F1 2017 bloated / overweight 728 kg (vs e.g. 1991)

[gold333]

Can someone please explain why the 2017 regulations with the heavier and wider tyres and the wider car, necessitate an increase in weight to 728 kg from the 2016 value of 705 kg?

When in 1991, F1 cars and tires were wider still than 2017, and ran amongst others, a V12 engine with a 230 litre fuel tank (instead of 105 litre) and STILL weighed only 505 kg.

With all the disadvantages stacked against the 1991 car, and twenty six years automotive engineering development, should the 2017 car if anything not be much lighter?

Can somebody explain this?

F1 2017
2000 mm wide
405 mm Pirelli rear tire width
V6 1500cc
105 litre fuel tank
728 kg

F1 1991
2200 mm wide
470 mm Goodyear/Pirelli rear tire width
V12 3500cc
230 litre fuel tank (!)
505 kg

[Eddie_Temple]

The cars will be faster this year right?

[DiogoBrand]

Not as many safety regulations (crash structures, wooden plank, etc.), no regulations on engine alloys, not having to use the same engine for 5 weekends, no turbocharger, no intercoolers, not as many radiators, no battery, no generators, no eletric motor. Also the minimum weight is there to allow smaller teams to be more competitive, as well as not having to make drivers starve to get the car within the weight range.
As for the fuel tank, it doesn't count. As far as I know minimum weights are measured without any fuel. I mean, I don't think an F1 car would weigh in at 505Kg with 230 liters of fuel on board.

I don't remember any more reasons right now, but I'm sure someone will add to what I already mentioned.

And yes, I would like to see these sports cars we call F1 go back to F1 weight specs.

[FW17]

505 was without Driver too

The Title should mention stretched too as cars are longer than 2016

[timbo]

As others mentioned, 505 is without driver, and actually, I don't think many cars that year were at 505. Top teams probably did, but many others were over weight. And not much in a way of safety. The tubs have much thicker wall now and cover greater area around driver.

[godlameroso]

105kg is not 105 liters. More like 145ish.

[FW17]

While we are on that subject of fuel

While in 2010 most cars had a tank most were in the region of 220-240 liters (including the Red Bull) the TF110 only had 170 liters. I am not sure if that info is right but how is it possible for a 50 liter difference ?

[proteus]

If i calculated correctly, fuel density is 0,72 kg/L, which means that 105kg is 145,8 litres of fuel. I took a standard fuel density which was in lb/ft3 so i might have made a mistake in conversion, but im pretty sure its correct.

[cmF1]

Fuel is approximately 737kg per cubic meter. Water is pretty much bang on 1000kg.

[proteus]

More weight in modern cars comes in the shape of battery packs, recuperation units on rear wheels, and overall of more electronics, sensors and etc.. Also there is more carbon material trough the whole car - if im not mistaken the whole surface of the car is much bigger, since the curves and swooshes cars have these days. In 91 most of the surfaces were flat, while now they are much more aero designed, which means more materials needed for overlaying the car. That doesnt mean dramatic numbers, but it adds a kilo or two (only for dressing the car).

[proteus]

Fuel is approximately 737kg per cubic meter. Water is pretty much bang on 1000kg.

Exactly.

[NathanOlder]

Yeah 0.73 is about right for the s.g of fuel.
Most oil is around 0.79 and water is bang on 1.00.

So as Proteus said, 105kg of fuel would be a fraction over 145ltrs.

100 ltrs of fuel would weigh 73kg.

[Juzh]

Still in the first year of turbo regs cars were 692 kg. Then they upped it just for the sake of taller drivers, but williams noted they ran with reasonable ballast already back then. The weight limit is getting a bit ridicioulus.

[DiogoBrand]

I would love if they could leave the regulations more or less static for like 10 years, only decreasing the minimum weight at around 5Kg a year. As the technologies develop, I think this would be perfectly achievable, and in 10 years time we'd have cars 50Kg lighter.

Unfortunately, I don't think this would be possible since F1 can't seem to change a single rule they don't have to change back 3 years later for reasons of backfiring.

[gold333]

The way I see it that stepped floor is causing these long cars. I say get rid of it and give us a flat bottomed car again.

Wasn't the stepped floor introduced haphazardly mid way through 1994 (in the form of a thin wooden plank) and formally in 1995 (in the form of a molded stepped floor) to slow the cars down post the accidents in the first part of 1994? If so, this "slowing down" measure of a stepped bottom has no place in 2017 quest for speed.

All that really matters is power to weight.

In 2017 it is 728 kg / 900hp, in the mid eighties it was as insane as 565 kg / 1500 hp (both figures are including driver). It should be higher today, not lower.

We finally got our pre-1998 slicks and smooth bodywork back in 2009. In 2017 we, thankfully, we have our pre-1993 wide tires back. Also in 2017 we finally have our pre-1998 car widths back (more or less).

Please FIA, in 2018 lets have our pre-1994 flat bottom back. The rigidity of the suspension, with the cars ride height measured in single digit millimeters made for awesome (authentic, not "manufactured") sparking and wild on boards. Why do you think onboards back then show that level of violence with the steering almost ripped from the drivers hands.

Senna's death (rest his soul) caused all this. Although I lost a good deal of interest in F1 after seeing the slow and methodical "castration" of the cars after 1994, I have always wondered what type of car we would have had today in a parallel universe had Senna and Ratzenberger not died and had the Weickershof protocol not been implemented in 1994 to slow the cars down over the subsequent decades.