Red Bull RB18

[Big Tea]

Does anyone have a guess how much RB18 weight distribution differs from the RB16b? My guess is it's much more towards the rear which causes the balance issues (amongst understeer) . If they want to get it near RB16b weight balance then they'll have to use ballast on the front so they'll need to shave off much more than the 15kg overweight.

Correct me if i am wrong, but if i remember correctly, the weight distribution is fixed in the technical regulary and there is not much room to play with. So if my memory does not trick me here, its not possible that the RB18 has a weight distribution "much more" towards the rear than the RB16B.

Heiko Wasser, a German F1 commentator, just said that Verstappen said there was fluid everywhere in the car...

So what do you do if you're overweight and the excessve weight is in the back?

Add weight to the front. Thats the catch 22

The car has to be 55/45 in the regs (rounded)

(edit, sorry, misunderstood the question. I though it was to meet the legal COG balance regs)

[AR3-GP]

Does anyone have a guess how much RB18 weight distribution differs from the RB16b? My guess is it's much more towards the rear which causes the balance issues (amongst understeer) . If they want to get it near RB16b weight balance then they'll have to use ballast on the front so they'll need to shave off much more than the 15kg overweight.

Correct me if i am wrong, but if i remember correctly, the weight distribution is fixed in the technical regulary and there is not much room to play with. So if my memory does not trick me here, its not possible that the RB18 has a weight distribution "much more" towards the rear than the RB16B.

Heiko Wasser, a German F1 commentator, just said that Verstappen said there was fluid everywhere in the car...

So what do you do if you're overweight and the excessve weight is in the back?

Then you just remove the ballast from the front.

To give you an exaggerated example that should not be taken literally, a 0.5kg subtraction of ballast in the tip of the nose can restore the weight distribution that has been shifted forwards by removing 3kg of mass at the back of the car. The location of the weight matters.

Considering that the RB18 is estimated to be only around 13kg overweight for a gross weight of over 800kg, then you can see that a 13Kg reduction of weight will not require that much correction by way of ballast to restore the regulated weight distribution.

[vorticism]

What was the reasoning for a spec weight distribution? Maybe Pirelli requested it.

On the radio it sounded like VES said there's 'weird fluid in the car' or 'everywhere' or something like that. So maybe that German reporter heard better than I did. There's a radiator connected to the roll hoop so if that sprung a leak it could potentially spray into the cockpit. Who knows.

[AR3-GP]

What was the reasoning for a spec weight distribution? Maybe Pirelli requested it.

On the radio it sounded like VES said there's 'weird fluid in the car' or 'everywhere' or something like that. So maybe that German reporter heard better than I did. There's a radiator connected to the roll hoop so if that sprung a leak it could potentially spray into the cockpit. Who knows.

If I'm not mistaken, there is even a small purse sized oil reservoir located just behind the roll hoop straddling the intake air duct underneath the engine covering.

[Andi76]

What was the reasoning for a spec weight distribution? Maybe Pirelli requested it.

On the radio it sounded like VES said there's 'weird fluid in the car' or 'everywhere' or something like that. So maybe that German reporter heard better than I did. There's a radiator connected to the roll hoop so if that sprung a leak it could potentially spray into the cockpit. Who knows.

Wasn't the reason for the spec weight distribution that teams played around with it too much and used expensive materials? I am not sure any more, but i remember that in the early 00's teams like Ferrari were able to play with 100 kg of ballast. And they used the ballast differently(forward/rearward)in race and qualifying conditions.

[Alexf1]

Correct me if i am wrong, but if i remember correctly, the weight distribution is fixed in the technical regulary and there is not much room to play with. So if my memory does not trick me here, its not possible that the RB18 has a weight distribution "much more" towards the rear than the RB16B.

Heiko Wasser, a German F1 commentator, just said that Verstappen said there was fluid everywhere in the car...

So what do you do if you're overweight and the excessve weight is in the back?

Then you just remove the ballast from the front.

To give you an exaggerated example that should not be taken literally, a 0.5kg subtraction of ballast in the tip of the nose can restore the weight distribution that has been shifted forwards by removing 3kg of mass at the back of the car. The location of the weight matters.

Considering that the RB18 is estimated to be only around 13kg overweight for a gross weight of over 800kg, then you can see that a 13Kg reduction of weight will not require that much correction by way of ballast to restore the regulated weight distribution.

Removing the ballast from the front of the car after you found a way to make the overweight rear lighter is clear. That's for the future, but by getting in this situation you first will have to find significant weight saving in the back. Also, the more ballast weight in the tip of the nose the more weight is outside the center of the car which is not what you want as it affects balance during accelleration and braking. Best situation would be to be able to save weight off the rear corners of the car. Maybe even if the RB18 is made13kg lighter it will still need ballast weight because it's not reduced where it matters most.

