F1technical.net

Hi guys quick update on a website I found!
For all those nay sayers who don't believe me about the weight, observe!
Website link: http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/ballast.html

This is quoted from that website:

Just to highlight how dense Tungsten is:
Density Tungsten: 19.35g/cm3
Density Lead: 11.35g/cm3

Say the chassis of an F1 car without ballast - with driver weighs 450kg.
So we need to make up 200kg up in ballast.
With Tungsten, that takes 10336 cm3 to do.
That's the equivalent of a 1m x 1m x 1.03cm block

Using Lead (which traditional ballast is made out of, which is why I chose lead), that 1m x 1m block would have to be 1.76cm thick, to make up the 17621cm3.

Put in another way, you need 170%, or 70% more lead by volume to make up the same mass.

So, to make sense of what I just said: F1 teams like tungsten because it is dense, and they don't have to pack as much of it into a chassis to reach the required weight. but is not expensive like Osmium, Iridium, Platinum, and Rhenium. But some teams don't care about expenses.

Ballast must be fixed, and by FIA rules can't be movable in any time of the race.

end of quote!

Say the chassis of an F1 car without ballast - with driver weighs 450kg.
take out mark Webber and his 73kg and you get 377kg!

So there you have it

hollus wrote:Lighter cars would leave the track at higher speeds.

Perhaps, but they also take much less containing when they do fall off the track. It's a lot easier to stop a 500kg single seater from throwing parts at the crowd than it is 1000kg car going a couple of mph slower.

Lighter they are, more prone to lift when air gets underneath though. Pro's and con's to everything though

So far this discussion has ignored the mass of the driver as a percentage of total mass. For every kg of allotted mass that must be allocated for the driver, is a kg of material that cannot be devoted to the mass of the car. As the mass of the car is reduced, the relative effect of driver mass increases.

Unless there is a rule concerning uniform driver mass, so that ballast is added so that (driver + driver ballast = nkg) then teams with heavier drivers will find themselves at an engineering disadvantage.

I am not an expert on the rules. Perhaps such rules are already in place, but I do remember Nico Hulkenberg mentioning the issue of car weight vs. driver weight a couple of years ago.

PlatinumZealot wrote:It would not be safe either. A lot of the weight is for energy absorbing structures too.

I tend to disagree, as cars have to through crash tests every year.

@Vortex

no-one makes ballast weights from Tungsten
they are made from Tungsten-based metal/mmcs eg the various Kennametal 'Densalloy' grades

though strictly speaking such materials are not alloys they are known in generic terms as Tungsten Heavy Alloys
(specific gravities up to 18.85)

https://www.kennametal.com/content/dam/ ... salloy.pdf

turbof1 wrote:Last year quite a lot of teams weren't able to inmediately hit the minimum allowed weight: 690kg. Throughout the last 10 years, weight has been consistently added through heavier tyres, stronger crash structures, bigger fuel tanks, heavier engines/PUs, etc.

It's a big issue since all those weight increases are structural: it's difficult to trim it back off. The SWG decided for 2017 that the cars are going to be lighter, but I don't have a single clue how they are going to achieve any significant target without compromising in a different area, and in my opinion this will be binned.

In any case dropping back to 500kg, trimming off around 150kg in the most optimistic case, is impossible without completely redesigning the technical rule book. And if we go down that road, know there are SERIOUS disadvantages:
-Trimming off weight on the engines can be achieved by 2 means: Reducing their capacity and thus horsepower, or shave off structural mass. The first one would make F1 slower, the second would make the engines much less reliable. Engines nowadays have to last 5 race weekends a piece. Either way, it would require a completely new engine formula.

-Trimming off weight on chassis and crash structures: This compromises the safety of the driver.

That was at the beginning of last year: But many teams said they improved and got well under the minimum weight later in the season (RBR, Force India, Williams etc)

Hi all thanks for your replies.

