DWGeditor Font Problem (Solidworks轉dwg檔會亂碼)

Problem：How to solve the font problem for transferring to a DWG file in Solidworks

Cause：No font setting in the map file "dwgeditor.fmp"

Solution：

1st step：Check DWGeditor setting

Open DWGeditor, Tool---->Option---->path/file, check if the setting of "font mapping" is "dwgeditor.fmp"

2nd step：change dwgeditor.fmp

File path----> C:\Program Files\DWGeditor\dwgeditor.fmp

Open dwgeditor.fmp by Notepad, Create a line at the last: font_name;font_name.ttf
(For example: 新細明體;新細明體.ttf) , then save it.

3rd step: Open a Solidworks 2D drawing, Make sure all font settings are what you want before transferring to a dwg file.

Save as a dwg file, Click "Option" to choose Fonts to TrueType

Now the dwg file should display the correct font.

keel construction of F1 car

Assortments of Keels :

one keel

zero keel


龍骨的進化：

在空氣力學效應還不是很盛行的F1年代，單體結構最前端（與車鼻相接、油門和煞車踏板位置的撞擊區域）就會盡可能設計成越低越好，目的是降低車身的重心。但自從車隊在1990年代初期把車鼻的位置拉高，此區域的設計概念就變成基於為了得到強大的空氣力學效應而妥協。
由於前翼必須發揮出更大的效率，車隊因此得想個辦法讓前翼的使用面積發揮到最大，而且前翼的擺放位置不得被車鼻攔腰斬斷，也因此近年來F1賽車前翼的氣流導向就變得非常重要。如果要讓前翼的導流效率發揮到最大，那氣流就得被導入無障礙的區域；早年，單體結構最前端會阻礙到氣流的通過路徑，車鼻的設計也從來沒有為了要讓氣流穩定通過而被拉高。

F1賽車的前端設計必須完全遵照FIA所訂出的規範，駕駛艙的前端與撞擊隔板的尺寸也有明文規定，這些規則導致F1賽車的中間部位能夠更統一化。那如何才能讓設計師依循著隔板版放位置與最小的尺寸限制來研發賽車？如果前隔板位置提高，那腳踏板位置下方就有更多的可用空間；假使後隔板的位置也拉高，那可提供設計師的發揮空間就更大了。
許多車隊之前都將前後隔板拉高，這會讓前撞擊結構的最上緣高出駕駛艙大約550mm。儘管某些車隊在2006年同時把前後隔板的位置都拉低，讓底盤的下方能與地面成平行線，但這種設計所造成的重心損失，都必須在車底部使用壓艙物來彌補。

單龍骨

如果將腳踏板位置拉高，會對前懸吊造成影響：兩支上A臂必須以特殊的幾何角度來放置，為得是增進賽車的機械抓地力與操控性。但這種設計卻會讓懸吊下A臂無法鑲嵌進車架的下方，因此車隊就在車架下方放置了一個V型的支架（也就是所謂的龍骨），讓下A臂能利用這個支架與底盤做連結。

而當車鼻被拉得更高時，中空結構的V型龍骨設計就顯得不夠結實，也因此V型龍骨就被演化成穩定性較高的實心單龍骨。2005年，Renault車隊導入經過修正的龍骨結構，這是一個很有效率的單龍骨佈局，但實心的外型被改成中空托架式樣。這種設計能讓氣流順暢地通過，而龍骨外型也讓車身結構產生更佳的效率：重量降低。

雙龍骨

從2001年開始，FIA規定了前翼必須升高來降低下壓力，這項條例讓車頭中央部位的設計變得非常關鍵，而單龍骨的位置卻成為氣流路徑的主要障礙。Sauber車隊首先以雙龍骨的設計來解決這個問題，這個構想來自前Honda RA099賽車的設計師Harvey Postlethwaite：將單龍骨一分為二，然後以朝車外的角度擺放，如此一來車體中央的部位就淨空了。
儘管Sauber車隊採用了這種設計，但許多車隊在這段時期依然堅持使用單龍骨。雙龍骨所產生的問題頗多，其中之一在於結構上的效率：增加重量，而且許多人表示這種設計會降低前懸吊的靈活性。F1車隊當然知道生硬度的標準，同時也瞭解雙龍骨必須採用大量的金屬與碳纖維來強化，這也是增加重量的元凶。
從2001至2004年，對於單龍骨與雙龍骨之間的爭論從未間斷過，Arrows、Jordan、Williams、McLaren、Sauber等車隊都曾使用過雙龍骨，但後來漸漸捨棄這種概念。雙龍骨會增加重量當然是原因之一，而在空氣力學的研發上，也發現雙龍骨會造成下壓力的降低。
某些車隊使用傳統式垂直雙龍骨，如Sauber、Arrows、Jordan車隊。McLaren車隊曾大膽採用外擴式雙龍骨的概念，來增加車鼻下方的寬度，後來Jordan與Williams車隊也採用過這種設計。

