Formula 1 Losing Weight

[Moxie]

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!

I had a simple statistic model in mind, but as I began to investigate, things got complicated. Forgive me if I am a bit long winded in explaining my justification.

As I investigated the statistics regarding body mass It was inevitable that consider myself for comparison. While I no longer work out they way I used to, I can tell you that when I was in my 20's and early 30's I was 5'10" (177.8 cm) 176lbs (79.8 kg) and only 4% body fat which is considered to be extremely low. I was athletic, so that I did carry more muscle mass than the average American guy, but I was not big. No one would have ever described me as "muscle bound," or a "body builder."

Unfortunately, obesity and malnutrition play a roll in these statistics, which cannot easily be parsed out. It had my desire to simply use the mass of an average human male + 1 standard deviation as the standard. As I investigated the statistics on body mass, I saw a wide difference between countries. Considering the mass of the 72.7 kg (160.3) lbs of the average Brazilian male, my model would have been unrealistic. My decision to use weight statistics from the United States is not intended to reflect an attitude biased towards Americans. I would rather not limit the potential F1 driver pool, as a result of better nutrition and access to health care. This decision is also a reflection of the fact that it is far easier to add ballast than to subtract body mass.

The average mass of an American male is 88.3 kg (194.7 lbs). Yes, Americans also have a high rate of obesity. But again it is difficult to parse out body mass as a result of obesity vs. athletic muscle mass. Therefore I propose that (driver +driver ballast= 88kg.

As for the car lightening and energy dispersion part of this discussion: I am not an engineer, and I have learned from my own embarrassment to withhold my thoughts until they are fully formed.

Discussions related to safety of the driver vs safety of the spectators really shouldn't be up for discussion. Drivers and spectators are all humans, and if one measure saves more human lives than another it should become practice.

[chip engineer]

... Engines do not bounce that well. I have seen quite a few engine separations ant the only instance I can remember of an engine leaving the track is last year at nascar (apart from Le mans 1955)So I think you can get away with engine separation.
...

If you look closely at Conway's crash at the Indy 500 in 2010, you can see the engine does leave the track: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZy-tPkZ3W4
Fortunately, the spectators are 10 to 20 feet above the track at this point.

[Vortex347]

Hi all, thanks for your replies

Therefore I propose that (driver +driver ballast= 88kg.

So this is excluding the weight of the car ballast plates I would presume? You have to run extra ballast called drivers ballast to even out the difference in driver's weights?
That's actually a pretty good idea having two types of ballast (car ballast and drivers ballast to make up the minimum weight so lighter drivers don't have an advantage). Also to avoid the issue of having drivers with different weights (as you mentioned), you could always increase driver + driver ballast to a larger amount (92kg or something)

As for the car lightening and energy dispersion part of this discussion: I am not an engineer, and I have learned from my own embarrassment to withhold my thoughts until they are fully formed.

Please feel free to put your thoughts in. This thread is not a judgemental one just throw some ideas out there (no one else has done it yet). Everyone just seems to be criticising a lot and no one has actually properly answered the first post yet....

For the record, I do agree with the notion that for instance a lighter crash survival cell or even a lighter crash structure, while keeping the same deacceleration rate as a heavier one, makes a car safer.

I think that's the first time you've actually agreed with me. Well then remove KERS,ERS and all the additional electronics, and lighten the crash structure or survival cell (as you said) and put down a number on what you think the weight of this car will be.

However outright removing crash structures, as you proposed earlier, will only make the car much more dangerous. You are not going to reduce the mass enough to justify the rise in deacceleration.

Did I say that? meh ok then, I have no problem with you criticising my own ideas (however good or bad they are) provided you put some of your own on the table. This thread is pointless if you keep criticising my ideas and don't put down any of your own lightening theories (which you must have some idea of due to notion for lighter survival cells) or throw out some weight numbers.
How long have crash structures been implemented in the cars hmm?
minimum weight started drastically rising in 2009 (from 595-640kg). Although this could've been due to the introduction of KERS. Take the car without all ERS and KERS and it should be the car from the 05 season with the 595kg minimum weight and crash structure no?

You are not going to reduce the mass enough to justify the rise in deacceleration.

