41

The uses of composite materials in the design and

manufacture of Formula 1 racing cars
B P O’Rourke, BSc, CEng, MRAeS
Williams Grand Prix Engineering Limited, Didcot, Oxon

I n recent years a new application for advanced composite materials has been in the construction of load-bearing components for
Formula 1 racing cars. Their use has been progressively extended and they currently comprise a major part of the vehicle assembly for
all competing Formula 1 designs. Here the experiences gained with these materials at Williams Grand Prix Engineering are described.
The initial interest in this technology was for optimization of structural efficiency. A wide range of component design criteria are
covered and advantages have also been found in the areas of strength, impact performance, geometric accuracy and speed of manufac-
ture.

1 INTRODUCTION manufacture components by this method within our

Formula 1 World Championship motor racing has for own facilities. The use of these materials grew from
many years provided a public arena in which to demon- simple beginnings to the present state where this tech-
strate the benefits of advancing technology. One of the nology forms a major part of our manufacturing capa-
more recent examples of this has been the introduction bili ty.
of advanced composite materials to the manufacture of
load-bearing structures.
Williams Grand Prix Engineering Limited, as one of 1.1 Progression to composite materials
the leading organizations competing in Formula 1 In order to gain an understanding of the reasons for our
racing, has aways been alert to the potential of any new interest in composite materials it is necessary to
technological development that may provide a per- examine the ‘anatomy’ of the current Grand Prix car.
formance advantage over opposing entrants. Advanced The configuration of vehicle depicted in Fig. 1 is that
composite materias appeared to offer opportunities to which has become the standard for the last 20 years. It
enhance structural performance and so effort was comprises a central component of semi-monocoque
directed to acquire the skills required to design and construction which accommodates the driver cell, fuel
tank and front suspension elements.
This paper was presented at a conference on ‘Design in composite muterial?’ held
inLondon over 7 4 March 1989. The M S was received on 8 December I989 and The engine is attached directly to the back of this unit
was acceptedfor publication on 14 February 1990. and, thereafter, is connected to the gearbox casing. This,

Fig. 1 Williams FW12 (1988)

W3089 ‘3 IMechE 1990 0954-4070/90 $2.00 + .05 Proc lnstn Mech Engrs Vol 204

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 27, 2015

42 B P OROURKE

in turn, is supported by the rear suspension com- mean that a gain in component stiffness may be made
ponents. These units--chassis, engine and gearbox- without increasing its mass. Alternatively, weight
therefore form a ‘box-beam’ structure through which savings, if needed, could be made without sacrificing
are carried all of the inertial and aerodynamic loads stiffness.
generated whilst the car is in motion. To this central With a greater section of material being used,
unit are attached the wing structures, underbodies, strength margins may be improved upon simulta-
cooler ducting and the bodywork which clads the neously.
engine. The entire car assembly must, by regulation,
exceed a mass of 500 kg. 2 DESIGN CRITERIA
It may be appreciated that the chassis or ‘mono-
coque’ component is of major structural importance. The case for using advanced composites in the primary
The efficiency of its design is reflected in the total structure of the vehicle having been accepted, attention
assembly and, ultimately, in the handling characteristics was then turned to other possible components. It was
of the car. The search for better solutions has resulted, found that their use could be extended to a range of
over the years, in a succession of different manufac- applications. An examination of the FW12 car of 1988,
turing technologies. Initially, tubular ‘space frame’ depicted in Fig. 2, will reveal how far the process has
structures were used until replaced by folded and riv- been taken. It will also illustrate that a wide variety of
etted aluminium shell structures. More recently bonded design criteria are encompassed.
aluminium skinned honeycomb sandwich panels The components, their functions and major design
replaced the fabricated ones. It was a logical progres- constraints are summarized in Table 1.
sion, therefore, that advanced composite materials
should replace the aluminium used as the sandwich 3 DESIGN PROCESSES
panel face sheets.
Vehicle design begins with concept studies. From these
a definitive layout of the major components is chosen
1.2 Reasons for using composite materials and around this a geometric envelope is built. The com-
As with many other design applications, the attractions puter aided design (CAD) engineering facilities available
to the Formula 1 engineer of composite materials relate within the company allow us to build a three-
to structural efficiency. These are derived, principally, in dimensional surfaced model of the shape envelope, and
two ways. Firstly, they are inherently of greater specific this is used to generate data for wind-tunnel model con-
modulus than most engineering metals and, secondly, struction.
the ability to directionally tailor the mechanical proper- Aerodynamic testing provides information which is
ties of a component can lead to a more effective design used to refine the computer-modelled shape. This
solution. The weight restrictions imposed by regulation process continues in an iterative manner until the level

assembly
\/ V
Wing be?
a
\m
,/ a
Cooler duct A’/’/. ‘

Chassis assemblv \ -

wv Undertray/
v

Fig. 2 Components manufactured from composite materials

Part D:Journal of Automobile Engineering Q IMechE 1990

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 27, 2015

 THE USES OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS IN THE DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE OF FORMULA 1 RAClNG CARS 43

