Beryllium in engines drama

[dialtone]

Do you have a source for x rays aren’t harmful?

Is the connection here that beryllium is also not harmful?

Possibly suggesting similar to more people die from chicken bones than Beryllium, but chicken is not feared.

Are you aware that there are regulations for how you are supposed to work with beryllium and that’s why there are fewer deaths/illnesses by it?

This comment section is funny…

[Big Tea]

Do you have a source for x rays aren’t harmful?

Is the connection here that beryllium is also not harmful?

Possibly suggesting similar to more people die from chicken bones than Beryllium, but chicken is not feared.

Are you aware that there are regulations for how you are supposed to work with beryllium and that’s why there are fewer deaths/illnesses by it?

This comment section is funny…

That is the very point. If something is dangerous, then it is dangerous.

[marvin78]

And the world is only black and white...oh whait....

[wuzak]

From memory, Ferrari were using an aluminium-beryllium alloy in their brake callipers, which was banned after 1997. Bt they hadn't developed any aluminium-beryllium engine parts at that stage.

Noting that Mercedes-Ilmor were using aluminium-beryllium parts in their engines, Ferrari sought to have them banned.

The ban was imposed, but allowed 2-3 years before they would no longer be allowed.

So Ferrari developed aluminium-beryllium components for their engine too.

IIRC the ban was from the end of the 2000 season.

[saviour stivala]

Before the AIBeMetam162, An aluminum-beryllium material comprising 62% beryllium piston/liner/gudgeon-pin were developed, this very stiff, very light material had already been successfully exploited by BREMBO to make more effective F1 brake calipers at the suggestion of former Honda engine designer Osamo Goto than working for FERRARI.

[Quantum]

The ban was imposed, but allowed 2-3 years before they would no longer be allowed.

So Ferrari developed aluminium-beryllium components for their engine too.

IIRC the ban was from the end of the 2000 season.

*1 season.

On October 6th, 1999 the FIA moved to ban beryllium, giving the teams until the end of the following season to remove it from their engines, though only Mercedes and Peugeot were using it.

Beryllium was banned entirely for 2001

[Tommy Cookers]

... Beryllium was banned entirely for 2001

afaik
beryllium is still is permitted in concentrations not exceeding 2.5%
ie CuBe for valve seats

[ACRO]

The complain by ferrari was not the care about health of the spectators or drivers but the risk to loose against the main competitor mercedes - ilmor .

Why ?

Ferrari in 1999 and 2000 decided to go as large bore and as short stroke as only possible . They ran in 2000 96x41.4 while ilmor ( not officially confirmed ) ran 93.5x43.67 .

Extreme bore to stroke ratios were good for top end power due to higher possible revs but had disadvantages in midrange torque .

Mario illien was a genius . He was aware of this and designed an engine with a relativly large stroke to push midrange torque AND berrylium pistons to cope with the massive piston accleration when trying to rev extremely high for top end output .

In 99 and 2000 ferrari saw that the ilmor v10 obviously has a bigger stroke and better midrange , but simultany despite the bigger stroke reved as high as their ferrari for the same if not better top end bhp.

They finally realized its the berrylium pistons and were in a severe risk to make the wrong decision in going the bore as large os only possible should berrylium stays allowed.

Only chance was to complain about health issues to achieve a ban by FIA

After the ban in 2001 ilmor was doomed with the larger stroke since the engine either blew up or was not top class in bhp anymore .

Finally , after the ban was permanent , all engine suppliers went the path to the bore as large as only possible because it was the only way to further increase rpm,s and so horsepower.

Best regards

[Hoffman900]

“Bore as large as possible”

This was partly capped by how fast combustion occurs. They got to the point that larger and larger bores were out running the flame front.

[ACRO]

“Bore as large as possible”

This was partly capped by how fast combustion occurs. They got to the point that larger and larger bores were out running the flame front.

Absolutely correct . With "as large as possible" i mean as large as you can usefully control the combustion process , reach desired compression etc .

