Could On Board Cameras be used to Measure Bodywork Movement?

[gibells]

Much of the discussions about flexing floors and wings has led me to the conclusion that the FIA's static load testing is inadequate as they simply cannot simulate actually aerodynamic loading on the body-work. As all the on-board cameras are the property of the FOM/FIA (not quite sure which), why could they not be incorporated into the FIA's bodywork tests.

Before you answer consider a) that the rules do not tolerate any flexing, and b) the flexing has been cleverly engineered in to provide improved performance, but could be equally seen as unsafe (witness RB6's inability to closely track another car- SV/JB accident- Spa)

Cricket, Rugby, Tennis all use electronic devices/video referee's to make rulings which the human eye can fail to spot. In football, goal line technology is being mooted to take human error out of the equation. Why couldn't the same philosophy be applied to our beloved sport/business* (*delete as applicable).

[vall]

I think no. There are lots of vibrations making this measurement unreliable. Besides, the car must fail a test that is in the regulations to be considered illegal. So, far the RBR car has passed all the test and we should stop talking about that. BRB are clever enough to build fast, legal car and if the others can't do that, it is their problem. Note that compared to the DDD cases, here there is no room for interpretation (e.g. decide if a hole is a hole or not). There are hard numbers in the regulations and if a car complies then it is legal.

[gibells]

I'm talking about the principle, not RB in particular. Don't forget technology filters down pretty fast. Notably this year RB have done it, but with clean sheets, next year everyone will be doing it, and to me that only spells disaster.

[Mystery Steve]

How would you discern between a flexing body/wing and undulations in the road surface? These cars are designed to be as close to the ground as possible and the flexing is very small. While I agree that video technology is beneficial in other sports, I am afraid you'll open up a can of worms here. It's difficult to accurately and precisely measure deflection using video in a laboratory setting. It's exponentially more difficult to do it accurately with a camera that is mounted at an oblique angle, and is possibly vibrating, as well.

If there is really a concern about flexing wings or body work, it should be addressed in the off-season. I have no problem with the current stiffness test in theory, but perhaps they need to reevaluate the loads that are used to determine if they are adequate.

I also wouldn't attribute the Vettel/Button incident to aerodynamic instability. That was a late move on Vettel's part and he just lost control.

[netoperek]

I already posted a reply but somehow it vanished ;( I've seen an industrial application of 3 dimensional measure of variations of shape and size of objects with images from multiple cameras, where objects could be in different positions. Whole system had error tolerance less than 1mm absolute. So, it is definitely doable. Even vibrations of various parts of a car are not that much of a problem as 1. they can be compensated 2. measured deflection is probably not considered relative to the part on which vibrating camera is located.
Total variance CAN be computed, so it is a measurment as good as any other.But, as Mystery Steve noted, it is quite difficult technique though, and there are far easier and less expensive (in resources needed) ways of measuring deflection.
Bigger BUT...the thing is, if FIA really wanted to restrict flexibility, they would simply broaden the existing testing range of dimensions from 1 to 3 and applied force (i suppose the actual testing is done by applying predefined force to one, predefined location of a tested part - ie. front wing).
If they use that kind of testing procedure, it is quite obvious, that once tested part passes the test, it is fine with them and they just dont give a damn if it is flexing more or less in different conditions.

PS. Hmm first time i wrote this it was just 5 lines long ;p sorry if it turned out boring ;]

[Giblet]

How would you discern between a flexing body/wing and undulations in the road surface?

The in-car camera mounts remain static, so any flexing recorded on them is proof of flexing.

Track-side cameras could not be used reliably.

[747heavy]

How would you discern between a flexing body/wing and undulations in the road surface?

The in-car camera mounts remain static, so any flexing recorded on them is proof of flexing.

Yes, but it is not neccesary prove of the part in question flexing, it could be the camera vibrating.
As farer the part is away from the camera lense, as more the relative movement would appear, for a slight movement/vibration of the camera.
I´m not questioning the usefulness of the oberservation, just the accuracy of the measurement.
The video "evidence" seen should be used to devise some more suitable static tests - IMHO. It is not that difficult to apply a force in a two dimensional way.
As an last resort, the FIA could even impound a car after a grand prix and put it in a windtunnel, if need be.
NASCAR does similar tests in their R&D centre, if they can´t measre things at the track.

If the message comes across, as "we will not let you get away with it", these things will die down by it´s own.
Not that nobody will ever try to cheat, but if the consequenses are big enough, people will think twice, if it is worth it.
At the moment, it is quite clear (at least to me), that the FIA, does not want to catch somebody with a "smoking gun" in his hand, otherwise they would not be so laid back with their tests and procedures.

On the other hand, I´m quite sure, that there is more to RBR´s pace, than just a "magic trick" here or there. It´s overall a good car, pushing the limit´s, some things are maybe a bit borderline, but it´s F1 at the end of the day. So Kudus to them, the others have just to try harder, and look at there own design and processes, there surely can be some improvements made.
It´s not that they run a 3.0 ltr engine or anything like this

IMHO

[Giblet]

Yes, but it is not neccesary prove of the part in question flexing, it could be the camera vibrating.

