Longer Wheelbase vs Narrower Tires

[Holm86]

In 2009 the grip balance was clearly toward the front of the car so a new rule of narrower tires was intruduced for the 2010 season bringing the grip balance more towards the rear of the car.

Later on another rulechange of no refuelling during races was intruduced.

This means larger fueltanks and to accomoodate for the larger tanks the new 2010 cars has an increased wheelbase.

But now im thinking would the increase in wheelbase alone bring the gripbalance towards the rear of the car?? making the new narrower front tires unnecessary??? plus the increased weight in the rear of the car from the larger tanks???


Sorry my bad english .....

[Jersey Tom]

Why would longer wheelbase by itself make the car understeer?

[Fil]

See here for plenty of answers and theories about wheelbase and its effects.

You could probably find your answer there, or add the variable of narrow tyres for a quick answer.

The short of it all is that the changes in the 2010 wheelbase is a minute detail compared to changes in component location configurations.


And then remember, the same length wheelbase can be slid along the layout of the car with much more effect than just a change in the length itself.

[alelanza]

But now im thinking would the increase in wheelbase alone bring the gripbalance towards the rear of the car??

I was also thinking about where the weight moved this year. I guess it depends on each car, ie if everything stayed the same in terms of rear suspension/gbox/engine/oil tank layout and dimensions, then i guess you have the additional room made for fuel a bit further away from the rear axle, and the driver significantly further away from it than the prev year. So in the end it would depend on how much further forward the front axle was moved, and that also varies a lot for each car, but with most people assuming lots of effort went into keeping the fuel tank horizontally in line with the centre of gravity.

Along the same lines, this article http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2010/02/07/2 ... is-part-1/ caught my eye here:

The narrower tyres will increase straigh-line speed by reducing drag. The equation is simple – less surface area presented to the oncoming air equals more speed.

A second effect is that a higher volume air can funnel between the tyres (space between the tyres has increased by 50mm in total), which will improve the efficiency of vanes and bargeboards in this region.

However, this comes at the cost of lower front grip, which affects cornering speed. The net effect will be to give the car more of an understeer feeling. As in previous years the temptation for teams is to ensure a forward weight bias to control for this.

I can't get my head around that last sentence, as I understand it a more forward weight bias should increase understeering in an F1 car, thoughts?

[Holm86]

forward weight bais will increase the preassure on the front tyres increasing their grip.
allthough an extreme forward weight bais would cause understeer.

also by shifting the weight more forward less weight is on the rear tyres shifting the balance from understeer towards oversteer.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83112

mercedes is talking about increasing the wheelbase for its racer to give a better balance in the car and to remove some of the understeer.

[marcush.]

forward weight bais will increase the preassure on the front tyres increasing their grip.
allthough an extreme forward weight bais would cause understeer.

also by shifting the weight more forward less weight is on the rear tyres shifting the balance from understeer towards oversteer.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/83112

mercedes is talking about increasing the wheelbase for its racer to give a better balance in the car and to remove some of the understeer.

your assumptions are not complete.

You could increase grip by moving weight to the front ,but ONLY if you underworked the tyres before .So in this scenario your balance would indeed go from understeer towards neutral. So your starting point would be TOO less front weight bias.

You could decrease grip by moving ballast to the front if your front tyres are on the verge of being overworked.Adding load (in this case weight) will not increase grip it will just add strain to the tyre ...making the car :Understeer.

things are not as straightforward as they seem sometimes ,and not being in the know what is their root problem we cannot judge what is the correct counter measure.

As an example: we have too less weight bias front ,the front tyres are underworked
and you got Understeer.to compensate you soften up the front or stiffen up the rear (say with springs) and you will get towards something like a balance,no question about that.but of course this setup will be on a lower total level of grip than having the correct weight distribution.

