANY ulta high tensile material ( +40 gpa ) .

'beryllium' (ie 62% Be 38% Al) is rather a low tensile strength material
but importantly it is lighter than conventional piston material and has better fatigue strength at piston temperatures
its unusually high thermal conductivity&specific heat capacity and low thermal expansion presumably help pistonwise
(40 GPa UTS denotes a freakishly high and unidirectional strength material/component eg connecting rod)

contrary to andi76's previous post 40 Gpa isn't the elastic modulus limit
'beryllium' has a very high elastic modulus E = c.200 GPa - and so a freakish and unmatched mass-specific E
(tungsten of course has the highest E c.400 GPa but it's density is correspondingly very high)

[Andi76]

@ andi76
.... FIA would ban just beryllium and not ANY ulta high tensile material ( +40 gpa ) .

'beryllium' (ie 62% Be 38% Al) is rather a low tensile strength material
but importantly it is lighter than conventional piston material and has better fatigue strength at piston temperatures
its unusually high thermal conductivity&specific heat capacity and low thermal expansion presumably help pistonwise
(40 GPa UTS denotes a freakishly high and unidirectional strength material/component eg connecting rod)

contrary to andi76's previous post 40 Gpa isn't the elastic modulus limit
'beryllium' has a very high elastic modulus E = c.200 GPa - and so a freakish and unmatched mass-specific E
(tungsten of course has the highest E c.400 GPa but it's density is correspondingly very high)

Did I say that? I think I said that the FIA has banned materials whose modulus is over 40 gpa.

[Andi76]

@ andi76

Thanks for your good and informative posting even when in crucial parts i respectfully disagree with you .

If health worries would be the real reasons FIA would ban just beryllium and not ANY ulta high tensile material ( +40 gpa ) .

Imho it was indeed done to save ferrari from running in a dead corner with their extreme bore/stroke ratio at that times .

Without beryllium it was ilmor who was pushed into this dead corner .

You can of course disagree, but with all due respect, it is more a denial of facts than anything else, because there were also good reasons for banning ALL high-strength materials with more than +40 gpa. The reasons were quite simple and lie buried in 1997/1998 when the FIA, not at the instigation of Ferrari but two other teams, banned Ferrari's "beryllium brakes". Ferrari then simply replaced beryllium with another material, lithium, if I remember correctly. Of course, this was not to be repeated, so all "exotic" materials with more than +40 gpa were simply banned. In the wake of the discussion about cost-cutting and in view of the massively exploding costs that the top teams in particular were driving with such things, this was a logical and understandable step, but it had nothing to do with Ilmor and after the experience of 1997/1998 it would simply have been stupid to do anything else, you'll have to admit that yourself. Mosley's efforts to cut costs are, I think, well known, and more were to follow in the years to come. So there was no conspiracy against Ilmor/Mercedes in banning all these materials, but quite simply other logical and understandable reasons and after the experience of 1997/1998 it would have been just plain stupid and the FIA didn't want to miss out a second time.

That Ferrari would not have achieved what Ilmor would have achieved is certainly open to debate, but ultimately it remains reading tea leaves. However, I think it is very unlikely, considering the resources and the progress made at the time in terms of simulations and process engineering. Especially with the resources and capabilities of Ferrari.

Of course, there's no denying that one of Ross' motives was to weaken McLaren-Mercedes/Ilmor. Of course he wanted to, and with Ross there was always a sophisticated and long-term strategy behind such considerations. But this is perfectly legitimate and every F1 team tries to ban technologies and innovations from others, even if not all of them have done and achieved this with such long-term strategic, sophisticated and calculated methods as Ross, which was one of his many great strengths.

Ultimately, however, the facts are undeniable that there were dangers in the processing of beryllium, that there were hundreds of people suspected of having contracted CBD, and that there were more than a hundred definitive cases in US government facilities alone, as stated in this published paper, the statistics of which were known in advance at the time:

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files ... GuHV57_Wrv


So, to be honest, what reason would there have been to continue to approve beryllium, given the dangers involved and the FIA's desire to reduce costs? There wasn't one. The facts were that there were several hundred cases of CBD, even in extremely well-equipped US government facilities using beryllium, and that it was driving up costs and was not necessary because engines of similar performance could obviously be built without beryllium without widening the gap between large and small teams and without endangering team personnel and possibly even spectators. And to be honest, no one would have decided otherwise given these facts. The only reason would have been to keep Mercedes and Ilmor "at the top" while willfully accepting potentially damaging consequences for staff and spectators.

To claim that people like Jean Todt and Ross Brawn were only interested in weakening Ilmor and not at all in protecting employees and friends from unnecessary risks, despite the numbers of CBD diseases in well-equipped US government agencies, is of course up to everyone. For me, however, this is far removed from reality. It was a welcome effect but not a leitmotif.

Ultimately, however, I would like to ask a question - would you have said yes, we will continue to allow beryllium in view of these things, i.e. the existing figures on CBD diseases, cost reduction and after Ferrari was bypassed in 1997/98? Or we will only ban beryllium? Yes, we will allow it to be processed regardless of certain risks? And if so, why would you have done that?

