47 replies to this topic

[r4mses]

With all that confusion about the car's dimensions, I thought it's a good idea trying to summarise the data.

So far I got Sauber, Mercedes and Renault. All data in cm.

(no idea how to enter proper tables...)

Mercedes MGP W01 (based on this & this)

• length: 480
• width: 180
• track width front/rear: ?/?
• height: 95
• wheelbase: 301

Sauber C29 (based on this & this)

• length: 494
• width: 180
• track width front/rear: 149,5/141
• height: 100
• wheelbase: 327

Renault R30 (based on this)

• length: 505
• width: 180
• track width front/rear: 145/140
• height: 95
• wheelbase: ?

Virgin VR-01 (based on this)

• length: 550
• width: 180
• track width front/rear: ?/?
• height: 95
• wheelbase: 320

McLaren MP4-25 (based on this)

• length: ?
• width: ?
• track width front/rear: ?/?
• height: ?
• wheelbase: 328

Ferrari F10 (based on this)

• length: ?
• width: ?
• track width front/rear: ?/?
• height: ?
• wheelbase: 321

Feel free to complement that list. I know you have more sources than me and I won't get data from all cars ,)

Edited by r4mses, 04 February 2010 - 18:09.

[Ruud de la Rosa]

just made this for the williams tread:

[pingu666]

crickey the williams is way smaller

[Demo.]

crickey the williams is way smaller

dont forget the angle the pictures were taken from as all the other cars you can clearly see they were taken square on to the side of the vechicle but with the williams it was taken from a different angle which makes the car look shorter than it is.
(check out the rear wings to see it most clearly on all the other cars you can see the inside of the far side of the rear wing with the williams you cannot)
I estimate a 10 deg difference in relative angles and hence the shorterning we see

Edited by Demo., 02 February 2010 - 06:20.

[roadie]

In Jenson Button's interview on the front page he says that the Williams and Renault cars are the smallest:

The Renault and the Williams look tiny - that looks the smallest car. So it's interesting that people have tried different lengths of cars. I think that's to do with the fuel tank but also other aero things I am sure.

[V8 Fireworks]

With all that confusion about the car's dimensions, I thought it's a good idea trying to summarise the data.

So far I got Sauber, Mercedes and Renault. All data in cm.

(no idea how to enter proper tables...)

Mercedes MGP W01 (based on this)

• length: 480
• width: 180
• track width front/rear: ?/?
• height: 95
• wheelbase: ?

Sauber C29 (based on this)

• length: 494
• width: 180
• track width front/rear: 149,5/141
• height: 100
• wheelbase: ?

Renault R30 (based on this)

• length: 505
• width: 180
• track width front/rear: 145/140
• height: 95
• wheelbase: ?

Virgin VR-01 (based on this)

• length: 550
• width: 180
• track width front/rear: ?/?
• height: 95
• wheelbase: 320

Feel free to complement that list. I know you have more sources than me and I won't get data from all cars ,)

Superb analysis.

[listerine]

Virgin VR-01 (based on this)

* length: 550
* width: 180
* track width front/rear: ?/?
* height: 95
* wheelbase: 320

I know that those figures are from the Virgin site, but I'm not sure they are correct.
A 3.2m wheelbase and a 5.5m over all length, would give 2.3 meters of overhangs (just under 2 1/2 times the hight of the car.)

[r4mses]

I know that those figures are from the Virgin site, but I'm not sure they are correct.
A 3.2m wheelbase and a 5.5m over all length, would give 2.3 meters of overhangs (just under 2 1/2 times the hight of the car.)

Jep, sounds strange.

In some comments I read that, based on the pictures of the car, they calculated 4,7m as overall lenght. Somone else stated that according to the regulations, the overhang is max. 1,2m at the front and 0,6m at the back, which results in 5m overall length (taking 3,2m wheelbase).

One might think it's a rather easy task for a F1 team to measure their car with a measuring error of <10% Oo

Edited by r4mses, 04 February 2010 - 18:25.

