52 replies to this topic

[Ruud de la Rosa]

I have a small but difficult question: what is the material used in F1 for ballast?!

in a press statement by the FIA:

"• The minimum weight is reduced from 605 to 550kg (Article 4).
Reason: To eliminate the cost of purchasing 55kg of very expensive high density ballast for each car and transporting it all over the world. Cars will also be safer without this extra weight."

two things:
1) it's expensive to buy
2) it's expensive to transport?

heaviest element i found was Osmium weighing twice as much as lead. costing 100$ a gram not a real option? or is it? 55kgwould cost 5.5 million.... while lead would cost about nothing!

Ruudje

[Rene]

Correct me if I am wrong, but isnt most ballast made from tungsten?

[FordFan]

I think there was interest in depleted uranium for a time, but that was, to say the least, controversial.

[rhm]

yes. There was an article about it in RCE a while back. Apparently it's mined and refined (or whatever the process is called) in some central African country in really poor conditions. It's expensive, but not *that* expensive compared to the tousands of yards of carbon fibre pre-pregs they get though each year. At least the tungsten can be re-used.

[Milt]

Originally posted by Ruud de la Rosa
I have a small but difficult question: what is the material used in F1 for ballast?!

in a press statement by the FIA:

"• The minimum weight is reduced from 605 to 550kg (Article 4).
Reason: To eliminate the cost of purchasing 55kg of very expensive high density ballast for each car and transporting it all over the world. Cars will also be safer without this extra weight."

two things:
1) it's expensive to buy
2) it's expensive to transport?

heaviest element i found was Osmium weighing twice as much as lead. costing 100$ a gram not a real option? or is it? 55kgwould cost 5.5 million.... while lead would cost about nothing!

Ruudje

If you stop to think about this new rule for a moment, you'll realize that it is just total bullshit.

It costs exactly the same amount of dollars to transport 605 KG, from point 'A' to point 'B', regardless of whether that 605 KG is in the form of a complete, 605 KG 'car', or 550 KG of 'car' plus 55 KG of 'ballast'.

All this new rule does is to create a new 'weight-trimming' round for the manufacturers, so that they can get the 'car' weight down to, say 500 KG, and then have 50 KG of ballast to move around, within the car, to gain an advantage.

A lighter car will definitely stop quicker when it hits an opposing barrier, which would result in higher G-forces.
That's why many US citizens like the idea of SUVs... they'll go THROUGH the barrier, even if it's another, smaller car!

So this rule does the exact opposite of what it is stated to do.
"Trust in the FIA"

[V10 Fireworks]

Originally posted by Ruud de la Rosa
"• The minimum weight is reduced from 605 to 550kg (Article 4).

Wait, was this rule for this year only? This must make an improvement to what the lap times will be then this year offsetting the other things and making for other benifits, yet this is not something that seems to be considered much?

[V10 Fireworks]

Originally posted by Ruud de la Rosa
heaviest element i found was Osmium weighing twice as much as lead. costing 100$ a gram not a real option? or is it? 55kgwould cost 5.5 million....

Seems okay to fit in an F1 budget to me

There must be other health reasons, availibility reasons, chemical reasons (what's this Osmium like highly volatile? perfect for McLaren ;) ) or rules banning it.

[peroa]

Isn`t that ballast thing a proposal for 2008 ->...?

As far as I remember the ballast is made from Wolfram.



Source:


EDIT: one set costs about 40.000 €, each team uses about 10 sets.

[mclarenroxxors]

Originally posted by Milt
If you stop to think about this new rule for a moment, you'll realize that it is just total bullshit.

It costs exactly the same amount of dollars to transport 605 KG, from point 'A' to point 'B', regardless of whether that 605 KG is in the form of a complete, 605 KG 'car', or 550 KG of 'car' plus 55 KG of 'ballast'.

All this new rule does is to create a new 'weight-trimming' round for the manufacturers, so that they can get the 'car' weight down to, say 500 KG, and then have 50 KG of ballast to move around, within the car, to gain an advantage.

A lighter car will definitely stop quicker when it hits an opposing barrier, which would result in higher G-forces.
That's why many US citizens like the idea of SUVs... they'll go THROUGH the barrier, even if it's another, smaller car!

