BrawnGP

[Skunk0001]

..as simply removing ballast from an F1 car without HEAVILY reworking the weight distribution of the car by moving hardware around would create something that'd be nearly un-drivable...and the stint times suggest the car is very consistent.

Going by that logic that would make the car un-drivable when its either full or almost empty of fuel.

[Scotracer]

..as simply removing ballast from an F1 car without HEAVILY reworking the weight distribution of the car by moving hardware around would create something that'd be nearly un-drivable...and the stint times suggest the car is very consistent.

Going by that logic that would make the car un-drivable when its either full or almost empty of fuel.

The fuel cell is placed so that it has the least possible impact on the Centre of Gravity as it empties.

[ISLAMATRON]

One of the thing that will help Brawn in their car balance minus some ballast is the fact that they are not running KERS. And as said, they don't need to get rid of that much ballast to gain a big chunk of time. How much Ballast does a current car run these days? 100kg? 120kg? The virtue of them running without KERS, is that they have 30 more KG to play with, and that plays into their favor to get a decent balance of the car without all the ballast. Besides, bad handling does not equal to slow laptime, not necessarily a direct corelation.

Seriously how many times must we all go thru this? the cars all weigh the same, 605 kg, with or without KERS. Much of the Ballast( & the KERS weight by the way) is placed near or at the CoG. Placing it near the CoG makes it effect the handling much less but as we all know F=M*A so therefore it still effects acceleration & braking. Most of the balance characteristics are decided by the length of the monocoque and the wheelbase... and the ballast is placed at the CoG... so they can take away the ballast and still keep the fundamental balance of the car.

[ISLAMATRON]

..as simply removing ballast from an F1 car without HEAVILY reworking the weight distribution of the car by moving hardware around would create something that'd be nearly un-drivable...and the stint times suggest the car is very consistent.

Going by that logic that would make the car un-drivable when its either full or almost empty of fuel.

The fuel cell is placed so that it has the least possible impact on the Centre of Gravity as it empties.

And so is the Ballast... that is why the teams put the KERS batteries under the fuel tank.

[Scotracer]

Going by that logic that would make the car un-drivable when its either full or almost empty of fuel.

The fuel cell is placed so that it has the least possible impact on the Centre of Gravity as it empties.

And so is the Ballast... that is why the teams put the KERS batteries under the fuel tank.

No, the ballast is used to create the centre of gravity in the correct place to get good balance. The KERS batteries etc as well as the fuel cell are placed in the point where they KNOW they want the CoG to be. Different thing.

[ISLAMATRON]

The fuel cell is placed so that it has the least possible impact on the Centre of Gravity as it empties.

And so is the Ballast... that is why the teams put the KERS batteries under the fuel tank.

No, the ballast is used to create the centre of gravity in the correct place to get good balance. The KERS batteries etc as well as the fuel cell are placed in the point where they KNOW they want the CoG to be. Different thing.

Most of the ballast is at the CoG,they use very little ballast for weight balance, that is designed in by wheelbase & component placement.

[Scotracer]

And so is the Ballast... that is why the teams put the KERS batteries under the fuel tank.

No, the ballast is used to create the centre of gravity in the correct place to get good balance. The KERS batteries etc as well as the fuel cell are placed in the point where they KNOW they want the CoG to be. Different thing.

Most of the ballast is at the CoG,they use very little ballast for weight balance, that is designed in by wheelbase & component placement.

Pascal Vasselon of Toyota quote: "It is no secret that an F1 car without ballast has too much weight at the rear; to move this forward the ballast is placed at the front of the car"

[jwielage]

uch of the Ballast( & the KERS weight by the way) is placed near or at the CoG. Placing it near the CoG makes it effect the handling much less but as we all know F=M*A so therefore it still effects acceleration & braking.

the ballast is used to create the centre of gravity in the correct place to get good balance. The KERS batteries etc as well as the fuel cell are placed in the point where they KNOW they want the CoG to be.

Both interesting points, and certainly not mutually exclusive. It engineers would begin to place ballast away from the CoG in effort to more effectively balance the car. At the point that the car is balanced all additional ballast would be placed at or near the center of gravity.

Clearly any removed ballast would be at or near the CoG such that their was minimal impact on the car's handling. And there may be the ability to correlate this data to the car at its race-day weight. Even still, it is a ballsy maneuver that one stands to gain little from.

One thing we can all agree on is that this season needs to start now or I am going to freak out!!!

[kilcoo316]

Most of the ballast is at the CoG,they use very little ballast for weight balance, that is designed in by wheelbase & component placement.

Traditionally, that is the case.

However, this year, the wheel sizes have been --- up.


A brief explanation:

The front tyres have been smaller in width than the rears for ages. In 2008, front wheel width was 305-355 and rear 365-380mm... this remained the case in 2009.

However, the front tyres have had to have 4 (of the same width) grooves in them since 1999 (?).

Now, as you can quickly figure out, that means removing the grooves results in a greater proportional change to the front tyres than the rear.

Hence why the rears are gonna be melting like soft butter this season.


So the teams are desperate to move weight forward onto the front wheels this season. This will be rectified with larger rear tyres for 2010.

[CHT]

Most of the ballast is at the CoG,they use very little ballast for weight balance, that is designed in by wheelbase & component placement.

