2018 whopping car weight

Here are our CFD links and discussions about aerodynamics, suspension, driver safety and tyres. Please stick to F1 on this forum.
User avatar
FW17
165
Joined: 06 Jan 2010, 10:56

Re: 2018 whopping car weight

Post

AngusF1 wrote:
17 Mar 2018, 08:09
Because the boondoggle hybrid system Mercedes came up with to ensure only they and Ferrari had any shot at the title weighs an absolute tonne. A turbocharger, multiple electric motor-generators, batteries, power electronics, additional sensors and wiring, and cooling for it all are totally in excess of what's necessary to build a racing engine.

The current F1 engines are the space shuttles of motor racing and like the space shuttle, ought to be immediately retired out of embarrassment and replaced by something demonstrating even a hint of engineering discipline. They are also only affordable to those with NASA budgets.

A two litre two-stroke perhaps?

Does not totally explain

In 1988 the engine was 140 kgs, today weighs the same with 2 additional motor generator units.

The battery should be 25 kgs, but looks a lot heavier than that, the power electronics is also to be added. But will all of these be more than 50 kgs?

Where is the additional 60 kgs coming from, the wheels are the same size as in 1988.
Has the car being longer by 3 feet adding so much weight?

AngusF1
5
Joined: 13 Aug 2017, 10:54

Re: 2018 whopping car weight

Post

The power electronics, sensors and wiring, power cabling and cooling systems all add up.

The chassis themselves are likely heavier now, too. They've become limited in how light they can be made by passing the safety tests rather than conventional performance parameters such a torsional stiffness.

The additional length would also not be trivial. What's the mass per length of an F1 car - about 100kg/metre on average? Simply adding an extra metre of chassis somewhere could easily add 10-20kg of chassis, floor, wiring etc.

User avatar
jjn9128
769
Joined: 02 May 2017, 23:53

Re: 2018 whopping car weight

Post

The engine in the V8 era was limited to a minimum 95kg, while the 'power unit' now can't be less than 145kg. They also have more coolers now, engine water and oil, transmission oil, + intercooler and battery, and for aerodynamic reasons they are placed in weird positions with a load of internal ducting, which doesn't weigh nothing.

As others have mentioned the cars are longer, so bodywork and the longer gearbox casings for the narrow coke bottle - which also has to have stiffness to carry the rear wheels and suspension. The extra 2 gears wont make much of a difference, but the 3 gearbox per season rule means the gearbox components will carry more bulk for reliability.

The chassis crash protection as improved over the years, but weight has increased from ~35kg in the 80's to nearer 70kg, but they now protect against a wide range of impacts, at higher loads than ever, including 5mm thick anti-penetration zylon panels. The halo itself is 6kg, but has probably added another 5/6kg in material and inserts in the monocoque to meet the FIA tests. Short noses are heavier than long ones to get the material for impact attenuation in a shorter distance, so most teams have a nose 1050mm long (minimum allowed) rather than 1200mm long (max allowed) which will increase weight slightly.

Wheels and tyres have increased in size from 10 years ago, and 6kg was added for the wide tyres in 2017. The number of wheel tethers has increased again to 3 per wheel, individually not heavy but it all adds up. You can bet the clever aerodynamically shaped suspension is heavier than a simple double wishbone (McLarens top rear and the Mercedes bottom front wishbones).

On top of all that, at the start of the race cars are carrying <105kg of fuel on top of the 734kg minimum weight. And next year more is being added to the chassis to ballast the drivers to 80kg.

As I said before, despite all this added weight lap times are faster than ever (not that that's the be all and end all for exciting races) as the downforce on these modern cars is monstrous and power output is exceeding 1000bhp (when the ERS is outputting).
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

Jolle
132
Joined: 29 Jan 2014, 22:58
Location: Dordrecht

Re: 2018 whopping car weight

Post

hollus wrote:
16 Mar 2018, 20:41
So, FIA just increased the minimum weight by 6 Kg to allow for the Halo.
The result is in the 2018 car comparison thread:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=27033
All cars became longer to converge with the already long Mercedes (yes, including Sauber). Clearly, they really needed those 6 Kgs... #-o
We have had weight increases to allow for KERS, to allow for wider cars, to allow for wider tires, to allow for Hans IIRC, to allow for "tall" drivers, to allow for the turbo and the batteries... at the same time, the cars became longer, the aero appendages more complicated, the suspensions more and more sophisticated, all sort of air conducts appeared here and there...

Dear FIA,
F1 is an aero dominated formula. The best aero normally wins. Hence, any liberty in car design allowed to the teams, will be traded for aero performance (or suspension performance). It would also be traded for power, but the powertrain already has a generous minimum weight.
And then someone complains that they are at the weight limit...