[godlameroso]

Moving COG to the rear helps the car rotate, which can come in handy in slow corners, it also seems to play with COP to affect porpoising.

Perhaps the two create a sort of springboard effect when they're too far separated.

[Vanja #66]

Moving COG to the rear helps the car rotate, which can come in handy in slow corners, it also seems to play with COP to affect porpoising.

Perhaps the two create a sort of springboard effect when they're too far separated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2uS4LJaqKE

How does the rearward CoG help the car rotate? Where should the CoP be relative to CoG?

[Juzh]

There is think around 14 kg of play in weight distribution. Obviously it would be near impossible to balance the car perfectly 45/55. I believe it was mentioned during one of practice sessions by either sky commentary team or f1tv (palmer and co), I'm not sure.

[AR3-GP]

Moving COG to the rear helps the car rotate, which can come in handy in slow corners, it also seems to play with COP to affect porpoising.

Perhaps the two create a sort of springboard effect when they're too far separated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2uS4LJaqKE

How does the rearward CoG help the car rotate? Where should the CoP be relative to CoG?

Mid and rear engine cars without aerodynamics always seem to have better rotation than front engine cars of similar mass. There is a lot of real world evidence of this. It's not intuitive to understand because at first you might wonder why would a car that has less weight over the front wheels (i.e less grip) rotate more?

[AR3-GP]

There is think around 14 kg of play in weight distribution. Obviously it would be near impossible to balance the car perfectly 45/55. I believe it was mentioned during one of practice sessions by either sky commentary team or f1tv (palmer and co), I'm not sure.

If you don't carry any significant digits, it's not that hard. Ballast in the nose allows one to fine tune.

[Rodak]

From the 2022 Technical Regulations...

4.2 Mass distribution
With the car resting on a horizontal plane the mass measured at the front and rear axles must
not be less than the mass specified in Article 4.1 factored by 0.440 and 0.540 respectively at
all times during the qualifying practice session. Rounding will be to nearest 0.5kg.
If, when required for checking, a car is not already fitted with dry-weather tyres, its mass will
be determined using a set of dry-weather tyres selected by the FIA technical delegate

So there's no chance to move weight preferentially to either end of the car. Some of the discussion about ballast placement and c.g. refers to polar moment of inertia. By having the masses contributing to the c.g. closer to the c.g. that moment is reduced, allowing quicker response from steering inputs. You can have exactly the same c.g. position with weight at the ends as with the masses closer to the c.g.

[godlameroso]

Moving COG to the rear helps the car rotate, which can come in handy in slow corners, it also seems to play with COP to affect porpoising.

Perhaps the two create a sort of springboard effect when they're too far separated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2uS4LJaqKE

How does the rearward CoG help the car rotate? Where should the CoP be relative to CoG?

You ever lift throttle oversteer on an old 911? It doesn't rotate so much as simply swap ends. That's an extreme example. In general terms, the car pivots around the COG correct? COP should induce oversteer at low speed, forward of COG, and migrate towards COG for a neutral but oversteery high speed, personal preference. It's probably faster to have the COP behind the COG, but that might be what triggers the porpoising.

One thing I heard LeClerc mention, is how he has to use the throttle to steer the Ferrari. Perhaps the mechanical setup is built for oversteer, and the aero balance is built for understeer by having the COG and COP far rearwards. Chassis compliance + aero forces create a springboard effect? Not sure, would be interesting to get some data to analyze.

Back to the Red Bull car, I wonder if the new wing endplates worked as intended, maybe the changes alter COP in ways they hadn't anticipated, and the drivers still have to get used to it. Shame Verstappen couldn't finish the race, that would have been at least a little more seat time. Seat time is crucial right now while the car is developing quickly because the changes could also require different approaches to get the maximum benefit from them.

[Rodak]

Perhaps the mechanical setup is built for oversteer, and the aero balance is built for understeer by having the COG and COP far rearwards.

With the front/rear weight balance defined by the rules (see my post above) the fore/aft position of c.g. is also defined. Moving the c.g. of a legal car rearwards would increase the rear weight and reduce the front weight making the car illegal if the tolerance of 0.440 front and 0.540 rear was exceeded. This doesn't leave much room for manipulation.

[Zynerji]

45/55 split was put in place for Pirellis benefit, so they knew what weights would be on what corners.

COG/COP? I always believed both needed to be right behind the drivers head for best results.