142 replies to this topic

[gold333]

Can someone please explain why the 2017 regulations with the heavier and wider tyres and the wider car, necessitate an increase in weight to 728 kg from the 2016 value of 705 kg?

When in 1991, F1 cars and tires were wider still than 2017, and ran amongst others, a V12 engine with a 230 litre fuel tank (instead of 105 litre) and STILL weighed only 505 kg.

With all the disadvantages stacked against the 1991 car, and twenty six years automotive engineering development, should the 2017 car if anything not be much lighter?

Can somebody explain this?

F1 2017
2000 mm wide
405 mm Pirelli rear tire width
V6 1500cc
105 litre fuel tank
728 kg

F1 1991
2200 mm wide
470 mm Goodyear/Pirelli rear tire width
V12 3500cc
230 litre fuel tank (!)
505 kg

Edited by gold333, 18 February 2017 - 04:53.

[OO7]

Slight correction:

 

1991 F1 Car:

2150mm wide

450mm to 460mm Goodyear/Pirelli rear tire width

V12 3500cc 

160kg fuel tank

505kg (570kg including a 65kg driver)

 

2017 F1 Car:

2000mm wide

450mm to 460mm Pirelli rear tire width

V6 Turbo 1500cc 

100kg fuel tank

722kg

 

As to why these modern cars are so heavy, I'm not completely sure.  The PU ancillaries and battery account for quite a bit of the weight, as well as the beefed up structures (monocoque, rear crash structure etc).

Edited by OO7, 18 February 2017 - 05:07.

[PilotPlant91]

safety concern?

[johnmhinds]

A 2017 car is going to be well over half a metre longer than a car from 1991.

[OO7]

A 2017 car is going to be well over half a metre longer than a car from 1991.

Half a metre of carbon fibre structure doesn't weigh much though.

[gold333]

Slight correction:

1991 F1 Car:
2150mm wide
450mm to 460mm Goodyear/Pirelli rear tire width
V12 3500cc
160kg fuel tank
505kg (570kg including a 65kg driver)


2017 F1 Car:
2000mm wide
450mm to 460mm Pirelli rear tire width
V6 Turbo 1500cc
100kg fuel tank
722kg


As to why these modern cars are so heavy, I'm not completely sure. The PU ancillaries and battery account for quite a bit of the weight, as well as the beefed up structures (monocoque, rear crash structure etc).

Thank you, but I believe your numbers are wrong.

The numbers I quoted are referenced by:

2017 728kg car weight and 105L fuel tank size: http://www.autosport...t.php/id/127972
2017 405mm tire sizes: https://www.formula1...2017-tyres.html
1991 2200mm car width: https://en.m.wikiped...y_proves_costly, http://www.f1technical.net/articles/8
1991 220-230L fuel tank capacity: http://www.f1technic...opic.php?t=6113, http://atlasf1.autos...iew/okeefe.html, https://it.m.wikiped...wiki/Jordan_191
1991 470mm rear tire: http://www.f1-foreca.../F1-SP2_01e.pdf

Would you be able to provide reference sources for your data?

Also I'm sure the ERS system does not equal the combined weight of 158 kg plus 125 kg of fuel, 6 extra cylinders, 2000cc of engine displacement, the weight of a wider car and wider tyres/rims and a 26 year deficiency in engineering standards.

Edited by gold333, 18 February 2017 - 06:46.

[johnmhinds]

Half a metre of carbon fibre structure doesn't weigh much though.

I may be wrong, but an extra half a metre of car still weighs considerably more than half a metre of air.

[Gorma]

That half a metre isn't air replaced by carbon fiber, it's replaced by litium ion batteries.

[OO7]

I believe your numbers are wrong.

The numbers I quoted are referenced by:

2017 728kg car weight and 105L fuel tank size: http://www.autosport...t.php/id/127972
2017 405mm tire sizes: https://www.formula1...2017-tyres.html
1991 2200mm car width: https://en.m.wikiped...y_proves_costly
1991 220-230L fuel tank capacity: http://www.f1technic...opic.php?t=6113, http://atlasf1.autos...iew/okeefe.html
1991 470mm rear tire: http://www.f1-foreca.../F1-SP2_01e.pdf

Would you be able to provide reference sources for your data?