[FA and RK fan]

Jep, sounds strange.

In some comments I read that, based on the pictures of the car, they calculated 4,7m as overall lenght. Somone else stated that according to the regulations, the overhang is max. 1,2m at the front and 0,6m at the back, which results in 5m overall length (taking 3,2m wheelbase).

One might think it's a rather easy task for a F1 team to measure their car with a measuring error of <10% Oo

and what is included in that overhang, i am sure front wing and rear wing must be prety close to both axles, otherwise there might be some benefits right. It is probably just nose at the front and crast structure at the rear, no?

[barteks]

just made this for the williams tread:

Could you add Renault?

[hunnylander]

My numbers are approx, and as I'll measure more and more images there can be a decent size of diffraction. My conclusion is only to set the order, I could put at every number plus-minus 7cm or so.

Also, keep in mind, teams are hiding revealing data with their studio photos. They are manipulated (especially of the big teams). Also teams don't publish really accurate numbers, that's for only the FIA, not for public.

Edited by hunnylander, 04 February 2010 - 22:12.

[salamin]

found some virgin comparison pictures

[barteks]

If Virgin is 5500mm long, then Ferrari should be around 5650mm?

[alecc]

found some virgin comparison pictures

Don't take the comparisons seriously, even a small difference in angle makes this:

[Alonzo]

Force India's Wheel base: 3500mm
source

[highdownforce]

Force India VJM03 (based on this)

• length: 490
• width: 180
• track width front/rear: 148/142
• height: 95
• wheelbase: 350

[Ruud de la Rosa]

Don't take the comparisons seriously, even a small difference in angle makes this:

IMAGE

you can correct for the angle by stretching and scaling the image to match BOTH the front and rear tyres. In top shots you can then check for lens distortions by checking the absolute cockpit size compared to tyre diameter. Maybe next year I'll make a little matlab file for this. But that is a big maybe!

[Ruud de la Rosa]

Force India VJM03 (based on this)

• length: 490
• width: 180
• track width front/rear: 148/142
• height: 95
• wheelbase: 350

350? that's long! the mclaren is the longest so far with 328cm. (from picture approximation)

[hunnylander]

Force India VJM03 (based on this)

• length: 490
• width: 180
• track width front/rear: 148/142
• height: 95
• wheelbase: 350

That's false, and you can expect that from every serious team, they won't reveal those data.

But I prove it.

Just a rough measuring on the side view:

Wheelbase: approx 1132px
Length: approx 1633px (though those part are more far than the wheels, so this number should be bigger)

3500mm / 1132 × 1633 -> approx 505cm

So 505cm vs 490cm, they haven't published one or both number correctly.

4900mm / 1633 × 1132 -> approx 334cm

[Alonzo]

@hunnylander
you estimated 327mm for Sauber but according to my estimation it's wheelbase is between 331-333mm. Are wheelbases published officially in some point so we can see who's closer?

[highdownforce]

That's false, and you can expect that from every serious team, they won't reveal those data.

But I prove it.

Just a rough measuring on the side view:

Wheelbase: approx 1132px
Length: approx 1633px (though those part are more far than the wheels, so this number should be bigger)

3500mm / 1132 × 1633 -> approx 505cm

So 505cm vs 490cm, they haven't published one or both number correctly.

4900mm / 1633 × 1132 -> approx 334cm

...Or some dodgy angle was used on that picture.

[hulmerist]

nvm

Edited by hulmerist, 09 February 2010 - 17:55.

[hunnylander]

...Or some dodgy angle was used on that picture.

The perspective is clear on the pictrue. That relates to math and numbers. The wheels are nearer to the camera, than the nose and rear wing, so what you measure from nose to rear wing end (in pixel), that means a bigger size in reality (that the same pixel amount on a nearer object).

Even without this correction, it is clear the published numbers are fancy bullshit for the layman public to look at. FI aims to be a strong team, they are purposfully hiding their precise w/b number.