Well, I can't answer that because I don't know. That is the whole point of this thread. From saying that, you seem to have an idea of how much the mass will be reduced I take it? Otherwise why would you say this?

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.

Take the other method (remove KERS and ERS and electronics) and take a guess at how much lighter the cars could've become (v10 cars were 595kg with driver remember).Also, I think these cars did have crash structures in them. This was before they introduced KER systems into the cars which could explain the weight rise.

Cheers guys and thanks IN ADVANCE!
Also @ moxie I'm fine with long winded justifications, they tend to be more detailed

[turbof1]

Well, I can't answer that because I don't know. That is the whole point of this thread. From saying that, you seem to have an idea of how much the mass will be reduced I take it? Otherwise why would you say this?

Roughly yes. The front crash structure with front wing is more then light enough to be lifted and fitted by one person. I think it would be in the order of 30kg, but then you still have to subtract the front wing itself. In all honesty I don't think you'll get to 70kg with all the crash structures combined, and then I'm being careful.

[Vortex347]

Hi all, thanks for your replies

The front crash structure with front wing is more then light enough to be lifted and fitted by one person. I think it would be in the order of 30kg, but then you still have to subtract the front wing itself. In all honesty I don't think you'll get to 70kg with all the crash structures combined, and then I'm being careful.

Ok....So that's the weight of the whole crash structure right? So what do you plan on removing/ making lighter?

Also what is the total weight of the KERS and ERS system? (70-80kg)
AND how much ballast do these cars runs?

OK NEW PLAN FOR THIS THREAD

Forget the older model car we shall take the current 2015 model car! It has a minimum weight of 702 kg with the driver!
So how you would make this car lighter and how much of a difference it would make!
Current car weight with driver: 702kg

As an example:

Object/ material changes

• magnesium wheels go to carbon fiber ones - 0.95kg weight saving (roughly)

• Remove Kers - 30kg weight saving

• Remove ERS and advanced power unit (resorting to a 3.5L naturally aspirated v10 engine) -minimum weight 80kg

• Remove 30kg of ballast and allow for a slightly larger surface area on the wings to create more downforce to compensate for weight loss

Explanations and sources :

Magnesium wheels currently weight about 3.7kg and carbon fiber it about 75% weight of magnesium therefore 3.7*0.75 = 2.78kg approximately 0.95kg

Remove KERS
Source link for KERS weight: http://www.gizmag.com/formula-one-kers/11324/
Kers weighs 30kg

Remove the ERS, Power unit and all the batteries minimum weight 145kg. Change the engine to a naturally aspirated 3.5L v10 with a minimum weight of 80kg and no rev limit. On top of this, relax the regulations around engine construction materials a bit to enable the use of lighter materials. This leads to a weight saving of 65kg (145-80).

Lighten the amount of ballast on the cars (because they have a lot)

Sum it up

702kg -0.95 - 30 - 65 - 30 = 576.05kg with the driver

Something like that!
I hope you do it with a few more then 4 changes haha

This is the 50th post on this thread!
Cheers guys and I look forward to reading!

[turbof1]

If you want to go lightwheight, then yes: removing the ERS system is the correct way.

You can go one step further: the ICE has a mandated minimum weight and as mentioned contains a lot of materials which aren't the lightest ones. You could quite easily design a i4 or V4 bi-turbo which is very, very light. The drawside of it is that you'll probably last only one race with it.

[Cold Fussion]

If you're theory-crafting you may as well go the full distance and use either a 2 stroke or rotary for the maximum power/kg.

[Moxie]

@Vortex347

Yes, driver ballast would be separate from conventional ballast. Practically speaking, I'm not sure how it would work. I'm making this up on the fly so forgive me if the idea is flawed. Imagine an empty box behind the driver's seat, on the centerline of the car, at a height that is strictly regulated. As we all see, at the end of a GP, the scales are already close to the parking positions for the cars. Prior to the race there is a weigh in with the car present. Upon weigh in, ballast will be assigned, and an FIA (let's just pretend for a moment that the FIA is competent) official will place the ballast in the box and seal it. At the end of the race, the ballast will be checked to verify that none has been removed.