Simply, right now, cut car weight by 50 Kg. It is a figure change in the regulations. A single figure. Done! If that happens, next year all teams would show up with cars about 50 cm shorter, which would be choppier but actually faster cars. Everybody happy.

Why is this so difficult to understand?
F1 an aero dominated formula? Only when the V8’s were frozen during the RedBull reign. Over the years having the best engine of the field always was the most important part of a championship team. From the must have coswords, bmw power, Porsche turbo’s, high tech Honda’s to the mighty Renaults.

wesley123
204
Joined: 23 Feb 2008, 17:55

Re: 2018 whopping car weight

Post

Jolle wrote:
17 Mar 2018, 12:47
F1 an aero dominated formula? Only when the V8’s were frozen during the RedBull reign. Over the years having the best engine of the field always was the most important part of a championship team. From the must have coswords, bmw power, Porsche turbo’s, high tech Honda’s to the mighty Renaults.
Formula 1 is an aero dominated formula. Let's put it in this way; if it was the engine that is most important the teams using the same engine would be close to each other. Teams change suspension design to benefit aerodynamics. Teams tape off the seams, or prefer paint over stickers to improve aerodynamics.

Aerodynamics is by far the most important section of an F1 car, the majority of the speed of an F1 car comes from it's aerodynamics.
"Bite my shiny metal ass" - Bender

User avatar
godlameroso
309
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 21:27
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2018 whopping car weight

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
17 Mar 2018, 12:13
The engine in the V8 era was limited to a minimum 95kg, while the 'power unit' now can't be less than 145kg. They also have more coolers now, engine water and oil, transmission oil, + intercooler and battery, and for aerodynamic reasons they are placed in weird positions with a load of internal ducting, which doesn't weigh nothing.

As others have mentioned the cars are longer, so bodywork and the longer gearbox casings for the narrow coke bottle - which also has to have stiffness to carry the rear wheels and suspension. The extra 2 gears wont make much of a difference, but the 3 gearbox per season rule means the gearbox components will carry more bulk for reliability.

The chassis crash protection as improved over the years, but weight has increased from ~35kg in the 80's to nearer 70kg, but they now protect against a wide range of impacts, at higher loads than ever, including 5mm thick anti-penetration zylon panels. The halo itself is 6kg, but has probably added another 5/6kg in material and inserts in the monocoque to meet the FIA tests. Short noses are heavier than long ones to get the material for impact attenuation in a shorter distance, so most teams have a nose 1050mm long (minimum allowed) rather than 1200mm long (max allowed) which will increase weight slightly.

Wheels and tyres have increased in size from 10 years ago, and 6kg was added for the wide tyres in 2017. The number of wheel tethers has increased again to 3 per wheel, individually not heavy but it all adds up. You can bet the clever aerodynamically shaped suspension is heavier than a simple double wishbone (McLarens top rear and the Mercedes bottom front wishbones).

On top of all that, at the start of the race cars are carrying <105kg of fuel on top of the 734kg minimum weight. And next year more is being added to the chassis to ballast the drivers to 80kg.

As I said before, despite all this added weight lap times are faster than ever (not that that's the be all and end all for exciting races) as the downforce on these modern cars is monstrous and power output is exceeding 1000bhp (when the ERS is outputting).
And still cars suffer from diffuser flow instabilities, maybe like you suggest, the diffusers should be mandated to have a convex expansion, perhaps that's less sensitive to flow separation and might just do the trick. Perhaps last generation cars it wasn't as much of an issue as they had less diffuser real estate to work with, and after 4 years of having shallow diffusers they learned how to minimize flow separation through upstream flow. The new cars are a different beast but they tried to carry over the same concave expansion concept. Sure it works, but the larger volume, and larger surface area means that there's different requirements to quell flow separation.
Saishū kōnā

User avatar
jjn9128
769
Joined: 02 May 2017, 23:53

Re: 2018 whopping car weight

Post

godlameroso wrote:
27 Mar 2018, 15:35
And still cars suffer from diffuser flow instabilities, maybe like you suggest, the diffusers should be mandated to have a convex expansion, perhaps that's less sensitive to flow separation and might just do the trick. Perhaps last generation cars it wasn't as much of an issue as they had less diffuser real estate to work with, and after 4 years of having shallow diffusers they learned how to minimize flow separation through upstream flow. The new cars are a different beast but they tried to carry over the same concave expansion concept. Sure it works, but the larger volume, and larger surface area means that there's different requirements to quell flow separation.
I'm not sure it's relevant to this topic but I think the current diffuser design is on of the big issues with cars being able to follow. I'm not sure instability (whatever you mean by that, stall at low ride heights?) is an issue, more the aggressive expansion and vortex generators creating a low pressure (total) wake. The other thing is big tyres (to cope with the Pirelli thermal idiosyncrasies) which add weight (wahey back on topic!), but also a big ugly wake. The 2009 rules were tested using a planar diffuser and the results were promising, unfortunately 2009 saw the double diffuser, which undid a lot of the work of the OWG, in terms of total downforce but also wake profile.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

