Why do F1 cars still have wing mirrors when by all accounts they’re near useless?

 

The cars are already fitted with a number of cameras and given the abundance of technology and recourses I just can’t help thinking they’d be better off with a small screen somewhere or some sort of head up display like the military use.

 

Is it mandatory to have wing mirrors or is there some aero benefit?

They can not rely on cameras. Electronics are good but they can fail (OK you can argue mirrors can also break but less likely)!!!!

 

Still, it is part of the technical regulation as follows (extracted from Technical regualtion published by FIA):

14.3 Rear view mirrors :

14.3.1 All cars must have at least two mirrors mounted so that the driver has visibility to the rear and both sides of the car.

14.3.2 The reflective surface of each mirror must be at least 150mm wide, this being maintained over a height of at least 50mm. Additionally, each corner may have a radius no greater than 10mm.

2010 F1 Technical Regulations 39 of 62 30 April 2009

14.3.3 No part of the reflective surface may be less than 250mm from the car centre line or more than 750mm from the rear of the cockpit entry template.

14.3.4 The FIA technical delegate must be satisfied by a practical demonstration that the driver, when seated normally, can clearly define following vehicles.

For this purpose, the driver shall be required to identify any letter or number, 150mm high and 100mm wide, placed anywhere on boards behind the car, the positions of which are detailed below:

Height : From 400mm to 1000mm from the ground.

Width : 4000mm either side of the centre line of the car.

Position : 10m behind the rear axle line of the car. 

 

mo1965:

They can not rely on cameras. Electronics are good but they can fail (OK you can argue mirrors can also break but less likely)!!!!

 

Still, it is part of the technical regulation as follows (extracted from Technical regualtion published by FIA):

14.3 Rear view mirrors :

14.3.1 All cars must have at least two mirrors mounted so that the driver has visibility to the rear and both sides of the car.

14.3.2 The reflective surface of each mirror must be at least 150mm wide, this being maintained over a height of at least 50mm. Additionally, each corner may have a radius no greater than 10mm.

2010 F1 Technical Regulations 39 of 62 30 April 2009

14.3.3 No part of the reflective surface may be less than 250mm from the car centre line or more than 750mm from the rear of the cockpit entry template.

14.3.4 The FIA technical delegate must be satisfied by a practical demonstration that the driver, when seated normally, can clearly define following vehicles.

For this purpose, the driver shall be required to identify any letter or number, 150mm high and 100mm wide, placed anywhere on boards behind the car, the positions of which are detailed below:

Height : From 400mm to 1000mm from the ground.

Width : 4000mm either side of the centre line of the car.

Position : 10m behind the rear axle line of the car. 

 

Thanks for that, they're mandatory then. In my view another area where the regulations are stifling technological advance and adding nothing to safety. 

 

There was a thread about this fairly recently, or maybe it was posts in another thread.  I recall that katiekutie discussed the possibility of using cameras instead of mirrors, and several posters had opinons.  I can't remember when it was though.

mo1965:

They can not rely on cameras. Electronics are good but they can fail (OK you can argue mirrors can also break but less likely)!!!!

 

Still, it is part of the technical regulation as follows (extracted from Technical regualtion published by FIA):

14.3 Rear view mirrors :

14.3.1 All cars must have at least two mirrors mounted so that the driver has visibility to the rear and both sides of the car.

14.3.2 The reflective surface of each mirror must be at least 150mm wide, this being maintained over a height of at least 50mm. Additionally, each corner may have a radius no greater than 10mm.

2010 F1 Technical Regulations 39 of 62 30 April 2009

14.3.3 No part of the reflective surface may be less than 250mm from the car centre line or more than 750mm from the rear of the cockpit entry template.

14.3.4 The FIA technical delegate must be satisfied by a practical demonstration that the driver, when seated normally, can clearly define following vehicles.

For this purpose, the driver shall be required to identify any letter or number, 150mm high and 100mm wide, placed anywhere on boards behind the car, the positions of which are detailed below:

Height : From 400mm to 1000mm from the ground.

Width : 4000mm either side of the centre line of the car.

Position : 10m behind the rear axle line of the car. 