Moxie wrote:So far this discussion has ignored the mass of the driver as a percentage of total mass. For every kg of allotted mass that must be allocated for the driver, is a kg of material that cannot be devoted to the mass of the car. As the mass of the car is reduced, the relative effect of driver mass increases.

very true because the driver occupies a larger percentage of the total weight of the car.
Also this discussion is meant to be about making the base car itself lighter.
In regards to the driver and ballast, do f1's really need that much ballast?

ChrisF1 wrote:Lighter they are, more prone to lift when air gets underneath though.

not too sure about this (don't forget about down force)

Tommy Cookers wrote:though strictly speaking such materials are not alloys they are known in generic terms as Tungsten Heavy Alloys(specific gravities up to 18.85)

regardless it is still a very dense substance
at 18.85g/cm^3, a large ballast plate such as the one under the centre of the car (refer to the pic here http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/ballast.html) would probably be 90cm long and 50cm wide and probably 1.5 cm high for argument sake. that is (6750*18.85)/ 1000 = 127.237kg. I don't see why some ballast can't be removed

My theory for lightening cars (from 595kg with driver) assuming this car has about 150kg of ballast, is to remove some of the ballast (maybe 40 or 50kg) BUT allow the wings to offer a slightly larger surface area so the car creates an extra 70 or 80kg of down force. Also, increase the amount of carbon fibre used on the cars (such as the rims) and various casings (gearbox casing, rocker head cover, probably a few more things as well) and you'll save another 20-25kg there
so we then have 595 - 50- 25 = 520kg.
I am doubtful that this will comprise crash structure as people have said ( I don't believe the gearbox casing is an energy absorbing structure in a crash).

anyways just my thoughts
let me know what ya think and see if you can come up with your own car lightening theory!
cheers guys

Hi all thanks for your replies!

Tommy Cookers wrote:though strictly speaking such materials are not alloys they are known in generic terms as Tungsten Heavy Alloys
(specific gravities up to 18.85)

Regardless, that is still very dense (almost as heavy as tungsten)
Assuming ballast plate positioned under the gearbox is what 90cm long 50cm wide and 1.5cm wide. (pic here: Website link: http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/ballast.html)
doing a volume and mass equation on that you get: (6750 * 18.85)/ 1000 = 127.237 kg
And as I previously said f1's run about 140-160kg of ballast (more ballast plates under the front wing)

So, my theory for lightening f1 cars would be to remove some ballast and delve deeper into lighter materials.
taking a v10 car from the 05 season min weight is 595kg with driver right. Now I figure you can pull 50-60kg of ballast out of the cars (huge weight loss already).

Now as chris said:

ChrisF1 wrote:Lighter they are, more prone to lift when air gets underneath though.

Well this is an easy fix! Lax the down force rules a bit to allow the wings to have a 4% larger surface area and/or different angles to increase downforce by 80-90kg-which should compensate for the weight loss or something along the lines of a down force increase (shouldn't be hard to do..designers reckon they could quadruple down force without regulations).

Then delve deeper into carbon fiber where it can be used effectively: carbon fiber rims (lighter than current magnesium ones), carbon fiber gearbox casings, rocker covers, carbon fiber gear shafts even (don't think that's the right name but the shaft all the gears are on). Probably another 20 kilo loss here (this is all aluminium currently).
This is very applicable because it regards to the energy absorbing masses, well I doubt the gearbox case absorbs a lot (if any energy in a crash..)

Moxie wrote:As the mass of the car is reduced, the relative effect of driver mass increases.

Indeed

Moxie wrote:Unless there is a rule concerning uniform driver mass, so that ballast is added so that (driver + driver ballast = nkg) then teams with heavier drivers will find themselves at an engineering disadvantage.

I am also in accordance with this 150kg limit maybe...

Anyways that just my theory we got 595 - 60 - 20 = 515kg with driver!