User avatar
godlameroso
309
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 21:27
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2018 whopping car weight

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
27 Mar 2018, 17:11
godlameroso wrote:
27 Mar 2018, 15:35
And still cars suffer from diffuser flow instabilities, maybe like you suggest, the diffusers should be mandated to have a convex expansion, perhaps that's less sensitive to flow separation and might just do the trick. Perhaps last generation cars it wasn't as much of an issue as they had less diffuser real estate to work with, and after 4 years of having shallow diffusers they learned how to minimize flow separation through upstream flow. The new cars are a different beast but they tried to carry over the same concave expansion concept. Sure it works, but the larger volume, and larger surface area means that there's different requirements to quell flow separation.
I'm not sure it's relevant to this topic but I think the current diffuser design is on of the big issues with cars being able to follow. I'm not sure instability (whatever you mean by that, stall at low ride heights?) is an issue, more the aggressive expansion and vortex generators creating a low pressure (total) wake. The other thing is big tyres (to cope with the Pirelli thermal idiosyncrasies) which add weight (wahey back on topic!), but also a big ugly wake. The 2009 rules were tested using a planar diffuser and the results were promising, unfortunately 2009 saw the double diffuser, which undid a lot of the work of the OWG, in terms of total downforce but also wake profile.
Flow instability in the sense of separation under yaw, and very sensitive to pitch angles for a variety of reasons including the ones you posed. Aggressive expansion which makes the diffuser prone to stall, and 2018 will be about improving diffuser consistency under different driving scenarios. That alone would allow cars to race closer together, and you're right it's off topic probably deserves it's own.
Saishū kōnā

User avatar
Vyssion
Moderator / Writer
Joined: 10 Jun 2012, 14:40

Re: 2018 whopping car weight

Post

godlameroso wrote:
27 Mar 2018, 18:57
jjn9128 wrote:
27 Mar 2018, 17:11
godlameroso wrote:
27 Mar 2018, 15:35
And still cars suffer from diffuser flow instabilities, maybe like you suggest, the diffusers should be mandated to have a convex expansion, perhaps that's less sensitive to flow separation and might just do the trick. Perhaps last generation cars it wasn't as much of an issue as they had less diffuser real estate to work with, and after 4 years of having shallow diffusers they learned how to minimize flow separation through upstream flow. The new cars are a different beast but they tried to carry over the same concave expansion concept. Sure it works, but the larger volume, and larger surface area means that there's different requirements to quell flow separation.
I'm not sure it's relevant to this topic but I think the current diffuser design is on of the big issues with cars being able to follow. I'm not sure instability (whatever you mean by that, stall at low ride heights?) is an issue, more the aggressive expansion and vortex generators creating a low pressure (total) wake. The other thing is big tyres (to cope with the Pirelli thermal idiosyncrasies) which add weight (wahey back on topic!), but also a big ugly wake. The 2009 rules were tested using a planar diffuser and the results were promising, unfortunately 2009 saw the double diffuser, which undid a lot of the work of the OWG, in terms of total downforce but also wake profile.
Flow instability in the sense of separation under yaw, and very sensitive to pitch angles for a variety of reasons including the ones you posed. Aggressive expansion which makes the diffuser prone to stall, and 2018 will be about improving diffuser consistency under different driving scenarios. That alone would allow cars to race closer together, and you're right it's off topic probably deserves it's own.
Mmmm.... If I were running a team, I would want to create as many high vorticity vortices as I could to make life absolutely miserable for people trying to pass me. Turbulence is inherently generated when air is disturbed... Simply limiting downforce generation to ground effect aerodynamics will still create the shear layers and pressure differentials which are responsible for streamline curvature and thus vorticity and turbulence - just at a lower height from the ground plane..... wheeerrrreeeee the car behind is wanting to be as laminar as possible for its own ground effect aero.... #-o #-o #-o

I'm pretty sure there are studies out there that say that kicking the wake turbulence up using beam wings and aggressive rear wing aero is actually more beneficial as well.
"And here you will stay, Gandalf the Grey, and rest from journeys. For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman the Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!"

#aerosaruman

"No Bubble, no BoP, no Avenging Crusader.... HERE COMES THE INCARNATION"!!"