[Tommy Cookers]

... Beryllium was banned entirely for 2001

afaik
beryllium is still is permitted in concentrations not exceeding 2.5%
ie CuBe for valve seats

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/44289512.pdf
https://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz ... d4-ber.pdf
sorry - was trying to insert these links into my earlier post

[saviour stivala]

''Bore as large as possible''. In the old day. Cosworth first went to genuinely short stroke big bore with the XB V8 Indy car 2.6L lightly turbocharged engine, which had a stroke/bore ratio of 0.54:1. And there was concern that the bore might be a bit over the top. But it turned out that it had been the right way. At that time both Indy car and F1 engines were running to 13K R.P.M to be competitive. The Renault F1 V10 that dominated the 92-world championship had a stroke/bore ratio of 0.55:1. These bores had to make room for the valves large enough to run at such speeds. In 94 Cosworth V8 moved from 94MM bore of its HB, to 100MM, this had a number of implications, a piston crown intruder was necessary to attain compression ratio of 13:1. A larger bore provides a lower piston speed for a given crankshaft speed, but in terms of internal design, the smaller bore engine can reach a higher level of R.P.M before speed of flame propagation becomes a concern, also makes for better surface area/volume ratio. John Judd of Yamaha V10 F1 fame =''In the end what stops you making a bore bigger is that you have combustion considerations, if you keep increasing the bore size the flame travel gets longer and the chamber gets thinner, if you look at the chamber at T.D.C, it is pretty horrible, not the ideal shape to burn anything''.

[Tommy Cookers]

... A larger bore provides a lower piston speed for a given crankshaft speed,
but in terms of internal design, the smaller bore engine can reach a higher level of R.P.M before speed of flame propagation becomes a concern .....

well in F1 it couldn't .....
the larger bore was better because at these high rpm ....
rpm is governed by stress related to piston acceleration - so is proportionate to the square root of the stroke
that's why all F1 went to 98 x 39.75 a stroke:bore ratio of 0.405 (as per engine freeze 2006)
combustion speed wasn't a problem - though these engines all ran faster than their predecessors
(yes there was vague talk of the F1 'road-spec' fuel being blended to have optimal combustion speed)
any engines below 39.75 mm stroke we discontinued by the freeze

btw GP racing first had capacity limits in 1914 - typical stroke:bore ratio was c 1.8 (some even oversquare in 1900s)
before 1914 the (Coupe de l'Auto) cars were allowed disproportionately more capacity if bore was small
(the dominant Lion-Peugeot was a twin of 80 bore and 280 stroke stroke:bore ratio 3.5)
the engine rules were emulating the typical European road car tax determinations of those days - and 50 years after

increased bore/shortened stroke helps valve size (more than increased cylinder count as 1960s GP motorcycles) ...
so why did it take GP cars so long ? .....
fashion ..... (see btw 1 - but a few eg Napier tried 'oversquare' engines in the 1900s) ....
supercharging (arriving 100 years ago) ....
engine rule shifts .... 1921-23,24-26,27,28-33,34-37,38-40,49-51,52-53,54-57,58-60,61-65, then 66 4wd & aero rules
stroke:bore ratios were only really pushed decades later after rules had eventually become stable

[saviour stivala]

Bores as large as possible. - Progress in development does change things and renders old systems, ideas and developments as outdated. So when talking about an era of a particular trend new and moder day advancements will not effect that particular time achievements and developments efforts. In the V10 3.0L era with 94-96mm a compression ratio of 13:1 was the norm. At that time approaching 14:1 was considered to be much of a compromise in terms of other factors, such as chamber form. At that time, it was considered simply not feasible to attain the compression ratio level at which detonation will occur. Back than they could get into detonation with a formula 3000 engine running 14:1compression ratio, because 14:1 compression ratio and 9K R.P.M was just about right. On pump petrol it was unlikely to be in any sort of trouble at 13:1 or less. The stroke/bore ratio of the 3.0L V10 necessary to run it at 19k R.P.M, was a drawback in terms of both compression ratio and chamber form, the chamber would have an unsatisfactorily high surface area volume ratio and valve clearance notches necessary to permit the sort of valve lift employed will form much of the chamber at top dead Centre. The spark plug arrangement of the four valve head has been one of a single central plug. A twin plug solution would have speeded-up the combustion process, something that would pay dividends at part load, if bores continue to grew to 100mm and beyond. At that time of bores getting ever bigger a twin plug solution was considered as becoming a necessity.

[ACRO]

Great inputs here about the b:s ratio benefits and tradeoffs

Like said i strongly assume ferrari in 1999-2001 knew that their extremely large bore will have tradeoffs in flame front propagation, manageable compression ratio and more but nevertheless believed the higher overall rev capability will be a benefit to win the race .

After they realized mario illien is about to fool them with beryllium , having a lower bore and less volumetric tradeoffs but the same rev capability , they had the choice of designing a new engine or fight for a ban .

The health issue was a great political argument to push for a ban and eventually FIA agreed to it.