[KVRC] Khamsin Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

[RicME85]

Front suspension: May as well keep rule as is

Diffuser height: Keep as is

Im for increasing the volume for the front fender, either that of decreasing the wheel size to achieve the same thing

[graham.reeds]

Wheels should be of size similar to what is currently used in LMP.

[machin]

Current LMP1 tyre sizes are 31/71-18 front and rear, which means they are 310mm wide. I.e. Current tyres in KVRC are pretty spot on.... The issue that CAEDevice highlighted is that the cars at the top of the KVRC championship are reaching very high downforce levels (more than I predicted), and in those cases a 370mm/380mm tyre would probably be more appropriate... Personally I agree though: keep the tyres as they are: inline with the real LMP1 which is appropriate for the mid-field teams.

[CAEdevice]

Current LMP1 tyre sizes are 31/71-18 front and rear, which means they are 310mm wide. I.e. Current tyres in KVRC are pretty spot on.... The issue that CAEDevice highlighted is that the cars at the top of the KVRC championship are reaching very high downforce levels (more than I predicted), and in those cases a 370mm/380mm tyre would probably be more appropriate... Personally I agree though: keep the tyres as they are: inline with the real LMP1 which is appropriate for the mid-field teams.

I would keep the current tyres width, with reduced df (lower diffuser), but considering that many partecipants prefer to keep the diffuser as it is, it is ok to confirm 2015 values (... but lets spend a minute about considering that realism is the direction we should look at )

[CAEdevice]

Hi, is there a reason for the different area of the "template surface" (Cooling option 1, 200000mm2) and the "heat exchanger surface" (Cooling option 2, 250000mm2)?

I would keep "option1" as it is, but I would change "option 2" : 250000mm2 is the area of a huge heat exchanger! 200000mm2 (the same of the template surface) quold be enough.

A proposal: what about an "option 3" with 2017 flow rate (significantly higer) and no restrictions except the heat exchanger surface?

[machin]

Remember the 200,000mm^2 isn't meant to represent the frontal area of the heat exchanger, but is a figure used to ensure the sidepods are roughly the right size.... whereas the 250,000mm^2 in option 2 actually does represent the actual face area of the heat exchanger...

In option 1 the 200,000mm^2 area template must be Co-planar to the inlet surface, whereas in option 2 the competitor has the option of leaning the heat exchanger (having a face area of 250,000mm^2) over at 30degrees. This means that sidepods created to both sets of rules will have a similar size.

At least, that's my interpretation.

[cdsavage]

In option 1 the 200,000mm^2 area template must be Co-planar to the inlet surface, whereas in option 2 the competitor has the option of leaning the heat exchanger (having a face area of 250,000mm^2) over at 30degrees. This means that sidepods created to both sets of rules will have a similar size.

Yep, that's correct. We could probably bring the heat exchanger area down to about 230,000mm^2 (230 * cos(30 degrees) is about 200), but there's still some additional freedom for option 2 over option 1 in that the heat exchanger is not required to lie within the silhouette of the cooling inlet, it can go anywhere as long as you can find room for the duct.

[CAEdevice]

Thank you for the explanation, I was not considering the angle.

[SR71]

greetings racers... just registered here and wanted to say hi. looking forward to competing this season.

-SR71

[CAEdevice]

You are welcome, are you plannig to race? The "new entry" category is interesting this year

[SR71]

I'll be racing in the top class even though this is my first year, building the whole car appeals to me the most.

I do have a few questions as I've been lurking on these forums for a bit.

1) Would it be possible for me to run 2 teams (similar to Red Bull)? I'd love to develop 2 different aero philosophies at a time to attack my learning curve.

2) Seeing as LMP1 is getting more and more electric, maybe we could reduce the cooling requirements? I view the Khamsin VRC as an opportunity to show the future of racing and a reduction in cooling and focus on aero efficiency seems logical to me...

-SR71

[CAEdevice]

Point 1: let's wait for Julien or Chris, I have been considering it too, but the time needed (also CPU time) is not negligible
Point 2: I think that the heat exchangers are already dimensioned on the thermal engine only, and the electric energy component is quite significant (machin could tell you more).

Wich name will have your team? Are you a CFD specialist?

[SR71]

1) Sounds good, alternatively maybe I could race 2 cars for the first race and then select only 1 for the rest of the season
2) I was thinking we could run a higher percentage electric for a reduction in the current heat exchanger dimensions. Opening up more areas for creative CFD.

I'll be racing as team SR71. No CFD experience...

[CAEdevice]

1) Sounds good, alternatively maybe I could race 2 cars for the first race and then select only 1 for the rest of the season
2) I was thinking we could run a higher percentage electric for a reduction in the current heat exchanger dimensions. Opening up more areas for creative CFD.

I'll be racing as team SR71. No CFD experience...

My advice is: preparing for the first race, think about happens under the floor, more than what happens above (use safe cooling and optimize the floor)

[RicME85]

I think the best thing that can be said is keep it simple. Dont try muddying the waters with two designs on the go at the same time. Have you read the KRVC-ish thread? Machin and I put a load of work in to looking at these cars that can be of help for people new to KVRC.
Also, welcome , its good to have fresh blood in the competition.