無龍骨

2005年，FIA再次規定車前翼的外側部位得拉高，這項規定的重點在於阻礙氣流路徑，簡而言之就是降低賽車前段的下壓力。McLaren車隊最早意識到必須使用下垂型的前懸吊A臂來解決這個問題，因此龍骨直接影響到前懸吊擺設位置與幾何學。

當腳踏位置再次被拉高，已經是空氣力學研發上的必要過程，懸吊幾何的改變意味著龍骨已是可以被省略的了。將上下A臂的距離拉近，直接從輪圈的接點朝上拉至與車架連結，如此一來就不需要龍骨來支撐下A臂。這是一個很直接的設計，同時也能讓車鼻下方淨空，讓前方氣流能順暢通過車身下方，直接導入車底分流板，或是藉由車側破風板導入冷卻孔內。目前幾乎所有的F1車隊都採用無龍骨設計，除了Red Bull RB3賽車又改回使用雙龍骨。

[sources from : http://chinese.autoblog.com/2007/02/05/keel-1/]

三菱電動汽車“iMiEV”持續行駛距離達160km

DATE 2008/01/25 【日經BP社報導】

三菱汽車計劃09年量產電動汽車，將通過行駛試驗確認“基於用戶的充電時間的妥當性”、“與電力公司開發的快速充電器的配合性”等。
　　行駛試驗用車輛的主要改進方面有兩點：配備了新的鋰離子充電電池，以及在馬達和控制系統的改進中將10·15模式的持續行駛距離由原來的130km延長至了160km。
　　三菱汽車07年12月與GS湯淺（GS Yuasa Corporation）、三菱商事合資成立了從事大型鋰離子充電電池開發、製造以及銷售的公司——Lithium Energy Japan，預定09年度生產20萬個電池單元（相當於2000輛電動汽車的電池用量，一台車要配置100個單元）。新車輛將率先採用新公司的電池。此前採用的是電池開發公司LITCEL製造的電池。

　　電池性能與原來的電池相同，電壓為330V、電力容量為16kWh。使用4個電壓3.3V、電流容量50Ah的電池單元組成一個模組，共配備22個這樣的模組，這一點也與原來相同。不過，與原來的電池相比減小了容量偏差，電池整體的容量也略有增加。另外，此前的電池單元容器採用樹脂材料，而此次採用金屬，提高了安全性。正極電極使用Mn係材料。
　　電池模組共配有88個樹脂材料的電池單元，下方設計有4根橫樑，以電池組的形式安裝在車體上。這種電池組的結構更牢固。此前，是將電池模組裝在鋁質的箱子裏，再連同箱子一起安裝在車體上，所以發生衝撞時電池模組就會因受力而損壞。而新型結構因為是橫樑受力，所以電池模組的變形相對較小。
　　之所以能夠延長持續行駛距離，是因為設定了在使用冷卻器或加熱器的情況下也能行駛100km左右的目標。此次通過提高馬達效率、提高能量回收利用功能、減小輪胎滾動阻力這三個方面延長了持續行駛距離。
　　馬達結構方面，在採用與原來相同的永磁同步電動機（IPM）的同時，提高了低速旋轉時的效率。另外，也在原有基礎上增加了能量回收利用量，減小了在10·15模式下摩擦制動的使用頻率。還採取措施使輪胎滾動阻力減小了近10％。試驗結果表明，分別使用冷卻器和加熱器時行駛距離可超過108km和100km。

　　另外，還以量產為目標著手減小部件的體積和重量。比如，在馬達方面，通過減少部件的數量，使體積縮小10％，還為了降低kHz級的噪音，而在馬達外殼設置了肋條。這樣輻射噪音降低了5dB（A）左右。
　　變頻器通過縮小內部的間隙、高密度安裝電子部件，使體積縮小了30％，充電器也縮小了10％。馬達和變頻器均為明電舍製造。充電時間方面，AC100V 15A型大約需要14小時、AC200V 15型大約需要7小時、快速充電大約需要30分鐘（充電80％）。快速充電器的技術參數方面，為了與速霸陸的電動汽車“R1e”可以通用，採用了相同的充電前的通信協議。