 

mo, we use electronics to keep planes in the air and to stop trains from hitting each other, it's not beyond the wit of man to produce a safety critical compliant rearview system using cameras and flat screens, the normal method is to build a duplicated system. It would be no more difficult than building an engine management system - and they are pretty reliable!

The FIA rules are interesting though - and just go to prove what I've been saying about over-prescriptive rules.

I accept all the bits from 14.3.4 relating to what has to be able to be read from the driving position. That's the really important bit, it's a performance related requirement. The rest is over-restrictive and not neccessary, why specify mirrors? Why not let the Engineers use their inspiration and innovation? Tell them what they have to achieve, not how to do it. OK, there may be something required to stop them being aero devices, but if you can meet the important bit, what you have to be able to see behind you, why all the rest? My limited experience of mirrors on single seat cars is that you can see very little whilst stationary and even less when they start to vibrate at speed, I'm sure a camera and screen based system would be better.

 

katiekutie:

mo1965:

They can not rely on cameras. Electronics are good but they can fail (OK you can argue mirrors can also break but less likely)!!!!

 

Still, it is part of the technical regulation as follows (extracted from Technical regualtion published by FIA):

14.3 Rear view mirrors :

14.3.1 All cars must have at least two mirrors mounted so that the driver has visibility to the rear and both sides of the car.

14.3.2 The reflective surface of each mirror must be at least 150mm wide, this being maintained over a height of at least 50mm. Additionally, each corner may have a radius no greater than 10mm.

2010 F1 Technical Regulations 39 of 62 30 April 2009

14.3.3 No part of the reflective surface may be less than 250mm from the car centre line or more than 750mm from the rear of the cockpit entry template.

14.3.4 The FIA technical delegate must be satisfied by a practical demonstration that the driver, when seated normally, can clearly define following vehicles.

For this purpose, the driver shall be required to identify any letter or number, 150mm high and 100mm wide, placed anywhere on boards behind the car, the positions of which are detailed below:

Height : From 400mm to 1000mm from the ground.

Width : 4000mm either side of the centre line of the car.

Position : 10m behind the rear axle line of the car. 

 

mo, we use electronics to keep planes in the air and to stop trains from hitting each other, it's not beyond the wit of man to produce a safety critical compliant rearview system using cameras and flat screens, the normal method is to build a duplicated system. It would be no more difficult than building an engine management system - and they are pretty reliable!

The FIA rules are interesting though - and just go to prove what I've been saying about over-prescriptive rules.

I accept all the bits from 14.3.4 relating to what has to be able to be read from the driving position. That's the really important bit, it's a performance related requirement. The rest is over-restrictive and not neccessary, why specify mirrors? Why not let the Engineers use their inspiration and innovation? Tell them what they have to achieve, not how to do it. OK, there may be something required to stop them being aero devices, but if you can meet the important bit, what you have to be able to see behind you, why all the rest? My limited experience of mirrors on single seat cars is that you can see very little whilst stationary and even less when they start to vibrate at speed, I'm sure a camera and screen based system would be better.

 

Katie.  I really do admire your passion and enthusiasm for engineering, but dont you think you are over complicating things a little. Its just a mirror, something that as worked very well for quite some time. You could spend a fortune designing a table fork, but it wont make the food taste any better, or much easier to eat. I remember NASA spending millions on a pen that would work in space, when a 10p biro would work just as well. Cameras would offer very little practical benefit over something that as worked well for years.

They just press Left one for a rear view, well I do anyway.

redfrog:

katiekutie:

mo1965:

They can not rely on cameras. Electronics are good but they can fail (OK you can argue mirrors can also break but less likely)!!!!

 

Still, it is part of the technical regulation as follows (extracted from Technical regualtion published by FIA):

14.3 Rear view mirrors :

14.3.1 All cars must have at least two mirrors mounted so that the driver has visibility to the rear and both sides of the car.

14.3.2 The reflective surface of each mirror must be at least 150mm wide, this being maintained over a height of at least 50mm. Additionally, each corner may have a radius no greater than 10mm.

2010 F1 Technical Regulations 39 of 62 30 April 2009

14.3.3 No part of the reflective surface may be less than 250mm from the car centre line or more than 750mm from the rear of the cockpit entry template.