[hunnylander]

@hunnylander
you estimated 327mm for Sauber but according to my estimation it's wheelbase is between 331-333mm. Are wheelbases published officially in some point so we can see who's closer?

That seems to me a good number (but in cm). To set the order between the cars is easier than to set the cm range in what they are. The rear wing is a small reference with not enough sharp edges, the wheel rim is even smaller. So the Sauber w/b could be even 5-10 cm longer for example, I'm only sure in that the Sauber is longer than the Ferrari, and the McLaren is longer than the Sauber. I measured ratios between the cars, so for setting the order I don't need to know the exact numbers in centimeter.

[korzeniow]

Could you add Renault?

Better not.

There isn't picture of R30 taken from side (like McLaren, Ferrari, Sauber, etc.). Of course he could try with picture from track, but look at Williams on this comparison - it's useless.

[anbeck]

Much more interesting whether comparing images can tell us anything precise (I don't think so), would be: what are the implications of these findings, if we assume for a moment that they were true.

The biggest factor in overall car length changes this year would be the fuel tank (though I as a layman would think a longer car gives more space for a double diffusor as well...). So what does it tell us that the Merc is apparently shorter than his competitors? One would have to assume that they will have enough space to take on enough fuel to finish the race, and McLaren and Force India race the same engine that has the same fuel consumption (give or take some aero differences).

Did Merc put a rather wide tank in its car? What does this mean over a race length? Except for Monaco, has a shorter car any other advantages? What is the weight difference, if you have to use less carbon because your car is 20 cms shorter?

[Alonzo]

The perspective is clear on the pictrue. That relates to math and numbers. The wheels are nearer to the camera, than the nose and rear wing, so what you measure from nose to rear wing end (in pixel), that means a bigger size in reality (that the same pixel amount on a nearer object).

Even without this correction, it is clear the published numbers are fancy bullshit for the layman public to look at. FI aims to be a strong team, they are purposfully hiding their precise w/b number.

I did this correction as well, which led me to a number higher than 331mm or 3,31cm and probably less than 3,33 cm.

[anbeck]

I did this correction as well, which led me to a number higher than 331mm or 3,31cm and probably less than 3,33 cm.;)

Well spotted, but to continue splitting hairs: in my world 331mm still add up to 33,1 cm.

[hunnylander]

Better not.

There isn't picture of R30 taken from side (like McLaren, Ferrari, Sauber, etc.). Of course he could try with picture from track, but look at Williams on this comparison - it's useless.

There is a couple of good Valencia side views about the R30, only its blackish wheel rim makes a bit hard to measure, but I'm sure in that the R30 is one of the smaller wheelbase cars. I've made an order for the 8 cars here.

Edited by hunnylander, 09 February 2010 - 20:46.

[korzeniow]

There is a couple of good Valencia side views about the R30, only its blackish wheel rim makes a bit hard to measure, but I'm sure in that the R30 is one of the smaller wheelbase cars. I've made an order for the 8 cars here.

Actually R30 has the smallest wheelbase so far.

[Alonzo]

Well spotted, but to continue splitting hairs: in my world 331mm still add up to 33,1 cm.

yeah, I'm sorry. My measure in mm is 3310 and obviously the wheelbase is larger than 3,31 meters

@hunnylander, maybe instead of using the rear wing endplate as a reference you would like to use the tyre diameter as I did, which is 660mm.

[hunnylander]

yeah, I'm sorry. My measure in mm is 3310 and obviously the wheelbase is larger than 3,31 meters

@hunnylander, maybe instead of using the rear wing endplate as a reference you would like to use the tyre diameter as I did, which is 660mm.

I used that when a started the whole thing, but then I noticed it's far from to be consistent. It changes in its size dynamically as the car goes and many pictures have such tyre states even if it isn't obvious. Wheel rims (13 inches) are more rigid to find out the ratio.

[r4mses]

That's false, and you can expect that from every serious team, they won't reveal those data.

[...]