As for engineering issues, rather than come up with some incorrect B.S. about specific weight saving measures, I'll suggest that rules be crafted to enable innovation in the area of saving weight. I am a fan of allowing teams to design the engine as they wish, so long as it meets fuel consumption durability, and perhaps environmental regulations. (Yeah I said that. I know that's an argument for a different thread.) Instead of dictating to teams how to build the engine, they should encourage teams to innovate. Also, rather than defining a minimum weight, I would suggest that safety rules require specific standards be met, without stifling the goal of increasing efficiency through weight reduction.

[Vortex347]

Hi all, thanks for your replies

Upon weigh in, ballast will be assigned, and an FIA (let's just pretend for a moment that the FIA is competent) official will place the ballast in the box and seal it.

LOL hope no one on here is an FIA official (they might be slightly offended)

Imagine an empty box behind the driver's seat, on the centerline of the car, at a height that is strictly regulated.

Yeah, behind the seat would be good a place in my opinion because it would best mimic the effect heavier drivers would have on the weight positioning of the car. You could probably have another compartment down near their legs or something too because it would also replicate the effect of a heavier driver ( who would bepresumably taller with longer legs).

As for engineering issues, rather than come up with some incorrect B.S. about specific weight saving measures

Not really incorrect you can source things.. and use material densities.

If you want to go lightwheight, then yes: removing the ERS system is the correct way.

Indeed it's why f1's went heavyweight in the first place I think.

You can go one step further: the ICE has a mandated minimum weight

umm, your losing me on the acronyms (is that the Intercooler Extension).

You could quite easily design a i4 or V4 bi-turbo which is very, very light.

I suppose but that wouldn't be large hp would it?

If you're theory-crafting you may as well go the full distance and use either a 2 stroke or rotary for the maximum power/kg.

Woah, Rotaries would be pretty extreme (something to see for sure-and hear)

Cheers guys

[turbof1]

umm, your losing me on the acronyms (is that the Intercooler Extension).

Internal Combustion Engine, or just the engine without the ERS systems. I like to use this acronym to not confuse the engine for the power unit.

I suppose but that wouldn't be large hp would it?

Well...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M12
https://racingotaku.wordpress.com/2009/ ... f1-engine/
80's technology.

I also forgot to answer a piece of your previous post:

Did I say that? meh ok then, I have no problem with you criticising my own ideas (however good or bad they are) provided you put some of your own on the table. This thread is pointless if you keep criticising my ideas and don't put down any of your own lightening theories (which you must have some idea of due to notion for lighter survival cells) or throw out some weight numbers.
How long have crash structures been implemented in the cars hmm?
minimum weight started drastically rising in 2009 (from 595-640kg). Although this could've been due to the introduction of KERS. Take the car without all ERS and KERS and it should be the car from the 05 season with the 595kg minimum weight and crash structure no?

To answer the question you did say that:

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.

To answer for a better solution: you'll first need to redesign the technical rules of the front bodywork (more known as the nose). This houses/actually is the front crash structure. Current noses end very low down and slope very heavily. This means the angle crash structure does not work as optimal as a horizontal one, like we saw before 2014. You can do 2 things: either lower the front bulkhead of the monocoque, or allow higher noses. Preferable a mix of both. It'll mean less material and weight needs to be added to meet the deacceleration demands during the crash test.
To answer your question about how long the crash structures have been mandatily around: that's difficult to answer and honestly deserves more then just a year to say "that's when we first had crash structures". The current crash structure is the result of several decades of research and from the moment it was introduced to the point we are today, it has been changed so many many times. For instance before 2014 the side impact structures were free to design by the teams; they only had to meet the crash test demands. Since 2014 however, The FIA introduced spec side crash structures made of carbon fibre tubes:
https://vimeo.com/68370832
(and I honestly did not know that video would be automatically embedded; that's awesome.)

To answer that if the cars without the ERS would be the same as 05, well no. It would still be heavier due a bigger fuel tank, heavier crash structures and probably also the ICE due the minimum weight. These are rule sets (the bigger fuel tank is not a rule per se, but one forced by the sporting rules to run the race without refueling) that all need to be changed to reverse the weight back to 05.

[Vortex347]

To answer the question you did say that:

Woah you're good. Ok then....

Aluminium honeycomb has been used in between two layers of carbon fiber (technical example: like a sandwich) since the first carbon car in 1981. Though I believe the carbon fiber and aluminium honeycomb were both used as construction materials because of their light weight and relatively strong strength (not their safety, that just turned out to be a bit of a fluke when john Watson crashed in 81). The crash structure is basically just a carbon fiber tube? How does it weigh so much then?

