37 replies to this topic

[Yelnats]

A small article in Race Tech magazine mentioned mercury ballast being used by at least one team in F1. The article said that the mercury is pumped around to maintain weight distribution as fuel loads are consumed.

If this system is being used (and is legal) it has far greater potential than this simple use. The Mercury could be pumped laterally to put more weight on the inner wheels when cornering and front to back to put more weight on rear tires when accelerating. It could also compensate for understeering conditions and tire degredation.

But I believe it contavenes the rules about "Fixed Ballast" and can't see it being legal at the moment.

[desmo]

I like that idea. I think that would contravene the spirit, if not perhaps the letter, of the regs. If I was doing it I'd try to construct some at least semi-plausible pretext for it having another use. Perhaps use water and have a semi-dummy surface radiator in the splitter area to justify having the plumbing neccessary for fore and aft changes on the fly. A lateral weight transfer system would be easier to hide, I'd think.

[SideWaysBob]

Are you sure about this? Would the FIA allow a car to be trundling around with a load of mercury sloshing around in the tanks.
There has to be a question of health and safety for the track marshalls in the event of this car crashing surely.
Can't argue with the principles behind it but the technical detail of having a self sealing, crash protected system full of toxic liquid, just to save a few tenth of a second. i'd have thought any advantage woulds have been lost with the additional weight ?

[Molbiol]

Bob has a good point. Just imagine the clean-up required if such a system dumped several pounds of Hg onto the ground in the event of a major crash. The whole circuit would literall have to be shut down until a HASMAT team or equivalent cleaned it up properly. Considering that many environmentalists despise F1 as it is for many reasons, I don't think 300 kph rolling tanks of Hg would be a good idea.

[Christiaan]

With the way FIA went on about how dangerous the Be/Al alloy is to the guys manufacturing engines, and the possiblity of the driver or marshals inhaling fragments, I don't think that Hg is even an option. Perhaps some other fluid of high density which is not poisonous, but definately not Hg.

[Ali_G]

I couldn't see them usig it. If there was a crash loads could be thrown into the air and possible hundreds killed.

But it wouldn't be a bad idea.It could also be used to put more weight on the rear wheels while accelerating and going down straights.

This would give better traction. This would also raise the front suspension slightly. This would lessen the wings angle of attack and give a higher top speed.

Niall

[Billy Gunn]

Wow Ali G,

We don't need nuclear disarmament - we need Mercury disarmament!!!! Hundreds killed in the crash due to flying Hg - sh*t better get some restraint on that old thermometer out back.

This pumped Hg is not new - it was used by the ITC cars back in '96/'97 I believe the Opel team used it and Merc as well. And they did pump it dynamically across the vehicle and back an forth for traction (these Opels were FWD) and brake weight transfer.

[Yelnats]

Billy Gunn, Us oldtimers had no respect at all for Mercury. {;->. I recall the teacher handing a bottle of the stuff around the grade 9 class which was promplty dropped and we spent the rest of the class cleaning the small balls of quick-silver up with pieces of paper, only about 80% was found and that classroom is still in use today. Mercury is the key ingredient in many silent switched built in the sixties and I'm sure I have an ounce or two in my 35 dental fillings.

The point being it's no more dangerous than lead which is the key ingredient in most water systems (still). But I aggree that theres no good reason to carry it in an F1 car even if it's stored in a carefully sealed system (I never suggested the fuel tanks!)

[MarkWill]

Hi,

I read through the rules, and being unable to find anything specific on this I wondered if ballast could be moved during a race (to affect race trim) - or is it considered a mobile aerodynamic device?

[Pioneer]

Read them again.


4.2 Ballast :
Ballast can be used provided it is secured in such a way that tools are required for its removal. It must be possible to fix seals if deemed necessary by the FIA technical delegate.

[ray b]

if multi fuel tanks or oil or coolant tanks are used I guess you could alter f/r weights
by pumping from one to an other
in the old days didnot they use a tail tank first then use fuel from side tanks??

[glorius&victorius]

In CART they do use mobile ballast. The driver can adjust during driving the position of the ballast, more to the rear or back.

[Ben]

Originally posted by glorius&victorius
In CART they do use mobile ballast. The driver can adjust during driving the position of the ballast, more to the rear or back.

er.. no.

They have a weight jacker which alters the right front spring perch to alter the corner weight. It has nothing to do with physically moving lumps of lead around.

Ben

[MarkWill]

In response to Pioneers quote, I thought that just meant that the ballast couldn't fly around inside the car. If it was rigidly fixed to something, you would still need tools to remove it. Ballast per se. is a bit of a loose definition - what if I moved fluids around inside the car (front to back) whose primary function wasn't ballast (ok, it has to be either the gas, or the coolant, but I'm just trying to make the point that the weight distribution is dynamically changing - is this considered as moving ballast?).

