Khamsin Virtual Racecar Challenge 2014

[RicME85]

these parts wouldnt be optimised to be the best or anything, they would be like 'presets'.
would allow people to use them as a base to design their own parts.
when I started modelling F1 cars I found it easier to work with existing cars, chop them up into components and then edit them.

the idea is about making the competition accessible to all, not just those with 3d modelling skills but those with an interest in either learning those skills or an interest in car design and aero.

[CAEdevice]

I have another question to Machin. We discussed about two kind of tracks, high downforce and low downforce.
I was wondering is, into the "high downforce" cartegory there could be tracks that are more or less severe about COP position (balance) and if that difference could be used to obtain three kind of tracks: high DF COP sensitive, high DF COP less sensitive, low DF.

[CAEdevice]

these parts wouldnt be optimised to be the best or anything, they would be like 'presets'.
would allow people to use them as a base to design their own parts.
when I started modelling F1 cars I found it easier to work with existing cars, chop them up into components and then edit them.

the idea is about making the competition accessible to all, not just those with 3d modelling skills but those with an interest in either learning those skills or an interest in car design and aero.

Consider that to add a gurney flap or a different protuded upper flap to the rear wing (or frontal wing if designed with protruded profiles) it's not so difficult, even with SketchUp limits, if a generic wing is provided.

During the KVRC2014 I had been convinced that only to compete with CSR (= to win the races) would be required to have modeling skills higher than the average. To reach the podium and to be very near to the top teams the most important thing is to have a clear idea of the flows and a clear "direction" for the development race after race, even with a very simple geometry. I discoverded that every winglet or flap should be mounted only if I had a clear idea of the flows around it.

[astracrazy]

IMO it should only go so far. A real basic car is supplied - ready to run. That's it. The participant should then develop the car further (or is expected to). It should be looked at as a starter kit or a base line for someone to use if they aren't sure about starting from scratch or even don't know the sport well enough to do so. We shouldn't make it too much of an advantage or even disadvantage to use it

To help with time wise, I'd suggest a bigger gap between races. As i think this is where people struggle with time, not leading up to the season.

[CAEdevice]

I'd suggest a bigger gap between races.

I completely agree!

[machin]

I have another question to Machin. We discussed about two kind of tracks, high downforce and low downforce.
I was wondering is, into the "high downforce" cartegory there could be tracks that are more or less severe about COP position (balance) and if that difference could be used to obtain three kind of tracks: high DF COP sensitive, high DF COP less sensitive, low DF.

Interesting question: the aero balance is one of the main contributors to apex speed and unnecessary drag... less balance = less apex speed for a given level of drag. To make a track less COP sensitive we could get rid of (or reduce the number of) corners.... however this would mean that a greater majority of the track would be straights, which would be quicker with a low downforce set-up..... alternatively we could come up with a track that has very few/short straights and lots of corners.... in this case the drag from the car would be fairly unimportant, meaning that you could just put as much downforce at each end of the car as possible and not worry about the drag. The fastest car would still be the one with the best downforce at both ends, but at least you wouldn't have to worry about reducing the angle of the rear to balance out the front (or vice versa). A track such as Pikes Peak might be the answer.....

[julien.decharentenay]

Thanks a lot for the positive feedback.

I wanted to raise two questions:

1) Entrance fees. I would like to get rid of them for next year - considering the current costs, it should not be too much of an issue to find a sponsor to cover this relatively small cost. But the first season demonstrated that if it is free, participants do register, but do not participate...

2) CFD: I am under the impression that the top performers spent a lot of emphasizes on testing their ideas using CFD (and particularly ensuring that their CFD results match with the KVRC results). New comers have to overcome two barriers: (a) 3D modelling and (b) CFD modelling. Introducing two leagues - one where participants are allowed to use CFD and one where participants are not allowed to use CFD - would make it a more even playing field. Policing will obviously be an issue.

While I agree that having more participants is something we are aiming for, neither Luke nor myself have the skills to make this aim a reality. Any opinion or taker?

[CAEdevice]

I'm not convinced about the double league, to help new designers I'd prefer to provide more standard parts.

About the sponsor: I'd like to give a small contribute... but can I be a sponsor and a partecipant at the same time?

I agree about the fee and the real interest to patecipate.

[astracrazy]

An idea i had to cover the 2nd issue, part of the entry fee could be to get 5 free cfd runs (maybe more or less we would need to go into it more). They can then use these as and when they like? Then everyone has the chance to test there car under the same conditions used for the race

[CAEdevice]

An idea i had to cover the 2nd issue, part of the entry fee could be to get 5 free cfd runs (maybe more or less we would need to go into it more). They can then use these as and when they like? Then everyone has the chance to test there car under the same conditions used for the race

very good idea

[julien.decharentenay]

Race 5 video: http://youtu.be/CmpGwWuH0wM is being uploaded. There should be one more to come...

And black will not be allowed next year..

[astracrazy]

Next year we are going to be looking at different options legality checking is done.

The way this year worked, with the option for people to adjust there cars and re-submit, worked well. But I think people used that as a way to not check the cars themselves because they had a safety net (us).

I'll be 100% honest - because we had this system I would be led to believe that one or two didn't even read the rule book. 1 car was submitted illegally for every race.

[CottrellGP]

Hi Guys, i know i didn't participate much this season due to my final year in uni and being busy with that, but i would like to have some input about ext years regs, i think it would be great to bring a few different things back such as the beam wing, double deck diffusers maybe blown floors (diffuser).

[CAEdevice]

Next year we are going to be looking at different options legality checking is done.

The way this year worked, with the option for people to adjust there cars and re-submit, worked well. But I think people used that as a way to not check the cars themselves because they had a safety net (us).

I'll be 100% honest - because we had this system I would be led to believe that one or two didn't even read the rule book. 1 car was submitted illegally for every race.

I'm sorry because my car has been found illegal at least three times (or more): I read the rule book but, to be honest, it was not so easy to understand sme points. We talked about it some weeks ago, and it would be important to associate each paragrafh with a part in the basic assembly. It would help very much also the presence of pictures in the rule book (I can contribute if you think it could be useful).

I agree with the proposal of changing the submission / legality checking process. In my opinion the could be something like a "progressive" penalties system:

1° illegal submission: the partecipant is alerted by email, and he has a chance to modify only the illegal part (the same as 2014)
2° illegal submission: the partecipant is alerted by email, and he has a chance to modify only the illegal part (the same as 2014) + 0,25 sec penalty
3° illegal submission: the partecipant is alerted by email, and he has a chance to modify only the illegal part (the same as 2014) + 0,50 sec penalty
more illegal submission: the partecipant is alerted by email, and he has a chance to modify only the illegal part (the same as 2014) + 1 sec penalty

It could appear to severe, but consider that during the KVRC 2014 if I had doubts about my car, Luke alwayes helped my to understan the rules before the submission (particulary for the last race, when I tried to introduce a new detail, but I was not sure about it).

[CAEdevice]

Hi Guys, i know i didn't participate much this season due to my final year in uni and being busy with that, but i would like to have some input about ext years regs, i think it would be great to bring a few different things back such as the beam wing, double deck diffusers maybe blown floors (diffuser).

It could be interesting, but I would prefer to stay near to the real F1 rules.

I think that only one team (CSR) exhaustively developed the 2014 rules, and only two (CSR, Variante, maybe JJR) had the complete control of the flow around the car, so even with very realistic rules there still be room for creativity!

I have at least two solutions that I could not introduce during 2014 for the lack of time.