So this rule does the exact opposite of what it is stated to do.
"Trust in the FIA"

what would the advantage be to have a 500kg car with 50kg ballast opposed to a 550 kg car?

[Isamu77]

you could move the (55kg ballast) weight around the car for balance, lowering cog etc

[Ross Stonefeld]

So much for slowing laptimes.

[Ruud de la Rosa]

tungsten cost about $250dollar per 8 kilo (2004 price was $80 per 8kilo). how heavy is that $40.000 set? 40.000/80*8=4000kg?

accoring to this link tungsten was a very good investment!

http://www.primaryme...gstenPrices.asp

[DSP]

Originally posted by Milt ... A lighter car will definitely stop quicker when it hits an opposing barrier, which would result in higher G-forces...

...So this rule does the exact opposite of what it is stated to do....

Wrong...

A lighter car will definitely be more "easily catchable" by any sand trap, tire wall, tarmac run-offs,... ...you name it.

As long as all the cars on track weight the same, a lighter car will definitely be a safer one.

[Dragonfly]

Originally posted by peroa
Isn`t that ballast thing a proposal for 2008 ->...?

As far as I remember the ballast is made from Wolfram.



Source:


EDIT: one set costs about 40.000 €, each team uses about 10 sets.

IIRC Wolfram = Tungsten.
In Bulgarian we use the word "Wolfram".
AFAIK it combines two important properties - it's heavy and hard.

[Youichi]

Originally posted by mclarenroxxors
what would the advantage be to have a 500kg car with 50kg ballast opposed to a 550 kg car?

The center of gravity is lower.

The ballast can be moved, from front to rear, to change the handling.

Generally, the teams try to build a light chassis, with a lot of ballast, so give them greater flexibilty in where they put the weight.

[peroa]

Yes, you are right - Tungsten - I checked it on Wikipedia:


Click!

[Clatter]

Originally posted by Milt
All this new rule does is to create a new 'weight-trimming' round for the manufacturers, so that they can get the 'car' weight down to, say 500 KG, and then have 50 KG of ballast to move around, within the car, to gain an advantage.

If they could trim that much wouldnt they already have done so, and be using 100kg of ballast?

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by DSP



As long as all the cars on track weight the same, a lighter car will definitely be a safer one.

Even if its going faster when it crashes?

[Majarvis]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld


Even if its going faster when it crashes?

Yes, because when you lower the mass (reduce the inertia in the impact) there are less forces being applied to the object. So, a 550 kg car will produce fewer Gs on a driver in an impact than a 605 kg car would.

[Radz]

Originally posted by Ruud de la Rosa
I have a small but difficult question: what is the material used in F1 for ballast?!

Montoya?


Radz

[tombr]

Yes, because when you lower the mass (reduce the inertia in the impact) there are less forces being applied to the object. So, a 550 kg car will produce fewer Gs on a driver in an impact than a 605 kg car would.

Lowering the mass of the car/driver combination will stop the car/driver combination in a shorter distance. However, the internal organs of the driver are subjected to greater Gs than if the car/driver combination were stopped over a greater distance. You don't see drivers getting carried off in an ambulance when the car stops over a hundred yards in a gravel trap. They do get carried off in an ambulance when they stop in a few feet by barriers.

[Melbourne Park]

If they were serious about reducing cost, they would have introduced a C of G for the chassis (including the driver's weight and C of G). That way, the enormous efforts to lower C of G would be a silly waste of money. If the cars get too fast, they could then simply advised the teams that they had to change the C of G to a higher point, hence slowing the cars down. OK they have a C of G for the engine, why not the car?

[Milt]

Originally posted by tombr


Lowering the mass of the car/driver combination will stop the car/driver combination in a shorter distance. However, the internal organs of the driver are subjected to greater Gs than if the car/driver combination were stopped over a greater distance. You don't see drivers getting carried off in an ambulance when the car stops over a hundred yards in a gravel trap. They do get carried off in an ambulance when they stop in a few feet by barriers.

An excellent explanation, tombr!
Thank you for that.
It is the reason that my original post included the word "barrier"...
"A lighter car will definitely stop quicker when it hits an opposing barrier, which would result in higher G-forces..."

