[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2025 (Grand Prix Cars)

[CAEdevice]

Latest one for me is some of the FW RS's are poking out of the reg volumes at the front

Thanks, I realized that there are many small details that are not correct in the front wing area (a few millimeters): they have been corrected and will be included in the next release. In the next release, I would like to unify the volumes of the front wing (following Christian's suggestions), with the exception of the one related to "front wing strake".

What do you think about?

[CAEdevice]

Hi, this is the release R03 of the MVRC ruled volumes.

https://www.dropbox.com/t/vJspqoIoe6cxmyru

This is the last one including the original FIA Volumes: in the next versions there will be only the MVRC volumes, slightly different and (when possible) merged together.

I tried to include all the changes requested by Christian (I commented on the shared draft).

The suspensions and wheels are now divided into distinct parts (translating, rotating, maximum volumes, minimum volumes).

There are small changes in the common parts (of little importance).

I point out that the surface that must be obscured by the front wing (FIA compliant) contains a small overlapping error, also present in the FIA ​​documentation (a simplified and corrected version will be proposed soon).

In general the front wing includes the necessary revision due to the small errors reported on the forum.

As previously, the link is valid for a limited time (3 days from today).

Thanks for testing it and sharing your opinion.

P.S. I forgot to place the mirror surfaces in the "common parts" group.

[Koldskaal]

I have some time to work on the regulations today, so I hope to finish the first draft today. Matteo, I have added a bunch to the front wing. I also think we need a few volumes to define the front wing, though my current draft may be a bit much.

I would like to hear what you guys have to say about this kind of rule that the FIA likes to use a few different places:



So, the part in question must be within the supplied RV -> nothing special. BUT, it also has to adhere to some maximum bounding-box size. They use this kind of formulation on the front wing strake, front wing diveplane, floor-fences (aka diffuser strakes), and probably many other places I haven't noticed yet.

My question to you is:
Would you like to see this rule be implemented in MVRC?

It would be very easy to check with the script, so that is not the problem. My personal problem is that I think it would be easy to accidentally break this kind of rule, and not know it. What do you guys think? should we:

• adopt it as is
• ignore it
• or, ignore it and reduce the size of the RVs to compensate.

[CAEdevice]

I have some time to work on the regulations today, so I hope to finish the first draft today. Matteo, I have added a bunch to the front wing. I also think we need a few volumes to define the front wing, though my current draft may be a bit much.

I would like to hear what you guys have to say about this kind of rule that the FIA likes to use a few different places:

https://i.imgur.com/JGiKvBP.png

So, the part in question must be within the supplied RV -> nothing special. BUT, it also has to adhere to some maximum bounding-box size. They use this kind of formulation on the front wing strake, front wing diveplane, floor-fences (aka diffuser strakes), and probably many other places I haven't noticed yet.

My question to you is:
Would you like to see this rule be implemented in MVRC?

It would be very easy to check with the script, so that is not the problem. My personal problem is that I think it would be easy to accidentally break this kind of rule, and not know it. What do you guys think? should we:

• adopt it as is
• ignore it
• or, ignore it and reduce the size of the RVs to compensate.

I am working now on the ruled volumes too (next release will be a minor one: small geometric differences, mostly re-organization fo the sub assemblies of the STEP).

About your question: I think we should introduce a few rules (es. 10mm or a new version of the thickness rule, rules about overlapping and number of wings airfoil, only extruded strakes, ...).

Another key point is the minimum curvature radius allowed: it affects very much the design (see "RV_SIDEPOD" ...)

[CAEdevice]

Does anyone know what RV-BW-APERTURE means? Maybe the area where you can open the sidepods to evacuate the air from the radiators?

[yinlad]

Does anyone know what RV-BW-APERTURE means? Maybe the area where you can open the sidepods to evacuate the air from the radiators?

My understanding is that yes, any openings for cooling should reside inside that volume. Why that volume is such a weird shape, I don't know

[CAEdevice]

I studied the regulation of conical side impact structures and believe it shouldn’t be overcomplicated. The lower one can be easily included in the floor (the 2026 rules do not allow to move it significantly), and the upper can just be a rounded bump on the monocoque, shorter than the F1 cones so we can integrate it with our design with more design freedom and no need to make the rulebook more complicated.