If you have a camera mounted above the driver, and the front wing flexes up and down while the nose remains static, that is the camera vibration causing selective vision?

See here the nose remains static, while the nose flexes. This kind of video evidence is conclusive unless viewed in a philosophical way: "Well yes you can see the wing flex, but does that mean it's actually happening?"



The rule enforces need to be able to make judgments based on all kinds of evidence, not just a load test. It's a shame they do not.

[747heavy]

I don´t disagree with what you say, but I think it´s difficult to quantify the flex in an meaningful way.
As the wing is allowed to flex, by the rules, so how we can say, that it does flex "too much".
Sure we can say/see that one wing may flexes more, then the one on another car, but does this makes the one which flexes more "too much" or the other one "not enough".

I see it as an indize but not as waterthight evidence, so to speak.

By the way. there where people suggesting, that they see the nosecone flexing as well, on this video (left hand side).

[Mystery Steve]

That is basically the point I was trying to make. As of now the regulations say that a car must not exceed a maximum deflection for a given static load. If someone really feels that they (Red Bull or otherwise) are flexing too much, then simply reevaluate and adjust the load amount and/or application method to something that is more suitable. Yes, with cameras you can make precise measurements, but I don't see how it can be done with any fidelity in a system where the static height is only a matter of a few millimeters to begin with, and any movement is even less so. Though, I welcome someone proving me wrong.

While the Red Bull images certainly show it is deflecting, it is hard to tell from that angle if it is a "legal" amount. The regulations must allow for some finite amount of deflection since every material has some finite stiffness. If you specify said amount, this can easily be tested with static weights, making cameras unnecessary. If you assume that the Red Bull engineers have devised a legal flexing wing, they may be doing it by taking advantage of nonlinear elasticity, either through the construction methods or materials used. If so, perhaps a better solution to the issue is to specify more than one weight used in the testing scenario to account for that kind of behavior.

[netoperek]

Mystery Steve, it really can be done, trust me Friend from uni even got his masters degree with something like that ;p
First of all, multiple cameras at the time are used, not one, even if it was the best camera You can get. It is done to compensate for the errors due to the perspective. The most tricky part is to know exact dimenstions and/or location of at least one object on the image, and that one in F1 is quite easy to do as You can for example print a ruler somewhere on the body of a car. If You realise that in some applications, 1 mm is like a light year, flexing which in many cases reaches centimeters can easily be measured with precision of AT LEAST -+ 10%.
When You do the measurement the proper way (with multiple cameras, few well known dimensions, proper math models of lenses and whole system) You can derive exact boundaries of error, so IT IS a measurement, not just some fuzzy-logic type stuff like "flexing just a tiny bit" or "flexing too much".
Although everyone in here realises that FIA just doesn't want, as 747heavy said, catch anyone with a "smoking gun", i suppose this thread is to evaluate possibility as stated in topic, so lets stop stating the obvious ;]

Regards

[vall]

wouldn't be easier to put sensors on the critical flexing parts (winds,floor, etc) and monitor the flexing in real-time this way? It seems more reliable to me and the technology to do that exists, e.g. in applications where certain device need to stay in fixed configuration (for example the segment mirror of the KECK telescopes in Hawaii). Of course on should proof that this will work in the presence of strong vibrations.

[Miguel]

Real objects flex and compress. Period. Even diamond compresses, and ends up suffering a phase transition into a denser semimetallic compound at about 10 million atmospheres. The first thing anybody learning rigid body dynamics must understand is that such a system is a nonexistent idealised problem. Given that the FIA rules are apparently written by either awful engineers or lawyers, such an aspect is not taken into account. Furthermore, look at the geometry of current wings. All of them are likely to twist given a yaw angle.

Also, I don't know why you are all so obsessed with such a flexing. You're complaining abour a few milimeters when subjecting a carbon fibre stuff to loads of a few hundred kg. Add to that spiky forces such as those for bumps. Add to the cammera effect the fact that your main reference to measure wing deflection is the suspension which, by definition, has some travel. The result is it's difficult to measure small deflections there. Possible? Yes. Reasonable? I beg to differ.

IMHO, the best way to write the "flexi-rule" is to specify the highest flexibility allowed, plus enforcing a linearity constraint (chi square bigger than, I don't know, 0.97). As an addendum, and to be fair, you can add a "safety provision", telling teams that if security concerns appear, the loads will be increased by a maximum of 50% or so during the season. That way, a team knowingly in the edge could (and should) have a solution ready before the rule change. You can also state, in that very same rule, that the intention is keeping the cars as close to rigid-body behaviour as reasonably attainable.

[Steven]

I don't think anything with the current camera system is conclusive. McLaren for one tried to prove the RBR front wing illegal due to the camera footage, but Red Bull's defence blew that out of the water very quickly. There were mentions of possibile bumps in the track, brake dive etc etc.

I have no doubt it could be done, especially if detailed footage can be used synchronously to a car's telemetry. In any case, I like simple static tests, you pass them, your car is legal.

[tarzoon]

What is the point of that if all parts are tested for flexibility beforehand?

Isn't it easier to change the rules instead?