When it comes to things like concrete, and Armco, as is used extensively at Monaco, I'd much rather hit it in a big truck, than a 550 KG F1 car.

[senna da silva]

Sorry but inertia and the dissipation of energy is always less in a lighter vehicle. Do the math.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Milt
An excellent explanation, tombr!
Thank you for that.
It is the reason that my original post included the word "barrier"...
"A lighter car will definitely stop quicker when it hits an opposing barrier, which would result in higher G-forces..."

When it comes to things like concrete, and Armco, as is used extensively at Monaco, I'd much rather hit it in a big truck, than a 550 KG F1 car.

Are you kidding? F1 car's hit concrete better than any "truck". The area where SUV's have a safety benefit is in two car accidents, when one is an SUV. Best advantage is when a small car hits an SUV's side. And all that is not a given. Besides the primary issue of avoiding an accident in the first place. Like, having driven one a bit, a Porsche Cayenne is an unwieldy beast compared to most cars. Anyway, I guess an SUV can handle ballast - but let's not think being heavy is an advantage when your hitting a tree or a bridge, which is what some F1 barriers can resemble (but not many left these days).

[Milt]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Are you kidding? F1 car's hit concrete better than any "truck". The area where SUV's have a safety benefit is in two car accidents, when one is an SUV. Best advantage is when a small car hits an SUV's side. And all that is not a given. Besides the primary issue of avoiding an accident in the first place. Like, having driven one a bit, a Porsche Cayenne is an unwieldy beast compared to most cars. Anyway, I guess an SUV can handle ballast - but let's not think being heavy is an advantage when your hitting a tree or a bridge, which is what some F1 barriers can resemble (but not many left these days).

No, I don't kid about important things.
If you are discussing hitting a concrete bridge abutment head on, at speed, (say, at Suzuka), then it really won't matter very much what you are driving.
You are as good as 'dead', in any F1 car, or a truck, but an air-bag might give you a snowballs chance of survival.

But if we are talking about hitting Armco, as is used extensively at Monaco (and some other tracks), if you go square on into Armco, at high speed, with a light car, the car stops, and rather suddenly.
Your brain-case also stops quite suddenly (seat belts, and the HANS device).
But your brain cells want to keep on going, and end up plastered all over the inside of your forehead.

If your car is heavy enough to go through the Armco, then the RATE of deceleration is much less, and there is a better chance for those same cells to survive the crash.

And of course the best solution is to avoid the accident in the first place, but the reason for referring to them as 'accidents' is because nobody really means to have one on purpose (Tony Stewart at the 500 last weekend, might be the 'exception that proves the rule' here)

[Melbourne Park]

[ the dr posted by Milt [/i]
No, I don't kid about important things.
If you are discussing hitting a concrete bridge abutment head on, at speed, (say, at Suzuka), then it really won't matter very much what you are driving.
You are as good as 'dead', in any F1 car, or a truck, but an air-bag might give you a snowballs chance of survival.

But if we are talking about hitting Armco, as is used extensively at Monaco (and some other tracks), if you go square on into Armco, at high speed, with a light car, the car stops, and rather suddenly.
Your brain-case also stops quite suddenly (seat belts, and the HANS device).
But your brain cells want to keep on going, and end up plastered all over the inside of your forehead.

If your car is heavy enough to go through the Armco, then the RATE of deceleration is much less, and there is a better chance for those same cells to survive the crash.

And of course the best solution is to avoid the accident in the first place, but the reason for referring to them as 'accidents' is because nobody really means to have one on purpose (Tony Stewart at the 500 last weekend, might be the 'exception that proves the rule' here) [/QUOTE]

There are numerous accidents that F1 cars have which if one was in an SUV, everyone would be well dead.

Incidentally, air bags are not necessary in F1 cars, because the drivers wear crash helmets.

No disrespect meant Milt, I understand your argument. But the concept of braking through the Armco is naïve. As an example there are things behind the Armco, like buildings. Armco trips up SUVs, that begin disintegrating, parts of what’s left of the vehicle smash over the Armco and roll while turning into bits.

