Ferrari F14T

[beelsebob]

Is his calculation perfect? No.
Is it a valiant effort? Yes.

A for effort, but the result means nothing.

Is it a point of reference? Yes.

No. It absolutely is not. Only with the camera projection matrices used could this become a valid point of reference.

Its easy to poo poo others work when you don't agree with it.

It's nothing to do with disagreeing, it's to do with the premise of the measurement, that perspective does not affect the location, being false.

The hard part is coming up with a competing calculation.

Computer graphics engineers did this degades ago, all you need do is multiply a bunch of points by matrices in various interesting arrangements, and the result will be the position in the photo. The matrices used in the two photos are different, and unknown, because of that, you can infer nothing at all about the input.

Say "I disagree with your calculations. Here are some others that are, in my opinion, more accurate."

There's no need to provide more accurate examples if you can provide proof that these calculations are incorrect. That's not to say that accurate calculations aren't interesting, but the fact that accurate calculations are interesting does not imply that inaccurate ones are interesting.

[bonjon1979]

Is his calculation perfect? No.
Is it a valiant effort? Yes.
Is it a point of reference? Yes.

Its easy to poo poo others work when you don't agree with it. The hard part is coming up with a competing calculation. Say "I disagree with your calculations. Here are some others that are, in my opinion, more accurate."

I'm not sure valiant is the word. I appreciate the time spent and not saying it to be mean. Hope I haven't offended you, just that you can't really use this method to achieve a meaningful result. Since this is a technical forum we should be able to point out inaccuracies. I can't compare the amount of rake as I would have to go off photos which as I said are no good for accuracy. I could say that both cars seem to have a decent amount but go no further than that really.

[emmepi27]

Friend @f1tomi8 posted it. What is this?

[Hail22]

Friend @f1tomi8 posted it. What is this?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhEbZthCAAA77Ad.jpg:large

Looks to be like a cooling inlet for the batteries? I could be mistaken, but there is no way that is feeding into the floor as that would be illegal?

[markp]

You can see the road in the top right of the hole or is it a trick of the light. I thought it would be illegal but it is testing. Would a team run an illegal solution to get data on ultimate potential then try and design a legal solution to get as close to the ultimate potential as possible?

If this does feed the floor what is the potential benefit?

[stefan_]

Winter Testing 2014 - Session 2, Day 4 - Bahrain (22.02.2014)

[marco.pav94]

There are also two new NACA inlets. Maybe they are simply trying to improve electrical components cooling...

[Pilatus]

New ducts.

Mercedes showed their enlarged cooling exits, probably testing for hotter races.
Maybe Ferrari is running similar tests.

[emmepi27]

Someone says that's a trick of the light... To me there is a cooling vent here!

[zioture]

only a a trick of the light, not an inlet

[stefan_]

Winter Testing 2014 - Session 2, Day 4 - Bahrain (22.02.2014)

[Vanja #66]

That bit of flow-vis on the left RW endplate doesn't look too bad...

[thomin]

Question: Would this kind of nose be illegal under current rules or is it just aerodynamically less efficient?

[Rikhart]

Thats a worse version of what they have now, yes its legal.

[C Plinius Secundus]

Trouble in Paradise: BBC reports the Ferrari engines (both on the F14T and the Sauber) have been suffering for misfiring due to fuel getting into the exhaust, a new problem not present in the Jerez test.

F1 journalist Dan Knutson: "Kimi Raikkonen is about to drive out of the garage. Moments later his Ferrari engine backfired. The sharp, very loud crack made the mechanics inside the garage and people in pitlane outside the garage jump."