User avatar
godlameroso
309
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 21:27
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2018 whopping car weight

Post

Where do the cars lose downforce when following? Does the balance change or is it just a global loss?
Saishū kōnā

User avatar
Vyssion
Moderator / Writer
Joined: 10 Jun 2012, 14:40

Re: 2018 whopping car weight

Post

godlameroso wrote:
27 Mar 2018, 21:50
Where do the cars lose downforce when following? Does the balance change or is it just a global loss?
An F1 car's wake is basically two counter-rotating vortices from the tyres (and rear wing endplates) mostly, which have a central upwashed region due to the rear wing and diffusion of air from the underbody. Because of this upwash and swirl velocity, you get a region of total pressure loss - some is static pressure drop, but most of it is the dynamic pressure decreasing (i.e. the energy in the flow is lower). Because of this upwash and swirl, there is a freestream velocity deficit that the following car incurs simply by the shear interactions of the upstream car punching through the air and dragging the local airfield around it with it as it moves. Like 80-90% of the downforce loss is due to that alone almost. There are secondary flow features that also have effects, but when swirl velocity is correctly harnessed, you can actually use that higher energy flow to help recover some of the deficit.

Because the cars are so highly tuned for performance based on what the front wing sees, it is a global loss that the downstream car incurs, but it can also be localized in that there is a greater loss on some components vs. others which I would hazard a guess changes based on incident flow characteristics - i.e. yaw rates, wind gusts, vehicle pitch under braking etc.

I made a post a while back about SimScale's Webinar which looked at wake structures (albeit simplistically) for 2016 to 2017 etc: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=26209

Image
Image
Image
Image
"And here you will stay, Gandalf the Grey, and rest from journeys. For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman the Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!"

#aerosaruman

"No Bubble, no BoP, no Avenging Crusader.... HERE COMES THE INCARNATION"!!"

User avatar
godlameroso
309
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 21:27
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2018 whopping car weight

Post

We're getting off topic. Bottas said that you feel it as far as 3 seconds away, I think the cars themselves straddle the edge between separation and laminar, particularly in the diffuser, particularly under yaw and pitch. So any disturbance during these maneuvers become magnified within a certain speed range(mid speed corners).
Saishū kōnā

User avatar
jjn9128
769
Joined: 02 May 2017, 23:53

Re: 2018 whopping car weight

Post

godlameroso wrote:
27 Mar 2018, 22:21
We're getting off topic. Bottas said that you feel it as far as 3 seconds away, I think the cars themselves straddle the edge between separation and laminar, particularly in the diffuser, particularly under yaw and pitch. So any disturbance during these maneuvers become magnified within a certain speed range(mid speed corners).
Nooooooo F1 operate at transitional Reynolds numbers, then try to force transition on surfaces to prevent any state of flow change affecting performance with ride height changes or dirt/stone chips on wings.
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

User avatar
Vyssion
Moderator / Writer
Joined: 10 Jun 2012, 14:40

Re: 2018 whopping car weight

Post

godlameroso wrote:
27 Mar 2018, 22:21
We're getting off topic.
I answered your question.
jjn9128 wrote:
27 Mar 2018, 22:39
godlameroso wrote:
27 Mar 2018, 22:21
We're getting off topic. Bottas said that you feel it as far as 3 seconds away, I think the cars themselves straddle the edge between separation and laminar, particularly in the diffuser, particularly under yaw and pitch. So any disturbance during these maneuvers become magnified within a certain speed range(mid speed corners).
Nooooooo F1 operate at transitional Reynolds numbers, then try to force transition on surfaces to prevent any state of flow change affecting performance with ride height changes or dirt/stone chips on wings.
This. The "flip-flop" between laminar and turbulent that would naturally occur is extremely dangerous under dynamic airflow conditions.

In the diffuser, the concavity is deliberately done to cause a separation bubble which airflow then shears over as it returns to normal static pressure. It allows for much larger expansion within a smaller distance of which could not occur if the diffuser had a linear of convex expansion.
"And here you will stay, Gandalf the Grey, and rest from journeys. For I am Saruman the Wise, Saruman the Ring-maker, Saruman of Many Colours!"

#aerosaruman

"No Bubble, no BoP, no Avenging Crusader.... HERE COMES THE INCARNATION"!!"

User avatar
godlameroso
309
Joined: 16 Jan 2010, 21:27
Location: Miami FL

Re: 2018 whopping car weight

Post

jjn9128 wrote:
27 Mar 2018, 22:39
godlameroso wrote:
27 Mar 2018, 22:21
We're getting off topic. Bottas said that you feel it as far as 3 seconds away, I think the cars themselves straddle the edge between separation and laminar, particularly in the diffuser, particularly under yaw and pitch. So any disturbance during these maneuvers become magnified within a certain speed range(mid speed corners).
Nooooooo F1 operate at transitional Reynolds numbers, then try to force transition on surfaces to prevent any state of flow change affecting performance with ride height changes or dirt/stone chips on wings.
:roll: Try is the right word.
Saishū kōnā