2011 weight distribution

[DaveW]

is this in fact an evolution ? this could still be the original agreement which ross brawn simplified as 46-54 perhaps?

I think the concept has evolved, lebesset. It doesn't now mention a c.g. position, apparently, only minimum front & rear axle weights. Hence c.g. position will be "fixed" only if a team chooses to run at the minimum overall weight. It's possible, I suppose, that an optimum qualifying set-up might not be at minimum weight with these constraints, particularly if the Pirelli tyres behave very differently from the current Bridgestones.

[segedunum]

is this in fact an evolution ? this could still be the original agreement which ross brawn simplified as 46-54 perhaps?

Only Ross Brawn has ever mentioned this.

[lebesset]

perhaps so , but ross is chairman of the FOTA technical group and makes their announcements ...I don't think that has changed , has it ?

I know he is being heavily backed to be the next chairman of FOTA , but he is on record as saying he is not interested ...probably prefers what he does now

and with regard to lowe's statement ....applies to qualifying trim only ....does that make any sense ....what happened to parc ferme ?

[Belatti]

This leaves some doors open... "the front axle weight above a certain amount and the rear axle weight above a certain amount" thing will be measured with how much fuel in the tanks?

[gridwalker]

Qualifying trim = virtually no fuel

The fuel tank will not necessarily be at the absolute centre of balance, so the weight distribution could be different when fuel has been added.

Measuring it in quali trim is simply a way of removing variables from the weight distribution calculations (e.g. position and volume of the mass of fuel).

[lebesset]

the actual quote from lowe posted here is...only for qualifying and not for the race ....; my point is ...how is this possible under the parc ferme rules as you have to race as you qualify

[raymondu999]

the actual quote from lowe posted here is...only for qualifying and not for the race ....; my point is ...how is this possible under the parc ferme rules as you have to race as you qualify

Parc ferme still applies, except starting this year they can refuel before the race, remember? The weight distribution can't be changed or anything, it's just that as gridwalker says the positioning of the fuel cell might be off the cog and thus affect the cog.

[lebesset]

well , that's fair comment ....but the possibilities for packaging the fuel cell must be limited ; so every team will be pretty well in the same boat which , if I understand correctly , is the object of the exercise

may I surmise this is the meaning of lowe's statement ? that while meeting the axle weight agreement ,it will be possible to make a small range of choice in loaded weight distribution of up to 1% front to rear ? so a bias towards the preferences of the favourite son will be possible , but not greatly ?

personally I am greatly in favour of this move ; in the past the influence of tyres has been too great in my opinion ; bridgstone developed their tyres specifically for ferrari and the run of schumacher championships followed ...michelin were permitted to develop tyres to suit the renault and then came the alonso championships ; so a tyre not developed in conjunction with any team and for a neutral weight distribution car [ I presume ] gets my vote

[Belatti]

What gets my vote is that the clever ones should win

[lebesset]

I see adrian newey has confirmed that next years car is within the agreed 45-55 % +- 1% , from ross brawns statement it looks like the teams will go for the 46-54 end of that

[raymondu999]

Hey all. We've seen how weight distribution issues can seemingly destroy an otherwise alright car in how the W01 Merc suffered. In the off-chance that the agreed-upon mandatory weight distribution is completely wrong and unsuited to the Pirelli tyres that are produced for 2011, and causes dogs of cars which are so twitchy and so completely and utterly over/understeery, what other methods could the teams pursue to balance their cars? Would it ever be able to reach a point where there is some inherent over/understeer which cannot be cured because of the weight distribution? Or will there always be some setup possibility which allows the car to be balanced by setup?

[WhiteBlue]

I think that is a very hypothetical scenario. Pirelli has already run tests with all teams and one has to assume that the teams trimmed their cars for the mandatory weight distribution. From there Pirelli has taken the comments and done modifications and further tests.

But in the unlikely case that they discover that the figures need to change they can still unanimously decide on alternative weight distributions with a suitable introduction dead line. A dead line was the procedure that was used to ban outboard mirrors when they were deemed unsafe in 2009.

[marcush.]

I´m quite sure Pirellis test hack toyota TF109 has been running with the mandatory weight distribution from day one..
So all the guys who know that car intimately should be able to figure out what a competitive contender for 2011 should need in terms of suspensionhardpoints as well...when the tyres were designed around this very car...
HRT has dropped a promising ball there...and i still do not get the reasoning of teams not securing more ip or hr from toyota...or have they?

[raymondu999]

Sorry to bump an old thread, but apparently, F1 Racing describes the weight distribution as: the weight that is applied on front:rear axles must be 291kg:342kg at any given time, kind of implying that it's a weight distribution requirement when the car is static

[hollus]

AFAIK the weight has to be at least that in each axis. Note that they add to a bit less than 640Kg. So very little leeway with a 640Kg car, but you can deviate if you wish by increasing the total weight (which likely nobody will try).
But this still leaves a lot of freedom from the aero. You can put the downforce on each axis as you wish and control the weight distribution at speed.