|
|
 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
CNC Machining Magazine | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
But the cutting edge is always moving. F1 teams must constantly push the technological envelope to eke out every last ounce of performance from their cars, or risk being overtaken – on and off the track – by the competition. At the same time, they must adhere scrupulously to a stringent set of technical guidelines prescribed by Formula One’s governing body, the FIA (Federation Internationale de l’Automobile). Those guidelines are, in essence, the “formula” for Formula One. Back in the early years of F1, the “formula” was pretty simple: Engines were limited in size to 4.5 liters if they were normally aspirated, and 1.5 liters for supercharged. The rest was pretty much a clean slate. On its face, today’s formula may appear just as simple – engines must be naturally aspirated, the cylinder capacity must not exceed 3.0 liters, and the cars (including the driver) must weigh at least 600 kg at all times – but in reality, it’s much more complex. The FIA Formula One Technical Regulations document spans 45 pages, and covers every aspect of the car – bodywork, transmission, steering, electrical systems, wheels – right down to the types of materials used and the composition of the fuel. Because the regulations are so extensive and specific, F1 cars in the current crop are quite similar to each other in design and performance – lap times are often separated by mere tenths of a second. Gaining any advantage on the racetrack requires serious engineering efforts, as well as considerable skill on the driver’s part.
Unfortunately, the team’s inaugural season proved rather disappointing, with Villeneuve retiring from 11 races and failing to score a single point. Results improved considerably, however, in 2000 – thanks in part to new engines from Honda – with B·A·R scoring 20 points and finishing fifth in the Constructors’ Championship. The team’s first podium finishes came in 2001, with Villeneuve placing third in both Spain and Germany, but the season only yielded 17 points, leaving B·A·R in sixth place in the Constructors’ Championship. B·A·R’s founder, Craig Pollock, stepped down in 2002, and was replaced by former World Rally champion and WRC guru David Richards. As new Team Principal, Richards spent the year restructuring and preparing for 2003, focusing on long-term success rather than short-term results. The team finished the season eighth in the Constructors’ Championship, with only seven points. In 2003, B·A·R fielded what many thought was one of the best cars on the grid. Jenson Button, an up-and-coming young Briton who joined B·A·R in 2003, consistently outperformed his more experienced teammate. After learning he would be replaced by Takuma Sato for 2004, Villeneuve left B·A·R prior to the 2003 season finale in Japan. Button finished fourth in the Japanese Grand Prix, while Takuma Sato, hastily moved up from testing duties, finished sixth. Their combined eight points from the race boosted B·A·R to fifth place in the Constructors’ Championship. By the end of 2003, things were looking up. Of course, it wasn’t just good drivers that made the difference. According to Team Principal David Richards, the success of the 2003 car [the B·A·R Honda 005] was the result of “a dramatic improvement in engineering standards.” B·A·R’s Technical Director, Geoffrey Willis, agrees: “Our main objective in 2003 was to establish a credible engineering base, and 2004 provides us with the opportunity to use that credibility and be innovative in design.” B·A·R debuted their 2004 racecar in Barcelona, Spain, on February 1. At the unveiling, Richards commented that the B·A·R Honda 006 “is a significant evolution of the 005, and a further step forward in design and build quality. It is the product of a more challenging and innovative approach.” A significant part of that approach is B·A·R’s close working relationship with Honda. “Our relationship with Honda has developed immeasurably, to the point where we now have a totally integrated engineering team,” says Richards, “and the B·A·R Honda 006 is testament to the strength of our partnership.” “We now have the extra resource of Honda engineers recruited into the B·A·R design team,” adds Willis, “and we are seeing the benefits of an integrated, stable engineering base.”
The process works something like this: A three-dimensional version of every component is created and assembled in virtual space. Every detail is specified, down to the weight of each component and the material it is made of. Once the car is designed and tested in the CAD system, and the structural analysis is completed using CAE, a half-scale model is constructed and sent to B·A·R’s on-site wind tunnel for aerodynamic testing. At the same time, the virtual model of the car is run through CFD – the fluid in this case being air – to ensure there are no unforeseen problems. Based on the results of the wind tunnel and CFD testing, design changes are fed back into the CAD system and the process is repeated, until a perfect virtual model of the car has been created. This process has nearly eliminated the need to manufacture all but a final working prototype of each component, resulting in tremendous savings of time and money. Of course, this state-of-the-art design process would be next to worthless without cutting-edge machining equipment to turn the designs into reality. B·A·R has invested heavily in the latest CNC equipment for their machine shop, and the team’s Unigraphics NX design suite (CAD, CAM and CAE) allows the engineers to move seamlessly from CAD to CAM to generate the toolpaths for machining components. Programs are fed to the machines via RS-232. “Formula One is at the forefront of technology,” explains Dave Gibbons, team leader in charge of B·A·R’s machine shop, “so we have to use all the modern technology available to make our product better.” The newest additions to B·A·R’s arsenal of modern technology are two Haas Super Speed VMCs – a VF-2SS and a VF-4SS – the latest high-speed machining centers from U.S. builder Haas Automation. The VF-4SS provides a 50"x20"x25" work cube and the VF-2SS has a 30"x16"x20" work cube. Both feature a 12,000-rpm spindle, high-speed side-mount tool changer and 1400-ipm rapids. B·A·R has two other Haas machines as well – a VF-3 housed in the R&D department above the on-site wind tunnel, and another VF-3 in the pattern shop.
