[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2023 (Grand Prix Cars)

[lynch]

OK, small updates:
I wanted to update the gearbox and suspension. However, I am still not happy with what the updated suspension delivers, so I have to scratch that for now. I will get back on this as soon as I have the results of the first round. I will try to use those to then create a new front suspension, that will hopefully at least make a few of you happy. So for now, you have to live with the suspension we have.
I felt only upgrading the gearbox was not worth anybodies time, so until we do get a bigger update on the CAD files, this will wait.
I have updated MFlow, though. It now warns you, if the car is too low after rotating it. Also the rules have been updated. You will have a minimum ground clearance of 20mm.
As it is about one month to go, this should now be our setup.

It's possible to provide the mesh generation dictionary and inlet velocity boundary condition ?

Your friendly competition has warned you, this might not be the best idea, but here are some files:
https://mantiumchallenge.com/mvrc_files ... kPGT3XBaSg
There are some people who do use commercial software though, so it can work...

For simplicity/clarity, does that equate to -20 Ride height for a 0 rake car compared to the default starting position?

Thank you , let's see, it will be hard for sure

[samprince053]

Hi all,

Could anyone offer up a little clarification as to the statement `One engine inlet surface is required to be located above and behind the driver’s helmet` in this years rules.

Regs also state eng inlet must be 700mm up from reference plane, which is pretty solidly in the middle of the helmet, are we good to have the bottom of the inlet above 700mm but not entirely above the helmet or is this a no go area, and must be above the helmet top in its entirety?

Thanks

[CAEdevice]

I noticed a small detail that the staff might consider in the next rules revision.
The lateral headrest in 2022 (and I guess 2023) template is a bit to narrow: the gap around the helmet is huge and the flow is significantly influenced.

[LVDH]

Hi all,

Could anyone offer up a little clarification as to the statement `One engine inlet surface is required to be located above and behind the driver’s helmet` in this years rules.

Regs also state eng inlet must be 700mm up from reference plane, which is pretty solidly in the middle of the helmet, are we good to have the bottom of the inlet above 700mm but not entirely above the helmet or is this a no go area, and must be above the helmet top in its entirety?

Thanks

Last year there was a car, I guess yours, that had a super low engine inlet. Now cool ideas are nice. However, I did not like this one very much. We do have to run some simplifications, as we all know, and for the engine inlet we impose a mass flow and check if the air has a certain pressure. This car passed this test. I am not sure if it was very realistic or because of how we have defined the boundary condition. Now why do I not like it? Well it is a design, we will never see in F1, even if our CFD would check out. F1 cars have a mandated roll hope structure that almost imposes the intake to be there. I do remember the Mercedes a few years ago that hat a split intake. But there is even another aspect why I did not like it. You guys always want everything as close as possible to real F1 that you complain about a lot but there is one thing, I have never heard about. We are missing the mandated cameras. And one would go on top of the roll hope. Now, this is why we have these rules kind of imposing where the engine inlet has to be. I thought the way we have it plus the mandated part (something MAND_AIS* ?) would take care of it. So if the rules are indeed not strict enough and you try to put your inlet being the driver helmet, things will change and maybe it will be deemed unrealistic design. This is an area where this kind of creativity of not be rewarded.

I noticed a small detail that the staff might consider in the next rules revision.
The lateral headrest in 2022 (and I guess 2023) template is a bit to narrow: the gap around the helmet is huge and the flow is significantly influenced.

Well spotted, this should get changed at some point.

For simplicity/clarity, does that equate to -20 Ride height for a 0 rake car compared to the default starting position?

Out of memory, the plank has it's lowest point in z at -30mm (in construction COOS), the WT floor is at -55mm. This would mean, you can lower the car by 5mm. Keep in mind, you change both rake and ride height. Even if you do not care about rake, you can play with ride height. Maybe on your car increasing it a bit might help?

[beschadigunc]

Do we limit the distance between plank and WT ground to 20mm ?

[spacehead3]

So if the rules are indeed not strict enough and you try to put your inlet being the driver helmet, things will change and maybe it will be deemed unrealistic design.

To be clear, this is still okay, or are we now saying that the intake cannot be obstructed by the helmet from a front view?

[CAEdevice]

Considering that we measure and check the pressure integral on the inlet, such obstruction should not be a problem in my opinion.

[LVDH]

Do we limit the distance between plank and WT ground to 20mm ?

Yes.

So if the rules are indeed not strict enough and you try to put your inlet being the driver helmet, things will change and maybe it will be deemed unrealistic design.

To be clear, this is still okay, or are we now saying that the intake cannot be obstructed by the helmet from a front view?

Looks good. Last year, we had a car where the inlet was completely tucked away behind the helmet. That is what I do not want to see again.

Considering that we measure and check the pressure integral on the inlet, such obstruction should not be a problem in my opinion.

Yes, it should....

[samprince053]

Hi all,

Could anyone offer up a little clarification as to the statement `One engine inlet surface is required to be located above and behind the driver’s helmet` in this years rules.

