Ballast Idea For The Minimum Weight Rule

[gcdugas]

I don't see how adjust weight distribution using ballast is any different to adjusting angles of the wings for more/less downforce.

Because a properly built car has no ballast. Ballast came into being when the minimum weight rule failed to recognize the reality that the cars which once had trouble getting that light, were all easily getting way under the weight rule. I can't see how any purist can tolerate even the notion of ballast. It is a definitive artifice just like the bogus two compound tire rule. It is like playing kiddie poker with wild cards. You can get away with a lack of precision because there is always a reliable amount of fudge factor that can get you through.

Furthermore, if brand X can make a car 400 Kg while brand X can only make one 440 Kg, shouldn't they be rewarded with the accompanying gain in performance? Ballast is antithetical to anything called engineering. Design a balanced car to start with. As to Michiba's criticism that some tracks demand a different balance than others.... Well they all demand a different wheelbase too. Monaco, in an ideal world would have a shorter wheelbase and a wider tract than Monza or Montreal. Everything is a compromise. Even now you can make the car fast in sector 1 at the expense of speed in sector 2 etc. BTW, I would allow differing wheelbases and widths for each circuit. Let the engineers alter the front and rear wishbones to tune out understeer etc. I would also allow two fuel tanks that could be emptied in a certain fashion so as to change the weight distribution like they do on planes and ships because when all is said and done, the cars will all want to run the end of their stints on fumes so a balanced design on empty tanks is still very necessary. All these things are pure engineering. Ballast is like wild cards. It is an artifice put there by the rules alone.

[Shaddock]

You have to remember that lightness costs money. If it’s not done properly then it will affect the cars strength. I remember a long time ago one of the reasons that the weight limit was increased was for driver safety.

Taking your argument to its extreme then the teams should only use one set (rate) of springs and dampers for the season, and they should use the cut down front wishbones that are needed at Monaco at all the races that season. At the same time why not produce one aero package at the first race and be forced to use that for the rest of the season.

The ballast is there to tune the chassis and is just as important at the other tuning variables open to the teams.

[Jersey Tom]

I don't see how adjust weight distribution using ballast is any different to adjusting angles of the wings for more/less downforce.

Because a properly built car has no ballast. Ballast came into being when the minimum weight rule failed to recognize the reality that the cars which once had trouble getting that light, were all easily getting way under the weight rule. I can't see how any purist can tolerate even the notion of ballast. It is a definitive artifice just like the bogus two compound tire rule. It is like playing kiddie poker with wild cards. You can get away with a lack of precision because there is always a reliable amount of fudge factor that can get you through.

Furthermore, if brand X can make a car 400 Kg while brand X can only make one 440 Kg, shouldn't they be rewarded with the accompanying gain in performance? Ballast is antithetical to anything called engineering. Design a balanced car to start with. As to Michiba's criticism that some tracks demand a different balance than others.... Well they all demand a different wheelbase too. Monaco, in an ideal world would have a shorter wheelbase and a wider tract than Monza or Montreal. Everything is a compromise. Even now you can make the car fast in sector 1 at the expense of speed in sector 2 etc. BTW, I would allow differing wheelbases and widths for each circuit. Let the engineers alter the front and rear wishbones to tune out understeer etc. I would also allow two fuel tanks that could be emptied in a certain fashion so as to change the weight distribution like they do on planes and ships because when all is said and done, the cars will all want to run the end of their stints on fumes so a balanced design on empty tanks is still very necessary. All these things are pure engineering. Ballast is like wild cards. It is an artifice put there by the rules alone.

You are talking about two different things interchangeably. One is using ballast for tuning balance, the other is using it for hitting a minimum weight. Who is to say the cars are unbalanced without ballast?

Let's assume though for the time being that they are. Engineering often comes down to balancing compromises and having to work in the bounds of reality. Maybe the cars truly cannot be balanced without ballast (again, I really doubt this). How does taking ballast and min chassis weight away improve the sport? It would just spread the field out more than it is already. Boring races.

On the other hand, there is already a performance advantage and "reward" to a team that builds a light car. They get to use more ballast, placed as low as possible, to drop their CG.

I guess I'm just at a loss for this vague concept of engineering "purism."

[CHT]

Remove KERS from F1 and there will be no more problem on ballast.

[Richard]

Isn't the cost cutting & fuel saving agenda better served by encouraging lighter cars with better use of materials and fuel?

Hence have a weight limit for the driver + ballast (in the seat) so they all carry the same load, but the cars can be as light as the teams want.

I guess there is a danger that rich teams will spend a fortune on super light materials that others can't afford. So perhaps have a managed weight threshold that say 50% of the teams can comply with so no one team races away with expensive stuff? As the heavier teams improve, then the weight limt gets lighter.

[Belatti]

question: Ballast Idea For The Minimum Weight Rule?

answer: an atom just above Chandrasekhar´s limit located at the cars floor, just below the CoG.

[Michiba]

I don't see how adjust weight distribution using ballast is any different to adjusting angles of the wings for more/less downforce.

Because a properly built car has no ballast. Ballast came into being when the minimum weight rule failed to recognize the reality that the cars which once had trouble getting that light, were all easily getting way under the weight rule. I can't see how any purist can tolerate even the notion of ballast. It is a definitive artifice just like the bogus two compound tire rule. It is like playing kiddie poker with wild cards. You can get away with a lack of precision because there is always a reliable amount of fudge factor that can get you through.

well that's like saying a properly setup car shouldn't need to change wing angles/downforce levels at the different tracks. I think the wings are more of a wildcard than ballast.

and lighter cars rewarded, in that the ballast can be moved to suit individual tracks as someone else mentioned.

[Scotracer]

I don't see how adjust weight distribution using ballast is any different to adjusting angles of the wings for more/less downforce.