[30ft penguin]

Originally posted by MarkWill
what if I moved fluids around inside the car (front to back) whose primary function wasn't ballast (ok, it has to be either the gas, or the coolant

... or 20 litres of isotonic drink for the driver I do not think there's a rule about how the drinking stuff for the driver has to be kept in the car, so you maybe could move (pump) it around in the car to influence weight distribution. Maybe a tank in the front and one in the back of the car or something like that.

[ray b]

long skinny tanks would max the transfer rates f/r with out needing a pump
and put the mass over the end doing the work but natural weights transfer
would tend to do that anyway

two weird ideas in one
airbags in a tank to compress fuel bag to limit sloshing and or move fuel into one end or out in to an other tank for right, left side of car transfer for improver grip in corners like a tandem gp bikes extra man does!!!!

[MarkWill]

Actually, it wasn't my intention to propose that GP cars slosh the fluids around - first I doubt there's the space, and second, I doubt the mass redistribution would have that significant effect when other parameters are considered (still, the long thin radiators are also better for heat transfer, and as you point out, if its free to flow front or back, the weight gets transferred to the part doing the work if the car's accelerating or braking). You'd have to place it underneath the car - there's nowhere else to put it

I thought the ballast was really used for trimming the cars handling (that famous ill-defined "balance" term). Some friends of mine were wondering if you could move the ballast mechanically to compensate for fuel consumption - they have an idea that they want to look at (purely for the interest side, but its more interesting if at the end there's a practical application).

[MRC]

That rule doesn't tell me specifically that you couldn't have some moveable ballast. It just says that you have to have a tool to remove it. No problem. Put a slab of lead on a carrier and have it attached with something that requires tools to remove it. Granted, I highly doubt that is in the spirit of the rules, but I still don't see the rules explicitly banning it. I would think that some hydraulically actuated moveable ballast could be of some use if it could be controlled and utilized properly. I would think moving fluids around might be a bit more onerous for the same effect, except in light of packaging constraints.

[howardt]

Originally posted by MRC
I highly doubt that is in the spirit of the rules, but I still don't see the rules explicitly banning it.

I remember Martin Brundle talking about the "spirit of the rules", concerning the michelin asymmetric grooves. He said :
"There's no such thing. In F1, it's either banned or it isn't"

I'd have thought that by the time you've got racks to sit your ballast on, and hefty motors to move it back & forth (possible against the natural motion of the car), then you've pretty much used up all the weight allocation you have with no ballast left !

[just me again]

Mercedes was using moving ballast in DTC and ITC. I think it was on some sort of sledge so it could be moved hydraulically to the back of the car when accelerating on to the middle for corneringbalance, they used it because they had traction problems ( only rearwheeldrive ) compared to the opposition. ( Alfa & Opel, 4-wheel drive ).
Bjørn

[MarkWill]

Actually, the ballast doesn't have to sit on racks - it could move along a channel, get shuttled by cables, or be a dense fluid moving around inside a bag.... these are just a few of the ways). I don't believe that the motors are that heavy either, and they could be part of the ballast - i.e. if racks/rails/channels ARE used, the motor assembly would drive itself along the rack (and thereby be moving ballast - you'd just have to make sure it couldn't fly off the racks, which is easy enough). I also take back my comment on space - it depends really on how much ballast you're going to move (you don't necessarily need a total solution). There you go....

[Pingu]

Whatever the wording of the regs, I'm sure that if an F1 scrute saw a moveable metal weight located anywhere on a car, then that car would be banned/protested or thrown out of the race immediately.

Using moveable fluids however would be different. I know that Mercury (nearly as dense/heavy as Lead) is used as ballast on submarines. It's used because it can be pumped fore/aft easily and is the fastest way of adjusting the trim. I suppose a similar setup could be installed on a car. But I doubt it's done in F1.

BTW, all references I've seen to ballast in F1 mention the material used as being Tungsten, which I don't understand, as Tungsten is a fair bit lighter than lead. I've also heard that DU (depleted Uranium) may be being used by some teams. Anyone know?

[Peter Perfect]

Originally posted by Pingu

BTW, all references I've seen to ballast in F1 mention the material used as being Tungsten, which I don't understand, as Tungsten is a fair bit lighter than lead. I've also heard that DU (depleted Uranium) may be being used by some teams. Anyone know?

If they've banned Be for safety reasons I can't see the FIA allowing depleted U.

[Pioneer]

You think they banned Be for safety reasons?

I've got a bridge I want to sell you.