Also I'm sure the ERS system does not equal the combined weight of 158 kg plus 125 kg of fuel, 6 extra cylinders, 2000cc of engine displacement, the weight of a wider car and wider tyres/rims and a 26 year deficiency in engineering standards.

I made a mistake regarding the 2017 fuel tank size (I used the 2016 figure).  For 2017 it is 105kg not 105 litres.

Fuel tank sizes in the 1991 were not regulated and varied depending on the efficiency of the engine used.  I have seen various figures, however these are not so important.

 

The 1988 technical regulations state a maximum car width of 2150mm.  The maximum width of the cars was not altered until 1993, when it was reduced to 2000mm.  The final link you posted also states 2150mm as the maximum car width for that period.

 

The 405mm rear tyre width stated for the 2017 Pirelli rear's, is the tread width not the overall tyre width.  Overall tyre width is around 18 inches (457mm), this is why I used a range of 450mm to 460mm as the exact figure isn't available.  Maximum tyre width in 1991 was 18 inches (457mm).  This is from the 1988 tech regs (I don't believe this value was changed again until 1993).

 

I understand your confusion about the origins of this extra weight current cars are lugging around.  I to am oblivious as where these major gains have come from.

Edited by OO7, 18 February 2017 - 07:20.

[OO7]

That half a metre isn't air replaced by carbon fiber, it's replaced by litium ion batteries.

The batteries have a minimum weight of 25kg I think.  I believe the manufacturers are at this minimum weight.

[johnmhinds]

Approx scale of the cars. Modern F1 cars are long beasts

[Gorma]

The batteries have a minimum weight of 25kg I think. I believe the manufacturers are at this minimum weight.

I was just trying to say that there is a lot more material compared to 2017. ERS is heavy and we mustn't forget the increased safety requirements. Engine and the gearbox must last multiple race weekends where as 1991 they only needed to last one race. Beefing them up means more weight.

[OO7]

Current cars have a wheelbase roughly 500mm to 600mm longer than the MP4/6.  In terms of carbon fibre structure, I can't see it weighing more than 15 to 20kg maximum.  At least 50% of this length is in the gearbox casing, the rest being the monocoque.

[OO7]

I was just trying to say that there is a lot more material compared to 2017. ERS is heavy and we mustn't forget the increased safety requirements. Engine and the gearbox must last multiple race weekends where as 1991 they only needed to last one race. Beefing them up means more weight.

I generally don't compare to the 1991 cars, I usually compare to the 2005 or 2008 cars.  These cars had a minimum weight of 605kg including the driver and apparently carried substantial amounts of ballast.

 

You are right in all you say about safety and reliability leading to increases in weight, however such increases would be relatively minor, especially considering the amounts of ballast available.

[Collombin]

Shrugs. I'm bloated and overweight compared to 1991 too.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Shrugs. I'm bloated and overweight compared to 1991 too.

Me too!

Surely it's a combination of a lot of things, more parts have to do multiple weekends, the extra strength needed to past modern crash tests (would be interesting to see what would happen if you crash tested a 1988 car to 2017 crash tests!) the batteries and ERS system and of course all the wiring!

Also just a minor detail but now many materials which were previous used are now banned?

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 18 February 2017 - 07:18.

[David Lightman]

Approx scale of the cars. Modern F1 cars are long beasts

Prettiest at the bottom and ugliest at the top. New regs have failed for me. New rear wing looks like it's been nicked from an IndyCar.

[Kalmake]

We can't exactly blame the hybrid for this. 1991 Honda engine weighed 150kg.

 

It's mainly the larger, tougher, safer chassis where the weight has crept in.

[Jovanotti]

It's exactly the same story with hideously large road cars. Safety measures are the main reason.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

It's exactly the same story with hideously large road cars. Safety measures are the main reason.

Now compare the wiring looms between them... 🙈😂

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 18 February 2017 - 07:48.

[OO7]

The 2017 cars are almost 160kg (taking a 65kg driver) heavier than the 1991 McLaren and 120kg heavier than the 2008 McLaren.  The 2008 McLaren in terms of weight due to safety, must be quite close to the 2017 specifications (I'll check later).  The difference between the 1991 McLaren and the 2008 McLaren is only 35kg and the 2008 McLaren carried significant ballast, so I don't  really see safety measures being where the weight increase has stemmed from.

[OO7]

Now compare the wiring looms between them...

I've heard that the cables that carry the electrical charge from the main ERS components are very heavy, 10kg+!

