2014 Japanese Grand Prix - Suzuka

[Phil]

The angle doesn't matter. The calc measures many lengths the car travels, not the actual distance.

Damn, you're right. I was trying to be too clever for my own good.

[turbof1]

But we have certain range of speed that we can be relative sure of that inbetween that range Bianchi was traveling?

[Jolle]

The angle doesn't matter. The calc measures many lengths the car travels, not the actual distance.

Damn, you're right. I was trying to be too clever for my own good.

the angle does matter, the further away from a 90 degree angle of the camera the car travels, the faster it goes. for instance, if it almost drives away from the camera, your measurement would give it a speed, of for instance, 10kph, while it could be traveling 300kph.

[McMrocks]

the roll hoop would have been in sheer so the force of the car against the edge of the crane meant it had no chance. The roll loop is designed to withstand being loaded along it's length - ie when a car flips.

2014 F1 Technical Regulations

ARTICLE 17 : ROLL STRUCTURE TESTING
17.1
Conditions applicable to both roll structure tests :
17.1.1
Rubber 3mm thick may be used between the load pads and the roll structure.
17.1.2
Both peak loads must be applied in less than three minutes and be maintained for 10 seconds.
17.1.3
Under the load, deformation must be less than 25mm in the case of the principal roll structure
and 50mm in the case of the secondary roll structure, measured along the loading axis and
any structural failure limited to 100mm below the top of the rollover structure when
measured vertically.
17.1.4 Any significant modification introduced into any of the structures tested shall require that part to pass a further test.

17.2 Principal roll structure test :
A load equivalent to 50kN laterally, 60kN longitudinally in a rearward direction and 90kN vertically, must be applied to the top of the structure through a rigid flat pad which is 200mm in diameter and perpendicular to the loading axis.
During the test, the roll structure must be attached to the survival cell which is supported on its underside on a flat plate, fixed to it through its engine mounting points and wedged laterally by any of the static load test pads described in Article 18.2.

17.3 Secondary roll structure test :
A vertical load of 75kN must be applied to the top of the structure through a rigid flat pad which is 100mm in diameter and perpendicular to the loading axis. The loading axis must be aligned with the highest point of the structure. During the test, the rollover structure must be attached to the survival cell which is fixed to a
flat horizontal plate.

In the crash test load is aplied in a rearward direction. Although i don't know how much it is in relation to impact the Marussia had to take

[Richard]

the angle does matter, the further away from a 90 degree angle of the camera the car travels, the faster it goes. for instance, if it almost drives away from the camera, your measurement would give it a speed, of for instance, 10kph, while it could be traveling 300kph.

Roadside speed cameras look directly at the front and back of a car, so your theory would mean they never catch someone speeding?

thedutchguy measured how long it took for the rear wheel to cross the same point as the front wheel. That's the length of one wheelbase no matter what angle you are looking at/from. (never end a sentence with a preposition ) That's exactly how speed cameras work, they use white lines on the road in the same way as thedutchguy used a red arrow:

[Phil]

the angle does matter, the further away from a 90 degree angle of the camera the car travels, the faster it goes. for instance, if it almost drives away from the camera, your measurement would give it a speed, of for instance, 10kph, while it could be traveling 300kph.

The assumption is that if he had traveled away from the camera, then the width of the car from the camera angle would also be shorter (narrower), so it would equal out and still be an accurate representation. The only problem with a steeper angle is that the margin of error becomes larger, because every pixel represents a larger distance...

[Jolle]

Speedcamera's have calculations for the angle that they measure build in. With Bianchi's footage you get this:

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3942/1529 ... ca67_b.jpg

with frame by frame you get the speed relative 90 degrees of the camera, while the actual distance can be greater in the same time.

[thedutchguy]

Like Richard said, the angle doesn't matter if you compare two points in time on a straight line AND you know the distance which is traveled (in this case the wheel base of the car). If you'd want to calculate the distance traveled, then the angle is of importance.

Again, we're not trying to calculate the distance, but the amount of time it takes to cover a known distance.

[Jolle]

Aha, i see my mistake now, sorry!

[komninosm]

I thought DRS was meant to be auto-deactivated as soon as you lifted or pushed the brake.

I believe Alex Yoong said that braking into the first corner of Suzuka is done well after corner entry so DRS here had to be closed manually.

Thanks guys.
So there's no automatic mechanism that shuts off DRS at the end of a straight, like the one (GPS?) that enables at the start?

[SectorOne]

There´s no automatic deployment of the DRS.

[langwadt]

I thought DRS was meant to be auto-deactivated as soon as you lifted or pushed the brake.

I believe Alex Yoong said that braking into the first corner of Suzuka is done well after corner entry so DRS here had to be closed manually.

Thanks guys.
So there's no automatic mechanism that shuts off DRS at the end of a straight, like the one (GPS?) that enables at the start?

When allowed to the driver can enable/disable DRS within the DRS zone, first time hits the brake it is automatically turned off. In some cases it is best to manually disable DRS and let the car "settle" before hitting the brakes

[djos]

My guess it's that on the wet the drivers turn DRS off manually to ensure they have the full rear wrong downforce in play for braking.

When it's wet you'd need every last bit off it to maintain stable braking imo.

[Wayne DR]

If the drivers tyres were worn out they should have pitted for new ones. It is not the FIAs job to send out a safety car because some drivers have decided they do not need to pit for new tyres.

I totally agree! The drivers need to make the call when to change to/from Full Slicks, Inters and Full Wets. This is racing. Button got his 5th place by making the right choices at the right times.

The problem is that the car becomes a dangerous weapon if the tyre selection is significantly wrong (i.e. worn inters when full wets are required), and the driver decides to stay out to not lose 20/25 seconds in the pits at the end of a race(i.e. Massa).

Should the FIA be trying to stop drivers putting themselves in these situations?

[mrluke]

Could give them penalties in the following races for causing an avoidable collision? (If they crash of course).