[CAEdevice]

New release: geometry changes are negligible, but I worked on simplified volumes , simulation details, rule integration.

https://www.dropbox.com/t/RGb8HUh0StuhqNEV

[yinlad]

New release: geometry changes are negligible, but I worked on simplified volumes , simulation details, rule integration.

https://www.dropbox.com/t/RGb8HUh0StuhqNEV

I've been doing a bit of explorative modelling and I think the main annoyance I have at the moment is the size of the roll hoop and how far forward it is. In it's current position I think we would benefit from either cutting the rear part of the model entirely (yellow), or having a much steeper angle (blue)

[CAEdevice]

I've been doing a bit of explorative modelling and I think the main annoyance I have at the moment is the size of the roll hoop and how far forward it is. In it's current position I think we would benefit from either cutting the rear part of the model entirely (yellow), or having a much steeper angle (blue)

Hi, I can try to make the angle sharper, but I don't think I can get to the dimensions of your drawing: the rollbar is one of the few parts that I have roughly sized through FEM simulation starting from the loads indicated by the FIA regulations.

[Ft5fTL]

I did create a car and run a simulation. The issues i encountered is:

• Wheels don't touch the wind tunnel floor.

• Legality boxes for the suspensions are very limited, at least for my taste.

I didn't encountered any problems with the new roolhoop. To me it adds to the realism.

Performance vise, i lost around %35 cl and %15 cd compared to the car that i send to Brazil 2024. cl/cd is around 2.9 with the legality supension that supplied and no mirrors. Since it's the first iteration it has lots of flow seperation that needs fixing. Of course i don't have a clue about how legal the car is, especially the floor without a written rulebook.

[CAEdevice]

I did create a car and run a simulation. The issues i encountered is:

• Wheels don't touch the wind tunnel floor.

• Legality boxes for the suspensions are very limited, at least for my taste.

I didn't encountered any problems with the new roolhoop. To me it adds to the realism.

Performance vise, i lost around %35 cl and %15 cd compared to the car that i send to Brazil 2024. cl/cd is around 2.9 with the legality supension that supplied and no mirrors. Since it's the first iteration it has lots of flow seperation that needs fixing. Of course i don't have a clue about how legal the car is, especially the floor without a written rulebook.

Hi, here are my opinions:

Wheels don't touch the wind tunnel floor.

Yes, also camber is missing: these are common parts and the final release will include fine tuning on the basis of LDVH/Simulation requests

Legality boxes for the suspensions are very limited, at least for my taste

We need to limit the suspension section in a range that does not require specific connections to the frame/gearbox. Maybe we can add 10mm to the radius of allowed volume.

About the beam wing question (I think you edited the post, but it is a topic that needs a clarification. I am studing the FIA rules: it looks that there are kind of connections (with an airfoil shape) between the rear wing and the gearbox, but I am not sure about the dimensions. Maybe Christian can help me.

[Ft5fTL]

About the beam wing question (I think you edited the post, but it is a topic that needs a clarification. I am studing the FIA rules: it looks that there are kind of connections (with an airfoil shape) between the rear wing and the gearbox, but I am not sure about the dimensions. Maybe Christian can help me.

Apparently beamwing got removed on June. I was wrong with that assuming there is still a beam wing on the rules. Latest renderings from some twitter posts also kinda tricked me.

[CAEdevice]

About the beam wing question (I think you edited the post, but it is a topic that needs a clarification. I am studing the FIA rules: it looks that there are kind of connections (with an airfoil shape) between the rear wing and the gearbox, but I am not sure about the dimensions. Maybe Christian can help me.

Apparently beamwing got removed on June. I was wrong with that assuming there is still a beam wing on the rules. Latest renderings from some twitter posts also kinda tricked me.

I am not sure: the "beam volume" actually isappeared, but there might be some kind of "brackets" (I can see them in many renderings updated to november).

[jjn9128]

there's still a beam, just been renamed the brace