Ford Uses 3D Printing to Support Red Bull F1 Starts

• 1
  Why Ford Uses 3D Printing on a Race Car
• 2
  The Printing Routes Used for Metal Race Parts
• 3
  Post-Processing Decides Whether the Part Works
• 4
  Where Additive Stops Being the Right Answer
• 5
  What CNC Machining Still Does Better
• 6
  Additive vs CNC Machining for Low-Volume Race Parts

A Formula 1 car is a low-volume product with a short development window. A team may build two or three versions of the same bracket in a season, then retire the design. Tooling for that pattern is hard to justify, so the parts often start as additive. Ford uses 3D printing here because the cost curve favors it at quantities of one to fifty, not because additive is universally better.

The starting function on a race car is a good example. A start-related component has to survive a short, violent load event, fit inside a crowded package, and change shape between events as the surrounding hardware moves. Additive lets the design team iterate the geometry in days instead of weeks. The trade-off is that the printed surface and internal structure behave differently from wrought bar stock.

There is also a thermal argument. Engine and battery-adjacent hardware sees repeated heat cycles, and some geometries that would be machined as an assembly can be printed as one piece with internal channels. That removes joints and fasteners, which are common failure points. It does not remove the need for inspection, and it does not fix a bad load path.

So the honest framing is this: additive wins on complexity and speed, and loses on surface finish, repeatability, and per-part cost at volume. Engineers should decide per part, not per program.

• 1
  Complex geometryInternal channels and organic shapes that are difficult to cut
• 2
  Low quantityOne to fifty pieces, where tooling cost dominates
• 3
  Fast iterationGeometry changes between race events
• 4
  ConsolidationOne printed body replaces a bolted assembly

Most metal parts in this class come off laser powder bed fusion. A laser melts a thin layer of metal powder, the build plate drops, and a new layer spreads. Layer thickness typically runs 30–60 μm. The result is a near-net part with a rough surface and a heat-affected microstructure that usually needs stress relief before any finish cut.

Directed energy deposition is the second route. Powder or wire is fed into a moving melt pool, which makes it better for adding material to an existing part or building a large near-net blank. Dimensional control is looser than powder bed, so DED parts almost always go to a CNC for the final dimensions.

Binder jetting is the third option worth knowing. A binder glues powder together, then the part is sintered. It is faster and cheaper per part at higher counts, but shrinkage during sintering is significant, so the design must account for a uniform shrink factor. Tolerances are wider than powder bed.

All three routes need the same downstream thinking: remove support, relieve stress, machine the critical interfaces, then inspect. The printing step is maybe half of the total lead time.

• 1
  Laser powder bed fusion30–60 μm layers, best detail, support removal needed
• 2
  Directed energy depositionGood for repair and large blanks, loose dimensions
• 3
  Binder jettingCheaper at volume, sintering shrink must be planned

A printed part that goes straight onto a car is rare. Support structures leave witness marks, the as-built surface sits around Ra 8–15 μm, and the outer skin often carries residual stress. The first real step is stress relief, usually a vacuum or inert-atmosphere cycle matched to the alloy.

Next comes support removal and any heat treatment the alloy requires. For Ti-6Al-4V, that may mean hot isostatic pressing to close internal porosity, followed by solution treatment and aging. For AlSi10Mg, a lower-temperature anneal is often enough. Skip this and the part may hold tolerance on the bench but move once it gets hot.

Then the critical features get machined. Sealing faces, bearing bores, thread pitches, and any flatness callout belong on a CNC, not on the printer. This is where a shop with both additive and subtractive capacity saves time, because the part does not ship between vendors and lose its datums.

Finally, inspection. Dye penetrant and computed tomography catch internal voids that a caliper cannot. For a start-related part, a hidden void is the failure mode that matters most.

• 1
  Stress relief firstBefore any machining, or the part moves after cutting
• 2
  HIP for titaniumCloses internal porosity in Ti-6Al-4V
• 3
  Machine the interfacesBores, faces, and threads belong on a CNC
• 4
  CT for internal voidsDetects porosity that surface inspection misses

The clearest boundary is quantity. Once a design is frozen and the annual volume climbs past a few hundred pieces, casting or machining usually beats printing on unit cost. The crossover depends on part size and alloy, but it is real and it happens earlier than most teams expect.

Surface finish is the second boundary. If a part needs Ra 0.2–0.8 μm on a sealing face, the printer cannot deliver it. You can print near-net and finish on a CNC, but then you are paying for both processes. At that point, ask whether the printed geometry is actually buying anything.

Repeatability is the third. Powder bed parts vary batch to batch in porosity and microstructure. If the design has a tight fatigue margin, that variance matters. Machined parts from certified bar stock have a much tighter distribution.

None of this argues against additive. It argues for using it where its strengths land: complex internal geometry, low counts, and fast iteration. For everything else, a 5-axis cut from 7075 or 17-4PH is still the shorter path to a reliable part.

• 1
  Volume crossoverCasting or machining wins past a few hundred pieces
• 2
  Fine finishesRa 0.2–0.8 μm needs a CNC finish pass
• 3
  Batch variancePorosity and microstructure shift between builds

When a printed blank needs finished interfaces, the machine that cuts it matters. Simultaneous 5-axis work lets us reach the angled faces and internal pockets typical of race hardware in one setup, which keeps the datums consistent. We run 16 simultaneous 5-axis machining centers, along with 12 four-axis mills and 27 three-axis machines.

Tolerance is where the subtractive process separates itself. We hold ±0.005 mm (±0.0002 in) on critical features, with a 99.99% qualification rate across inspected batches. That is not a claim about any specific printed part. It is the baseline the finishing operation is held to.

Material choice is wide on the machining side. Aluminum 6061-T6, 7075, and 6082; stainless 303, 316L, 17-4PH; steel 4130, 4140, 4340; and titanium TC4 all cut cleanly with the right tooling and coolant. If a printed geometry is not required, these are simpler and more predictable.

The practical answer for most teams is a hybrid route. Print the complex blank where the geometry demands it, then machine the sealing faces, bores, and threads to final size.

• 1
  One-setup 5-axisAngled faces and pockets without re-datuming
• 2
  ±0.005 mmOn critical machined features
• 3
  Wide alloy rangeAluminum, stainless, steel, titanium, Inconel