The machines are a good match for B·A·R, says Andrew Stevens, Managing Director of Haas Automation UK, who brokered the deal. “The technically demanding and competitive environment of Formula One is a perfect arena for Haas Automation to demonstrate the high-performance characteristics of their CNC machine tools. Speed, accuracy and reliability are all requisite components of a high-quality machine tool, and each is used to the full in machining components for a Formula One car.” The SS machines were installed at B·A·R just as the design of the new B·A·R Honda 006 car was coming to fruition and the build cycle was about to begin. The build cycle of a Formula One car has two distinct manufacturing phases: the initial build stage, and the testing and race stage. During the build stage, components are released by engineering to the machine shop at a steady, but not frenetic, pace. Parts are machined and sent off to their respective divisions for assembly. Steve Martin, one of B·A·R’s CNC machinists, explains: “In the early part of the build cycle, say from October on, when the drawings are released, the shop goes to a 24/7 schedule and we get a fair amount of lead time for new parts. There’s plenty of time for modifications if we need to fit them in.” “We also do a lot of jigs and fixtures,” adds CNC machinist Stuart Lain, “for fabrication, for the guys who make radiators, stuff like that. And we manufacture molds for the composite manufacture.” Once the car is complete and testing begins, however, the pace quickens. That’s when the engineering change notices (ECNs) start rolling in. “We do a lot of ECNs,” says Lain. “We’ll get something that’s come back from the track that needs a change on it. You can imagine the scenario: The guy’s outside in the van with the engine running, and he’s waiting for me to finish that component so he can take it back to the track, put it back on the car and get the car running again. We’ve had instances where a guy’s waiting in a helicopter for a part – we’ll work through the night to get it done. That’s Formula One – you learn to deal with it.” This type of work is where the two Haas SS machines really shine. The 12K spindles and fast rapids keep cycle times to a minimum, allowing the team to react quickly. B·A·R’s machinists are quite pleased with the results. “Originally we were going to be a fast-track section, which dealt with ECNs and changes to jobs and second ops,” says Lain. “But the Haas machines have enabled us to bring in main components as well, so now we’re more flexible. The speed is great; the machine’s very sturdy, as well. We’re cutting Ti [tanium] on it, which is quite important in this environment. Because we’re looking for strength and lightness, things tend to be aluminum and titanium. That’s really the bread and butter of our machining. “The Ti is aircraft spec,” Lain continues. “It’s really quite expensive and good-quality stuff. We’re not just cutting any old material – the materials are expensive before we start, and the components are expensive afterward.”
He cites Monaco – a tight, slow circuit that requires a much more aggressive wing profile – as an example. “The aerodynamic development for Monaco was an ideal example of the quick reaction necessary in Formula One. Previously, this would not have been possible to support internally, and therefore would have had to be outsourced.” When asked if the Haas machines are contributing to B·A·R’s current success, Smith responds: “Most definitely. The additional capacity and capability allows us to support the needs of the team internally, which has the benefits of greater control with quicker reaction, as well as reducing the external spend. This savings financially can then be focused towards the development of the car.” It’s an approach that’s definitely working. Jenson Button started off the year immediately in the points, with a sixth-place finish at the season opener in Australia. He followed that with back-to-back third-place finishes in Malaysia and Bahrain – his first visits to the F1 podium. Button then gave Ferrari a serious run for their money in the Italian firm’s backyard in San Marino. After snagging the pole during qualifying, he went on to finish second behind the seemingly unbeatable Michael Schumacher. After his brilliant performance in Italy, the Spanish Grand Prix was a bit disappointing, but Button still finished eighth to add another point to his total. He followed that with a stunning second-place finish in Monaco, just 0.4 seconds behind the Renault of Jarno Trulli. The European Grand Prix yielded yet another spot on the podium, with a third-place finish at the Nurburgring. Teammate Takuma Sato, while not showing the consistency of Button, has turned in several strong performances himself, earning strong grid positions and recording blazing lap times at several venues. Fifth-place finishes in the Bahrain and Spanish Grands Prix have further contributed to B·A·R’s standing in the Constructors’ Championship. Unfortunately, mechanical failures have forced the young driver to retire from several races.
With seven of 18 races
completed, Button sits in third place in the Drivers’ Championship and
B·A·R is third in the Constructors’ Championship.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
On-line!