Table 1 Design constraints

Component Function Criteria
Chassis Primary vehicle structure, driver, Torsional and bending stiffness, impact performance,
fuel and suspension accommodation, geometric accuracy, minimum mass
aerodynamic fairing
Wing structures Aerodynamic downforce generation Stiffness, geometric accuracy, minimum mass
Underbodies Protection of structure underside, Damage tolerance, temperature resistance, vibration tolerance,
downforce generation bending stiffness, minimum mass
Nosebox Impact energy absorption, Impact performance, stiffness, geometric accuracy,
front wing support minimum mass
Cooler ducting Maintain air flow to coolers Stiffness, geometric accuracy, minimum mass
Bodywork Aerodynamic fairing, engine Geometric accuracy, handleability, stiffness,
and systems covering minimum mass

of performance required is achieved. The definitive geo- so as to feed suspension point loads into the structure
metric data are then released and full-scale patternwork and to enclose the cockpit bay.
begun. At the same time the geometry is broken down The complexity of its geometry and the material used
into assemblies and component design initiated. in its construction result in this structure not being a
simple one to analyse. This is an area where opti-
3.1 Chassis structure mization is clearly some distance in the future since
there is much yet to learn about the subject. Analysis
The chassis assembly, being central to the overall func- done to date has been based upon simple idealizations
tion of the vehicle, is apportioned the major design of structural behaviour and a desire to improve upon
effort. The design tasks may be divided into groups: the section properties of the aluminium forerunning
(a) Structure geometry and configuration definition designs. There is now at our disposal, however,
(b) Structural analysis and laminate design composites-capable finite element analysis software
(c) Ply geometry and junction detailing packages that are enabling us to understand and predict
(d) Attachment position details structure performance. These, it is hoped, will greatly
help with future designs although it is appreciated that
The structural configuration of the chassis (Fig. 3) is the time when the process is truly interactive is some
determined by the positions of the front suspension way off.
components, the size of the fuel tank, the driver Loading data are generated by the experience of pre-
envelope and the engine mounting method. The outer vious track testing using strain-gauged components in
shell structure is reduced to the minimum possible conjunction with on-board recording equipment. Addi-
number of parts. In our case this consists of two: a tionally, assumed standard load cases are examined to
separate, largely flat, floor panel being joined to the cover the entire predicted performance envelope. Cur-
remainder at the bottom level. Bulkheads are positioned rently drivers of Formula l cars experience up to 4.5 g

Internal bulkheads
A
Typical
section
details

Front & rear bulkhead\

Floor - integral with shell
panel

Fig. 3 Chassis structure assembly

@ IMechE 1990 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 204

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 27, 2015

44 B P OROURKE

Rear downforce

Principal load cases

and reactions
Roll-over hoop
(3 \I

/
/
l o Symmetric ‘bump’
Assymmetric ‘bump’

