Evolution of F1 car weight

[JordanMugen]

Evolution of F1 car minimum weight (with driver)

1995	595 kg
2009	605 kg	Optional KERS weight 30kg... 20kg of which to fit within existing ballast provision?
2010	620 kg
2013	642 kg	Last year of V8 engines
2014	691 kg	First year of hybrid V6 engines
2015	702 kg	Adjustment for second hybrid year
2017	728 kg	Wider wheels and tyres
2018	734 kg	Halo introduced
2019	743 kg	80kg driver/seat allowance; halo 'correction'; new wing regulations; rear wing 
		lights
2020	746 kg	Agreed-upon adjustment, plus second fuel flow meter
2021	768 kg	New rules, including heavier standard parts

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/car- ... w/4719283/

The increasing upwards creep in vehicle weight is very interesting. 49kg initially added due to hybrid turbo regulation, but then another 52kg added beyond that between 2014-2020, and finally an additional 22kg for the 2021 regulations.

Of course, the fitment of increased mandatory safety features is very much desirable and to be applauded (obviously, leaving crash safety strength up to the teams judgement doesn't work as they are only interested in maximum track performance not maximum reserve strength).

Remember the days when CART/IRL/Indycar seemed so lumbering and heavy on road courses compared to F1? With CART/Indycar vehicles having much heavier and sturdier tubs amongst other things. Well now they weigh about the same, albeit the much, much higher downforce level of F1 more than compensates to provide much higher road course cornering speeds.

Indycar weight

739 kg	Road course
735 kg	Short course
721 kg	Superspeedway

https://www.indycar.com/Fan-Info/INDYCA ... ifications

Presumably this has not been updated and the new Indycar halo & aeroscreen adds a little more weight.

[bill shoe]

No, IndyCar has been putting on weight as fast as F1. The road course min weight with driver and halo must be at least 835 kg now, but that's my estimate based on 2019 excluding driver and halo. Looking for more/better info.

[jjn9128]

This is a topic close to my heart, in fact it was one of the first things I wrote about for the site. I'm very much of the opinion modern F1 cars are vastly overweight.


Interestingly if you look at the graph of average wheelbase there's a strong correlation...

[Just_a_fan]

And yet last year's cars were about 5-6 seconds a lap faster than the 2007 cars in qualifying. So they'd be 10 seconds (or so) faster than the 2007 cars if the weight hadn't increased. Or not.

[izzy]

Andy Green says they won't even get down to the weight limit next year

For one, he said the cars will be even heavier than the 768 kilogram minimum weight.
"We will clearly miss the weight limit.

https://www.grandprix.com/news/new-doub ... green.html

[jjn9128]

And yet last year's cars were about 5-6 seconds a lap faster than the 2007 cars in qualifying. So they'd be 10 seconds (or so) faster than the 2007 cars if the weight hadn't increased. Or not.

Pretty much yeah, downforce has increased (~16%), drag is lower (~10%), tyre grip is increased (bigger tyres, no grooves), the cars have more power (~40%) and torque.

[3jawchuck]

Would it be possible to do away with the minimum weight entirely and increase the crash testing requirements significantly to encourage weight loss but not at the cost of safety? I guess that would mess with the cost saving the FIA are aiming for.

When I was a young lad I was always impressed at how light and agile the F1 cares were in comparison to the CART cars of the time. I do wish F1 cars were still light and agile.

[Just_a_fan]

I think we miss the point in some way when we focus on one issue e.g. weight. The reality is that the cars are bigger and heavier, yet they are able to go significantly faster around a track whilst using less fuel and using major components that last for much longer even though they are more complicated.

Last year's lame duck, the Williams, would have taken pole in the 2007 Austrlian GP in the hands of Kubica (who was the slower of the two Williams drivers). Russell would have been over 1.5s ahead of Kimi's pole time. Just think about that.

[JordanMugen]

Pretty much yeah, downforce has increased (~16%), drag is lower (~10%), tyre grip is increased (bigger tyres, no grooves), the cars have more power (~40%) and torque.

How come drag is lower than 2007 (?) cars, can you explain that please?

The mid-2000s Grand Prix cars like the below MP4-20 seem so simple in their surfacing compared to modern Grand Prix cars, you'd intuitively think they have less drag. They still had the rear tyre flick-ups too, that ought to reduce drag from the rear tyres.

Is it because of the narrow front wing in the mid-2000s regulations causing additional drag from the front tyres?

[Unless my mistake is that the show car has considerably simplified surfacing compared to the genuine as-raced MP4-20 ]

MP4-20 front wing


MP4-20 bargeboards


MP4-20 diffuser

[JordanMugen]

Russell would have been over 1.5s ahead of Kimi's pole time. Just think about that.

That's not that amazing! 1.6L turbo engine (at 4 bar that's effectively, what, a 6.4L (!!!) engine^) beats 2.4L atmo engine -- hardly shocking!

^ Awaits correction that pressure (differential) without specifying cross-sectional area means nothing with respect to flow rate.

[PhillipM]

The biggest issue with car weight is not the crash tests of the cars, but what the circuits can contain

[Bence]

Gimme back 1986's power-to-weight ratio (quali, of course), and I don't mind the 750+ kg cars...

[jjn9128]

How come drag is lower than 2007 (?) cars, can you explain that please?

Full span front wing reduces front tyre drag, the efficacy of the bargeboards, sidepod undercut, and floor edge treatment means less air is hitting the rear tyres. The tyres are a smaller part of overall drag now which somewhat offsets the increased induced drag from all the flaps and flicks, a couple of decades ago it was ~45% now more like 35-40%.

Then there's 15 odd years of development in making the rest of cars more efficient, especially cooling if you compare the size of the sidepod inlets. Longer rear bodywork means there's less form drag. It might not be quite as much as 10% but the numbers I have make sense when considering the total effect on lap-time.

[jjn9128]

I think we miss the point in some way when we focus on one issue e.g. weight. The reality is that the cars are bigger and heavier, yet they are able to go significantly faster around a track whilst using less fuel and using major components that last for much longer even though they are more complicated.

Last year's lame duck, the Williams, would have taken pole in the 2007 Austrlian GP in the hands of Kubica (who was the slower of the two Williams drivers). Russell would have been over 1.5s ahead of Kimi's pole time. Just think about that.

Just put those 2007 cars on slicks and they'd be at least 1s/lap quicker. There's problems associated with the increased downforce to get that laptime back and the raceability of the cars.

[Just_a_fan]

Russell would have been over 1.5s ahead of Kimi's pole time. Just think about that.

That's not that amazing! 1.6L turbo engine (at 4 bar that's effectively, what, a 6.4L (!!!) engine^) beats 2.4L atmo engine -- hardly shocking!

^ Awaits correction that pressure (differential) without specifying cross-sectional area means nothing with respect to flow rate.

But it's not about the power, is it? It's the whole package. If it was just about power then the silly turbo cars of yore would have all of the lap records and would never be beaten.