In Australia, most fatalities happen in the countryside. Hitting trees is the big killer. When an SUV hits a tree, its not an issue of the tree moving, because they don't: its an issue of how well the vehicle deforms. Weight is of no benefit in that situation. Weight however dissadvantages a vehicle trying to slow down. As to Armco, its designed to run the vehicle along the road, to deflect the vehicle away from what the armco is protecting, typically a cliff fall, rocks or trees or the other side of the road. An SUV may handle that manoevre worse than a vehicle.

Incidentally, we have an SUV, and if I am stationary and someone runs into it, its not the worst place to be. But size and weight does not often mean more safety.

[Milt]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park
There are numerous accidents that F1 cars have which if one was in an SUV, everyone would be well dead.

Incidentally, air bags are not necessary in F1 cars, because the drivers wear crash helmets.

No disrespect meant Milt, I understand your argument. But the concept of braking through the Armco is naïve. As an example there are things behind the Armco, like buildings. Armco trips up SUVs, that begin disintegrating, parts of what’s left of the vehicle smash over the Armco and roll while turning into bits.

In Australia, most fatalities happen in the countryside. Hitting trees is the big killer. When an SUV hits a tree, its not an issue of the tree moving, because they don't: its an issue of how well the vehicle deforms. Weight is of no benefit in that situation. Weight however dissadvantages a vehicle trying to slow down. As to Armco, its designed to run the vehicle along the road, to deflect the vehicle away from what the Armco is protecting, typically a cliff fall, rocks or trees or the other side of the road. An SUV may handle that manoevre worse than a vehicle.

Incidentally, we have an SUV, and if I am stationary and someone runs into it, its not the worst place to be. But size and weight does not often mean more safety.

Melbourne Park, with all due respect, you are missing my point, which is that IT IS THE G-FORCES that kill.
If your SUV hits a tree, and the tree is large enough that your SUV suddenly STOPS, so does your skull, but your brain cells try to keep on going (Newton's third? law of motion.... a body in motion tends to continue in a straight line), and that's what kills.

Now, if you hit that same tree in a Road Train, what would happen ???
Do you understand what I'm attempting to convey to you ???

Size DOES MATTER, as long as the object being struck has SOME 'bend-ability', or 'break-ability', to it, and that there is enough momentum in the vehicle striking the barrier to continue moving, rather than coming to a sudden and abrupt halt.
An old Sky-diver's joke is that "It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end"

It is the reason that MOST of the Nascar tracks have added 'soft-walls' to their tracks, in front of the old, still existing concrete barriers.
A soft wall has some 'give' to it, (not a lot, but SOME), and it is this 'give' that is saving lives.
The deceleration is NOT as dramatic, and it's enough to make the difference.

Give you another example... in your SUV, if you had to chose, would you rather T-bone a small car, or go into the side of an 18-wheeler ???
Why ?

[peroa]

Let`s say we have two F1 cars, one is 600kg and one is 500kg, experiencing a frontal crash into a wall.
As we all know the crash structure of a F1 car is the nose cone made out of carbon fibre which breaks into pieces (and dust) and absorbs energy.



Now, my guess, with plain and simple logic is, that the 600kg F1 would destroy the nose cone a lot faster and absorb less energy so the driver would be exposed to more g-forces.


While the lighter car which carries less energy, since its mass is lower, would destroy the nose cone less fast and so there is more time to stop the car which means less g-forces.


Correct me if I`m wrong...

[Milt]

Originally posted by peroa
Let`s say we have two F1 cars, one is 600kg and one is 500kg, experiencing a frontal crash into a wall.
As we all know the crash structure of a F1 car is the nose cone made out of carbon fibre which breaks into pieces (and dust) and absorbs energy.



Now, my guess, with plain and simple logic is, that the 600kg F1 would destroy the nose cone a lot faster and absorb less energy so the driver would be exposed to more g-forces.


While the lighter car which carries less energy, since its mass is lower, would destroy the nose cone less fast and so there is more time to stop the car which means less g-forces.


Correct me if I`m wrong...

You would be 100% right, IF you are going to assume the nose-cones are IDENTICAL , on both cars.

But, if one car is 100 KG heavier than the other, I think it is logical to assume that SOME of that extra weight is going to be composed of a thicker, heavier, 'survival cell'.
So it would "break into pieces (and dust) and absorb energy" at a slower rate.
And would absorb more energy, while doing so.
But it would NEED TO, because it has more momentum (600 KG versus 500 KG, @ xxx MPH), to dissipate.

