Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
After the Perez incedent where the car got hit by the lump of ballast penetrating the chassis and destroying the ECU then going into the sidepod and destroying the side impact structures.
Is it time for Ballast to be in a place that it cannot fall off???
"What happened was pretty frightening. It damaged the front wing quite badly and it damaged the front of the floor.
"Then, it went through the side of the lower part of the chassis, in the boat area [on the underside of the nose], and pierced that. It went straight through the Zylon panel, straight through the chassis, and then into the ECU.
"It killed the ECU, which stopped the car, and then rolled along. It then went into the sidepod and then out the car – damaging the impact structures in the sidepod itself.
"So whatever it was it was either travelling very quickly, or it was very heavy and had a lot of momentum."
That is a lot of damage. That's actually pretty scary when one also considers Massa's accident. The cars are so safe these days that it seems the greatest risk to the drivers is now debris. If the item that hit Perez's car had actually hit his helmet directly you have to wonder if we'd be looking at a fatality this time...
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.
but what could be so quick /heavy to damage Wing, floor,impact structure ,ECU,sideimpact structure + Sidepod...that´s an awful lot of energy ....I once saw a car perforated by an exploding flywheel -the debris cut stright through several bodywork sheetnetal layers ,an aluminium bellhousing ,and a tyre sidewall before leaving the car.....The poor guy thought he had a tyre blowout causing him to crash when only later he realised you could look out of the car at lots of places..and found some flywheel pieces in the passenger compartment..lucky man..Don´t use cast flywheels!...Should I add it happened in Zandvoort in the run to the famous Scheivlak corner.. exactly at the crest before the corner..
The one thing id like to see outlawed is the use of ballast at the lowest and most central point in the front wing, as thats what put Glock out for one race (that became two as Toyota Race management wanted to try and stop the closure of the team by showing them Kimui was up to standard for 2010) and now this, i think this practice needs to be outlawed and if they teams want to put ballast that far forward it should be inside the front crash structure (nose cone) so to place the emphisis on lowering the noses for another saftey point that the FIA are trying to address in the Webber/Kovalinenn Valencia Accedent.
This would mean noses would eventually get lower and address 2 saftey points in one go.
Id like to point out that some teams are actually using the nose pillars to attach ballast to as well, this should also be outlawed.
Im not sure about ballast at the rear and what should happen with that.
But according to the article you link, it isn't certain if it was ballast or what. Torro Rosso claim to not be missing any element of their car, and they suffered damage also.
Sounds like a terrifying incident- thank heaven Perez was okay. The cockpits are already quite durable, but without seeing images of the damage it's hard to draw conclusions.
If it was ballast from an STR, how can that car not be disqualified? I mean the car will then run lighter under the weight limit i guess, or they run their cars overweight which i doubt
Ballast was traditionally outlawed in single seater racing above an very minimal percentage of the overall weight. I'd like to see that limit reinstated. Additionally, I'd like to see the ballast having to be mounted at least 1m above the reference plane.
smellybeard wrote:Ballast was traditionally outlawed in single seater racing above an very minimal percentage of the overall weight. I'd like to see that limit reinstated. Additionally, I'd like to see the ballast having to be mounted at least 1m above the reference plane.
One metre? You realise that most of these cars are about 90cm tall relative to the reference plane, even for the highest part?
beelsebob wrote:
One metre? You realise that most of these cars are about 90cm tall relative to the reference plane, even for the highest part?
Whatever. If the ballast had to be placed in the least advantageous place on the car, they would minimize the amount they needed. Go and find a seventies blue book and you'll see that ballast was tolerated as a last resort rather than being really legal.
smellybeard wrote:Whatever. If the ballast had to be placed in the least advantageous place on the car, they would minimize the amount they needed. Go and find a seventies blue book and you'll see that ballast was tolerated as a last resort rather than being really legal.
So teams will simply develop a floor with parts that just happen to bring the overall chassis to the correct weight. Its not ballast, its just a heavy floor.
A lot of the added weight to an F1 car isn't in big chunks of material (usually DENSAMET). It can be done through selectively increasing the weight of systems in particular areas; this could be done through using denser fixings/screws (depleted uranium was popular) or through increasing the weight of the actual components.
The actual amount of movable ballast doesn't need to be huge to alter the weight balance if you concentrate most of the mass around the centre/floor.
Many Formula Fords from my spannering days used steel floors that were brazed in place, the thickness depending on what the weight budget was like. That approach is well within the traditional ban on ballast as would a couple of extra kilos of carbon where it might be needed.
Putting forty kilos of lead (or whatever) in the front wing is way out of line and goes against the logic of having a minimum weight limit at all. I actually think that the cars are all far too heavy and that just the single weight limit for the whole car is obsolete.
SpookTheHamster wrote:(depleted uranium was popular)
Depleted uranium was distinctly unpopular with Boeing 747 mechanics. Early model 747s have depleted uranium mass balance weights on the elevators which make servicing them a pain. They create a no go area around the tip of the tailplanes and must be removed before that area can be worked on.