Edited by OO7, 18 February 2017 - 08:41.

[RECKLESS]

I don't have a problem with this.

[Henri Greuter]

It is not only because of the length of the car now vs. today's aerocrapmonster. Have a look at the height of the cockpit edge.

And the sidepods. On the 1991 car the vertical panel of the sidebod was angled 90 degries with the bottom. Now you have the lower part having an indent to make the bottom smaller than the top part of sidepod. Apart from the cars being so much longer, they also have far more bodywork panels and appendages. And what to think about the weight of a current front wing complex versus the simple two-ply wing of the 1991 car.

Even if all of that is lightweight material, keep on adding vanes, more curves in the bodwork, eventually it simply will add up.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

And as for the rear wing: I wonder how much weight of the current rear wing can be attributed to the DRS components.

 

EndEdit:

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 18 February 2017 - 09:05.

[Silverstone96]

Have to agree with what toto Wolff said that the new rear wings look really naff like something off an A1 GP car

[Clatter]

Can someone please explain why the 2017 regulations with the heavier and wider tyres and the wider car, necessitate an increase in weight to 728 kg from the 2016 value of 705 kg?

When in 1991, F1 cars and tires were wider still than 2017, and ran amongst others, a V12 engine with a 230 litre fuel tank (instead of 105 litre) and STILL weighed only 505 kg.

With all the disadvantages stacked against the 1991 car, and twenty six years automotive engineering development, should the 2017 car if anything not be much lighter?

Can somebody explain this?

F1 2017
2000 mm wide
405 mm Pirelli rear tire width
V6 1500cc
105 litre fuel tank
728 kg

F1 1991
2200 mm wide
470 mm Goodyear/Pirelli rear tire width
V12 3500cc
230 litre fuel tank (!)
505 kg

You have left off the weight of the driver which is included in the all up weight. Part of the increase in weight is to redress the balance between the larger drivers and the tiny ones.

[Henri Greuter]

You have left off the weight of the driver which is included in the all up weight. Part of the increase in weight is to redress the balance between the larger drivers and the tiny ones.

 

 

Oops, how could all of us have overlooked that!

 

 

Henri

[Szoelloe]

Can someone please explain why the 2017 regulations with the heavier and wider tyres and the wider car, necessitate an increase in weight to 728 kg from the 2016 value of 705 kg?

When in 1991, F1 cars and tires were wider still than 2017, and ran amongst others, a V12 engine with a 230 litre fuel tank (instead of 105 litre) and STILL weighed only 505 kg.

With all the disadvantages stacked against the 1991 car, and twenty six years automotive engineering development, should the 2017 car if anything not be much lighter?

Can somebody explain this?

F1 2017
2000 mm wide
405 mm Pirelli rear tire width
V6 1500cc
105 litre fuel tank
728 kg

F1 1991
2200 mm wide
470 mm Goodyear/Pirelli rear tire width
V12 3500cc
230 litre fuel tank (!)
505 kg

 

Batteries, MGU-XXXX, safety measures, no refueling, teams want more ballast, drivers need to put on a few kilos too to cope with the higher G's, do you want more?

[superden]

Modern F1 cars are bloated and hideous, just like modern road cars. That's why I don't like modern F1 cars and I don't like modern road cars.

It is what it is.

Edited by superden, 18 February 2017 - 10:45.

[baddog]

They are safer. Much much much safer.

[Ali_G]

Have to agree with what toto Wolff said that the new rear wings look really naff like something off an A1 GP car

They are appalling.

[OO7]

Safety has little to do with it.  The 2008 cars were 605kg with the driver and plenty of ballast onboard.

[Timstr11]

Powerunit weight in 2008 was 95 kg. Now it's 145 KG.
That's already 50 kgs.

[HoldenRT]

You have left off the weight of the driver which is included in the all up weight. Part of the increase in weight is to redress the balance between the larger drivers and the tiny ones.

 

Took 26 posts until someone started zeroing in on the real answer.

[PayasYouRace]

Safety has little to do with it. The 2008 cars were 605kg with the driver and plenty of ballast onboard.

It is a factor as the safety standards for crash tests have been tightened in the last decade.

[Timstr11]

I'd also like to add that apart from stringent safety requirements, chassis weight gain could've also come from advances in the knowledge of vehicle dynamics and its relationship to torsional rigidity. I remember some teams years ago started tracing bad handling to poor torsional rigidity.