Regs also state eng inlet must be 700mm up from reference plane, which is pretty solidly in the middle of the helmet, are we good to have the bottom of the inlet above 700mm but not entirely above the helmet or is this a no go area, and must be above the helmet top in its entirety?

Thanks

Last year there was a car, I guess yours, that had a super low engine inlet. Now cool ideas are nice. However, I did not like this one very much. We do have to run some simplifications, as we all know, and for the engine inlet we impose a mass flow and check if the air has a certain pressure. This car passed this test. I am not sure if it was very realistic or because of how we have defined the boundary condition. Now why do I not like it? Well it is a design, we will never see in F1, even if our CFD would check out. F1 cars have a mandated roll hope structure that almost imposes the intake to be there. I do remember the Mercedes a few years ago that hat a split intake. But there is even another aspect why I did not like it. You guys always want everything as close as possible to real F1 that you complain about a lot but there is one thing, I have never heard about. We are missing the mandated cameras. And one would go on top of the roll hope. Now, this is why we have these rules kind of imposing where the engine inlet has to be. I thought the way we have it plus the mandated part (something MAND_AIS* ?) would take care of it. So if the rules are indeed not strict enough and you try to put your inlet being the driver helmet, things will change and maybe it will be deemed unrealistic design. This is an area where this kind of creativity of not be rewarded.

I noticed a small detail that the staff might consider in the next rules revision.
The lateral headrest in 2022 (and I guess 2023) template is a bit to narrow: the gap around the helmet is huge and the flow is significantly influenced.

https://www.caedevice.net/SERVER/MVRC/2022/headrest.png

Well spotted, this should get changed at some point.

For simplicity/clarity, does that equate to -20 Ride height for a 0 rake car compared to the default starting position?

Out of memory, the plank has it's lowest point in z at -30mm (in construction COOS), the WT floor is at -55mm. This would mean, you can lower the car by 5mm. Keep in mind, you change both rake and ride height. Even if you do not care about rake, you can play with ride height. Maybe on your car increasing it a bit might help?

Thanks for the clarification, that wasn't our car last year, was always above the drivers helmet, just didn't really know how to perceive the rules as they're written.

I'm taking from this that the vast majority needs to be above the drivers helmet, a little below is ok but don't take the mick. It is possible to still have it quite low with the current mandatory parts fwiw. Maybe a small caveat in the rules stating at least 50% should be visible in front view would help with this?

[CAEdevice]

Hi, am I wrong or the mirrors are placed a bit higher in 2023?

[LVDH]

Hi, am I wrong or the mirrors are placed a bit higher in 2023?

Could be...


Anyway, yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting up with a team director of a new entry we have for this year. It was a lot of fun talking to him, we even had a Jeremy Clarkson look-a-like two table beside of us!
This reminded me of one of the things MVRC needs and nobody has taken the time to organize:
We need to find a city we can all get easily to with a hostel, where we could all meet and discuss MVRC and how great it is.
As I never organized this, who would like to do this for us?

[CAEdevice]

Hi, am I wrong or the mirrors are placed a bit higher in 2023?

Could be...


Anyway, yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting up with a team director of a new entry we have for this year. It was a lot of fun talking to him, we even had a Jeremy Clarkson look-a-like two table beside of us!
This reminded me of one of the things MVRC needs and nobody has taken the time to organize:
We need to find a city we can all get easily to with a hostel, where we could all meet and discuss MVRC and how great it is.
As I never organized this, who would like to do this for us?

The problem is that some guys are from USA or Australia... could we organise a European meeting, during a F1 race weekend or other (cheaper) race? I once met a multiple MVRC champion in Monza (FIA WEC) and, in a different occasion, even the MVRC boss in Vilnius (which would be a good place also for a future general meeting).

Alternativley, an online event would be interesting too.

[Ft5fTL]

You guys are always welcomed here on Izmir. Çeşme is great on summer so bring your swimsuits if you guys gonna come Visa and the garbage currency that i earn leads to a no Europe trip for me at the moment.

[LVDH]

You guys are always welcomed here on Izmir. Çeşme is great on summer so bring your swimsuits if you guys gonna come Visa and the garbage currency that i earn leads to a no Europe trip for me at the moment.

Ha, this was one of the fun facts I learned that evening. You guys would never guess the job / background of the PurePowerRacing team principle.

We will never find a place where everyone can join, but most of us should be possible. We just have to agree on a location and date. End of the season would be cool as we could then also award a trophy / beer shower to the winner, but it is probably hard for most of us to find time for this at the end of the year, but who knows...

[CAEdevice]

You guys are always welcomed here on Izmir. Çeşme is great on summer so bring your swimsuits if you guys gonna come Visa and the garbage currency that i earn leads to a no Europe trip for me at the moment.

Ha, this was one of the fun facts I learned that evening. You guys would never guess the job / background of the PurePowerRacing team principle.

We will never find a place where everyone can join, but most of us should be possible. We just have to agree on a location and date. End of the season would be cool as we could then also award a trophy / beer shower to the winner, but it is probably hard for most of us to find time for this at the end of the year, but who knows...

We would need another sponsor. I can convert the prize in a contribution to travel expenses, but only for the winner... at the moment.