But in either case, I believe that you are talking, (and I'm assuming), an 'immovable barrier', like a concrete bridge abutment.
What happens if you now put those same two cars into, say, a tire wall ???
The tires would 'give' more, to the heavier car, because of it's greater momentum, and therefore the car would slow down at a slower rate. (lower G-forces on the driver)

[peroa]

I believe the FIA crash tests are not made with tyre walls.;)

Well the nose cones are almost identical since they have to make it thorugh the FIA crash tests like sidepods and the rear structure.
They all must absorb a certain amount of energy and almost every year the minimum is set higher.

[Milt]

Originally posted by peroa
I believe the FIA crash tests are not made with tyre walls.;)

Well the nose cones are almost identical since they have to make it thorugh the FIA crash tests like sidepods and the rear structure.
They all must absorb a certain amount of energy and almost every year the minimum is set higher.

Are you suggesting that if the FIA reduces the car weight, that they will also reduce the impact that the survival cell must withstand ???
I think otherwise.
If anything, they will increase it, which makes it even more difficult for the chassis manufacturers to trim some weight.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Milt
Melbourne Park, with all due respect, you are missing my point, which is that IT IS THE G-FORCES that kill.
If your SUV hits a tree, and the tree is large enough that your SUV suddenly STOPS, so does your skull, but your brain cells try to keep on going (Newton's third? law of motion.... a body in motion tends to continue in a straight line), and that's what kills.

Now, if you hit that same tree in a Road Train, what would happen ???
Do you understand what I'm attempting to convey to you ???

Size DOES MATTER, as long as the object being struck has SOME 'bend-ability', or 'break-ability', to it, and that there is enough momentum in the vehicle striking the barrier to continue moving, rather than coming to a sudden and abrupt halt.
An old Sky-diver's joke is that "It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop at the end"

It is the reason that MOST of the Nascar tracks have added 'soft-walls' to their tracks, in front of the old, still existing concrete barriers.
A soft wall has some 'give' to it, (not a lot, but SOME), and it is this 'give' that is saving lives.
The deceleration is NOT as dramatic, and it's enough to make the difference.

Give you another example... in your SUV, if you had to chose, would you rather T-bone a small car, or go into the side of an 18-wheeler ???
Why ?

Concerning the last question, I would prefer the 18 wheeler. Because I am a sensable driver, and since you've put me in such a situation, I wouldn't want to kill anybody else as well as me; so I'd prefer to wreck the 18 wheeler. Unless of course it was a Shell fuel truck. Exploding that everywhere would be even more anti-social.

Incidentally I have often pointed out your viewpoint to others. It stands, but only in some situations. In Australia, the statistics for inter vehicle accidents show that such accidents are not the big killers. its country roads where most people get killed. If you've got a SUV as we have (not our only vehicle), they are not as safe in most country accidents, and they are not as easy to stear in an emergency situation.

Lets just straighten a couple of things. Many SUVs have a chassis. Such trucks don't absorb much shock. Even those with chassis that have deformable members, are very crude, featuring a break point in the chassis, and weakened dimples in the body work to try and absorb some inertia. In an inter vehicle accident, such as a head on accident, the SUV has a big advantage because it might go over the top,and as you say it has a mass advantage. But that's a rare accident. In an offset accident, the circumstances are very different, and there will be an offset crash and then typically a following accident. In that situation, I rather be in the car. Many SUVs have now gone to mono platforms, no chassis. They have better crumple zones. But such SUVs don't have that much extra weight.

Personally I would rather have less weight and better braking and handling, than more weight and less of the former two.

Concerning your point about the brain against the skull, the crumple zones on modern cars (very recent ones) are much superior to most SUVs crumple zones. That initial impact is what creates the brain issue. We're talking just a bit of a second. And in such accidents, its not the deceleration that kills at all. Its the skull being crushed into the brain, and the wounds to the body. If a person is in an accident where the brain hits the skull, the body will be gone anyhow. That's where we're at at the moment. And it's why for instance MB have seat belt technology that tightens, and vario speed air bags that react to the type of accident, and whay they've spent a lot on the crumple technology, and even how the car body moves in various accident circumstances.