In all honesty I don't think you'll get to 70kg with all the crash structures combined, and then I'm being careful.

You can do 2 things: either lower the front bulkhead of the monocoque allow higher noses or preferable a mix of both. It'll mean less material and weight needs to be added to meet the deacceleration demands during the crash test.

Don't they effectively have two noses now (stacked on top of each other). I think Adrian talked about it in his documentary.

I don't know...John Barnard or Adrian Newey don't have f1T accounts do they? haha

[turbof1]

To answer the question you did say that:

Woah you're good. Ok then....

Aluminium honeycomb has been used in between two layers of carbon fiber (technical example: like a sandwich) since the first carbon car in 1981. Though I believe the carbon fiber and aluminium honeycomb were both used as construction materials because of their light weight and relatively strong strength (not their safety, that just turned out to be a bit of a fluke when john Watson crashed in 81). The crash structure is basically just a carbon fiber tube? How does it weigh so much then?

In all honesty I don't think you'll get to 70kg with all the crash structures combined, and then I'm being careful.

You can do 2 things: either lower the front bulkhead of the monocoque allow higher noses or preferable a mix of both. It'll mean less material and weight needs to be added to meet the deacceleration demands during the crash test.

Don't they effectively have two noses now (stacked on top of each other). I think Adrian talked about it in his documentary.

I don't know...John Barnard or Adrian Newey don't have f1T accounts do they? haha

In all honesty, I went down the path of thinking "how can we remove weight without compromising on current safety?" without keeping an eye on how much can be saved on it. The reality is: you start with quite a low amount of weight already, you are going to be able to shave some off, but not much.

Don't they effectively have two noses now

That depends on interpretation and the point of view. I can certainly see how somebody would make a case of this.

I think to answer that question, you need to ask a different question: what defines a nose? I myself would probably define it as anything in front of the front bulkhead, with the exception of the front wing (and by that I mean starting from the neutral section; I see the pylons part of the nose). Maybe somebody like Adrian Newey defines it something as a structure that has a first contact point with the airflow.
I don't know really how he would define it, but I do get what he is trying to a make a point of: teams like to wrap around the ruleset of the front bodywork by meeting the dimensional requirements. This results in the stump piece in front and the "larger" nose right behind it.

However, this all does not matter. When we talk about the nose, we are usually speaking about the dimensional rules. When we are speaking of the crash tests, we are talking about the front crash structure. However, they are more or less the exact same structure in reality (the only difference is the vanity panel). We simply have front bodywork that has to meet dimensional rules and that also has to meet deacceleration measures.

I know this will sound quite confusing so do take your time to let it sip in. Often even I would use the term nose in a debate about crash testing. The key is context: are we talking about crash testing or are we talking about dimensional rules? And yes: one has an impact on the other when we mix this up with competition. It's why we nowadays got something that Newey described as two noses.

[Moxie]

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).

Have you ever heard the phrase "I'ts not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end." The same principle applies here. It is neither force nor mass that cause driver death. It is acceleration, or negative acceleration if wish. In fact we are actually talking about the acceleration of the mass of the brain, not the car. The brain follows Newton's first law, and as the rest of the head stops quickly, the brain continues forward until it strikes the cranium. The goal here is to prevent the brain from being smashed against the side of the cranium. As the brains mass will not change, and it cannot be restrained directly, it falls upon engineers to reduce the negative acceleration of the car.

[Vortex347]

In all honesty, I went down the path of thinking "how can we remove weight without compromising on current safety?" without keeping an eye on how much can be saved on it. The reality is: you start with quite a low amount of weight already, you are going to be able to shave some off, but not much.

Where abouts were you removing this weight from?
What weight were you starting off with??
And how much weight roughly did you think you would be able save (10kg or 50kg)?

Also can you put a value on amount of ballast in the car?

[turbof1]

Optimizing geometry by changing the ruleset in such a way the front crash structure is horizontal instead of angled as it is now.

By how much I am not able to tell. By quite some relative to the weight it has now. I made some very careful aproximations in my previous posts about the weight they have now, so look for them.