Khamsin Virtual Racecar Challenge 2014

[machin]

I think, for the next year, that all track charts should be available before the challange begins.

If we agree that there will be no chassis, tyre compound or powertrain specification changes for next year then the lap time charts for this year will carry through to next year....

[variante]

thank you very much, machin

And some nice renders provided by julien...where i see strange and interesting things happening...

For example, i noticed that a couple of cars don't seem to have an airbox. Was it integrated in the sidepods intakes? If not, would this solution be considered acceptable?

Also, some cars don't seem to respect the 75mm radius rule in some critical areas... But it doesn't really matter at this point of the championship, so don't worry...i'm not complaining

[julien.decharentenay]

I have tried with all three of them, but none of them seem to work with Khamsin. There are no .bat files under the etc directory in this build.

Thanks in advance for your help!

Thanks for the message. It looks like we should be able to alter the installation to make it work. The setvars.bat looks very similar to the batchrc.bat. I will have to download the install and look at how it is structured. I have a feeling that this may not be the only change required (but let's hope). I will keep you updated.

[cdsavage]

For example, i noticed that a couple of cars don't seem to have an airbox. Was it integrated in the sidepods intakes? If not, would this solution be considered acceptable?

Dont know about the others, but on my car there are engine inlets of the required area next to the sidepod inlets. It might not be practical in the real world due to losses in the ducting etc but I can't see any legality issue as far as bodywork rules go.

[astracrazy]

Ok guys, results are up http://www.khamsinvirtualracecarchallenge.com - congrats to CSR

updates standings - http://www.khamsinvirtualracecarchallen ... 14/teams-1

thank you very much, machin

And some nice renders provided by julien...where i see strange and interesting things happening...

For example, i noticed that a couple of cars don't seem to have an airbox. Was it integrated in the sidepods intakes? If not, would this solution be considered acceptable?

Also, some cars don't seem to respect the 75mm radius rule in some critical areas... But it doesn't really matter at this point of the championship, so don't worry...i'm not complaining

All but one were illegal (because the renders were submission 1 cars). One car has found a bit of a loop hole where the airbox can be placed. They are not integrated into the sidepod inlets - that would be illegal.

The 75mm rule is only used to prevent pre 2009 winglets etc. and turning vanes etc are all banned in that area. Sidepod shapes are allowed beyond the 75mm as long as they are respecting the purpose of the rule.

[cdsavage]

Well done everyone and thanks to Julien for the renders. 1 round to go.

One car has found a bit of a loop hole where the airbox can be placed. They are not integrated into the sidepod inlets - that would be illegal.

I dont think its really a loophole, F1 cars have had engine inlets in various positions before (especially when using turbochargers):




I think the reason we still have rollhoop inlets this year is that there is only a single turbo on the car centerline, and the extra ducting from an inlet further forward would incur losses which would hurt engine performance.

Though mine were separate, I think having a combined sidepod and engine inlet area is probably legal if there is a sliver of bodywork dividing the inlet into two, at which point its not really any different to just having a larger sidepod inlet.

[julien.decharentenay]

results are up http://www.khamsinvirtualracecarchallenge.com - congrats to CSR

updates standings - http://www.khamsinvirtualracecarchallen ... 14/teams-1

Video of the CFD results has been uploaded at: http://youtu.be/uhnKIPpCGgY

[julien.decharentenay]

Hi, I'm looking at the results online report (the GUI is great, and it seems that the loading process is now faster: very good job!).

I noticed that in the "surface pressure map" picture there are some strange points: geometry seems to be badly approximated and there are some low pressure areas that I would expect to find, in particular on the rear wing surfaces. I'm quite sure that this areas partially explain the differences between my CFD model and the official results (10-15% less downforce, similar drag). How can I fix that problem? I found similar problem on the floor surface that is 5mm thick: should I consider to use thicker floor (10-15mm?) and thicker wings?

http://www.caedevice.net/SERVER/Khamsin ... esults.jpg
http://www.caedevice.net/SERVER/Khamsin ... ults_2.jpg

The problem does not seem to be present in the 2013 results pictures: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-4fOa ... 180mph.png

Has someone noticed the same iusse looking at 2014 results?

@CAEdevice. Following up on our earlier post exchange. Attached are two screenshots (rear-wing and underbody) made using ParaView. These do not show the same issue as the online viewer. It confirms that the "distortion" is associated with the mesh coarsening associated with the online viewing (online viewing of the whole surface mesh would be too much to download and display)...

[astracrazy]

@Julien sorry i forgot to attach the link to the renders. I think we all can agree great job

@cdsavage i think i wrote what i didn't mean. your right, i didn't really mean a loop hole i meant more smart positioning within the rules.

I want to try and start discussing next year/later this year now with only 1 race left because i think theres a lot of discussion to be had. Lets start with the formula and rule book (track type etc later):

my preference would be to move away from a tight regulation rule book so it wouldn't really be based on F1 or LMP etc. but a rule book based on that formula type. We can then construct our own rule book around that but with more open regulations.

At the moment, it is getting a bit stagnated. Not taking anything away from anyone, because i think everyone does a great job, but like real f1 you usually get 1 or 2 dominant teams until a rule shake up.

[julien.decharentenay]

@astracrazy Thanks a lot. I am getting the hang of it. I just wish I had a bit/a lot more computational horse power - I would love to do rendered movies...

[variante]

The 75mm rule is only used to prevent pre 2009 winglets etc. and turning vanes etc are all banned in that area. Sidepod shapes are allowed beyond the 75mm as long as they are respecting the purpose of the rule.

I think that the "spirit of the rule" has actually been broken, otherwise i wouldn't have made that observation. But again, it doesn't really matter at this point. Also, the final results, probably, would have been the same

[CAEdevice]

@CAEdevice. Following up on our earlier post exchange. Attached are two screenshots (rear-wing and underbody) made using ParaView. These do not show the same issue as the online viewer. It confirms that the "distortion" is associated with the mesh coarsening associated with the online viewing (online viewing of the whole surface mesh would be too much to download and display)...

Thank you very much!

[CAEdevice]

The 75mm rule is only used to prevent pre 2009 winglets etc. and turning vanes etc are all banned in that area. Sidepod shapes are allowed beyond the 75mm as long as they are respecting the purpose of the rule.

I think that the "spirit of the rule" has actually been broken, otherwise i wouldn't have made that observation. But again, it doesn't really matter at this point. Also, the final results, probably, would have been the same

Hi Variante, could you be more precise about the areas where R75 rule has not beeen respected?

[cdsavage]

Yep I'd be interested in knowing what it is you've spotted. I think almost all the cars (including mine) have radii of curvature in the relevant areas tighter than 75mm, but from the round 4 renders I didn't spot anything that would give an obvious benefit.

[CAEdevice]

Yep I'd be interested in knowing what it is you've spotted. I think almost all the cars (including mine) have radii of curvature in the relevant areas tighter than 75mm, but from the round 4 renders I didn't spot anything that would give an obvious benefit.

My car doesn't have any R75 non respecting areas, but from the rendering it seems that the sidepod section has less than 75mm rounds. It's only a graphic impression.