『source : http://210.64.8.60/china/news/auto/auto200801250129.html』

A More Efficient Engine ： HCCI engine

MIT教授發明了新版的內燃機引擎，能同時兼具汽油引擎的低排放及柴油引擎的高效率。採用的最新的燃燒技術HCCI(Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition)，能夠更平順的燃燒，排放更少的一氧化氮。

Clean burning: A new sparkless gas engine could significantly reduce fuel consumption. In a conventional engine (top), a mixture of fuel and air is ignited by a spark plug. In a diesel (middle), the fuel ignites when it's injected into hot, compressed air. An alternative to both is called homogeneous charge compression ignition (bottom).

Here, a mixture of fuel and air is compressed until it combusts. Because the fuel and air are premixed, they burn more evenly than they do in a diesel engine, producing much less soot and nitrogen oxide.

A new version of the internal combustion engine, which could significantly cut gas consumption, might be surprisingly practical and easy to deploy, according to recent findings by researchers at MIT. Tests on a prototype based on the technology, which allows engines to switch between conventional technology and the new gas-saving type of combustion, show that it does not require a special fuel, and engines using the technology can be cheaply made out of conventional auto parts.

The gas-saving technology, called homogeneous charge compression ignition, or HCCI, uses a form of combustion that is much more efficient than conventional spark ignition. Under some conditions, it can reduce fuel consumption by 25 percent, says William Green, a professor of chemical engineering at MIT who was coauthor of the new study. That's very similar to the efficiency of a diesel engine, which also achieves combustion by compression rather than a spark. But unlike diesel engines, HCCI results in a more uniform combustion and is thus much cleaner. A system that combines HCCI with conventional combustion could improve fuel economy by a few miles per gallon on average, Green says.

Several research groups are working on the new type of combustion. Volvo, for example, has built a hybrid system that can switch between conventional spark ignition and HCCI. Some experts, however, had expected that the new type of engine would require special fuel.

The MIT research shows that an HCCI engine can operate with any of the varieties of gasoline sold in North America, making a special fuel unnecessary. The researchers tested a range of different gasolines made at different refineries. They found that the HCCI engine "was less sensitive to the fuel than people had feared," says Green.

While the HCCI has several performance limitations, these can be addressed using a hybrid approach, in which an engine could switch between HCCI and conventional spark ignition. Using already mass-produced parts could make it relatively inexpensive to build such a hybrid, Green says.

In conventional gasoline engines, a spark ignites a mixture of fuel and air in a combustion chamber, creating an explosion that drives a piston. While this happens very efficiently when the engine is working hard, it's less efficient at lower loads, such as during cruising, when less gasoline is being pumped into the combustion chamber. At these times, to keep the ratio of fuel to oxygen optimized, a partial vacuum is created in the chamber. It takes extra energy to make this vacuum, which decreases the engine's efficiency.

The HCCI technology avoids the use of an energy-wasting vacuum. Instead, hot gases from a previous combustion cycle remain in the chamber;the engine uses a combination of heat from these hot gases and heat generated by compressing the mixture to raise temperatures high enough that the mixture explodes.

But if the engine's temperature is too low, such as when it's being started or being operated under very low loads, the mixture doesn't get hot enough to combust. And at high loads, when the temperature is high, the mixture can combust too early, out of sync with the cycling of the engine, causing a potentially damaging phenomenon called knock. Differences in fuels can also affect precisely when the mixture combusts.

The hybrid system switches between the two forms of combustion. To do this requires changing the way the engine deals with combusted gases. During spark combustion, the gases are forced out through an open valve. In HCCI, the timing of the opening of that valve is changed so that it closes before the gases completely escape, trapping them inside.

John Heywood, a professor of mechanical engineering at MIT who was not involved with this work, says that HCCI could eventually provide even greater benefits as researchers find ways to adapt the engine so that they can use it for a wider range of loads. What's more, it could be used in combination with other gas-saving technologies already available on many vehicles. The extent to which HCCI can be combined with other approaches could determine how widely it's adopted, suggests Heywood.

