Khamsin Virtual Racecar Challenge 2014

[astracrazy]

Just an out of the box question. Should this continue next year (I haven't discussed it with Julien yet) are we happy just continuing with this formula?

- we could carry on like this year, just adjust the rule book to 2015 relevant + other mods if needed
- base the KVRC rule book on a previous formula (if we can find the rules). Say 2008 or 2000 or whatever. We could see what we can find and vote or something
- base the KVRC rule book on a fantasy formula. Open wheel obviously. Take ideas from previous/current years. Bit more open. Maybe vote on specific characteristics.

Like I say I haven't discussed this at all with anyone, just an out of the box thought. We have sort of assumed to follow the current formula without the question ever being asked.

I don't want to take too much attention from this year, but just a thought

[CAEdevice]

I think that it would be more fascinating to keep KVRC rule parallel to contemporary F1 rules (in my case to show my MP001A on my website has a greater effect of a different or ancient category). Fantasy formula doesn't interest me very much: on the contrary, I would refine the rules to keep our car shape nearer to real F1 (es. we could provide some "boxes" to include into the sidepods volume to simulate the dimensions of heat exchangers, electrical boards, etc.).

It would be interesting to make the CFD model more sophisticated (es. internal flows of the heat exchanger, more detailed mesh to keep into account the effects of small winglets located on the body of the car). I know that it will have a cost in simulation time.

It will be important to find sponsorship: I'm interested in becoming a sponsor, even if my budget is small. Anyway: I would also agree with a higher partecipation fee.

Last point: we should decide if KVRC will be only a CFD contest, or if we can introduce some other "strategic" points: for example it would be interesting to include an extimation fo fuel consumption (deriving it from the drag computation). I have some ideas also about tires consumption simplified models.

Finally, I think that it would be a great thing to improve KVRC visibility on the web.

[andylaurence]

@CAEdevice - you say you're not interested in a fantasy formula, but how about a real formula with more liberal aerodynamic rules? For example, I run to Sports Libre rules as published by the MSA, for which the rules are simply governed by S10.2 and S14.1.1 (plus a few things in section J). Perhaps a standardised chassis could be provided with an open book to do as you please?

[astracrazy]

You make good points, it just something I want to put out there because its never been asked.

I think it has to stay purely cfd, because i think that is vast enough in itself.

A sponsor would be handy, it would wipe out or cut down the participation cost. The problem is, sponsors are interested in exposure thats why they do it. If we were covered by sky sports news or something then we'd prob have sponsors knocking on our door. I'm being unrealistic but you get my point. That's why i think getting a sponsor is hard. But we will keep trying.

I've e-mailed one or two f1 news websites about trying to get them to do an article but i have had no reply.

[RicME85]

Have you emailed all the f1 teams?
Finding a blog that would do a post for each race would be a good start.

I like working to F1 regulations but Im also interested in other types of design, like LMP or Andy's idea of something like he does with hill climb as that could bring about lots of different ideas.

[CAEdevice]

@CAEdevice - you say you're not interested in a fantasy formula, but how about a real formula with more liberal aerodynamic rules? For example, I run to Sports Libre rules as published by the MSA, for which the rules are simply governed by S10.2 and S14.1.1 (plus a few things in section J). Perhaps a standardised chassis could be provided with an open book to do as you please?

Thanks for the interesting link. A "custom" forumla would be interesting from a technical point of view, but there would be two weak points:

1) Less fascinating than "contemporary" F1 (it's a personal opinion, but I like the idea of faceing the same problems of a real designer)
2) KVRC cars that are running now (mine included) are not completely realistic, I imagine that with custom rules we would see flying saucers intead of cars

[RicME85]

The KVRC cars arent completely realistic because we dont have the issues of packaging of internals and thus we can essentially shrink wrap our designs around the minimum regulation size.

[CAEdevice]

The KVRC cars arent completely realistic because we dont have the issues of packaging of internals and thus we can essentially shrink wrap our designs around the minimum regulation size.

Yes, I completely agree. I think that to include a list of parts (simplified volumes provided with the start part) to include into the sidepods could help.

[RicME85]

Its something I suggested for this year but the idea was shot down.

[CAEdevice]

Its something I suggested for this year but the idea was shot down.

I didn't join the KVRC yet...

About the "start kit", I think that to make easy for newbies to design a car, we could provide a better and more structured starting assembly (in STEP format, not only SketchUp format, with names and references to the rules), and a "basic" surviving shell. You can count on me about this.

[RicME85]

We had a basic supplied tub last year.
The reg boxes are easy to correlate with the rule pdf as they are colour coded (or at least they are in Sketchup) and the headings of the rules feature these colours.

[astracrazy]

Well we included the minimum cross section area rule this year to combat unrealistic sized sidepods, and I think really we can call it a success? (compared to last year) or at least a step in the right direction

Regarding the start up pack, I agree it was only supplied in .skp format but everything else you listed we have done? The rule book was linked to the basic file via colours? The basic file also had some labels.

I don't want to get too much into it now. Although i'm interested by the fact we have got some ideas and a debate. The custom rules idea would still be based on realistic restrictions. Allowing or demanding specifications used in other formulas or used in previous f1 formulas. Mainly the idea behind that would be to poke into everyone's imagination instead of essentially copying f1 cars we see now - to a point.

[CAEdevice]

Well we included the minimum cross section area rule this year to combat unrealistic sized sidepods, and I think really we can call it a success?

I agree: the minimum section areas are a simple and efficient rule, but including the positioning of the heat exchangers would complete it.

Regarding the start up pack, I agree it was only supplied in .skp format but everything else you listed we have done? The rule book was linked to the basic file via colours? The basic file also had some labels.

Yes, the colours helped very much, but the names and the assembly structure were not always easy to understand.

[astracrazy]

"but the names and the assembly structure"

how do you mean

[CAEdevice]

"but the names and the assembly structure"

how do you mean

The names and colours helped very much, but it would be perfect if avery volumes/surface could be linked (by its name for example) to the related rule.