SUVs have better visability, and I think that's a great safety issue, because it calms the driver down to see what is going on, and in traffic the SUV can see more and is better seen as well. But so what: traffic accidents are not where people get killed, and in such accidents, the benefits of the SUV only rarely apply.

[peroa]

Originally posted by Milt
Are you suggesting that if the FIA reduces the car weight, that they will also reduce the impact that the survival cell must withstand ???
I think otherwise.
If anything, they will increase it, which makes it even more difficult for the chassis manufacturers to trim some weight.

No I wrote the opposite.
The crash tests are getting tougher almost every year. This year for example it was the rear structure.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, but English is not me mothers`s language.

[Milt]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park


Concerning the last question, I would prefer the 18 wheeler. Because I am a sensible driver, and since you've put me in such a situation, I wouldn't want to kill anybody else as well as me; so I'd prefer to wreck the 18 wheeler. Unless of course it was a Shell fuel truck. Exploding that everywhere would be even more anti-social.

Incidentally I have often pointed out your viewpoint to others. It stands, but only in some situations. In Australia, the statistics for inter vehicle accidents show that such accidents are not the big killers. its country roads where most people get killed. If you've got a SUV as we have (not our only vehicle), they are not as safe in most country accidents, and they are not as easy to steer in an emergency situation.

Lets just straighten a couple of things. Many SUVs have a chassis. Such trucks don't absorb much shock. Even those with chassis that have deformable members, are very crude, featuring a break point in the chassis, and weakened dimples in the body work to try and absorb some inertia. In an inter vehicle accident, such as a head on accident, the SUV has a big advantage because it might go over the top,and as you say it has a mass advantage. But that's a rare accident. In an offset accident, the circumstances are very different, and there will be an offset crash and then typically a following accident. In that situation, I rather be in the car. Many SUVs have now gone to mono platforms, no chassis. They have better crumple zones. But such SUVs don't have that much extra weight.

Personally I would rather have less weight and better braking and handling, than more weight and less of the former two.

Concerning your point about the brain against the skull, the crumple zones on modern cars (very recent ones) are much superior to most SUVs crumple zones. That initial impact is what creates the brain issue. We're talking just a bit of a second. And in such accidents, its not the deceleration that kills at all. Its the skull being crushed into the brain, and the wounds to the body. If a person is in an accident where the brain hits the skull, the body will be gone anyhow. That's where we're at at the moment. And it's why for instance MB have seat belt technology that tightens, and vario speed air bags that react to the type of accident, and whay they've spent a lot on the crumple technology, and even how the car body moves in various accident circumstances.

SUVs have better visibility, and I think that's a great safety issue, because it calms the driver down to see what is going on, and in traffic the SUV can see more and is better seen as well. But so what: traffic accidents are not where people get killed, and in such accidents, the benefits of the SUV only rarely apply.

I would agree that handling and braking are much, MUCH, more important than sheer mass, especially when it comes to AVOIDING that accident.

I drove this thing for over 15 years, in all weather, (not by choice), and the only 'accident' I was ever involved in was when I drove OVER a Geo Metro, in congested traffic.
(I forgot that the back end of the T-bucket was about 1 1/2 feet wider than the front)

Visibility was excellent, it would go like stink, (2000 Lbs, 450 HP), stop pretty quick, and it would actually handle reasonably well.
(a lot of 'gas-pedal over-steer' WAS available, right there under your right foot)

But what I chose to drive in Oz was a Holden Panel Van, which weighed in at over 4000 Lbs.
I was happy with it for all-around driving, and saw a Helluvalot of Oz in that machine.
Won a few races in it too...


I eventually rolled that Holden into a ball, on a country road, because some idiot had put the lock washer on the wrong side of the nut that holds the steering knuckle to the steering spindle.
(it was still in-between the knuckle and the arm, after we towed it 'home'... the nut was long gone, by that time)
But, it was an awful lot of fun, while it lasted.

'Crumple zones' are a good thing, but SUVs are not being built that way to create safety, it's because steel costs money.
If the vehicle is lighter, it's cheaper to produce.
The 'crumple zone' is a by-product, (albeit a good one)

So, if your only choice is the passenger side of a small car, and the cab of an 18-wheeler, what would you chose ??? (no deaths, or serious injuries involved here)

[Melbourne Park]

Hah Milt! Got mate who won $20G last year at Bathurst with his Holden HQ Rod with a bright yellow paint job.

