2021 Citation Pedals

[Purple Frog]

Ferrari F1 Brake Pedals
Titanium
30g each
Available mid 2021 for Citation cars.

[Garey Guzman]

Ferrari F1 Brake Pedals
Titanium
30g each
Available mid 2021 for Citation cars.

Those should fit my Z16 too!

[Rick Kirchner]

laser sintered 3D printed no doubt - with some generative design thrown in. Probably a third of the price of their standard hand fabricated ones.

[Ralph Z.]

I can buy two FFs for the price of one pedal. I think I'll pass.

[Jerry Kehoe]

Next they will 3D print a driver, imagine in a lace pattern so there will be no mass above it's butt!

[Steve Demeter]

Steve and Richard, how much??

[R. Pare]

I would guess whatever your yearly income is, multiply by 100!

They are definitely a sweet piece, but I'd bet that Ferrari made them just to have something to brag about. The machines for this run between $50k and a million, and that is only about 40% of the startup costs!

https://all3dp.com/2/how-much-does-a...-printer-cost/

[romoman]

I would guess whatever your yearly income is, multiply by 100!

They are definitely a sweet piece, but I'd bet that Ferrari made them just to have something to brag about. The machines for this run between $50k and a million, and that is only about 40% of the startup costs!

https://all3dp.com/2/how-much-does-a...-printer-cost/

I read an article that they have the printers with them at the track to create things if/when needed. They have also printed the roll hoops.

[Rick Kirchner]

Right now I can buy stainless filled filament and print it on my machine. It's expensive, and comes with a coupon for I believe 3 parts to go to a specific sintering company that will burn off the plastic and fuse the metal. The problem with this (and all systems that use binders with a sintering post-process), is that the parts shrink as much as 3%, so your designs have to account for this, which means iterations and careful documentation, especially when each attempt is going to run you about $500 bucks.

So it's cost effective if you have a complex part that requires a lot of hand machining, but it would likely be cheaper to just make it CNC, so it typically gets reserved for parts that have features that can't be made subtractively.

I would bet though, that when you look at the costs of making a F1 titanium pedal set the traditional way - multiple part drawings, cnc laser cutting of the Ti, inspection of each part, making the jigs, and then having a very skilled welder Tig them together - that these parts are amazingly cost effective.

The Navy has been making parts with the Electron Beam and Direct Laser sintering methods since at least 2016. I got to watch them makes some metal parts at the sub base in Kitsap as well as the aircraft depot at Cherry Point. There's a lot to understanding the strengths of materials aspects and getting the process controls right so that you get consistent performance. There's a lot of discussion about how much weight you could take off of the the unnecessarily weighty parts of aircraft and combat vehicles so you could re-allocate the weight into the armor and structure to create more survivable vehicles, or lighten the weight for more performance. There's also a lot of post processing via traditional machining to get the dimensions and surface finish acceptable to mate with traditionally made parts. Cherry Point had some really cool ways to minimize all of that.

One of the biggest issues is how to re-use the powder. Right now, whatever powder is loaded into the system that doesn't go into the part is waste - really, really expensive waste. These powder systems work by depositing a layer of powder, passing the laser over it to sinter it, lowering the bed, and applying another layer of powder. So consider that if you look at those pedals, there's a volume of powder probably 2-10x the size of the part that is just waste. What the manufacturers are trying to figure out is after you screen the waste to get back to the required particle size (removing little clumps of multiple particles sintered together) What, if any material changes took place in the particles that were close enough to the beam to get hot, but not hot enough to sinter together?

Of course the waste (mostly aluminum, titanium, kovar, and steel powders) can be recycled, but I don't know if the powder manufacturers just take the waste back or if it just goes into the normal recycle stream at very little value.

[Will Velkoff]

Hey Rick, at my day job we have been designing and 3D printing metallic flow control parts out of Inconel 718 to run some tests. Do a google search for "sieving". Our vendor takes the excess powder, runs it through the sieving process, and can re-use powder for typically up to 10 cycles through the printer.

One of the ordering requirements we specify if powder recycling is allowed, depending on the part application we may say no, but typically we allow it since the properties are verified to be "like new" powder.

[Rick Kirchner]

glad to see thats moving along. My USMC experiences are now 2.5 years stale.

[swiftdrivr]

Bugatti's 3D-Printed Suspension Pushrods Weigh 3.5 Ounces but Can Withstand 3.5 Tons of Force (msn.com)

check out the caliper video

[jchracer]

Parts can be produced that are accurate to the CAD files and the strength properties are pretty good. Where these parts are still lacking is in the consistency of fatigue properties. My experience has shown that as the number of powder re-use cycles increases, the fatigue properties decrease even further. I would not trust them in structural applications where they need to be prime reliable unless they were designed with really high safety factors or fatigue was not an issue. That brake peddle looks downright scary to me.....I would like to see the fatigue test data on that one. Maybe they are counting on the redundant ligaments to work....as each ligament fails, a new crack would need to develop in the remaining ligaments. Maybe you could inspect and replace often enough to keep your driver safe? That's a lot of faith in new technology.....

[Rick Kirchner]

Ever seen Ikea's chair tester? You could put that pedal in one of those fixtures and in a few weeks demonstrate 10 seasons of use.

The materials properties problem is why the military is still to the best of my knowledge, not re-using powder.

I've been test driving for Honda and we put seven years of wear on a car in 9 months.

[jchracer]

Ever seen Ikea's chair tester? You could put that pedal in one of those fixtures and in a few weeks demonstrate 10 seasons of use.

The materials properties problem is why the military is still to the best of my knowledge, not re-using powder.

I've been test driving for Honda and we put seven years of wear on a car in 9 months.

Unfortunately, fatigue is a statistical thing. The defect locations are random. How do you know that the part you are testing has a defect in a high stress location? Testing a statistically significant number of parts is usually not practical or cost effective.....even for additive manufactured parts.

[Rick Kirchner]

So you x-ray them and then submit them to X-cycles of fatigue and x-ray them again.

All the tools for parts qualification, even in very small quantities, exist in the old US mil-spec system. It is expensive, but it's not like F1 is short of money. It's all about process controls used to create good parts and understanding that over time - and in general processes are a lot more precise now than they were 40 years ago. Yes, there are failures, which adds to the science. That's why we used to say that Mil-specs were "written in blood".

It was largely abandoned in the US defense industry because there were some high-profile cases where the use of common sense did not prevail, and the industry lobbied congress to get the spec requirements removed. What it does for big defense contractors is allow them to bill the taxpayer over and over again to determine what the operational environment is and then just test for that - which means that a part developed for one type/model/series aircraft is not necessarily usable on another type/model/series aircraft without significant additional testing.

[jchracer]

So you x-ray them and then submit them to X-cycles of fatigue and x-ray them again.

All the tools for parts qualification, even in very small quantities, exist in the old US mil-spec system. It is expensive, but it's not like F1 is short of money. It's all about process controls used to create good parts and understanding that over time - and in general processes are a lot more precise now than they were 40 years ago. Yes, there are failures, which adds to the science. That's why we used to say that Mil-specs were "written in blood".

It was largely abandoned in the US defense industry because there were some high-profile cases where the use of common sense did not prevail, and the industry lobbied congress to get the spec requirements removed. What it does for big defense contractors is allow them to bill the taxpayer over and over again to determine what the operational environment is and then just test for that - which means that a part developed for one type/model/series aircraft is not necessarily usable on another type/model/series aircraft without significant additional testing.

Good luck trying to find a defect in those pedals with x-ray....

[Rick Kirchner]

Alright then, build 20 and test to failure. build some curves. geeze we've only been doing this crap for a hundred years....