Ferrari weight distribution

[vis]

I heard from a respectful engineer, Mr. Coppini, that Ferrari weight distribution is 55% on the front, 45% on the rear. That's pretty weird for a racing car, that usually has the inverted proportion.
Ferrari was forced to do so after the introduction of the rule about raising the front wing, that greatly reduced front downforce, thus trying to give back the front wheels some of the lost grip.

I would like to ask the experts round here if such a front biased distribution is what they think is actually used in Ferrari F1 car, (and McLaren too ) or that engineer was simply wrong...

[Carlos]

It's been a long time since the engineering students carried an F1 Ferrari up the stairwell and left it balanced of the tech building's steeple - so it's difficult to say.

I think you would have to examine a particular 780 page binder with a bright red cover and a logo of a prancing horse.

[modbaraban]

LoL! What a topic. The next one shoyuld be about tire gas.

back OT:

What about the other car's numbers %? What are the weight dist. ranges available lately?

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Wait a minute - if Ferrari empolyees are saying what the weight distribution is - why is it such a crime for Mclaren to be learning this exact information also?!

[Carlos]

It sounds like my weight distribution, butt the back is 55%

[modbaraban]

[vis]

Before that statement, he said that F1 car were shifting w.d. from 43:57 to 47:53, in the attempt to give more grip to the front tyres.
But the 55:45 w.d nearly reaches a FWD layout!

[checkered]

I heard from a respectful engineer, Mr. Coppini, that Ferrari weight distribution is 55% on the front, 45% on the rear. That's pretty weird for a racing car, that usually has the inverted proportion.
Ferrari was forced to do so after the introduction of the rule about raising the front wing, that greatly reduced front downforce, thus trying to give back the front wheels some of the lost grip.

I would like to ask the experts round here if such a front biased distribution is what they think is actually used in Ferrari F1 car, (and McLaren too ) or that engineer was simply wrong...

Vis, is your

intent to land us in hot water? Do you want Mr. Mosleys cohorts rummaging through the files of F1Technical? That aside, I don't think such percentages really say much about how dynamic transfer etc. works in the F2007 (the designs of which I'm not familiar with, I feel the urge to add). I would challenge the notion that simply adding to the proportion of mass on the front axle will automatically results in better handling if front DF has been "lost", though - better grip, but also more lateral forces to counteract. No free lunches in design, it's a tradeoff and in this case my gut feeling is that a forward weight bias in itself results in more understeer, not oversteer. Even if Mr. Coppini is right, Ferrari's alledged decision must be based on considerations far more complicated than "gaining grip".

Edit: A forward bias would enable corresponding changes in DF distribution and without considering it too much that might be attractive because I think front wing has a more favourable L/D ratio. But if Mr. Coppini alledges that there isn't more front DF to be had simply because of the wing height (another notion I'm sure the aero guys here can challenge) there would (thinking about it very superficially) seem to be no incentive to alter weight distribution either. And tyre widths being constant, which I presume reflects the applicable distributions of forces also, I can't immediately perceive the potential advantages. That is not to say that I dismiss the idea, though, since by no means can I disprove that 55/45 isn't Ferrari's distribution of mass.

Mere guesswork this, so hopefully someone can weigh in backed up with facts on the merit of Mr. Coppini's hypothesis.

It sounds like my weight distribution, butt the back is 55%

Have you acquired that distribution because it's advantageous on two wheels, by any chance?

[Carlos]

If memory serves and approaching a serious comment - wasn't Massa commenting on understeer when he first arrived at Ferrari, his first few races? I still feel a very close 1/1 weight distrbution is a model that is modified by 5 percent F/R is current design practise. Central polar moment, mechanical centre of gravity, CG of aero ( not the right term) . roll centre F/R I'm not just throwing out terms but creating a frame work for discussion. It just seems that aero is the master of current design. as everyone knows and as other have commented.

OT- checkered I was referring to a sedentry life in front of the monitor but I was exagerating - well a little. But you know, I am starting to think about another motorcycle something.

[RH1300S]

I do have another question to throw in for consideration.

Setting aside whether or not 55% front makes any sense.

What about the fuel?

As the car burns fuel, the CofG will move during a race unless the CofG of the fuel tank is right on the CofG of the car. It strikes me that the fuel is a pretty big lump of weight so they wouldn't want it to be miles away from the CofG.

A cursory look at photos of the F2007 suggests that the fuel tank is behind the centreline of the car. This would mean that as the tank empties, the CofG moves forward (if 55% front is true).

[mep]

55:45 front/rear
I don't think this is true.
As I see this:
If you have more weight on a tire then the the graph of the grip coefficient gets flatter. So your tire can handle more force but
the ratio of (weight on the tyre)/(max force by the tyre) gets worse.

So if you have understeer in a corner it's best to move weight to the
rear so you have more by aero pushing down the tyre in relation to
less mass who pushes the front oout of the corner.

Having the weight a bit in the back of the car is better because your rear
tyres are wider and can take more load.
Secondly do you need the weight to accelerate.
Other than in cornering has more weight on the driven wheels
on acceleration no negative effect.

[scarbs]

The figures dont seem realstic, most teams are beleived to be in the region of 48%F 52% rear.
For Ferrari to get to this 55% forward biased distribution they need to move 42Kg of weight forward in comparison to the 48/52% scenario. Bearing in mind the car went to zero keel which is a little lighter on the front end than the old single keel, this is a hell of a lot to add.
However the team did make the chassis longer by 10cm, this allows for a longer t-tray (front spliter). To make up this extra ballast up the front the splitter would have to be two inches thick and in solid tungsten. The Ferrari front floor is heavy, But I dont beleive it is thick enough to shift that amount of weight forwards.
Of course some weight coudl be elsewhere in the base of the raised chassis, nose or front wing...

Scarbs

[dumrick]

I do have another question to throw in for consideration.

Setting aside whether or not 55% front makes any sense.

What about the fuel?

As the car burns fuel, the CofG will move during a race unless the CofG of the fuel tank is right on the CofG of the car. It strikes me that the fuel is a pretty big lump of weight so they wouldn't want it to be miles away from the CofG.

A cursory look at photos of the F2007 suggests that the fuel tank is behind the centreline of the car. This would mean that as the tank empties, the CofG moves forward (if 55% front is true).

As far as I know, it is common practice to place the CoG of the fuel tank in the vertical line of the CoG of the whole car. The last F1 I heard where the CoG moved longitudinally by burning fuel was the Ligier JS31 that was a flop, partially because of that (it had two tanks, one ahead and one behind the engine and that meant that the CoG would shift constantly, changing car balance from lap to lap).

[RJC_pt]

This one at least had a front weight bias

[modbaraban]

Comparing to F1 248 the nose shape seems to have changed towards 'more displacement'.


@ RJC_pt

I think every F1 car would dive like that since that belt is closer to the rear