Another neighbour is a Holden engineer, he tells me things too; but for this reference, Frank Pound, GMH head of safety for many years, I've known him for most of my life (via the yacht club).

I had a roller for years: that was heavy, but strong. It had alloy all over the place. Now it was safe alright.

To argue that weight is reduced because its costly? That's silly. The A-class MB cost 1 billion Euro, in R&D! Why bother? Its not lighter than the previous one! And, its mostly high tensile steel now.

I love the blue machine ... fabulous. But, stop pretty well! No way!!

Who cares about safety if you can drive?

I wanted my Dad to get a new car ... he's very old. He did not want to learn another vehicle, so got him a newer version of his old car, a 90,000 km 420 SE MB, the last of the series. A friend's car. Its designed to survive the accident. But its not as safe as a modern one, which is lighter. Which would be safer, the 1990 W126 420SE, or a new, lighter one?

[PassWind]

Milt why would it not suprise me that it was raining in Heathcote around April.

The good old shaggin wagon, not much else was as practicable when traveling around the place.

[roadie]

I would be all for a reduction in ballast. There's no point to the minumum weight that the cars are having to run at the moment, as they are all massively underweight. Reducing the cars weight would make the momentum on the point of impact smaller and therefore safer. Speeds would not be increased, although acceleration would be quicker.

[MarkWRX]

One of the concerns also is that ballast can come loose in a bad crash and then you might have a small, dense object flying around at fairly high speed.

Mark

[Clatter]

Originally posted by MarkWRX
One of the concerns also is that ballast can come loose in a bad crash and then you might have a small, dense object flying around at fairly high speed.

Mark

Although it cannot be 100% discounted, but when was the last time ballast went flying?

[kayemod]

Originally posted by MarkWRX
One of the concerns also is that ballast can come loose in a bad crash and then you might have a small, dense object flying around at fairly high speed.

Mark

AFAIK it hasn't happened yet, but the very possibility is something that the FIA have expressed concerns about in recent months. As they make cars ever lighter, teams run out of ballast space in the plank, so they were adding it to front wings, to move the CG forward and load the front tyres. Wings are usually the first things to come off the car in a crash of course.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by kayemod
AFAIK it hasn't happened yet, but the very possibility is something that the FIA have expressed concerns about in recent months. As they make cars ever lighter, teams run out of ballast space in the plank, so they were adding it to front wings, to move the CG forward and load the front tyres. Wings are usually the first things to come off the car in a crash of course.

Once again, a C of G for the body would remove ballast. Instead of ballast, a car would put the weight into the body I presume. Of course for and aft balast would be needed for balance the car, but that is minor, and you need to ballast cars to pass the C of G.

[PassWind]

Originally posted by Clatter


Although it cannot be 100% discounted, but when was the last time ballast went flying?

Does it really matter, when one of those things hits something hard enough the whole car turns in a shrapnel device. But indicative of what something with mass can do if loose if the deaths of Senna and Graham Beveridge the track Marshall at the 2001 Australian GP. Hopefully the tyre tethers work better now than they once did.

Less Mass equals less smash

[Milt]

Originally posted by PassWind
EDIT:
Less Mass equals less smash

I agree with you 100%

But, if you are the person (the guy behind the wheel), that WAS in control of the vehicle that is now completely OUT of control, and you are headed straight into a tire barrier, with a concrete or Armco barrier on the far side of it, would you prefer to be the pilot of of an F1 car, or a locomotive.

The point I have been trying to make, (recently), is that SIZE DOES MATTER!

The point I was trying to make in my original post, (number 5, in this thread), is that the rule, as a whole, is total bullshit.
It WILL NOT save ANY money, (quite the opposite), and it will NOT make the cars any safer, not for the drivers.


@ Melbourne Park,
If the engineering of the 'crumple zones' are similar between the two cars, then go with the heavier one.
The gas mileage won't be as good, it won't accelerate, or stop, or handle, as well as the lighter version, but I'll put my money on the locomotive, or the Road Train, every time!