Edited by Timstr11, 18 February 2017 - 12:18.

[johnmhinds]

Seems a bit silly to keep quoting the minimum weight regulations as if they apply to the actual weights of the cars and the components that were built and raced.

 

We know they will have been trying to get the cars as close to those weights as they can, but we don't know if the cars ended up being near those weights all the time or if they maybe even ended up being lighter than that and were full of ballast.

[OO7]

When the hybrid V6Ts first appeared, many teams were struggling to make the minimum weight (700 - 705kg).  Therefore they were 100kg + unknown amount of ballast weight heavier than the 2008 cars.  Crash testing today is more stringent, but I don't see it being a significant factor.

[OO7]

Seems a bit silly to keep quoting the minimum weight regulations as if they apply to the actual weights of the cars and the components that were built and raced.

 

We know they will have been trying to get the cars as close to those weights as they can, but we don't know if the cars ended up being near those weights all the time or if they maybe even ended up being lighter than that and were full of ballast.

Not really as it's the best we have.  The 2008 cars raced with a lot of ballast, the 2014 cars did not, with some teams struggling to make the minimum weight.  I would think the 1991 cars raced with little ballast.

[Chick0]

I have to agree that the current cars seem overweight, especially when you take into account that LMP1 - Hybrids only weigh 875kg... 

[DS27]

F1 cars are just following the population at large (no pun intended)

[OO7]

Powerunit weight in 2008 was 95 kg. Now it's 145 KG.
That's already 50 kgs.

Okay that's quite helpful Tim.  Ancillaries such as intercoolers and other cooling paraphernalia aren't included in that 145kg figure?  For the 2014 cars we have 50kg (plus 2008 level of ballast) to account for, so cooling, safety and 2014 ballast levels of ballast.........................

Edited by OO7, 18 February 2017 - 12:33.

[muramasa]

there's a mandated weight distribution rule too, if without it it shouldnt be problem to clear minimum weight with 1.6L turbo hybrid on condition that tyre width can be made flexible.

[Henri Greuter]

 

I have to agree that the current cars seem overweight, especially when you take into account that LMP1 - Hybrids only weigh 875kg... 

 

 

A current LMP1 with all that internal (within the bodywork) aero parts is shorter (!) than an 2017 spec F1 and I believe the F1 is also wider nowadays. So that's how their weights alls get closer to another.....

 

The days of the almost compact F1 compared with a Le Mans/Sportscar are long gone.....

 

Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 18 February 2017 - 15:58.

[ExFlagMan]

Does the LMP1 car figure include the driver weight, as it might be difficult to do the math for multiple drivers.

[pdac]

In 1991 you had to add Nigel Mansell to the final total.

[superden]

In 1991 you had to add Nigel Mansell to the final total.

No worse than adding Montoya.

[pdac]

No worse than adding Montoya.

 

true

[ExFlagMan]

Any truth in the rumour that this seasons increase is to allow for the weight of one driver's 'bling'?

[Nonesuch]

A current LMP1 with all that internal (within the bodywork) aero parts is shorter (!) than an 2017 spec F1 and I believe the F1 is also wider nowadays.

 
Correct, the Porsche 919 is 1,9 meters wide and the 2017 F1 cars are allowed to be 2,0 meters wide - although quite a bit of that comes from the tyres.
 
F1 cars have become rather huge.
 
 

Does the LMP1 car figure include the driver weight, as it might be difficult to do the math for multiple drivers.

 
The LMP1-H have a minimum weight of 875 kg, which the regulations (1.8) say is 'Except for the weighing procedure used during the practice sessions, it is the weight of the car with no driver and no fuel on board.'
 
In addition to that, the Sporting Regulations of the WEC state that for LMP1 (6.9.5) 'If the average weight of the drivers entered in a car is under 80 kilogrammes: driver ballast must be added according to the following formula: 80 kg minus the average weight of the drivers = driver ballast. The minimum weight of the car will thus be the basic imposed minimum weight + driver ballast.'

The size of the LMP1 fuel tanks depends on the hybrid systems used (the Porsche has 62,5 liters), but during the races LMP1 cars will be closer to 1000 kg than the 875 kg mentioned as the minimum.

Edited by Nonesuch, 18 February 2017 - 17:26.