Mercedes W16

[Farnborough]

Put simply, the wing is literally moving away from a fixed point (the camera mount position) by having its support structure flexing in some way and contrary to the rules.

The camera in it's fixed position has recorded that in this case. It's a genuine record of that wing's movement.

[Farnborough]

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.

This is wrong too as a 3D IMAGE is not captured by that device. A construct of 3D from the recorded PLANE of a 2D record (as that may be) is trigonometric in its calculation. Its making representation where none was recorded in 3D.

You'd need more than one optic and associated image plane pair to make 3D record. This isn't that device. Again, basis in trigonometric calculation.

With the wing movement away from FIXED camera position, then the distance across the image between opposite dots gets smaller. The distance moved can then be easily calculated to obtain just how far that distance changed.

[venkyhere]

what is the Barcelona TD all about ?
- restriction aiming to reduce aero induced overall flexing (mega reduction in high speed drag) as shown in these pics
OR
- slot gap restriction aiming to reduce aero induced flap flexing relative to mainplane

[Matt2725]

Put simply, the wing is literally moving away from a fixed point (the camera mount position) by having its support structure flexing in some way and contrary to the rules.

The camera in it's fixed position has recorded that in this case. It's a genuine record of that wing's movement.

If it's contrary to the rules, you'll be able to point to me the DSQ documentation.

[Farnborough]

Put simply, the wing is literally moving away from a fixed point (the camera mount position) by having its support structure flexing in some way and contrary to the rules.

The camera in it's fixed position has recorded that in this case. It's a genuine record of that wing's movement.

If it's contrary to the rules, you'll be able to point to me the DSQ documentation.

Nope, I feel it's clever in avoiding the rules as they are policed now and for these races up to the changes coming. There must be a benefit as it operates now, I appluad intelligent application of which this is one. The whole shift in rules seems to be about those written words not currently being watertight though.

Whether it will still go through without modification AFTER that shift/clarification is another matter, and one of speculation.

With that much movement clearly visible in image, they must have concerns over what the change will bring.

[AR3-GP]

Deeply impressive levels of rear wing flexing

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

breathtaking

[Vanja #66]

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.

You've got to be joking

[Quantum]

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.

You've got to be joking

The black squared section being a constant wouldn't have variance then, would it?
Yet....

[SiLo]

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.

You've got to be joking

The black squared section being a constant wouldn't have variance then, would it?
Yet....
https://i.ibb.co/QFbTkCSM/Screenshot-20 ... 092458.png

The camera is static vs the body of the vehicle, its mounted to the roll hoop. And the focal length does not change at any point. It's not even something that is a discussion.

[Quantum]

The camera is static vs the body of the vehicle, its mounted to the roll hoop. And the focal length does not change at any point. It's not even something that is a discussion.

I'm pointing out the difference in the red marked lines. As you say, the "camera is static vs the body of the vehicle".
That would mean no difference in the static area outlined, right?

[SiLo]

The camera is static vs the body of the vehicle, its mounted to the roll hoop. And the focal length does not change at any point. It's not even something that is a discussion.

I'm pointing out the difference in the red marked lines. As you say, the "camera is static vs the body of the vehicle".
That would mean no difference in the static area outlined, right?

Anything bodywork towards the rear can flex and move, including anything in the red region. This method works because it compares where something is at low speed vs high speed. The frame of reference does not move, but almost everything we are looking at CAN move in some way.

[Vanja #66]

The black squared section being a constant wouldn't have variance then, would it?
Yet....
https://i.ibb.co/QFbTkCSM/Screenshot-20 ... 092458.png

You are drawing on different boundaries of two lines and then you complain how it's not the same thing, well done

[Quantum]

The black squared section being a constant wouldn't have variance then, would it?
Yet....
https://i.ibb.co/QFbTkCSM/Screenshot-20 ... 092458.png

You are drawing on different boundaries of two lines and then you complain how it's not the same thing, well done

Thanks

I mean it's visible with the naked eye, but we can pixel count it
And if there is a difference, well then there is an issue right?

[Quantum]

The frame of reference does not move, but almost everything we are looking at CAN move in some way.

Which is essential when cutting one part off, ie the rear wing, from the rest of the car and make a deduction solely based on....the rear wing flexing, correct?

[Farnborough]

The black squared section being a constant wouldn't have variance then, would it?
Yet....
https://i.ibb.co/QFbTkCSM/Screenshot-20 ... 092458.png

You are drawing on different boundaries of two lines and then you complain how it's not the same thing, well done

Thanks

I mean it's visible with the naked eye, but we can pixel count it
And if there is a difference, well then there is an issue right?

Which pixels ? The naked resolution of the sensor used to record this image, or your screen pixels that are now in different relationship to that original image .... and conditional on screen resolution.

As noted, it gets into things that have not readily been considered and will change or justify a false view without in depth knowledge.

The original images are really simple though, the wing moved (in relation to the car"s primary structure) and quite alot. Theres no magic in imaging to obscure that fact.