14.3.4 The FIA technical delegate must be satisfied by a practical demonstration that the driver, when seated normally, can clearly define following vehicles.

For this purpose, the driver shall be required to identify any letter or number, 150mm high and 100mm wide, placed anywhere on boards behind the car, the positions of which are detailed below:

Height : From 400mm to 1000mm from the ground.

Width : 4000mm either side of the centre line of the car.

Position : 10m behind the rear axle line of the car. 

 

mo, we use electronics to keep planes in the air and to stop trains from hitting each other, it's not beyond the wit of man to produce a safety critical compliant rearview system using cameras and flat screens, the normal method is to build a duplicated system. It would be no more difficult than building an engine management system - and they are pretty reliable!

The FIA rules are interesting though - and just go to prove what I've been saying about over-prescriptive rules.

I accept all the bits from 14.3.4 relating to what has to be able to be read from the driving position. That's the really important bit, it's a performance related requirement. The rest is over-restrictive and not neccessary, why specify mirrors? Why not let the Engineers use their inspiration and innovation? Tell them what they have to achieve, not how to do it. OK, there may be something required to stop them being aero devices, but if you can meet the important bit, what you have to be able to see behind you, why all the rest? My limited experience of mirrors on single seat cars is that you can see very little whilst stationary and even less when they start to vibrate at speed, I'm sure a camera and screen based system would be better.

 

Katie.  I really do admire your passion and enthusiasm for engineering, but dont you think you are over complicating things a little. Its just a mirror, something that as worked very well for quite some time. You could spend a fortune designing a table fork, but it wont make the food taste any better, or much easier to eat. I remember NASA spending millions on a pen that would work in space, when a 10p biro would work just as well. Cameras would offer very little practical benefit over something that as worked well for years.

My arguement is much more about principle than practice. Yes, a mirror works very well - but with limitations because of the need to position it such that you get the maximum rear view available that would not be the same with a camera based system. What I'm really making the point over is the FIA's rules which stipulate what you must be able to do and then say how you must do it. It stiffles innovation to have those sort of rules.

 

katiekutie:

redfrog:

katiekutie:

mo1965:

They can not rely on cameras. Electronics are good but they can fail (OK you can argue mirrors can also break but less likely)!!!!

 

Still, it is part of the technical regulation as follows (extracted from Technical regualtion published by FIA):

14.3 Rear view mirrors :

14.3.1 All cars must have at least two mirrors mounted so that the driver has visibility to the rear and both sides of the car.

14.3.2 The reflective surface of each mirror must be at least 150mm wide, this being maintained over a height of at least 50mm. Additionally, each corner may have a radius no greater than 10mm.

2010 F1 Technical Regulations 39 of 62 30 April 2009

14.3.3 No part of the reflective surface may be less than 250mm from the car centre line or more than 750mm from the rear of the cockpit entry template.

14.3.4 The FIA technical delegate must be satisfied by a practical demonstration that the driver, when seated normally, can clearly define following vehicles.

For this purpose, the driver shall be required to identify any letter or number, 150mm high and 100mm wide, placed anywhere on boards behind the car, the positions of which are detailed below:

Height : From 400mm to 1000mm from the ground.

Width : 4000mm either side of the centre line of the car.

Position : 10m behind the rear axle line of the car. 

 

mo, we use electronics to keep planes in the air and to stop trains from hitting each other, it's not beyond the wit of man to produce a safety critical compliant rearview system using cameras and flat screens, the normal method is to build a duplicated system. It would be no more difficult than building an engine management system - and they are pretty reliable!

The FIA rules are interesting though - and just go to prove what I've been saying about over-prescriptive rules.

I accept all the bits from 14.3.4 relating to what has to be able to be read from the driving position. That's the really important bit, it's a performance related requirement. The rest is over-restrictive and not neccessary, why specify mirrors? Why not let the Engineers use their inspiration and innovation? Tell them what they have to achieve, not how to do it. OK, there may be something required to stop them being aero devices, but if you can meet the important bit, what you have to be able to see behind you, why all the rest? My limited experience of mirrors on single seat cars is that you can see very little whilst stationary and even less when they start to vibrate at speed, I'm sure a camera and screen based system would be better.