Let me know what ya think!!!
And feel free to give your own car lightening theories (assuming the structure and that stay the same: no shape changing or anything of the like). Just swap some materials or whatever is necessary to get a lighter car
Thanks in advance guys and I look forward to reading your ideas!

imo everyone else thinks that ballast is about 30 - 40 kg
there is no 'large ballast plate such as the one under the centre of the car' in the reference that you have linked

and, consider the Massa accident (ie how many drivers or spectators could a 150 kg plate 70% denser than lead kill ?)

you have apparently not considered the weight of mgu-k, mgu-h, and their drives/inverters etc and the ES battery/coolant etc
48 kg was allowed by the FIA for these

consider the implications of volume-specific mechanical properties and mass-specific mechanical properties
both stiffness and strength

cfc is outstanding essentially in mass-specific stiffness (and where structural/material 'tailoring' is beneficial)
cfc gearbox etc shafting is hard to imagine re bending moment etc (unlike eg a driveshaft)

for lightening, you should consider unbanning certain alloys (Al/Be), and MMCs

Tommy Cookers wrote:@Vortex

no-one makes ballast weights from Tungsten
they are made from Tungsten-based metal/mmcs eg the various Kennametal 'Densalloy' grades

though strictly speaking such materials are not alloys they are known in generic terms as Tungsten Heavy Alloys
(specific gravities up to 18.85)

https://www.kennametal.com/content/dam/ ... salloy.pdf

I'm not sure. The reason to go for these alloys for balancing is mainly cost related.

The tungsten heavy metals like Densalloy or Densimet can be sintered, infiltrated or even cast. That is a lot cheaper than the pure metal which has to be hot-forged.

I can imagine that in F1 which is less cost conscious and more performance driven they go for a machining grade >99% tungsten to get that bit of volume benefit.

I feel the essential reason for cars being heavier is the direction chosen with the power unit regulations.
Even though the 1.6 L engine itself isn't very heavy, all ancillary components are. So the total package is much heavier then the natural aspirated V8's and V10's from previous era's.

I think Adrian Newey pointed this out already in pre-season testing 2014. Instead of spending money on advanced ERS systems, F1 could have spend the same money on reducing weight and increasing power and efficiency of normal engines.

Basically what they could have done was to build a light and powerful V10 engine and reduce car weight substantially. Instead they went for heavy, expensive and advanced units.

Blackout wrote:That was at the beginning of last year: But many teams said they improved and got well under the minimum weight later in the season (RBR, Force India, Williams etc)

"Well" under the minimum weight? The term quite open for interpretation, but I do assume that if they were struggling to get to the minimum weight, there isn't much scope to shave off further weight in the category of even 50-75kg and replace that with ballast.

Pingguest wrote:I tend to disagree, as cars have to through crash tests every year.

I don't see how this contradicts PZ's comment in any way. Let's take the front crash structure for example: The crash tests have very specific deacceleration demands on each section of the crash structure. These have become very rigorious throughout the years, especially the last 2 years. Currently it has not even become a matter of minimizing weight to pass the test, but getting through the test with as short a crash structure they can get away with, no matter the weight.

To have deaccceleration, you need to have mass to absorb the forces. And mass comes along with weight unfortunaly.

Vortex347 wrote:Hi guys quick update on a website I found!
For all those nay sayers who don't believe me about the weight, observe!
...
Say the chassis of an F1 car without ballast - with driver weighs 450kg.
So we need to make up 200kg up in ballast.
With Tungsten, that takes 10336 cm3 to do.
That's the equivalent of a 1m x 1m x 1.03cm block

Say the chassis of an F1 car without ballast - with driver weighs 450kg.
take out mark Webber and his 73kg and you get 377kg!

So there you have it

Except you are still grabbing onto the 450kg without anything to back that up for the current breed of cars. The 2008 cars are 2 generations of cars back in time, and A LOT of weight under crash structures, engine and electronic systems has been added.

Cars will easily go beyond the 575kg without ballast and driver nowadays. Infact your own article you mentioned stated that teams struggled at the beginning of 2014 to get to the minimum weight, so without added ballast.