0
@
0
Fig. 4 Structure idealization

lateral loading, as much as 8 g in ‘bump’ condition and or non-structural components are more influenced in
3 g deceleration. their design by geometry, moulding details, feasibility
Loads are applied to, or reacted by, the chassis at the and economy of production methods.
suspension attachment points and engine mounting
positions (Fig. 4).The effects of the inertia forces gener-
4 PRODUCTION PROCESSES
ated by 200 L of fuel must be accounted for in the tank
bay design, as must those associated with the driver be The range and number of components manufactured
at the seat-belt attachment points. The technical regula- from composite materials that are currently used on a
tions defined by the FISA, the governing body for inter- Formula 1 car necessitate the allocation of sizable
national motorsport, state load cases for the manufacturing resources both in terms of manpower
compulsory roll-over protection structures situated and facilities. In common with most of the other leading
above and in front of the driver. These must withstand teams, Williams Grand Prix Engineering Limited first
7.5 g downward, 5.5 g rearward and 1.5 g sideways gained experience of the material in the late 1970s. In
without collapsing in the event of the car overturning. our case, the usage of composites increased steadily, if
It is, perhaps, unnecessary to add that as well as slowly, over the next few years. A threshold was
those already discussed, there are always other, more reached, however, when the decision was made to
difficult to quantify, load cases that may occur when a change to a full composite chassis structure and, simul-
driver deviates from the prescribed route around a taneously, to replace the outdated wet lay-up polyester/
circuit. Recently, however, test requirements have been glass bodywork with prepreg bonded sandwich
introduced which provide values for impact loads that components. This occurred over a short space of time in
must be accommodated. These are now major factors the interval between the seasons 1984 and 1985, and
influencing the final structural details. Detailed descrip- somewhat later than our major competitors. As a conse-
tions of these tests are presented in Section 6. quence of this much had to be learnt in a short space of
time and the quantities of prepreg material used
increased from the one year to the other by some 500
3.2 Other components per cent.
The design processes relating to the remaining com-
ponents follow those described for the chassis assembly
but may vary in priority depending upon the function 4.1 Production facilities
of the particular part. In the case of wing structures the Once the commitment to composite materials had been
stiffness criteria and aerofoil accuracy are of paramount made, it was necessary to provide additional facilities
importance and so determine the configuration and for their processing. A purpose-built area was commis-
method of manufacture. Bodywork and other secondary sioned to accommodate the work and improved
Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering Q IMechE 1990

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 27, 2015

 THE USES OF COMPOSITE MATERIALS IN THE DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE OF FORMULA 1 RACING CARS 45

equipment procured. Our facilities presently comprise: Fiberite type 7714B or CIBA-Geigy 920 system. Where
mechanical property retention at temperature is impor-
700 mz (7500 ft2)
Total floor area tant, however, standardization has been made on Fiber-
Clean room 230 m2 (2500 ft’) ite type 984. Carbon fibre, mostly Toray T300-3K, is
Autoclave 1.8 m (6 ft) diameter
Curing facilities used in both uni-directional and woven forms, the latter
x 4.6 m (15 ft) length, comprised of a 285 g/mZ,five-harness satin form. Kevlar
200°C x 7 bar is used in woven form only, the majority being of a 170
Autoclave 1.1 m (3 ft 7 in) g/m2, four-harness satin style.
diameter x 2.4 m (8 ft) length, Honeycomb materials are used in almost all of the
250°C x 10 bar forms commercially available. The complex geometries
Air-circulating ovens 2 of some of the components, particularly the chassis,
Total manpower 15 nominal (pattern + have resulted in some combinations of types being
production) chosen for purely manufacturing reasons. Aluminium
honeycomb is used in both hexagonal cell and ‘flex-
4.2 Patterns and tooling core’ forms whereas Nomex material is procured in
