Standard weight distribution from 2011

[Richard]

Curious that tyre temp problems were also reported for the Brawn car in 09. I wonder if it is the same issue, or perhaps they over compensated in the design of the car.

Perhaps they ended up trying to implement the solution for last years problems on this year car. The trouble is that this years car is different to last years (primarily refuelling).

As for standardised weight distribution, is that static weight on the scales? In which case it will be largely irrelevant when you throw in the aero downforce. Personally I think it is something lost in transalation, it could be that Pirelli have said that they will assume certain parameters in the tyre design?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Next year will be the same for everyone in terms of weight distribution.

46:54 front rear.

http://uk.autoblog.com/2010/07/05/f1-to ... o-in-2011/

[raymondu999]

http://uk.autoblog.com/2010/07/05/f1-to ... o-in-2011/

Does this mean the end of ballast?

[NewtonMeter]

Next year will be the same for everyone in terms of weight distribution.

46:54 front rear.

http://uk.autoblog.com/2010/07/05/f1-to ... o-in-2011/

Ok, fair enough. I get the reasoning behind it. I hope it's only for 2011 though. A temporary reg put in place so that everyone is on the same footing wrt the tyres. After next year, I'd hope they chuck the rule in order to free up the design space a bit more.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

Next year will be the same for everyone in terms of weight distribution.

46:54 front rear.

http://uk.autoblog.com/2010/07/05/f1-to ... o-in-2011/

Ok, fair enough. I get the reasoning behind it. I hope it's only for 2011 though. A temporary reg put in place so that everyone is on the same footing wrt the tyres. After next year, I'd hope they chuck the rule in order to free up the design space a bit more.

For Sure, 2012 will allow teams free reign as to what they deem necessary.
The 2011 rule is an interim one to allow for the new tyre providers Pirelli. Without at least 5 to 10k worth of testing miles they couldnt hope to provide accurate data to allow F1 engineers the info they need for car design etc.

It would be a guessing game, and as Brawn said, it would be silly to have 1 or 2 teams dominate because they guessed right.

[Richard]

This has been mentioned on the Merc but it is probably worth its own topic - thank you!

I'm puzzled by this. If that is the static weight, then it will be irrelevant once dynamic and aero forces are added to the mix. Is it with the fuel tanks full or empty? I imagine it would be based on the driver being in the car?

As for ballast, they would still use that to balance the car to achieve the desired weight distribution. Also ballast has a role to play in the dynamic distribution by alerting the CoG in terms of pitch, yaw and roll.

[raymondu999]

Yes but nowadays ballast is used to get a more forwards or more rearwards weight distribution as desired. This weight distribution mandating would negate the need for any changing of ballast position.

[Just_a_fan]

Yes but nowadays ballast is used to get a more forwards or more rearwards weight distribution as desired. This weight distribution mandating would negate the need for any changing of ballast position.

Not necessarily there are tolerances within which one could fine tune the balance. And using ballast to get the mandated balance means you can have the mass nice and low in the car which always a good thing.

[timbo]

Is that officially confirmed?
Rumors are floating around for like a month or so, but I haven't heard anything official.
Anyway, with less than a year before first GP, the decision should be unanimous, so if it is put forward, it would mean everybody is OK with it.

[volarchico]

Just read, fixed weight distribution for next year: 46:54+-0.5% so I hope that will solve some problems for MGPs car next year.

With no refueling, how is this possible? Having 300 lbs burn off during a race has to affect your weight distribution more than 0.5%, right?