F1 2014 Car Comparison Thread

[RZS10]

[...]
In this picture posted in this thread the car's length is 902 pixels.
Thus the 624 pixels between both axes should be equal to 3320.62mm or 3.32m.

Calculation:
W: Wheelbase

W/624=4800/902
W=4800/902x624
W=3320.62mm or 3.32m

I believe Blanchimonts numbers are better, taking the tyre (which is 67cm/Inter) and the overall lenght i got W=67cm/118Px*624Px=354cm ... this would also result in a total lenght of 5,06m ... i just wonder why they would say it's 4,80m, i have no idea how to explain the 26cm lenght difference from calculation to the official numbers

The Sauber is 5,30m officially, taking it's longer nose into account the 5,06m for the Mercedes seem reasonable.

[Phil1984]

I see your point. But why should Mercedes post an incorrect "official" length? I mean I understand it when it comes to more performance relevant stuff such as horsepower or else...but length of the car? I mean I was also wondering since it's a very even number, just like Williams which state their car to have a length of 5000mm according to their website. Why are teams lying - or let's say just give estimates - in that regard?

[RZS10]

It's just weird, like you said, no reason to hide the actual lenght since everyone can do a visual analysis and prove them wrong, there's no way the car is 50cm shorter than the Sauber ^^


The best i could do with the current images.

edit: Ferrari slightly smaller, Mercedes a tad bit bigger as per Henras suggestion. (I layered the cars on top of each other and changed their size so that the rear tyres/rims aligned, unfortunately those pretty low res pics won't allow more precise adjustments, i measured the rear wings and tyres and got ~0,53x cm/Px for all cars)

added: aligned at airbox (see post below)

[SectorOne]

Could you do one lined up with the airbox? that way we can see the distribution of how much in front and rear the cars have in relation to each other.

[Wass1985]

It's just weird, like you said, no reason to hide the actual lenght since everyone can do a visual analysis and prove them wrong, there's no way the car is 50cm shorter than the Sauber ^^

http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1413 ... arison.jpg
The best i could do with the current images.

Interesting to look at the drivers line of sight, the Williams is by far the worst. The top of the nose is near enough in line with Massa's eyes. The Mclaren offers the best viewing position of all those cars, I wonder how much it affects the drivers?

[henra]

http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1413 ... arison.jpg
The best i could do with the current images.

I have tried to re- measure your pic myslef.
When zooming to 200% the Mc Laren tyres seem to be a bit smaller on the pic, i.e. its wheelbase should be a bit longer (probably pretty identical to the W05). The size of the RW endplate seems to confirm that.
For the Ferrari if anything the tyres are a tiny bit bigger than the others so I would say its wheelbase should be minimally shorter than in your pic.
Otherwise: Excellent effort.

[nacho]

With a calibrated camera, multiple photos and photogrammetry software it would be possible to get fairly accurate dimensions. If anyone had the resources and/or contact with an F1 photographer one could get very accurate. I understand some software like Photomodeler should work with photos from uncalibrated cameras.

[miguelalvesreis]

The only way i can see this measuring work is to have 2 or 3 (better) known measures
Only having one will always induce some error to big to be trustable. The photos weren't taken with the right optics to do this kind of work. The have lens distortion, depth of field distortion, and so and so.
If you have one small and one large known dimension, then you can have a calibration line (cm on one axis and pixels on the other) from where you can take other intermediate dimension. But the best way is to have another known intermediate dimension in order to get a calibration curve, which is more accurate

[Redragon]

With a calibrated camera, multiple photos and photogrammetry software it would be possible to get fairly accurate dimensions. If anyone had the resources and/or contact with an F1 photographer one could get very accurate. I understand some software like Photomodeler should work with photos from uncalibrated cameras.

you don't need to contact the photographers, details of how was shoot the pictures are recorded on the digital negative.
With a program such as Capture One will tell you exactly which lenses was used at the moment of the shot, aperture, speed, name, year, date, etc....

[foxmulder_ms]

My favorite nose solution is Ferrari one, it also looks like Ferrari front is highest of all. At least it has the most space under the front bodywork. For sidepods, Redbull looks awesome. For rear, I loved Mclaren butterfly innovation but found their hot air exhaust exits too large and they kind of ruin the coke bottle shape so...

It is great to see the new cars.

[michl420]

The rim size is standard but what you can see is not the regulated diameter. I think it's better to use the whole tire.

[The Moderator]

well done guys

[eyalynf1]

It's just weird, like you said, no reason to hide the actual lenght since everyone can do a visual analysis and prove them wrong, there's no way the car is 50cm shorter than the Sauber ^^

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/141 ... arison.jpg
The best i could do with the current images.

edit: Ferrari slightly smaller, Mercedes a tad bit bigger as per Henras suggestion. (I layered the cars on top of each other and changed their size so that the rear tyres/rims aligned, unfortunately those pretty low res pics won't allow more precise adjustments, i measured the rear wings and tyres and got ~0,53x cm/Px for all cars)

added: aligned at airbox (see post below)
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/141 ... airbox.jpg

The McLaren appears very low and elongated. From the nose to the sidepods, everything looks aligned along a continuous low arc terminating into the diffuser butterfly suspension area. I would hypothesize they were aiming to eliminate as much body drag as possible to mitigate the draggy effects of the butterfly suspension. Or to remove as much obstruction to air reaching the rear suspension as possible.

[vtr]

I found the same side pictures in better quality in the motorionline.com: ( http://f1grandprix.motorionline.com/fot ... IO/f1-162/ ) And I decided to try to compare the cars as well. The dimensions I ended up with are (Do you guys think those numbers are plausible?):

//////// Wheelbase //// Length (with finger)
Ferrari .... 3511 mm .... 5093 mm
Mercedes . 3540 mm .... 5106 mm
McLaren .. 3532 mm .... 5267 mm
Williams .. 3557 mm .... 5279 mm
Caterham . 3562 mm .... 5127 mm
F. India .... 3460 mm .... 5195 mm
Red Bull ... 3477 mm .... 5140 mm
*The Red Bull numbers are (even bigger) approximations, given the photographer was not as well positioned (it's not like he had many opportunities to get it right tho ).

And the comparison pictures (they look better if you click them)
Lined up at the rear wheel


Lined up at the airbox


It is interesting how me and RSZ10 have used the same pictures, pretty much, and came up with very different results. Maybe this means that this whole process is useless

PS. I forgot to do the Red Bull, I've just noticed there is a picture I can use E

EDIT: So I looked at the Red Bull picture, the car is way too inclined to be used like the other ones, especially to visually compare the cars and figure out the differences in proportion between them. Anyway, the dimensions I got are in the table. I also recalculated all the wheelbases.

[RZS10]

I found the same side pictures in better quality
[...]
It is interesting how me and RSZ10 have used the same pictures, pretty much, and came up with very different results. Maybe this means that this whole process is useless
[...]

The results don't differ that much, given that changing the size of the cars by a few pixels in the low res pics resulted in vastly different overall lenghts (it was hard to determine whether the tyres are the same size etc.. .the colored lines are one pixel wide^^) we're pretty close:
- FI has the shortest wheelbase
- all other cars have comparable wheelbases
- McL and Williams have slightly longer 'backs'
- McL and of course FI have a shorter 'front'

Of course it is almost impossible to get exact results because the pictures are taken from slightly different angles and distances.