Comparison of all 2011 cars

[horse]

Interesting to see half of the teams reach parity with wheel base. Funny, that, huh?

Also, I think the above picture provides a great comparison of the splitters. Compare the Ferrari to the Williams for instance. One is a wedge, the other a plough!

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

The Mercedes W02 is just toooooo short a wheelbase.

Why?????

[horse]

Put a couple more lines in here. One is to show the position of the Renault/Williams splitter relative to the other teams and the other is to show the "termination" of the Red Bull side pods in comparison to the other teams.

Note that the Force India has similarly speedy termination of their side pods compared to the RB.

[Richard]

The distance from front wheel centre line to leading edge of the front wing must be constant 1000mm. Both Lotus fail that check, so they need to be a bit shorter.

I'd also align them on the rear wheel centre line and check the back of the car lines up, and that the kink in those with angular fins line up.

The other advantage of aligning the rear wheel centre line is that it enables comparison of the packaging at that end. Most of the wheelbase variation occurs between the drivers headrest and the rear wheel centreline.

I did a doodle of this in another thread, here's the sketch and posts:

Here are the diagrams from the FIA regs. Take care over dimension 4, some cars have shorter noses, ie Williams. Stretching the cars in horizontal and vertical to fit those templates should give you a reasonable comparison.

*** updated diagram ****

I think there could be better reference points for calibrating the photos. The tyres provide a 660mm reference, that is also rounded. Using teh bodywork rules gives sharper points over longer distances.

Reg 3.16.1 defines the sharkfin/airbox dimensions. That kink in the sharkfins must be 1000 from the rear wheel centreline. Also the crash structure and rear wing end plate are limited to 595 & 600mm from the rear wheel centreline, lets say that is 600mm - I'm sure we'll tolerate that 5mm rounding error

That gives 1600mm reference dim from rear of car bodywork to the kink in the fin profile. Those cars without the angular fin can use 600mm to the rear of the wing end plate or crash structure

Finally, there is another check in that the leading edge of the front wing has to be 1000 from the front wheel centreline. There is a rule about the nose being a max 1200mm from the front wheel centreline, I suspect most cars use that other than Williams.

So, I'd expect to see overlays featuring the rear wheel centreline and rear bodywork matching on every car. The kink on the fin should also exactly match for cars with angular fins. You can use these points to stretch the cars for height and length (separately of course).

You'd then see cars with different wheelbases due to:
- Longer air box (ie the driver is further forward)
- Longer distance from airbox to front wheel centreline

[marcush.]

+splitter leading edge must be 330mm behind front axle line

[vall]

about the cars comparison image:

why is the Virgin car missing? No suitable photos?

Looking at the far-side end plate of the FW, the photos were clearly taken at different angles. If corrected for this effect, F150th, RB, STR, Renault, FI and Williams will get longer compared to McLaren, Lotus, Marc and Sauber.

[Richard]

Thanks marcrush! I missed that one. So the best calibration points are front of splitter to leading edge of front wing at 1330mm. I've updated the diagram above

The check at the rear using the rear of body to kink in the sharkfin has a longer dimension (so more accurate), but less clear reference points because not all cars have a distinct kink (so hard to implement).

Vall - yes photos are taken at different angles. So myurr has already corrected them by stretching them to line up common reference points. Initially he has used the tyre diameter.

[marcush.]

Thanks marcrush! I missed that one. So the best calibration points are front of splitter to leading edge of front wing at 1330mm.

The check at the rear using the rear of body to kink in the sharkfin has a longer dimension (so more accurate), but less clear reference points because not all cars have a distinct kink (so hard to implement).

Vall - yes photos are taken at different angles. So myurr has already corrected them by stretching them to line up common reference points. Initially he has used the tyre diameter.

unfortunatelly the splitter is close to the car centreline and the leading edge of the front wing is the Endplate footplate basically at full car width....so room for error again...

[Richard]

So it seems the only perfect check is front wheel axle to the leading corner of the front wing end plate. They are in the same plane so this is the only check without parallax problems. That gives us a 1000mm reference to sharp points.

The other checks do have an element of parallax error. Looking at the pictures on this thread, you can see both wing end plates on most cars, you can use that to estimate the centreline (ie halfway). It would give a longer reference line at the penalty of less precise points.

So it looks like the front wheel axle to the leading corner of the front wing end plate is the best one to use.

Oh, and use launch photos, they are better quality, and generally taken perpendicular to the car!

[Shaddock]

If the wheel diameter is a constant value for every car on the grid, then using the photos in this thread, regardless of size (as long as they haven't been stretched), can't the wheel base of each car be calculated?

[Just_a_fan]

As the wheelbase limits the floor area, I wonder why teams wouldn't go for the longest wheelbase, and thus floor, they could. A simple view being that a long floor gives a larger floor area which means the potential for more downforce from the most efficient downforce producer on the car.

No doubt I'm forgetting something obvious in this - no doubt that will be pointed out to me...

[Shaddock]

As the wheelbase limits the floor area, I wonder why teams wouldn't go for the longest wheelbase, and thus floor, they could. A simple view being that a long floor gives a larger floor area which means the potential for more downforce from the most efficient downforce producer on the car.

No doubt I'm forgetting something obvious in this - no doubt that will be pointed out to me...

Longer equals more bend/flex in the tub, which then means thicker stronger sides, which means more weight.....more bend... and so on.

The longer the wheel base as in the RB case, gives more clear space at the end of the sidepods to the rear wings(s).

[ringo]

Longer seems better this year. The gains in downforce and slimness are very attractive.
Going short doesn't seem to have any outstanding benefits, especially since the minimum weight is a given and how it affects handling is still a mystery.

[raymondu999]

Ok, let's put this to rest once and for all. Does a car with a longer wheelbase actually have more trouble around a tight corner like Loews? I read somewhere once that the difference is not nearly enough to actually make a difference, unless the wheelbase is so long it's longer than the diameter of Loews?

[mx_tifoso]

I remember a thread or discussion about that from a long time ago and IIRC it was concluded that the long wheelbase cars don't really suffer around sharp corners in comparison to ones with a short wheel base. The differences aren't that significant and teams can just use different steering racks to compensate for the extra length if needed.

If longer is "better" overall having to sacrifice just a few corners at a one-off circuit is a no brainer.

It's always interesting to see how the different wheelbases compare against one another, especially since the top teams almost always vary from one another in that respect. Like the McLaren and Ferrari of 2007 or 2008, each one excelled in slightly different circuit types.