[autogyro]

If the problem was as I think Ross Brawn explained and it was that the front tyres did not arrive until after the car was almost complete and it was then found that the spec of the tyres was different, then surely this is the same for all the teams?
No matter what changes to tyre spec between seasons, this data is given to the teams and it should be possible to design accordingly.
If the problem is as a result of the tyre companies taking less interest in F1, it does not look good for future seasons.

[marcush.]

with my rudimentary logic I fail to understand why the sidewall stiffness should be a mayor factor in determining the static weight distribution.
I was under the impression sidewall stiffness was largely a downforce issue.
and in fact why only brawn is complaining here.
can anyone shed some light on this?

[autogyro]

with my rudimentary logic I fail to understand why the sidewall stiffness should be a mayor factor in determining the static weight distribution.
I was under the impression sidewall stiffness was largely a downforce issue.
and in fact why only brawn is complaining here.
can anyone shed some light on this?

It is very difficult to work out what is going on marcush.
Nico is right up there so the car cannot be that bad.
Looking into the lap times, which is the bottom line after all, I get the feeling and it is only a feeling, that Michael is good (close to Nico), over about five laps and then slower. Could be weight distribution or set up, or Michaels fitness.
If it is the later, they are not going to admit it.
Anyway, I hope if it is Michael manages to get over it.

[DaveW]

with my rudimentary logic I fail to understand why the sidewall stiffness should be a mayor factor in determining the static weight distribution.
I was under the impression sidewall stiffness was largely a downforce issue.
and in fact why only brawn is complaining here.
can anyone shed some light on this?

Marcus. You might like to review this & subsequent posts..

Some teams appear to be taking longer than others to adapt centres of gravity &, perhaps more importantly, centres of pressure to the 2010 tyres.

[marcush.]

with my rudimentary logic I fail to understand why the sidewall stiffness should be a mayor factor in determining the static weight distribution.
I was under the impression sidewall stiffness was largely a downforce issue.
and in fact why only brawn is complaining here.
can anyone shed some light on this?

Marcus. You might like to review this & subsequent posts..

Some teams appear to be taking longer than others to adapt centres of gravity &, perhaps more importantly, centres of pressure to the 2010 tyres.

dave,

of course ..I wrote this before actually finish thinking ... in fact I started thinking as I wrote it down...

[sundevil]

forward weight bais will increase the preassure on the front tyres increasing their grip.
allthough an extreme forward weight bais would cause understeer.

also by shifting the weight more forward less weight is on the rear tyres shifting the balance from understeer towards oversteer.

you have this backwards. all else being equal, simply moving mass from the rear to the front will make the car understeer more (or oversteer less). while increasing the pressure on the front tires will increase the absolute lateral force they can produce, it will not match the relative amount of mass that the front tires must laterally accelerate. thus, adding mass to the front will make it "grip" less.

[autogyro]

It is nowhere near as simple as that.
Moving mass forward or back and the result will depend firstly on how much mass and how far it is moved.
You can provoke either oversteer or understeer from either action.
On type is loaded the other is unloaded and this is the problem with high DF cars, it also depends on the center of DF up until full mechanical effect takes over at lower speed.

[marcush.]

not only the longitudinal position of the CG is of importance but also its height ,when we talk about the effects of ballast and wheelbase.Sure enough if you have anything in terms of ballast in the front of the car ,possibl<y in the splitter
and move this backwards ..you will increase CG height foor the front of the car and surely help the rear cg height...resulting in more weight tranfer front and less at the rear....
this could perhaps even help Brawns course ..working the harder tyres more ..and helping the rears by having more cornerweight but transferring less by lowering CG height..just an idea..

the Redbulls in my view quite a bit of roll in cornering ,do they?

[autogyro]

The red bulls are definitely softer sprung (as opposed to damped).
This would in a less well designed suspension geometry, result in more visible body roll. However I think Adrian has managed to convert this roll into force onto tyre contact patch better than the other teams.
It results in a more predictable mechanical set up.
Couple that to an obviously brilliant aero package and the result is obvious.