[Source：MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment]

Part1.Weight Transfer

Most people remember Newton's laws from school physics. These are fundamental laws that apply to all large things in the universe, such as cars. In the context of our racing application, they are:

The first law: a car in straight-line motion at a constant speed will keep such motion until acted on by an external force. The only reason a car in neutral will not coast forever is that friction, an external force, gradually slows the car down. Friction comes from the tires on the ground and the air flowing over the car. The tendency of a car to keep moving the way it is moving is the inertia of the car, and this tendency is concentrated at the CG point.

The second law: When a force is applied to a car, the change in motion is proportional to the force divided by the mass of the car. This law is expressed by the famous equation F= ma , where F is a force, m is the mass of the car, and is the acceleration, or change in motion, of the car. A larger force causes quicker changes in motion, and a heavier car reacts more slowly to forces. Newton's second law explains why quick cars are powerful and lightweight. The more F and the less m you have, the more a you can get.

The third law: Every force on a car by another object, such as the ground, is matched by an equal and opposite force on the object by the car. When you apply the brakes, you cause the tires to push forward against the ground, and the ground pushes back. As long as the tires stay on the car, the ground pushing on them slows the car down.

Let us continue analyzing braking. Weight transfer during accelerating and cornering are mere variations on the theme. We won't consider subtleties such as suspension and tire deflection yet. These effects are very important, but secondary. The figure shows a car and the forces on it during a ``one g'' braking maneuver. One g means that the total braking force equals the weight of the car, say, in pounds.

In this figure, the black and white ``pie plate'' in the center is the CG. G is the force of gravity that pulls the car toward the center of the Earth. This is the weight of the car; weight is just another word for the force of gravity. It is a fact of Nature, only fully explained by Albert Einstein, that gravitational forces act through the CG of an object, just like inertia. This fact can be explained at deeper levels, but such an explanation would take us too far off the subject of weight transfer.

Lf is the lift force exerted by the ground on the front tire, and Lr is the lift force on the rear tire. These lift forces are as real as the ones that keep an airplane in the air, and they keep the car from falling through the ground to the center of the Earth.

We don't often notice the forces that the ground exerts on objects because they are so ordinary, but they are at the essence of car dynamics. The reason is that the magnitude of these forces determine the ability of a tire to stick, and imbalances between the front and rear lift forces account for understeer and oversteer. The figure only shows forces on the car, not forces on the ground and the CG of the Earth. Newton's third law requires that these equal and opposite forces exist, but we are only concerned about how the ground and the Earth's gravity affect the car.

If the car were standing still or coasting, and its weight distribution were 50-50, then Lf would be the same as Lr. It is always the case that Lf plus Lr equals G, the weight of the car. Why? Because of Newton's first law. The car is not changing its motion in the vertical direction, at least as long as it doesn't get airborne, so the total sum of all forces in the vertical direction must be zero. G points down and counteracts the sum of Lf and Lr, which point up.

Braking causes to be greater than . Literally, the ``rear end gets light,'' as one often hears racers say. Consider the front and rear braking forces, Bf and Br, in the diagram. They push backwards on the tires, which push on the wheels, which push on the suspension parts, which push on the rest of the car, slowing it down. But these forces are acting at ground level, not at the level of the CG. The braking forces are indirectly slowing down the car by pushing at ground level, while the inertia of the car is `trying' to keep it moving forward as a unit at the CG level.

The braking forces create a rotating tendency, or torque, about the CG. Imagine pulling a table cloth out from under some glasses and candelabra. These objects would have a tendency to tip or rotate over, and the tendency is greater for taller objects and is greater the harder you pull on the cloth. The rotational tendency of a car under braking is due to identical physics.

The braking torque acts in such a way as to put the car up on its nose. Since the car does not actually go up on its nose (we hope), some other forces must be counteracting that tendency, by Newton's first law. G cannot be doing it since it passes right through the cetner of gravity. The only forces that can counteract that tendency are the lift forces, and the only way they can do so is for Lf to become greater than Lr. Literally, the ground pushes up harder on the front tires during braking to try to keep the car from tipping forward.