ME4ME wrote:I feel the essential reason for cars being heavier is the direction chosen with the power unit regulations.
Even though the 1.6 L engine itself isn't very heavy, all ancillary components are. So the total package is much heavier then the natural aspirated V8's and V10's from previous era's.

I think Adrian Newey pointed this out already in pre-season testing 2014. Instead of spending money on advanced ERS systems, F1 could have spend the same money on reducing weight and increasing power and efficiency of normal engines.

Basically what they could have done was to build a light and powerful V10 engine and reduce car weight substantially. Instead they went for heavy, expensive and advanced units.

The minimum PU weight is IIRC 140 kg (I haven't checked if this includes the ERS, MGU-K etc but I assume it does), which is roughly equal to the weight of a mid to early 90s V10 engine. While the early to mid 1990s F1 cars weigh ~500-550 kg (does this include driver?), the current minimum weight it 702 kg for car and driver. The weight is more a function of the rules than the PU imo.

Hi all, this thread is meant to be based off older cars

ME4ME wrote:I think Adrian Newey pointed this out already in pre-season testing 2014. Instead of spending money on advanced ERS systems, F1 could have spend the same money on reducing weight and increasing power and efficiency of normal engines.

exactly we're assuming formula 1's took the other option

turbof1 wrote:To have deaccceleration, you need to have mass to absorb the forces. And mass comes along with weight unfortunaly.

That statement is incorrect. Heavier cars do not absorb forces they create a bigger one to stop! Use the good ol physics formula f = ma. a heavier car has more mass so it creates a bigger force which means it is harder to stop! Why do you think a truck takes longer to pull up then a car does!
So really your adding weight in the form of absorbing masses to absorb the forces a car is subjected to when it hits a wall. But in doing that your increasing the force a car is subjected to in a crash because Force = mass * acceleration. Why don't you just remove the absorbing mass structures, this will make the car lighter and it will hit the wall with less force (a bearable amount for the strength of carbon fiber), so you don't need absorbing structures.

It's like trying to put out a fire that you've added petrol (weight) to, so you simply add more water (force absorbing masses) to put it out. Why on earth would you add the petrol (weight) in the first place. Also, these absorbing structures are increasing every year (rising weight of the cars), so before the weight of the cars increased (in 2009) supposedly due to these force absorbing structures, were they using sub safety standard cars for 13 years!
There were zero fatalities in the period of 1995-2008 when these lighter cars WITHOUT all the extra force absorbing structures and masses were raced (seems pretty safe to me).

turbof1 wrote:Except you are still grabbing onto the 450kg without anything to back that up for the current breed of cars. The 2008 cars are 2 generations of cars back in time, and A LOT of weight under crash structures, engine and electronic systems has been added.

Cars will easily go beyond the 575kg without ballast and driver nowadays. Infact your own article you mentioned stated that teams struggled at the beginning of 2014 to get to the minimum weight, so without added ballast.

Ignore the current breed of cars. As stated above we are assuming f1's turned in the other direction and focused on reducing weight and increasing power and efficiency of normal engines rather than ERS and electronics.

Remove KERS, ERS and what not out of the thinking process! As I've said it is a bit of an imaginative thing.

The technology that is behind formula 1 now is much better than it ever was in 2005- they are much more efficient, more aerodynamic, more economic, much safer from the driver's perspective and safer for the environment. Despite all this, they are undoubtedly slower than they were in 2005 as well! That is a fact. A lot of people that watch f1 don't particularly care about the phenomenal technologies the cars employs, they just want to see cars go faster or at the very least the same speed!
Think of it this way, if you were buying a race car (to go fast and win) would you take the outright faster car or the slower car that is more efficient, has more electronics and is newer. NEW doesn't always mean improved.

So yeah imagine a bit guys!
ALSO does anyone know why formula 1's utilize magnesium wheels as opposed to the much lighter carbon fiber rims? Is there a particular reason why they can't make carbon fiber rims (a lot of super cars have them nowadays)
I hope this clears up a bit of the confusion and look forward to reading cheers guys!