standard hexagonal and over-expanded types. The
The geometry of the car exterior, having been generated latter is most useful in areas where curvature is in one
using the CAD system, is transmitted (in drawing form direction only while ‘flex-core’ will cope with regions of
at the time of writing) to the pattern-making depart- complex double curvature.
ment. Full-size male patterns are hand built in an
appropriate material-mostly CIBA-Ceigy Ureol
450-and finished with a high gloss sealer. 4.4 Lay-up procedures
Moulds for components are entirely manufactured in
Prepreg lay-up for our composite parts is accomplished
epoxy resin reinforced with carbon fibre and are all
by hand and follows accepted practices and procedures.
made in-house. Considerable experience has now been
gained with the wet lay-up CIBA-Geigy resin systems Detail drawings and laminate stacking sequence docu-
LY568 and XD893 which, impregnating carbon cloth, ments received from the design engineer are used to
have become our standard moulding processes. Recent- generate prepreg ply templates. A precise, repeatable
ly, however, much has been learnt about prepreg method of template use has been evolved for the cutting
tooling systems, principally ICI Fiberite’s Toolrite. The and positioning of prepreg, honeycomb core and core
inserts. Plies are laminated to the orientations specified
newer lower temperature systems now available also
in an appropriately configured mould, a vacuum bag is
have attractions and are being evaluated with a view to
future use. applied and curing takes place in an autoclave to the
recommended cycle.
In addition to the materials used in moulding, exper-
tise has been gained in the field of mould design. Good
and bad design practices for composite details are fairly 5 COMPONENT MANUFACTURE
well understood and accounted for in determining the
best configuration for a component and hence for its The design solutions to the criteria described in Section
mould and patternwork. Attention is also given to the 2 are translated into final component form for manufac-
requirements for quantity production of a component. ture. Brief descriptions of their construction and
Whilst, perhaps, eight chassis assemblies might be built assembly techniques are presented below.
only in a year it may be necessary to produce up to
eighty undertrays. A part that has been designed to be
simple in production terms is of little time advantage if 5.1 Chassis assembly
too long is spent in disassembling its mould for ejection The FW12 chassis consists of six principal components.
and turn-around. The most major of these, the outer shell, includes the
Conventional composite consumable materials are front and rear bulkheads and the top, sides and integral
used throughout manufacture except in the case of roll-over hoop base. Since the car uses its outer shape as
certain components where the time factor is significant a working structure, this component is inherently of
and so resort has been made to tailored, re-usable complex geometry, being largely comprised of com-
rubber vacuum bags. The reductions in bagging time pound curvatures, attachment details and the cockpit
and effort resulting from this have been greatly appre- opening. It is also necessary that it be produced in a
ciated by the production personnel and consistent female tool. Sandwich construction is employed
results have been obtained. throughout and it is moulded in two stages, the first
skin being cured at full autoclave pressurs (7 bar or 100
lbf/in2) and the subsequent film adhesives, honeycomb
4.3 Production materials
core, inserts and inner skin cured at a pressure safe for
The composite materials used in components manufac- the core, typically 3.5 bar (50 Ibf/in2).The skins are pri-
tured at Williams Grand Prix Engineering Limited marily of woven carbon/epoxy prepreg due to the con-
comprise a range of carbon fibre and Kevlar-reinforced straints of curvature, and laminates are modified with
epoxy resin prepregs, aluminium and Nomex honey- uni-directional material where necessary. Every effort is
comb core materials and epoxy adhesives and fillers in made at the design stage to eliminate unwanted tailor-
film and paste forms. ing and thickness accumulations by careful study and
The majority of components are manufactured from a accurate definition of all areas of ply overlaps and drop-
125”C-curing,high toughness epoxy prepreg-typically offs.
Q IMechE 1990 Proc lnstn Mech Engrs Vol 204