[carlos.maza]

Hi all:

About fuel tanks.
Isn't there a rule that says that all the fuel must be kept within a certain width (forbidding lateral tanks) and between the driver and the engine. Or the only limitation is the width?

Thanks

Carlos

[MarkWill]

Just read that the FIA has issued a warning about ballast dropping off cars. I guess that's taking the "moving ballast" idea to extremes

[Crazy Canuck]

Originally posted by ray b

....airbags in a tank to compress fuel bag to limit sloshing and or move fuel into one end or out in to an other tank for right, left side of car transfer for improver grip in corners like a tandem gp bikes extra man does!!!!

I'm not sure what they do to limit fuel sloshing in F1 but in my race car fuel cells there is a special porous plastic foam to prevent fluid sloshing around.

CC

[Billy Gunn]

'Just Me Again'

You are right the Merc DTM cars did have moving ballast ... I believe they used mercury pumped through pipes to move both fore and aft as well as side to side (and by definition diagonally as well!!)

BG

[12.9:1]

Grams per cubic centimeter



Platinum________21.5
Gold___________19.29
Tungsten_______19.20
Uranium________19.10
Plutonium_______17.60
Mercury_________13.54
Palladium________12.0
Lead____________11.35


Iron, steel________7.9
Aluminum_________2.7
Lithium___________0.53


Racing Fuel_______0.775 (max)

[Jezztor]

Thanks 12.9:1, Tungsten seems to be the cheaper options from the above list. As far as I see it, if the liquid or metallic ballast is enclosed in a pipeline of sorts, that needs to be removed with tooling, the system is deemed legal. I know its hell of a hard to get around all wording, but that IMHO is an FIA loophole. I think they need to define ballast...

[Pingu]

Thanks also 12.9. Because Lead (Pb) was further up the periodic table, I assumed it would be heavier than Tungsten, but I was wrong. It's the specific gravity that matters.

Tungsten is obviously the way to go for ballast. I checked the prices on the London metal exchange and I'm surprised how cheap it is: just $3-4 per lb. Mercury is even less at $2.5 per lb.
Also, if you used Platinum as ballast (with the highest SG in your list) one kilo would cost approximately $19,500!!! I think even Ferrari aren't that rich.

don't know the cost of DU.

[Roland Kunz]

Hello

IIRC the ITC mercedes had said sleed over the rearaxle.
When the car was cornering the wight moved to the inside to get better traktion on the inner wheel.

Grüsse

[Aubwi]

If you had movable ballast, wouldn't it upset the car while the mercury ballast is in motion? I mean if you pump ballast to the right side of the car, then by Newtons third law the car should move left! The opposite of what you want. Once the ballast is in place it should do the trick, but it must be a real handfull for the driver while the ballast is pumping!

[Yelnats]

There would be a reaction but it would be insignificant. If the mass of material were pumped at an effective acceleration of 0.5 G it would be sufficient to move 80 kg of balast across the car (1m) in a few tenths of a second with only 40 kg of reaction, presumably this would be timed to occur between the corners.

[F1flagger]

I got a small chunk of ballast from Mika H's car a couple of years ago, it appeared (or at least I've always assumed) it was lead shot held together with resin. (It now sits up on the mantel, on a plexiglass pedastal inside a glass dome.)

[Pingu]

There's a short piece about ballast in this month's F1 Racing mag. The ballast is referred to as "mallory" which I assume is the name of the alloy, or maybe the trade name of the material. Can anyone enlighten us? Also the article mentions that some teams are running as much as 90Kgs of ballast which I find hard to believe. I thought 30-40 kgs would be correct.

[Evo One]

Originally posted by Pingu
The ballast is referred to as "mallory" which I assume is the name of the alloy, or maybe the trade name of the material. Can anyone enlighten us?

I think you'll find out here: http://www.mallory.c...ish/engmats.htm

It was only the 4th entry on a google search for 'mallory' ;)

[desmo]

"Mallory" of the sort likely used as ballast is basically Tungsten with small additions of Nickel and copper or iron. Listed densities in g per cc for the likely Mallory alloys are 18.0 or 18.1. Elemental Tungsten (W) is 19.3, Uranium 19.07, Gold 19.3, Rhenium 21.0, Platinum 21.4, Iridium 22.5 and the densest known element is (drum roll) Osmium with a density of 22.6g per cc.

It seems to me that as far as ballast, the denser the better as the smaller volume occupied for a given mass will allow more freedom of design. Other physical properties for pure ballast are likely only of minor importance. A "micro" black hole, or even a 90kg bit of a neutron star would be ideal from this perspective! Depleted uranium, compressed silicon carbide, and tungsten have been the primary ballasting materials used in F1 recently.

There are other areas, particularly in crank counterweights where a high density could pay dividends too, I'd think.