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

[G-raph]

Thanks for the CFD pictures. They indeed show more intersting things that initially thought, notably the ride height of the cars.

Also could I just clarify what the lowest ride height we are allowed without rake. I thought I was at the lowest ride height allowed, but there are many cars that look lower in the pictures.

With no rake, the lowest "ride_height_adj" parameter you can go for is -20. You are clearly far off that.

The flow over the top of G-Raph's car is outrageous, a work of art

Thanks! That was a clear weakness of my 2022 car, so I focused on cleaning up the flow towards the rear wing in-between the 2 seasons (whilst the new rules and spec surfaces were being discussed).

[BlueCheetah66]

Also could I just clarify what the lowest ride height we are allowed without rake. I thought I was at the lowest ride height allowed, but there are many cars that look lower in the pictures.

With no rake, the lowest "ride_height_adj" parameter you can go for is -20. You are clearly far off that.

I was under the impression that we were only allowed to lower the car by 5mm, which would equate to a ground clearance of 20mm based on this post from earlier by LVDH. I may have interpreted it wrong though.

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?

[Koldskaal]

Also could I just clarify what the lowest ride height we are allowed without rake. I thought I was at the lowest ride height allowed, but there are many cars that look lower in the pictures.

With no rake, the lowest "ride_height_adj" parameter you can go for is -20. You are clearly far off that.

I was under the impression that we were only allowed to lower the car by 5mm, which would equate to a ground clearance of 20mm based on this post from earlier by LVDH. I may have interpreted it wrong though.

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?

Section 14 in the rules specify that the car has to be at least 20 mm from the road. I think (not 100% sure!) that MFlow will give you a warning if you try to set it too low.

[LVDH]

...
Section 14 in the rules specify that the car has to be at least 20 mm from the road. I think (not 100% sure!) that MFlow will give you a warning if you try to set it too low.

Correct. I also updated the rules regarding the issue with where suspension parts should go.

[LVDH]

I am surprised that it is so quiet over here. I would have expected a lot of whining because of the "revealing" CFD images.
So next race, we see the floors?

[CAEdevice]

I am surprised that it is so quiet over here. I would have expected a lot of whining because of the "revealing" CFD images.
So next race, we see the floors?

We are all busy trying to copy each other

[yinlad]

I am surprised that it is so quiet over here. I would have expected a lot of whining because of the "revealing" CFD images.
So next race, we see the floors?

I don't really care what people see. My only concern is that I don't want it to become a full copycat championship. While things remain hidden people are forced to think for themselves to try and innovate instead of trying to copy the floor of G-Raph or Vari to catch some quick gains

[CAEdevice]

I am surprised that it is so quiet over here. I would have expected a lot of whining because of the "revealing" CFD images.
So next race, we see the floors?

I don't really care what people see. My only concern is that I don't want it to become a full copycat championship. While things remain hidden people are forced to think for themselves to try and innovate instead of trying to copy the floor of G-Raph or Vari to catch some quick gains

In my opinion is almost impossibile to simple copy, but considering that in reality everyone studies the geometry of others closely, I find it right to publish images that are more revealing than those of the renderings. It is different for the CFD results, which I would not publish or publish partially, as is actually done.

[LVDH]

Like always in life, there has to be a balance.
Also copying from someone can lead you into a very wring direction.

[yinlad]

Like always in life, there has to be a balance.
Also copying from someone can lead you into a very wring direction.

It can of course. I'll reiterate that my concern is having full view of others cars could lead to less uniqueness in the competition. But I could also be wrong. It's just my opinion/concern, I'm not saying anyone else is wrong for wanting to do, or think otherwise

[G-raph]

I am surprised that it is so quiet over here. I would have expected a lot of whining because of the "revealing" CFD images.
So next race, we see the floors?

I am genuinely interested to know what you find so "revealing" about these CFD pictures. The only thing I can think of is the ride height of each car, which has already been discussed (HRT2.0 finding out he was running higher than the others for example) and used to be a parameter reported in the results table (pre-2022). In any case, if you have seen something worth sparking an interesting conversation, you should absolutely mention it.

In my opinion is almost impossibile to simple copy, but considering that in reality everyone studies the geometry of others closely, I find it right to publish images that are more revealing than those of the renderings. It is different for the CFD results, which I would not publish or publish partially, as is actually done.