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 27, 2015

46 B P OROURKE

The other chassis main components, the four bulk- components are subjected to an appropriate kind of
heads and floor panel, are produced using similar sand- proof load test before any initial circuit trials. In recent
wich construction techniques and cure schedules. The years, however, the emphasis upon structural testing
whole is then jigged, assembled and bonded using a has been intensified as a result of new regulations issued
cold-set paste adhesive. There is no mechanical fas- by the governing body, the FISA. Specifically, they have
tening of these components. Finally, the assembly is imposed two compulsory tests aimed at improving
trimmed and drilled to accept attachment fasteners. vehicle impact performance. These must be carried out
Manufacture time is, typically, two weeks. The finished successfully, and witnessed, before that design of car is
assembly weight is approximately 5 0 per cent of that of allowed to compete in any of the Grand Prix events.
an average Formula 1 driver.
6.1 Frontal impact test
5.2 Underbodies The first test pertains to frontal impact performance. A
Two components form the underside of the car. Their fully representative chassis front section and nosebox, as
construction is similar and consists of thin skins of illustrated in Fig. 5, must be subjected to a mass of 780
carbon/epoxy and Kevlar/epoxy prepreg on either side kg impacting it at a velocity of 10 m/s, this equating to
of a 6 mm honeycomb core. Since these are vulnerable an energy of 39 kJ. This must be absorbed by the struc-
components and may have a relatively short life, ture and contain the damage to the area ahead of the
emphasis has been placed upon ease and speed of pro- driver's feet whilst the average deceleration must not
duction. Both skins and the skin/core bonds are formed exceed a level of 25 g.
in one curing operation. By making extensive use of The introduction of this regulation for the 1985
edge moulding and synthetic rubber slave skins, trim- Grand Prix season caused considerable effort to be put
ming is eliminated, resulting in components that may be into the design of the nosebox, a component that,
laminated by one man, cured and finished in one hitherto, had been regarded largely as a piece of body-
working day. work although some attempt had been made to provide
The rearmost of these two panels is situated under- driver protection in the chassis foot-box region. Initial
neath the engine and is subjected to heating both radi- testing at the end of 1984 demonstrated fairly compre-
antly and by entrained exhaust gases issuing adjacent to hensively, however, that the sort of structures used until
its lower surface. Because of this a higher temperature that date-which many people regarded as being very
epoxy prepreg is used throughout and, at times, this has effective-were completely inadequate in terms of
been augmented by a phenolic-based separate heat meeting the new regulation.
shield. All of the impact testing undertaken by Williams
Grand Prix Engineering Limited has been done using
the facilities of Cranfield Impact Centre. Frontal crash
5.3 Bodywork testing is performed on their large pendulum rig.
The bodywork, or external covering of the rear part of A specimen is manufactured comprising a nosebox
the car, consists of three main components. They are and the front third of a chassis built and equipped to a
identical in construction, being made up of single standard identical to that to be entered for the Grand
Kevlar/epoxy plies forming skins on each side of 3 mm Prix. This is mounted on a fixed, rigid support structure
Nomex honeycomb. A higher resin content prepreg is and the 780 kg pendulum allowed to drop and impact it
used in these cases to allow the deletion of a separate horizontally.
adhesive film. This results in a very lightweight com- The design of nose and chassis structures has pro-
ponent. Again, these parts are cured in a single process gressed to the level where, in 1988, damage can be
giving a fast production time. entirely confined to the nosebox and the resulting
average deceleration is kept below 50 per cent of the
25 g permitted. Whilst most people appreciate that a
5.4 Wing structures
90" frontal impact is a very rare occurrence, there can
There have been several methods employed in building be little doubt that the amount learnt about chassis
racing car wings, most involving wrapping carbon/ design that has come about as a consequence of having
epoxy prepreg skins around some form of foam core. to carry out this test has improved the overall integrity
Currently, however, increased aerodynamic loading and of the product.
the need for greater aerofoil profile accuracy have pro-
voked the adoption of a different solution entirely.
The present design utilizes two separate skins 6.2 Lateral crush test
moulded in female tools and subsequently paste- A second obligatory test was introduced at the begin-
adhesive bonded together and also to a substructure ning of 1988 concerning the lateral crush strength of the
consisting of ribs and spars. In some cases the skins chassis. The intention of this regulation was to ensure
may be of sandwich construction, in others monolithic. that all designs for Formula 1 chassis satisfy at least a
The result is a component embodying a more effective specified minimum level of side impact performance.
section and a smooth, accurate surface profile. The test, however, is not an impact one in the same
sense as in the nosebox case previously described but
6 STRUCTURAL TESTING rather a statically equivalent fixed load application.
A load of 2000 kg must be applied on a solid pad
It has always been the custom at Williams Grand Prix measuring 300 x 100 mm and reacted on an identical
Engineering Limited that newly designed structural area as shown in Fig. 6. There are two specified posi-
Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering @ IMechE 1990

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 27, 2015

 THE USES O F COMPOSITE MATERIALS IN THE DESIGN AND MANUFACTURE OF FORMULA 1 RACING CARS 47

. DR.*LRB 5151cn , i l *

-b i

Velocity
I Dummy 7
LZ7
.r.c -,, ,. v v. .r.
Pedals in position structure
,
7 I I, I **I..1*.101"

r
Wishbone pick-ups \, 1

Impact centre
39 kJ
Station z = o -4-- 4
I
-
P-
1 -
_- -- 1 - - +u - -- Y+L-
V'

II
I
\- Front wing assembly
(span truncated for
Front axle line
purposes of test)
I Rig mounting plate
I
, - I 0 82 1 0 52
(m) (m)
Fig. 5 Frontal impact test