Ye, some of the data we got to know by the teams seems to be quite strange... but I don't get it. Why do they even try to hide the real data? They can't cover their cars during tests, practice sessions, grid, race, etc... so by Australia all the other teams will know what their lenght and wheelbase is anyway.

[alecc]

Actually R30 has the smallest wheelbase so far.

Source please.

[korzeniow]

Source please.

Forget it!

[korzeniow]

Just kidding.

triart3d on f1technical's forum posted comparison he made:



Unfortunatelly Mercedes, Toro Rosso and Williams didn't provide proper pictures.

[Mox]

I love threads like this. It makes my heart beat and adrenaline flow through my veins.

Thanks to all you that participate in this kind of discussion and don't just fight over whether Mansell or Berger was the better driver in semi-wet conditions or headwind.

[alecc]

Just kidding.

triart3d on f1technical's forum posted comparison he made:

(...)

Unfortunatelly Mercedes, Toro Rosso and Williams didn't provide proper pictures.

As I showed before:


You can't compare Renault with Ferrari based on this photos, different angles! Look how the size of the front tires differs in those both.

[korzeniow]

You can't compare Renault with Ferrari based on this photos, different angles! Look how the size of the front tires differs in those both.

Yes, you can.

It's better to have overall view with some degree of fault than don't have it at all. It's fine for me, it don't have to be 100% accurate.

(And on this photo that I posted differences look smaller. Check it yourself, just install ruler in your browser.)

[Languedoc]

Hello friends.

Interesting thread...

Can someone tell me the capacity in litres of last year´s tanks and this year´s? (as an average)


Thanks a lot

[hunnylander]

Ye, some of the data we got to know by the teams seems to be quite strange... but I don't get it. Why do they even try to hide the real data? They can't cover their cars during tests, practice sessions, grid, race, etc... so by Australia all the other teams will know what their lenght and wheelbase is anyway.

Apart from sharing IP (which would be illegal spying) with exact numbers, the teams also have to calculate other teams' wheelbases based on photos, so it can't be mm of cm accurate for 100% sure. And it's a good business for photographers.

Ross Brawn after Valencia:
All the photographers are out there gathering data for the teams. I am sure when the engineers pour all over the photographs there will be some interesting things.

Edited by hunnylander, 10 February 2010 - 07:51.

[highdownforce]

Lotus T127 (based on this)

• length: ?
• width: 180
• track width front/rear: ?/?
• height: 95
• wheelbase: +300

[inaki]

Hello friends.

Interesting thread...

Can someone tell me the capacity in litres of last year´s tanks and this year´s? (as an average)


Thanks a lot

A Renault F1 engineer interviewed in radio has said that last year max fuel capacity in tanks was 90 kg. For 2010 max tank capacity is 200 kgs.

[Francesc]

Can someone do a comparision with those images, to me those look to be at the same angle:
http://www.motorspor...z1266068420.jpg
http://www.motorspor...z1266068449.jpg
http://www.motorspor...z1266068457.jpg
http://www.motorspor...z1266068464.jpg
http://www.motorspor...z1266068442.jpg
http://www.motorspor...z1266068404.jpg
http://www.motorspor...z1266067240.jpg

[Alonzo]

Hi there, Francesc!

There are slight differences in the angle and distance and this can lead to incorrect comparisons.

[korzeniow]

Do you knew where I can find amounts of teams' employees? That I can judge which team is bigger.

[froggy22]

Can someone do a comparision with those images, to me those look to be at the same angle:
http://www.motorspor...z1266068420.jpg
http://www.motorspor...z1266068449.jpg
http://www.motorspor...z1266068457.jpg
http://www.motorspor...z1266068464.jpg
http://www.motorspor...z1266068442.jpg
http://www.motorspor...z1266068404.jpg
http://www.motorspor...z1266067240.jpg

is it me or is the Red Bull Tiny?

[korzeniow]

is it me or is the Red Bull Tiny?

Diffrent range from camera, their tyres look smaller.

But I suppose they should be tiny, they have last year's bestefficient engine, so presumably they should have smaller fuel tank