By how much does Lf exceed Lr? The braking torque is proportional to the sum of the braking forces and to the height of the CG. Let's say that height is 20 inches. The counterbalancing torque resisting the braking torque is proportional to Lf and half the wheelbase (in a car with 50-50 weight distribution), minus Lr times half the wheelbase since Lr is helping the braking forces upend the car. Lf has a lot of work to do: it must resist the torques of both the braking forces and the lift on the rear tires. Let's say the wheelbase is 100 inches. Since we are braking at one g, the braking forces equal G, say, 3200 pounds. All this is summarized in the following equations:

3200lbs times 20 inches = Lf times 50 inches - Lr times 50 inches

Lf + Lr = 3200lbs (this is always true)

With the help of a little algebra, we can find out that
Lf = 1600+3200/5 = 2240lbs ; Lr = 1600-3200/5 = 960lbs

Thus, by braking at one g in our example car, we add 640 pounds of load to the front tires and take 640 pounds off the rears! This is very pronounced weight transfer.
By doing a similar analysis for a more general car with CG height of , wheelbase , weight , static weight distribution expressed as a fraction of weight in the front, and braking with force , we can show that
Lf = dG + Bh/wLr = (1-d)G - Bh/w

These equations can be used to calculate weight transfer during acceleration by treating acceleration force as negative braking force. If you have acceleration figures in gees, say from a G-analyst or other device, just multiply them by the weight of the car to get acceleration forces (Newton's second law!). Weight transfer during cornering can be analyzed in a similar way, where the track of the car replaces the wheelbase and d is always 50%(unless you account for the weight of the driver). Those of you with science or engineering backgrounds may enjoy deriving these equations for yourselves. The equations for a car doing a combination of braking and cornering, as in a trail braking maneuver, are much more complicated and require some mathematical tricks to derive.
Now you know why weight transfer happens. The next topic that comes to mind is the physics of tire adhesion, which explains how weight transfer can lead to understeer and oversteer conditions.

Automotive X-Prize announces first 31 teams accepted to competition

has announced the first thirty-one teams to be accepted into their upcoming mileage competition and several of our favorite subject companies are on the list. Among the teams that have been accepted into the first round of competition are Tesla, Zap, and Phoenix Motorcars. Other teams that we have covered here that made the cut are Fuel Vapor Technology and Team Velozzi. According to organizers over 300 teams have expressed interest in the competition and are considering jumping in.

XPrize宣佈有31個隊伍這個省油車的競賽，第一回合的比賽將由Tesla, Zap, Phoenix Motorlogy and Team Velozzi來參加。

The goal of the competition is to create a commercially viable vehicle that can exceed 100 mpg gasoline equivalent based on a combination of well-to-tank analysis and tank-to-wheels actual vehicle performance. The real key here is the commercial viability. Teams have to demonstrate not just vehicle performance but a business plan showing that they can sell the vehicles in volumes of 10,000 or more annually. Preliminary competitions including peer reviews start in 2008 with the actual vehicle competitions in 2009.

競賽的目的是製作出油耗能夠達到100mpg的車子，真正的關鍵在商業化的考量，參賽隊伍不只要展現車子的性能，還要提出完整的商業計畫，讓大家相信這部車子能夠賣出一萬輛甚至更多。預賽是2008舉行，而真正的決賽要到2009年。

The following 31 teams have signed a letter of intent signaling their intent to apply for the AXP competition:

• Aptera Motors – California, USA

• Commuter Cars Corp. – Washington, USA

• Cornell University – New York, USA

• DEHyds – Washington, USA

• Delta Motorsport – Northants, UK

• Desert Fuel – Arizona, USA

• Disruptech – California, USA

• Dragonfly Technology LTD – Northhampton, UK

• Fuel Vapor Technologies – British Columbia, Canada

• GreenIt! – Oregon, USA

• Herf Duo – Berlin, Germany

• HyKinesys – California, USA

• Kinetic Vehicles – Oregon, USA

• Kuttner Doran Inventions – Virginia, USA

• Loremo AG – Munich, Germany

• Maine Automotive X – Maine, USA

• MDI, Inc. & Zero Pollution Motors LLC – New York, USA

• Michigan Vision – Michigan, USA

• MotoTron Corporation – Wisconsin, USA

• Phoenix Motorcars – California, USA

• Prometheus Systems, LLC – Arizona, USA

• Porteon Electric Vehicles, Inc. – Oregon, USA

• Psycho-Active – Georgia, USA

• Roane Inventions – Texas, USA

• Society for Sustainable Mobility – California, USA

• Spirit One – Alberta, Canada

• Tesla Motors – California, USA

• Valentin Technologies – Wisconsin, USA

• Velozzi – California, USA

• X Tracer – Winterthur, Switzerland

• ZAP Motors – California, USA

[Source：AutoBlogGreen.com]

STRESS TO IMPRESS

A top Formula 1 driver doesn't give too much thought to any one of the hundreds of components that make up his race car failing while he's teetering on the brink of adhesion at 180mph plus. If he did then he probably wouldn't be able to do it. But there's more to it than that. You see, deep down perhaps, he can always feel safe in the knowledge that someone else has already worried about those components for him - someone like the Stress Analysis and Materials Group headed by Luca Furbatto.