tions of application at longitudinal stations equivalent The chassis built for the 1988 season, the FW12, was
to: successfully tested to these criteria, no damage in any
(a) the cockpit level with the driver's hips and area being found.
(b) the centroid of the fuel tank.
Under the action of this load there must be no detect- 7 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND TIME-SCALES
able damage to the inner skin of the sandwich shell
structure and a maximum deflection of 20 mm must not The processes and procedures described so far differ
be exceeded. little from those encountered by any other concern
engaged in the business of design and manufacture
2000 kg 2000 kg using advanced composite materials. There is one
respect, however, in which the motor racing industry,
and Formula 1 in particular, are subjected to special
disciplines-time-scales.
Examining the assembly of components that com-
prise a Grand Prix car it is possible to isolate, perhaps,
twenty examples that could be described as major pro-
jects in their own right, given the effort required to
1 Seat-belt fastening "%-"
design, tool and manufacture them. Considering also
that work has to be done on all of them simultaneously,
8 positions 2 Centre of area-/ T x station I the magnitude of the task assumes significant propor-
'? oftankbay (in) 78
0 m tions. This is compounded by the time allocated to do
m
Top view
a s2 the job.
The FW12 of 1988 illustrates the difficulties in this
Load pad dimensions respect rather aptly. The car configuration and specifi-
typical (mm) cation were finalized in the last week of October 1987.
The resulting vehicle was circuit testing in the last week
of February 1988-a time difference of only 4 months.
Given these constraints and the necessity to produce
a sufficient quantity of components prior to the com-
mencement of the racing season less than one month
later, it becomes clear that careful planning is essential
to avoid any embarrassment. The addition to the sched-
0
Centre of seat-helt fastening -'
:L Centre of area -1G'X station
of tank bay (in) \?
'
ule of the impact testing has emphasized its importance
m since specimens must also be manufactured and suc-
Side view cessfully tested as well. It need not be added that, with
Fig. 6 Lateral load test no time margin for error, the necessity to produce good
Q IMechE 1990 Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 204

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 27, 2015

48 B P OROURKE

parts-and the corresponding pressure on the design time-saving. Considering the labour-intensive nature of
and production teams-is very great. composite component manufacture by hand lay-up
The successful completion of a series of these projects methods, this may appear surprising. Compared with
has provided us with much useful management informa- the fabrication of an aluminium structure, however, the
tion. As work progresses, careful records are made of number of parts is much reduced and the fastening task
the time duration for each particular task. These data removed. The minimum time achieved for a metal
have been vital in the planning of future programmes. chassis assembly was some 300 man-hours whereas the
composite designs have reached as few as 250 man-
8 CONCLUSIONS hours.

Now that advanced composites have become regarded

as the standard materials of which high-performance 8.4 Geometric accuracy
competition cars are built, it is worth examining exactly The ability to accurately mould a shape has provided
what has been achieved by their use and what might be new opportunities for the manufacture of aerodynami-
the direction of future development. cally ‘clean’ components. Good examples of this are
wing surfaces where the accuracy, finish and repeatabil-
8.1 Structural stiffness ity of the components made in composite materials are
a major advance on their metallic forerunners produced
The initial reason for using composite materials in the by hand forming and rivetting. Bodywork fitting is also
field of Formula 1 car design was that gains were hoped much more consistent than before and parts can now be
to be made in respect of stiffness and/or weight of com- regarded as truly interchangeable.
ponent. Since the absolute weight of the complete
vehicle has always been close to the allowable
minimum, decisions were made to keep the chassis 8.5 Component durability
structure weight constant and seek improved per-
formance. This goal was achieved immediately and has There has been a general observation that the service
been improved upon with each subsequent design. The life and durability of the composite assemblies is also an
situation today is that measured chassis torsional improvement upon that of the aluminium structures.
stiffness is more than 100 per cent greater than that of The absence of mechanical fasteners and complex panel
the final aluminium structure built. junctions has removed the cracking problems found in
thin metal parts when used in a high vibration environ-
ment.
8.2 Impact performance
There is little doubt that the general crashworthiness of
the whole package is considerably enhanced relative to 8.6 Future areas of development
that which was considered to be adequate prior to 1985. A rational examination of what has been achieved with
Physical impact testing of structures has demonstrated composite materials at Williams Grand Prix Engineer-
results that would once have been regarded as difficult ing Limited leads to the general statement that major
to achieve. Additionally, unscheduled in-service impact lessons have been learnt in the fields of detail design,
testing has reinforced this belief. The example of the tooling and component production skills whilst under
F W l l B driven by Nelson Piquet at the 1987 San considerable time-scale pressures. Building upon these,
Marino Grand Prix at the lmola circuit has been held other areas must receive equal emphasis from now on.
up as an outstanding example of the survivability of the Amongst these are the subjects of new materials devel-
modern Grand Prix car. opment, inspection procedures, structural analysis and
testing. The development of design analysis tools and
test instrumentation will enable us to gain more con-
8.3 Production efficiency
fidence in the prediction of structural performance and,
One area in which advantages have been seen against therefore, help us towards our goal of greater com-
the expectations of most people is that of production ponent optimization.

Part D: Journal of Automobile Engineering @ IMechE 1990

Downloaded from pid.sagepub.com at Harvard Libraries on June 27, 2015