I disagree slightly here. For example, if you post the rendering pictures of the floors, anyone who wishes to copy will copy my floor because I'm leading the championship. He or she doesn't need to see CFD images to make that decision. So I'd say if we are going to reveal the floors we might as well do it with CFD pictures to spark a more interesting conversation.

But I also agree with the point of not showing too much so that it doesn't become a copying exercise, and that there is probably a middle ground to be found.
That's why I keep saying that I find pictures of the flowfield more interesting. An X-slice behind the car (as were posted last year) or in front of the floor would show how the flowfield around each car looks like without giving away the geometrical secrets on how to achieve it.

[BlueCheetah66]

I am surprised that it is so quiet over here. I would have expected a lot of whining because of the "revealing" CFD images.
So next race, we see the floors?

I am genuinely interested to know what you find so "revealing" about these CFD pictures. The only thing I can think of is the ride height of each car, which has already been discussed (HRT2.0 finding out he was running higher than the others for example) and used to be a parameter reported in the results table (pre-2022). In any case, if you have seen something worth sparking an interesting conversation, you should absolutely mention it.

In my opinion is almost impossibile to simple copy, but considering that in reality everyone studies the geometry of others closely, I find it right to publish images that are more revealing than those of the renderings. It is different for the CFD results, which I would not publish or publish partially, as is actually done.

I disagree slightly here. For example, if you post the rendering pictures of the floors, anyone who wishes to copy will copy my floor because I'm leading the championship. He or she doesn't need to see CFD images to make that decision. So I'd say if we are going to reveal the floors we might as well do it with CFD pictures to spark a more interesting conversation.

But I also agree with the point of not showing too much so that it doesn't become a copying exercise, and that there is probably a middle ground to be found.
That's why I keep saying that I find pictures of the flowfield more interesting. An X-slice behind the car (as were posted last year) or in front of the floor would show how the flowfield around each car looks like without giving away the geometrical secrets on how to achieve it.

The only things I think you can take from these images are the flow over the top of the car, the shape of the noses and you can actually get a very vague look at the floors.

I agree that the slices are a much better and fairer way of showing images rather than the shots of the full cars. Maybe those are better at the end of the season, but based on last year, I assume some people will be happier to share those pictures themselves and talk about it

[yinlad]

I am surprised that it is so quiet over here. I would have expected a lot of whining because of the "revealing" CFD images.
So next race, we see the floors?

I am genuinely interested to know what you find so "revealing" about these CFD pictures. The only thing I can think of is the ride height of each car, which has already been discussed (HRT2.0 finding out he was running higher than the others for example) and used to be a parameter reported in the results table (pre-2022). In any case, if you have seen something worth sparking an interesting conversation, you should absolutely mention it.

In my opinion is almost impossibile to simple copy, but considering that in reality everyone studies the geometry of others closely, I find it right to publish images that are more revealing than those of the renderings. It is different for the CFD results, which I would not publish or publish partially, as is actually done.

I disagree slightly here. For example, if you post the rendering pictures of the floors, anyone who wishes to copy will copy my floor because I'm leading the championship. He or she doesn't need to see CFD images to make that decision. So I'd say if we are going to reveal the floors we might as well do it with CFD pictures to spark a more interesting conversation.

But I also agree with the point of not showing too much so that it doesn't become a copying exercise, and that there is probably a middle ground to be found.
That's why I keep saying that I find pictures of the flowfield more interesting. An X-slice behind the car (as were posted last year) or in front of the floor would show how the flowfield around each car looks like without giving away the geometrical secrets on how to achieve it.

You can see the cooling layout and entire floor and diffuser profile in these images as low opacity ghosts

[LVDH]

I am genuinely interested to know what you find so "revealing" about these CFD pictures. The only thing I can think of is the ride height of each car, which has already been discussed (HRT2.0 finding out he was running higher than the others for example) and used to be a parameter reported in the results table (pre-2022). In any case, if you have seen something worth sparking an interesting conversation, you should absolutely mention it.

I personally do not find them too revealing, I was assuming some others would...
But thanks to the transparent geometries they indeed show more than I first intended.
And yes, actually I do want to post ride height and rake together with the results. This has actually not happened before. I just never found the time to adjust my scripts as rendering is still so new and takes time.


In any case, something very special might happen for the final race.

One consequence is that there will be no late submission allowed for the final race!

[yinlad]

My guess is yaw simulation