changing the fundemental layout of an F1 car

[Scarbs]

I was lucky to meet Gabrielle several years ago at the Minardi factory as he was designing the PS02. I have a few questions for him.
I recall that he mentioned the shorter wheelbase car would be less sensitive to weight shift, with this in mind I was wondering how this affected the long wheelbase Ferrari F2007.
Clearly Ferraris primary aim with this change is to seek more space for aerodynamics with the longer monocoque, this would tend to push the longitudinal CofG backwards, Yet they still seem to have created the more forward biased weight distribution required for the Bridgestone spec tyres (I suspect with even more Ballast...).


So how would the longer wheelbase affect the weight transfer characteristics, would the tyres see less variance in their vertical loads or more?

Equally I have heard RedBull are lost with their cars basic design not reflecting the requirements of the stiffer spec Bridgestone's. That they have not been able to set the weight distribution and springing\damping to suit. I would have thought that ballast and suspension linkage\damper revisions would have cured that.

How flexible are these parameters when the car is designed?

[Lightning McQueen]

Hello Scarbs,

I haven't the Gabriele 's experience but for my understanding a longer wheelbase does give some freedom to adjust CoG approximately 1,5-2 % per 100 mm.
With a fuel tank to give the potential of one-stop race a weight distribution of approx. 43:57 is possible in a 3 m wheelbase.
Using a 70 Kg ballast placed ahead of CoG the weight distribution will increase by 2% to approx. 45:55.
Now a question : how much a car must be unstable ?

Ciao,
LMcQ