Furbatto's dedicated band of engineers work in the drawing office - an ideal location as they often need to interact with the designers - and comprises experts in both composite materials and metallurgy, most of them recruited from the aerospace industry.

Racing is very much in Furbatto's blood then, which is useful, as the challenge the group faces is one that is central to modern race car design - that is, trying to achieve the balance between driver safety and car performance. It is up to the Stress Analysis and Material Group to ensure that while a component in the car is safe, and meets all the strict FIA regulations, it is also optimised to perform at its very best. It must meet stiffness and weight targets that are crucial to its performance on track. It's an immense challenge, but thankfully they have a quite incredible tool at their disposal to meet it.

"Structural simulation helps tremendously in terms of stiffness and strength visualisation," says Furbatto. "It helps us find out where the structure bends or twists, and then improve it. And all this can be done before a single component is actually made." This 'stress analysis' is carried out by FEM (Finite Element Method - also called FEA, the 'A' for Analysis). Basically, these computer programmes are able to apply a three-dimensional grid of elements to the designer's CAD renditions of the components. As these are then mathematical models, set forces and boundaries - which are derived from track data, limit conditions and FIA regulations - can be applied to them to give a virtual picture of the component under stress, showing it bend, vibrate or deform. Ninety per cent of the car is now modelled with FEM, and tests applied include everything from vibration on a wing, or torque on a gear, to the results of a side impact test on the monocoque.

"The loads we apply to structures are often very large," says Furbatto. "Under a front crash, for example, the load generated by the nosecone can reach 350kN, or 35 tonnes - that's about the size of a large truck..."

These loads can then be represented on the screen using a colour spectrum, which correspond to measurements along the screen edge, for quick reference. The grids, or 'meshes', can be fine or coarse, depending on the level of information required - a finer mesh means more elements, hence more information but longer run time. Yet with between 300 to 400 parts to look at per car, this is by no means a simple job.

As Furbatto points out, with each individual case "the maths behind it is very complicated, you are talking about very large matrices.The job requires a sound understanding of finite element method and numerical convergency." Indeed, with a large component such as a monocoque, analysis can take a full eight weeks from the start of meshing to the finished report.

That said, there's no doubt all this virtual testing has speeded up the build process of the modern Formula 1 car considerably, and has also allowed the designers to come up with components that are at the optimum weight and stiffness. As McLaren Racing's executive director of engineering, Neil Oatley, puts it: "In the past the development process was less precise, and you would always allow yourself much larger safety margins; Inevitably you would be more conservative so components would be heavier."

But in these days of ultra-strict FIA safety regulations it's not enough to simply prove that a part is up to the job on the screen alone, and it's part of the group's responsibility to set the parameters and coordinate the routine lab tests on the finished components too. This all takes place in the test lab, using non-destructive and destructive test frames supplied by McLaren Technology Centre Partner Instron.

"Once a part is designed to spec," says Furbatto, "in order to be approved for track use it has to go through a series of tests, including static tests, fatigue tests and destructive tests." Incidentally, the group also oversees material tests in the lab, working closely with Official Supplier Advanced Composites Group, as well as batch quality checks and failure analysis. All that said, it's the stress analysis that's still the core of the group's work, although in recent times its role has begun to change, as McLaren's chief designer Mike Coughlan explains. "Stress analysis is moving more towards the optimising of components now and higher level structural simulation," he says.

"CAD packages are getting to the point where simple stress analysis can be done by the designer. So the stress group is moving away from analysis of isotropic [that is, a single component with uniform properties] materials... Luca and the group are now looking towards the very high level contact problems, complex assemblies and composite ply-by-ply analysis."

This work sees the group working on the optimisation of everything from the monocoque - where it is looking at optimising the ply direction of the composite material to achieve better stiffness and strength - to the transmission, from aerodynamic part to suspension components.

But driver safety is always the top priority, and a major worry. As Furbatto says, "Every time that something fails on the car when it is a structural failure, not due to contact with other cars, it personally hurts. But even from this kind of event we continue to learn." According to Furbatto, there is always that vital balance to consider: "You can make a tank, and it will pass all the strength/FIA tests, but it is not going to be very quick!"


A version of this article originally appeared in the October 2005 edition of Racing Line, the McLaren Group's in-house magazine.