[Tommy Cookers]

Did I say that? I think I said that the FIA has banned materials whose modulus is over 40 gpa.

nonsense !
there is no metal in F1 cars or elsewhere in engineering that has an elastic modulus below 40 GPa

[ACRO]

there is no metal in F1 cars or elsewhere in engineering that has an elastic modulus below 40 GPa

Quoting from FIA technical regulations :

The use of a material which has a specific yield modulus greater
than 40 GPa/g/cm’ Is forbidden for the making of all the parts

What am i missing ?

[ACRO]

Or we will only ban beryllium? Yes, we will allow it to be processed regardless of certain risks? And if so, why would you have done that?

Imho only berrylium and only if its proofed that in an engine application it is really a health risk . That was only claimed but never proofed.

Banning all exotic materials was a big push for ferrari at that specific time and that specific engine concepts ( bore / stroke ratios ) and had obviously nothing to do with health .

You have a point in the idea of cost reduction , i agree .

[Andi76]

Or we will only ban beryllium? Yes, we will allow it to be processed regardless of certain risks? And if so, why would you have done that?

Imho only berrylium and only if its proofed that in an engine application it is really a health risk . That was only claimed but never proofed.

Banning all exotic materials was a big push for ferrari at that specific time and that specific engine concepts ( bore / stroke ratios ) and had obviously nothing to do with health .

You have a point in the idea of cost reduction , i agree .

Sorry, but that's nonsense and what you're doing is definitely denying reality because you want it to be different. Sorry, but there was evidence. The CBD illnesses in facilities that had worked with beryllium were known and were there, and the report which is just over a year later is even as a link in the post. These things were known.

[Tommy Cookers]

there is no metal in F1 cars or elsewhere in engineering that has an elastic modulus below 40 GPa

Quoting from FIA technical regulations :
The use of a material which has a specific yield modulus greater
than 40 GPa/g/cm’ Is forbidden for the making of all the parts
What am i missing ?

(not unreasonably) some may have missed that Andi76 (in the 2nd para of his post of 0939 on the 14th) ...
mentioned 40 GPa elastic modulus as being the limit value

I shall not speculate regarding wtf the FIA meant by the term chosen in the item in bold above
yes we might guess that specific yield modulus in GPa/g/cm isn't another name for elastic modulus

[Andi76]

Did I say that? I think I said that the FIA has banned materials whose modulus is over 40 gpa.

nonsense !
there is no metal in F1 cars or elsewhere in engineering that has an elastic modulus below 40 GPa

Here is the rule change from the FIA Technical Regulations 2001

15.1.2) No parts of the car may be made from metallic materials which have a specific modulus of elasticity greater than 40 GPa / (g/cm3).

So what I said was completely correct.
And maybe next time you should do your research first.

[Tommy Cookers]

Did I say that? I think I said that the FIA has banned materials whose modulus is over 40 gpa.

nonsense !
there is no metal in F1 cars or elsewhere in engineering that has an elastic modulus below 40 GPa

Here is the rule change from the FIA Technical Regulations 2001
15.1.2) No parts of the car may be made from metallic materials which have a specific modulus of elasticity greater than 40 GPa / (g/cm3).

So what I said was completely correct.
And maybe next time you should do your research first.

what you said was far from correct

the elastic modulus E is the actual value (GPa) for each metal ie c.70 for aluminium c.210 for steel
the FIA's modulus is a fictitious value ie the actual value normalised for density
this for beryllium is uniquely high but unimportant in F1

except as a way to reduce the Be content of pistons etc
it looks as if this was effectively a ban on eg 62% beryllium but maybe not on (say) 10% beryllium
to satisfy both parties

[ACRO]

the FIA's modulus is a fictitious value ie the actual value normalised for density
this for beryllium is uniquely high but unimportant in F1

From this point of view you are of course right .

its of course finally about specific stiffness, i.e. elastic modulus divided by density. Even more correctly about specific resistance for elastic , non permanent deformtion .

Within the 40gpa/g/cm'3 , everything is OK, including beryllium.

However, 62 % alumium-beryllium alloy, which is the one in question has amazing properties and any metallic material close to approaching it is also outside the rule on specific stiffness.

While an al/be alloy which does not exceed the 40gpa rule is not toxic , the high stiffness alloy is - for people who want to believe this .

For anybody else its about ferrari`s panic ilmor designed an engine with lower bore / larger stroke than them and enjoy with it a superior midrange torque WITHOUT paying the price of limited rev capability / top end power due to ultra high stiffness pistons .

FIA helped and to make sure mario illien or anybody else does not find any other alloy with similiar properties they made the 40gpa/g/cm3 rule .

[Tommy Cookers]

beryllium is 40% lighter than the conventional (aluminium alloy) so ....
the performance benefit is because a 62%Be/38%Al piston is 25% lighter than the conventional so rpm is higher

the 40 GPa limit is just a way to reduce greatly this benefit without actually banning beryllium
this is only possible because 'weight-for-weight' Be is almost an order of magnitude stiffer than any other metal
afaik the limit seems to allow 10-12% beryllium

this (density-normalised elastic modulus limit) should be written as 40 GPa x density not 40 GPa/density
otherwise no piston material is legal and so all the race wins 2001-2013 are illegal


again ....
F1 (and some road cars) valve seats were and still are made eg from 97.5%Cu/2.5%Be copper/beryllium
F1 (and some road cars) relays and contactors were and are made eg from 99%Cu/1%Be copper/beryllium