 

Katie.  I really do admire your passion and enthusiasm for engineering, but dont you think you are over complicating things a little. Its just a mirror, something that as worked very well for quite some time. You could spend a fortune designing a table fork, but it wont make the food taste any better, or much easier to eat. I remember NASA spending millions on a pen that would work in space, when a 10p biro would work just as well. Cameras would offer very little practical benefit over something that as worked well for years.

My arguement is much more about principle than practice. Yes, a mirror works very well - but with limitations because of the need to position it such that you get the maximum rear view available that would not be the same with a camera based system. What I'm really making the point over is the FIA's rules which stipulate what you must be able to do and then say how you must do it. It stiffles innovation to have those sort of rules.

 

I hear what redfrog is saying about over complicating things but for me the existing mirrors are by all accounts near useless but must also adversely affect the airflow over the car and add drag. The where with all to improve these issues is already on the cars but for the need of some way to view the images.

We keep hearing comments along the lines that an F1 car can be likened to an inverted aircraft with all the aero (albeit fewer now) devices. I don’t think anybody would dream of putting a couple of wing mirrors on an aircraft though; but I’m sure somebody will tell me they do!

 

andy karter:

I hear what redfrog is saying about over complicating things but for me the existing mirrors are by all accounts near useless but must also adversely affect the airflow over the car and add drag. The where with all to improve these issues is already on the cars but for the need of some way to view the images.

We keep hearing comments along the lines that an F1 car can be likened to an inverted aircraft with all the aero (albeit fewer now) devices. I don’t think anybody would dream of putting a couple of wing mirrors on an aircraft though; but I’m sure somebody will tell me they do!

I agree that the uselessness of mirrors should be resolved, for safety if nothing else, however I see nothing wrong with spoiling the car's aero performance. Isn't that exactly what we want to be doing to allow the cars to follow each other more closely? I say let's have bigger mirrors. Big enough to actually allow you to see if there's someone behind you.

Of course, with all the GPS and such they could just put a readout on the wheel telling the driver there's someone behind them, how far away they are, how fast they're approaching and whether or not the driver is obliged to let them by.

They do in fact. But they are not on the wings. :)

I am sure too Team X if they could get them through the rules would have fitted 8 x 50 cal machine guns to the forward facing body of an F1 car before now. ? And Micheal would have been the first to fit one rear facing cannon too, even if he only ever had Rubens to shoot at :)

Kidding aside.

 You may have noticed the different and in some cases very elaborate mounting methods of these mirrors. The rules as quoted do not state on what they will be affixed and there appear to be no restrictions in the design of the wing mirror mounting methods, so we have today some that look suspiciously like aero persuation devices.

Of course these will only be argued they are made to re-streamline the mirror mounts not add to the aero package, but a loop hole in the aero package rules for sure.

 

I don't know!  All this technical debate, when in fact the answer is very simple...

I heard it was decided long ago, and most of the drivers didn't really care one way or another, but it was really for Nico's benefit, to make sure he could keep an eye on his look throughout the race.  Very important you know...

champalonso:

I don't know!  All this technical debate, when in fact the answer is very simple...

I heard it was decided long ago, and most of the drivers didn't really care one way or another, but it was really for Nico's benefit, to make sure he could keep an eye on his look throughout the race.  Very important you know...

ohhh yes....    the lad has to keep on looking good.....   

overtaking on f1 is so entertaining because it is rare. if it was common, it would no longer be entertaining or as attractive as it is. same with anything the rarer it is the more people want it. in short we want more what we don't have or what we find hard to get. if all the cars overtook all of the other cars in each race, overtaking would stop being attractive. if everybody had diamonds for fingernails, diamond will stop being so attractive.

aveli666:

overtaking on f1 is so entertaining because it is rare. if it was common, it would no longer be entertaining or as attractive as it is. same with anything the rarer it is the more people want it. in short we want more what we don't have or what we find hard to get. if all the cars overtook all of the other cars in each race, overtaking would stop being attractive. if everybody had diamonds for fingernails, diamond will stop being so attractive.

Yes but we hardly see any at all, processions with no overtaking aren't very entrtaining are they?  There is such a thing as a happy medium, and I reckon 2 or 3 diamond fingernails would be just right.