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Milt
...
@ Melbourne Park,
If the engineering of the 'crumple zones' are similar between the two cars, then go with the heavier one.
The gas mileage won't be as good, it won't accelerate, or stop, or handle, as well as the lighter version, but I'll put my money on the locomotive, or the Road Train, every time!

Well, no way would I want to be in a road train. Sure the cab might penetrate a barrier a bit deeper, but the rest of the train will then keep on going too, and it will arrive for sure ...

If two vehicles have similar crumple zone effectiveness, I would not just consider the weight. Height, handling, braking, technology all affect what I would want. In the USA, the safest sports car for years has been the Miata, Mazda MX5 over here. The Mustang has had close to it in safety stats, maybe better now and then i recall. but, the Mazda should be a death trap according to the light is unsafe proposition.

[Milt]

Originally posted by Melbourne Park

Well, no way would I want to be in a road train. Sure the cab might penetrate a barrier a bit deeper, but the rest of the train will then keep on going too, and it will arrive for sure ...

If two vehicles have similar crumple zone effectiveness, I would not just consider the weight. Height, handling, braking, technology all affect what I would want. In the USA, the safest sports car for years has been the Miata, Mazda MX5 over here. The Mustang has had close to it in safety stats, maybe better now and then i recall. but, the Mazda should be a death trap according to the light is unsafe proposition.

And how do the survival rates of 18-wheeler drivers compare with those of the Miata ???
No need to consider it on the basis of total number of miles driven per year.

[Melbourne Park]

Originally posted by Milt
And how do the survival rates of 18-wheeler drivers compare with those of the Miata ???
No need to consider it on the basis of total number of miles driven per year.

There aren't any proffessional Miata drivers, so Miatas don't do similar mileages ... but its a point: 18 wheeler drivers are professionals, but they still have accidents. Bongo vans in India might have better stats ...

I think an 18 wheeler that does not have a load, is safer than one with an extra 18.5 tonnes of load on it. Do you agree?

[PassWind]

Originally posted by Milt
I agree with you 100%

But, if you are the person (the guy behind the wheel), that WAS in control of the vehicle that is now completely OUT of control, and you are headed straight into a tire barrier, with a concrete or Armco barrier on the far side of it, would you prefer to be the pilot of of an F1 car, or a locomotive.

I see your point but on a race track everything on the outside is supposed to keep everything on the inside in a crash instance. But you agree that lighter car will be ******** by sand traps faster than a heavier machine, then the speed at which you hit the imovable object will be less and thus lower instant G's on striking it.

There is nothing on a race track that will allow an extra 50kg to punch through it, you just hit it harder. If I would rather be in a locomotive or a car in this case which we are talking about F1, the object being hit is imovable and the end result of a 150ton loco or a 550kg race car at 300kph will be very simular except the size of the mess. I would rather be in the 550kg race car because I may be slowed by run off and I will have a safety cell that is designed to colapse keep me in one bit and reduce the G-force on impact to my body. The locomotive will not be slowed hit it with all its mass smash into a little bits with poor me in the front kissing my ass goodbye.

Technically in design there should no reason that you cannot make the crush rate of the lighter car match that of the heavier which should govern the G-Force moment on the driver on impact. By this I mean the peak G-Force impact at a dead hit to the driver, because you mitigate it in car by design within the parameters set by the tech regs, I don't see a reason you can't make the 550kg car crush in the same manner.

So if you can manage the moment of impact to be the same if not better than the heavier car surely the natural advantage you get in more effective off track captive devices the safer it ought to be.

[Clatter]

Originally posted by PassWind
Less Mass equals less smash

Can't disagree with that, but lets be realistic here.

How much less smash does 50kg actually make in relation to an F1 crash? and would this really make the driver safer to a degree that is worth talking about?

[kayemod]

Originally posted by Clatter


Can't disagree with that, but lets be realistic here.

How much less smash does 50kg actually make in relation to an F1 crash? and would this really make the driver safer to a degree that is worth talking about?

No, not to any degree worth talking about if it was distributed evenly around the car, but try lifting 50kg, it's quite a lot. If a fair proportion of that weight was in some component like the front wing to move the CG forward, that wing would be quite a missile if it flew off. The FIA said some time ago that they are going to get a lot stricter in where teams are allowed to fit ballast.