9 replies to this topic

[V8 Fireworks]

This is more of a sporting question than a technical one so I put it here.

Why is there a minimum weight?

Would there be an out of hand development war in lightening the car?

Instead, reducing weight seems a valid means of making the car faster, a valid development path if you like.

With proper reliability requirements (e.g. parc ferme, multi-race gearboxes), ability to lower rev limits if speeds are excessive, modern crash test requirements, banning of ultra-expensive lightweight super-materials and fixed allocation for driver weight (75kg?) it wouldn't seem to be any less safe or any less sporting... There doesn't seem to be any need for such a weight restriction?

[random]

One reason is so it doesn't force the teams to hire horse jockey sized drivers.

Another is cost, lightness costs money.

A further one is safety. One of the best ways to make a car faster is to "add lightness". Lightness at all costs could result in cars less able to handle big shunts.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Plus it's not terribly interesting.

[Melbourne Park]

Even with the weight restrictions now, there has been much money spent on lowering the CofG. You perhaps did not know about it though. There's a minimum weight on the engine and it has a CofG limit too. If one removed minimum weights, then the richest team will win IMO. I won't help racing either, as braking distances will be even shorter. I'd rather see an open technology formula based on fuel consumption, but if we had that, one of the restrictions I'd place on such a scheme would be having a minimum weight.

Edited by Melbourne Park, 27 July 2009 - 04:54.

[Demo.]

This is more of a sporting question than a technical one so I put it here.

Why is there a minimum weight?

Would there be an out of hand development war in lightening the car?

Instead, reducing weight seems a valid means of making the car faster, a valid development path if you like.

With proper reliability requirements (e.g. parc ferme, multi-race gearboxes), ability to lower rev limits if speeds are excessive, modern crash test requirements, banning of ultra-expensive lightweight super-materials and fixed allocation for driver weight (75kg?) it wouldn't seem to be any less safe or any less sporting... There doesn't seem to be any need for such a weight restriction?

It certainly would be far less safe.
Firstly for a given material and build technique the more you have of it the stronger you can make something.
second by reducing the weight of a car you allow it to corner at greater speeds this increases the G forces a driver must endure but also ensures that when a car loses it in the middle of a corner that it is going to have far more energy to dissipate if it makes contact with a barrier. so weaker car higher energies in a crash can only ensure a car is far less safe.
Also why reduce weight to increase speeds and then limit the engine revs to undo the gain you have made by reducing the weight that can only be considered spending money for the sake of it.
Don't forget they are increasing the minimum weight of the car next year due to the ever increasing pressure on drivers to come to races lighter than before as has already been commented on this season some drivers have almost looked gaunt due to losing weight.

[pingu666]

with lower weight you would have even quicker cornering, i remmber altering grand prix 2, having a car weight of 150~ and 1500hp

[Jambo]

They do work to have the car as light as possible. Then they add ballast to bring it to the minimum weight. Would things be much different really other than the removal of the ballast?

[V8 Fireworks]

They do work to have the car as light as possible. Then they add ballast to bring it to the minimum weight. Would things be much different really other than the removal of the ballast?

I'd imagine with no minimum weight, lightening the car would become a bigger priority, perhaps as important as aero, and more development and innovation would happen in the area. The way to arrange cheap, standard composite materials into ever better and better structures whilst exceeding the crash test requirements, could provide some advancements in race car construction... After all composite formula car chassis are nearing 30 year-old tech and perhaps further innovation and excellence is possible if it was top priority?

[Gilles12]

I'd imagine with no minimum weight, lightening the car would become a bigger priority, perhaps as important as aero, and more development and innovation would happen in the area. The way to arrange cheap, standard composite materials into ever better and better structures whilst exceeding the crash test requirements, could provide some advancements in race car construction... After all composite formula car chassis are nearing 30 year-old tech and perhaps further innovation and excellence is possible if it was top priority?

The reason for a minimum weight is to maintain chassis structural integrity

The crash tests go only so far

The mimimum weight gives the designers some freedom to build the cars sufficiently strong and still have the confidence that overall, their car (if at minimum weight) is no heavier than any other

The addition of ballast is a relatively recent phenomenon - this ballast effectively reduces the inherent strength a designer would over engineer into the tub at minimu weight - hence the crash tests get more stringent each year

Take a look at this picture and ask yourself if allowing engineers to design to unrestricted minimum weight is a good idea...

http://www.worldraci...-mucho-safe.jpg

Nice legs, Stirling!

Cooling, weight saving or otherwise, left to their own devices engineers will always encroach on safety for the sake of performance

Edited by Gilles12, 27 July 2009 - 22:42.

[Melbourne Park]

I'd imagine with no minimum weight, lightening the car would become a bigger priority, perhaps as important as aero, and more development and innovation would happen in the area. The way to arrange cheap, standard composite materials into ever better and better structures whilst exceeding the crash test requirements, could provide some advancements in race car construction... After all composite formula car chassis are nearing 30 year-old tech and perhaps further innovation and excellence is possible if it was top priority?

There would be a shift, eventually. But first, the teams would have to adapt to the new tyre and aero environment. Because if you left the formula as it is now, but removed the minimum weight, the cars would be faster around corners that the human body could sustain - the drivers would pass out.

But if you slowed the cars down by reducing aero and tyres, weight would then become a major priority. But do not think that it is not now - the CofG of F1 cars is a major issue, as is the polar moment. Its just that the huge cost of lowering CofG is not as rewarding as spending money on other things. While Honda developed the first good all carbon gearbox casing (with a bit of titanium only used), most teams kept their titanium / carbon boxes. Williams stuck with aluminium - it cost them less than a kg, but saved them half a million pounds. This year there has been a major weight issue though, due to the weight of KERS. It was weight ballance that likely hurt KERS. McLaren claim their system does not hurt the weight balance. And it seems their car handles well, even with the KERS installed. Weight still matters now. With the relative increase in front tyre contact patch, teams needed to shift the weight further forward this year. Hence RBR - who did not have a KERS weight issue because they did not envisage using it - built an almost all carbon gearbox casing, which was very expensive but it was lighter and it allowed some extra ballast to be shifted forward in the car.

Weight still is vital - its just that due to ballast, the rewards of light weight parts are the centre of gravity benefits only, and the different polar moment benefits (having less weight at the ends of the car allows the car to turn more easily).

Another idea might be to ban tungston, and to stipulate that only cast iron was allowed as ballast. That would put much more emphasis on the upper body weight IMO.

Edited by Melbourne Park, 27 July 2009 - 23:54.