Chassis Improvements - Grosjean accident

[wesley123]

Any digital system adds latency - how much that additional latency is a problem would have to be evaluated. For example, 50-100ms latency at 200km/h is ~3-6m.

IMO Mirrors are a better engineering solution.

Thinking about this, the latency times you reference are sort of in the range of internet times; with an onboard system it seems the times would be very small. Am I wrong?

Transmission time isn't significant, it's mostly coming from elsewhere.

A good starting point to estimate this (assuming they do no image processing) is 1/camera-fps plus the display latency (a good LCD is ~20ms). Addition because it's going to be asynchronous and worst case is you have to wait a full frame for the display update and a full camera frame too.

Any other processing thing they do (badly) in the middle will add a couple ms - saving, scaling, etc.

Then from experience I added another few ms as a fudge factor.

We've already seen digital rear view mirrors in GTs and LMPs for a few years now, this includes on-screen information on where another car is.

Such systems are entirely functional. The 20ms you name is quite high. For example This screen has an input lag of 0,009s according to this site. And those are for consumer accessible devices.

The mirror wouldn't need a 4K resolution, and on some sides don't require the specifications that you'd want for your TV. The big advantage they would bring would be in information outside of the viewing range; ie. is there a car.

I believe this can all be projected in a more than sufficient timeframe

[nzjrs]

Thinking about this, the latency times you reference are sort of in the range of internet times; with an onboard system it seems the times would be very small. Am I wrong?

Transmission time isn't significant, it's mostly coming from elsewhere.

A good starting point to estimate this (assuming they do no image processing) is 1/camera-fps plus the display latency (a good LCD is ~20ms). Addition because it's going to be asynchronous and worst case is you have to wait a full frame for the display update and a full camera frame too.

Any other processing thing they do (badly) in the middle will add a couple ms - saving, scaling, etc.

Then from experience I added another few ms as a fudge factor.

We've already seen digital rear view mirrors in GTs and LMPs for a few years now, this includes on-screen information on where another car is.

Such systems are entirely functional. The 20ms you name is quite high. For example This screen has an input lag of 0,009s according to this site. And those are for consumer accessible devices.

I agree that 20ms is average, but I dont think its atypical. However, FWIW I build and sell real-time closed-loop camera-display systems in my professional life and the numbers on these sites are worthless. The are prone to being fooled by the manufacturers just putting in the white->black substrate LCD pixel flip time, which is never the true latency but fools most gamers where their total closed loop latency will be coming mostly from elsewhere anyway. Or they just put in 1/fps and no one checks for the extra bit. If you want a trusted estimate because you are a gamer, buy one of these https://www.leobodnar.com/shop/?main_pa ... cts_id=212 (or similar).

But anyway, most of the time the latency in a complex system is the asynchronicity of the camera and display and the worst case performance of waiting for both to flip, which pretty soon gets you at 40ms and thats IMO too many meters at 200 km/h when compared with the latency of a piece of glass.

They could make it nicely synchronous like a broadcast mixing system and get down to < 0.5 camera-fps, but I on balance think it's a fools errand.