Because a properly built car has no ballast. Ballast came into being when the minimum weight rule failed to recognize the reality that the cars which once had trouble getting that light, were all easily getting way under the weight rule. I can't see how any purist can tolerate even the notion of ballast. It is a definitive artifice just like the bogus two compound tire rule. It is like playing kiddie poker with wild cards. You can get away with a lack of precision because there is always a reliable amount of fudge factor that can get you through.

Furthermore, if brand X can make a car 400 Kg while brand X can only make one 440 Kg, shouldn't they be rewarded with the accompanying gain in performance? Ballast is antithetical to anything called engineering. Design a balanced car to start with. As to Michiba's criticism that some tracks demand a different balance than others.... Well they all demand a different wheelbase too. Monaco, in an ideal world would have a shorter wheelbase and a wider tract than Monza or Montreal. Everything is a compromise. Even now you can make the car fast in sector 1 at the expense of speed in sector 2 etc. BTW, I would allow differing wheelbases and widths for each circuit. Let the engineers alter the front and rear wishbones to tune out understeer etc. I would also allow two fuel tanks that could be emptied in a certain fashion so as to change the weight distribution like they do on planes and ships because when all is said and done, the cars will all want to run the end of their stints on fumes so a balanced design on empty tanks is still very necessary. All these things are pure engineering. Ballast is like wild cards. It is an artifice put there by the rules alone.

You are talking about two different things interchangeably. One is using ballast for tuning balance, the other is using it for hitting a minimum weight. Who is to say the cars are unbalanced without ballast?

Let's assume though for the time being that they are. Engineering often comes down to balancing compromises and having to work in the bounds of reality. Maybe the cars truly cannot be balanced without ballast (again, I really doubt this). How does taking ballast and min chassis weight away improve the sport? It would just spread the field out more than it is already. Boring races.

On the other hand, there is already a performance advantage and "reward" to a team that builds a light car. They get to use more ballast, placed as low as possible, to drop their CG.

I guess I'm just at a loss for this vague concept of engineering "purism."

Well apart from the fact that they are?

Pascal Vasselon has said many times that "It is not an unknown fact that F1 cars, with no ballast in place have too much weight distribution towards the rear - ballast must be placed up front to move this forward".

gcdugas, a "properly" tuned race car has no minimum mass limit and severe restrictions on hardware placement and regulations. It will always be a compromise when you have a minimum mass. As such, they make the chassis as light as possible (current chassis' are under 500kg) then ballast them up to the limit. If anything you should be complaining about the purist problem of a minimum mass regulation, not the solution to it. The solution is the best way to do it.

[bhall]

This is all a bit like getting surgery for a hangnail.

There's nothing wrong with using ballast to achieve optimum balance. In fact, it's perfect. No two circuits are the same, and the ability to use ballast to perfect the balance of a car on any given track is far preferable to a team being forced to design a car which will never be perfectly balanced on any track. In my mind, that's just as farcical as teams being forced to use two different compound tires during a race. The purist in me wants to see a Formula 1 car at its best all the time.

And I gotta believe teams are doing all they can at present to make their cars lighter. Even using ballast, a lighter car is always superior to a heavier one.

[Jersey Tom]

You are talking about two different things interchangeably. One is using ballast for tuning balance, the other is using it for hitting a minimum weight. Who is to say the cars are unbalanced without ballast?

Let's assume though for the time being that they are. Engineering often comes down to balancing compromises and having to work in the bounds of reality. Maybe the cars truly cannot be balanced without ballast (again, I really doubt this). How does taking ballast and min chassis weight away improve the sport? It would just spread the field out more than it is already. Boring races.

On the other hand, there is already a performance advantage and "reward" to a team that builds a light car. They get to use more ballast, placed as low as possible, to drop their CG.

I guess I'm just at a loss for this vague concept of engineering "purism."

Well apart from the fact that they are?

Pascal Vasselon has said many times that "It is not an unknown fact that F1 cars, with no ballast in place have too much weight distribution towards the rear - ballast must be placed up front to move this forward".

Don't think you're interpreting what he said correctly. Bet ya a dollar even I could get the thing balanced.

Would it make full use of the front tires? Probably not. But it would be neutral. And that's the discussion point.

[lkocev]

I don't think that letting the teams design cars that are as light as possible, but still 'balanced' is realistic. In terms of costs and stuff like that, a minimum weight I'm assuming is the best way to go. Sure teams are building cars as light as they can anyhow, and then making up the difference in ballast, but the advantage of that is more to do with handling charicteristics, rather than raw pace.

I would like to see a series where there is no restriction on car weight, it would be interesting to see just how light and fast a team could make an F1 car, but I dont think that it is realistic nor sensible in current times.

On the issue of balancing a car, I would assume it would be much cheaper to have a car that can have ballast moved with in it, aside from designing the 'one perfect car' with one perfect balance. In reality I don't think the perfect balance exists. The thing about weight balance in high-downforce applications like F1, it is relative to aerodynamic balance, so a 50/50 weight balance doesn't realy mean that car will be perfectley balanced and 'neutral' so to say.

I think the inclusion of ballast in design of F1 cars makes things more interesting to F1 engineers - it opens up another tuning route, and a relativley cheap tuning route. I think that is more inline with the basic idea of motor racing - finding the perfect compromise for optimum performance rather than having the perfect package for perfect performance. I like the idea that F1 cars need to be designed for optimum performance over a number different circuits.

The idea about giving drivers minimum weight, with the difference made up with ballast at a fixed height would help stop drivers from focusing too much on loosing weight. I think that is something that should be looked at and enforced, perhaps even more so than increasing the cars minimum weight. A light driver will still have an advantage because it only means he can put even more weight where it is requred, and give that drivers engineers an even bigger scope for using ballast.