Mercedes W16

[Lasssept]

Shanghai



@AlbertFabrega

[Lasssept]

NOBU @n_mode_log

[Lasssept]

NOBU @n_mode_log

[Lasssept]

@MercedesAMGF1

[maygun]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GnrQ-IjbIAA ... name=large

@MercedesAMGF1

Compared to other team's espacially RB and Mclaren W16's engine cover looks so bulky, last year also it was very similar with no updates on that area, wonder if they will change it at all this year.

[ringo]

So much area between the sidepod base and the floor compares to redbull. Also much less bulk on the flank of thw sidepod. They place the cooling flow area higher up into the engine cover. The car is quite efficient.
Control arms also high and out of the way of the floor and said top of floor area.

This is effectively a W13 with cheek bones.

[Brahmal]

https://www.planetf1.com/news/japanese- ... onso-crash
https://www.planetf1.com/features/japan ... ts-gallery

[SiLo]

is that last strake split at the end? I always assumed they would be doing that by now, but I assume the rules don't allow the teams that kind of freedom.

[Brahmal]

is that last strake split at the end? I always assumed they would be doing that by now, but I assume the rules don't allow the teams that kind of freedom.

Might be the forward part of the edge wing.

[Vanja #66]

Deeply impressive levels of rear wing flexing

[maygun]

Deeply impressive levels of rear wing flexing

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GoE3J7YXcAA ... =4096x4096

I don't want to start a new focal length discussion, but the images have different perspectives, hence, the lines are not telling anything about how much flexing is going on.

[Farnborough]

Deeply impressive levels of rear wing flexing

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GoE3J7YXcAA ... =4096x4096

I don't want to start a new focal length discussion, but the images have different perspectives, hence, the lines are not telling anything about how much flexing is going on.

But it's the same camera (it appears) just at different point on circuit, making that observation completely redundant.

Looks entirely comparative and relevant as evidence of wing movement under load.

[maygun]

Deeply impressive levels of rear wing flexing

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GoE3J7YXcAA ... =4096x4096

I don't want to start a new focal length discussion, but the images have different perspectives, hence, the lines are not telling anything about how much flexing is going on.

But it's the same camera (it appears) just at different point on circuit, making that observation completely redundant.

Looks entirely comparative and relevant as evidence of wing movement under load.

Having the same camera doesn't mean having the same perspective to the rear wing, as depending on the bank angle, the radius of the corner and braking/speed, the rear wing and whereever the camera is mounted move differently, so you need to get rid of that difference to make a fair comparison.

That's why they have those yellow dots, you need to track them and then apply some geometric transformations to get rid of other factors so that you can really measure how much flexing is going on.

For instance, I don't think top level of DRS actuator should flex down with the wing, but the image that shared imply that

[Farnborough]

I don't want to start a new focal length discussion, but the images have different perspectives, hence, the lines are not telling anything about how much flexing is going on.

But it's the same camera (it appears) just at different point on circuit, making that observation completely redundant.

Looks entirely comparative and relevant as evidence of wing movement under load.

Having the same camera doesn't mean having the same perspective to the rear wing, as depending on the bank angle, the radius of the corner and braking/speed, the rear wing and whereever the camera is mounted move differently, so you need to get rid of that difference to compare the comparison.

That's why they have those yellow dots, you need to track them and then apply some geometric transformations to get rid of other factors so that you can really measure how much flexing is going on.

For instance, I don't think top level of DRS actuator should flex down with the wing, but the image that shared imply that

This is describing exactly the opposite of a lens and its imaging, incorrectly in how thats applied.

As it comes up in forum, pertinent as that is to our discussion about fundamental aero concept and how that is working in race situation, then worthwhile clarification to help with discussion.

Lens focal length is the distance from a centre of lens design point to the imaging plane (film, sensor or other) and relates to how that particular lens is specified. It doesn't alter, at all, as it moves anywhere.

Having the lens fixed to the structure of the car (as it is here) this records, fully, any relative movement of the subject (the wing in this instance) that the lens/camera is not affixed to.
Measurements between the dots, then use of trigonometry in calculation would demonstrate how much it has moved also.

This arrangement completely illustrates the wing moving and how far it's moved in the image we see, and notes Vanja has made about it. Its a true record of the wing structure moving in relation to the car"s structure as a whole.

You're wrong, Vanja's account and observation is entirely correct.

[maygun]

But it's the same camera (it appears) just at different point on circuit, making that observation completely redundant.

Looks entirely comparative and relevant as evidence of wing movement under load.

Having the same camera doesn't mean having the same perspective to the rear wing, as depending on the bank angle, the radius of the corner and braking/speed, the rear wing and whereever the camera is mounted move differently, so you need to get rid of that difference to compare the comparison.

That's why they have those yellow dots, you need to track them and then apply some geometric transformations to get rid of other factors so that you can really measure how much flexing is going on.

For instance, I don't think top level of DRS actuator should flex down with the wing, but the image that shared imply that

This is describing exactly the opposite of a lens and its imaging, incorrectly in how thats applied.

As it comes up in forum, pertinent as that is to our discussion about fundamental aero concept and how that is working in race situation, then worthwhile clarification to help with discussion.

Lens focal length is the distance from a centre of lens design point to the imaging plane (film, sensor or other) and relates to how that particular lens is specified. It doesn't alter, at all, as it moves anywhere.

Having the lens fixed to the structure of the car (as it is here) this records, fully, any relative movement of the subject (the wing in this instance) that the lens/camera is not affixed to.
Measurements between the dots, then use of trigonometry in calculation would demonstrate how much it has moved also.

This arrangement completely illustrates the wing moving and how far it's moved in the image we see, and notes Vanja has made about it. Its a true record of the wing structure moving in relation to the car"s structure as a whole.

You're wrong, Vanja's account and observation is entirely correct.

I'm not talking about lenses or focal length—since both pictures came from the same camera, those factors are the same.

I'm referring to the camera position relative to the rear wing. The angle between the camera and any of the lines changes, because the camera and the point where the wing is attached move horizontally in different ways. Therefore, you can't draw those lines and make a sensible comparison.

Using trigonometry here isn't really relevant—you need to apply 3D projective geometry to accurately calculate the amount of flexing, which is probably what the FIA does. When you try to measure something happening in 3D using 2D lines, you're mostly going to be wrong.

To calculate or demonstrate how much flexing is actually occurring, we need to know the real position of the camera—how far it's mounted from the rear wing, its angle, etc. Only then can you make a proper comparison between two images. I'm not an aerodynamicist or a mechanical engineer, but calculating things from images and video is literally my job—so I do know a thing or two about it.