Team: Toto Wolff (Executive Director - Business), Paddy Lowe (Executive Director - Technical), Andy Cowell (Executive Director of Mercedes AMG Powertrains), Niki Lauda (Chairman), Bob Bell (TD), Aldo Costa (ED), Geoffrey Willis (Technology Director), Ron Meadows (SD), Andrew Shovlin (CRE), Simon Cole (CTE), Matthew Dane (CM)
Drivers: Nico Rosberg (6), Lewis Hamilton (44)
Team name: Mercedes AMG F1 Petronas
Multiple analysis tools disagree with you. 3 different techniques all say this is a genuine image. Here's the output of the most reliable one. As you can see, nothing unusual at all going on around the fin.Giando wrote:Sorry but i believe that's photoshopped.mix2mix wrote:Now Hamilton go out with different engine cover:
http://images.scribblelive.com/2014/3/2 ... 14_800.jpg
The fin dimensions do not respect the mandatory sizes in height and lenght, imho.
Anyone?
That particular image comes from this tool http://fotoforensics.com/tutorial-ela.phpNathanOlder wrote:Very cool. What tool have you used there Beelsebob ?
That's a remarkable way of thinking. If they have a less powerful engine, they need MORE cooling, since they are using the same amount of fuel (I think this is safe to assume given the rules). Less fuel converted to kinetic energy means more fuel converted to waste heat...Javert wrote:Are you kidding us?LightningLewis wrote:Isn't it a bit worring how much more cooling the Mercedes need compared to e.g. the Sauber, the RB and Ferrari? The others just seem to be so much more compact packed at the rear while Mercedes need the HUGE opening at the rear.
Better having mileage and big openings than small openings and no mileage!
Ferrari has slightly less powerful engine so they need less cooling
As was covered on another thread, not necessarily. Less power can simply mean less of the fuel being burned less efficiently.Per wrote:That's a remarkable way of thinking. If they have a less powerful engine, they need MORE cooling, since they are using the same amount of fuel (I think this is safe to assume given the rules). Less fuel converted to kinetic energy means more fuel converted to waste heat...Javert wrote:Are you kidding us?LightningLewis wrote:Isn't it a bit worring how much more cooling the Mercedes need compared to e.g. the Sauber, the RB and Ferrari? The others just seem to be so much more compact packed at the rear while Mercedes need the HUGE opening at the rear.
Better having mileage and big openings than small openings and no mileage!
Ferrari has slightly less powerful engine so they need less cooling
Are you saying someone is not gonna burn all the fuel provided?beelsebob wrote:Less power can simply mean less of the fuel being burned less efficiently.
It was actually this very thread, I should have read to the end before reacting, sorry.beelsebob wrote:As was covered on another thread, not necessarily. Less power can simply mean less of the fuel being burned less efficiently.Per wrote:That's a remarkable way of thinking. If they have a less powerful engine, they need MORE cooling, since they are using the same amount of fuel (I think this is safe to assume given the rules). Less fuel converted to kinetic energy means more fuel converted to waste heat...Javert wrote:Are you kidding us?
Better having mileage and big openings than small openings and no mileage!
Ferrari has slightly less powerful engine so they need less cooling
Yes, I'm saying that ICEs don't perfectly burn all fuel. This is a major source of inefficiency in engines.timbo wrote:Are you saying someone is not gonna burn all the fuel provided?beelsebob wrote:Less power can simply mean less of the fuel being burned less efficiently.
And if it's burn less efficiently, it means more is converted to heat than work.
Or partially burned by-products that could be burned more. And no, in the current ruleset there's no reason I can see that you would want to do that – but that doesn't mean you can perfectly avoid it.But you are implying that Ferrari is throwing more fuel out of the exhaust than Mercedes. Is there any reason why they would want to do that?