F1 cars are designed to be rear heavy and front light because its RWD and engines/gearbox./fueltank/KERS are mounted closer to the rear. Hence the natural CoG position(without any ballast) will be closer to the rear.

If like you said, most of the ballast are placed right at the CoG of the car, then the car weight distribution will be heavily loop-sided or rear bias and the CoG will then be shifted further back of the car.

AFAIK, the weight distribution setup will differ from track to track, as engineers needs to find the optimal set up to prevent excessive tyre wear and getting the right balance for braking and cornering. Hence with the introduction of the KERS system, the engineers will have 30 or 40kg less movable "ballast" to play with, which will make car setup more difficult, especially in 2009.

http://www.forumula1.net/2009/f1/f1-new ... son-newey/

This article from RBR talks alittle about the weight impact of battery operated KERS on car set up.

[alvinkhorfire]

Sorry, off topic a bit. Can we have sort of discussion of the specification of Brawn BGP001 at here? Like the one in the forum posts of Ferrari F60 and BMW Sauber F1.09 and so forth, we can see the photos of different sides of the car and the some explaination of features of the car. I can see that it is kind of difficult since the car is not launched in a similar way as compared to other cars.

Even in http://www.f1technical.net/f1db/cars/, the information about the car is not being put up yet. I guess that it is difficult to compile the information for Brawn GP.

Please correct me if I have said anything wrong.

[xpensive]

Isn't there every reason to have vertical CoG as low as possible, why you try to place any ballast likewise? Scarbs?

[scarbs]

The cars weight dist (AKA longitudinal CofG) is also affected by wheel base and the layout of the heavy components (driver, engine, gearbox) along its length. Nowadays the front tyres demand more and more load, and last years weight dists were around 52% forward (i.e. front heavy). The exact weight dist will vary according the track and the car by a few percent.

As already mentioned here, a completely unballasted f1 car (itself an impractical proposition) will have a weight dist that is rear biased, as the engine 95Kg and gearbox 30kg are behind the fuel tank. Thus ballast tends to be placed forward in the car to increase the load on the front tyres.

Additionally the car wants to have as lower vertical CofG as possible, to reduce lateral weight transfer in cornering, so ballast tends to be placed at floor level.

Ballast comes in two flavours, 1) components made unnecessarily heavy. 2) ballast that can be unbolted (fixed ballast) and moved to tune the cars weight dist (tuning ballast).

Cars carry far less ballast nowadays than in the early 2000’s. instead the ballast is integrated in components (i.e. heavy bottomed gearboxes and tubs, solid metal t-tray splitters) there’s probably less than 40kg moved about as tuning ballast. Around 10kg in the front wing and the rest in pockets around the front splitter and to the sides of the step plane along the monocoque. Sometimes on the floor alongside the gearbox, if the car needs more load on the rear axle.

KERS is a handicap from a weight and weight dist point of view, the set up weights 25-30Kg. the MGU needs to be in front of the engine and weights ~10-Kg, the PCU ~5Kg and Batteries ~15Kg are often inside the fuel tank area (low but relatively rearwards) or between the radiators and the monocoque (higher but more forwards). At best they will take up their own weight in ballast and be placed at the central and vertical CofG, most likely they incur a slightly raised and rearwards weight bias penalty.

Rumours that the Brawn is running underweight (no fuel or less ballast) are within the realms of possibility, but I doubt it. The car has been quick on long runs (i.e. heavily fuelled) and without ballast the car lacks an ideal weight dist and may even be slower as the front tyres aren’t used so well. Insiders tell me that the non KERS car exploits a forward weight bias, that KERS equipped cars cannot reach. Brawn were offered the Mac Gearbox, but they chose their own. I suspect this has a longer casing to shift weight forwards and to use McLaren’s would handicap their concept. Allied to the cars interesting aero set up I think that the Brawn is simply a good F1 car.

[Steven]

Even in http://www.f1technical.net/f1db/cars/, the information about the car is not being put up yet. I guess that it is difficult to compile the information for Brawn GP.

Working on that right now (I completed the RB5 info yesterday).

As already mentioned here, a completely unballasted f1 car (itself an impractical proposition) will have a weight dist that is rear biased, as the engine 95Kg and gearbox 30kg are behind the fuel tank. Thus ballast tends to be placed forward in the car to increase the load on the front tyres.

Exactly! It has been my point all along during winter testing that KERS equipped cars may well be disadvantaged at some circuits because of the weight distribution. The last paragraph in my KERS article also hints at that: http://www.f1technical.net/features/11805

Yesterday, BMW Sauber's Mario Theissen was out claiming that its KERS was ready to be raced - Duh! - but that they will choose on a driver and circuit basis to decide whether to use it or not. It could be interesting to see whether the lighter Heidfeld will have KERS on board more often than Kubica.

Then on Brawn, I could understand running underweight for a couple of days for publicity of some sort, but I don't believe the team is wasting all its track time by running an underweight car, of which in the end the data is not very useful under racing circumstances.

Also, I'm not sure whether Alonso has KERS on board, but it's my belief that the Brawn car might actually be slower with KERS fitted because they currently appear to have their weight balance worked out pretty well.

[CHT]

Not to mentioned that the ballast used in F1 cars are high density tungsten (as heavy as gold) which can be mounted very close to the ground to reduce the vertical CoG.