I really don't mind race 2 being moved back a week or two. I have Uni exams and I don't even have time to make my car legal at the moment
I haven't touched it since submission, and won't be making any changes until my exams are up
I would have a problem in case Race 2 will be post-poned, beacuse I am leaving for at least a month and I can't do any simulation after next Thursday (the official/original submission date). Indipendentley from the new date for Race two, I would need to know as soon as possibile the new cooling rules, or I will have to submit the car completely guessing the cooling aerodynamics. Considering that there is a proposal to partially not consider the results of race 1, it would be a significative impairement.cdsavage wrote:Sorry about the lack of input from us. Julien has had to wipe his PC and he won't be ready for round 2 for a bit longer - we'll need to postpone round 2 by at least a week, probably a bit more. I'll announce the new date as soon as possible.
I think that there is no need to re-compute the cars or to invalidate Race 1 ot to reduce points.cdsavage wrote:For round 1, if we were going to award full points, we would need to find a fix, and then re-simulate every entry. I don't think this is likely to happen in any reasonable amount of time, so we're probably going to need to stick with the numbers we already have. The only decision is how to award points, I would lean towards awarding no more than 50% points, but if there's a clear majority opinion on what we should do, I have no problem following that.
I completed a test to compare the two possibilities: "opt1" taken from the KVRC 2016 rules and "opt1b (?)" obtained suppressing the imposed flow bc. The results are encouraging:cdsavage wrote:The porous option is unlikely to be ready for round 2. Getting rid of the boundary conditions, while still measuring the pressure integrals, is a good possibility for the upcoming rounds if we can verify that it improves things. I'd also like to make a change to the submission process to make the inlet/outlet geometry less of an issue - this would probably involve asking for body.stl to be a single, solid body, and then producing the inlet and outlet surfaces a different way.
Yes, but this effect is already present: when the cooling ducts work in the right way (positive pressure on the inlets) a part of the flow runs along the sidepods.HP-Racing wrote:I hope this isn't a dumb question, but if the BC on the inlet surfaces are suppressed for Opt 1, that would make them walls right? Hence we'd deflect any air reaching the inlet surfaces sideways and significantly disturb flow to the rear of the cars.
As you said, only part of the flow is doing that in normal condition, not all, and you can work to optimize that. If the inlet would be considered as a plain wall, I think teams would have to be allowed more time to tweak their design. I my case, I would clearly design the sidepod differently if that was the case (although I do not wish the challenge to go in that direction).CAEdevice wrote:Yes, but this effect is already present: when the cooling ducts work in the right way (positive pressure on the inlets) a part of the flow runs along the sidepods.HP-Racing wrote:I hope this isn't a dumb question, but if the BC on the inlet surfaces are suppressed for Opt 1, that would make them walls right? Hence we'd deflect any air reaching the inlet surfaces sideways and significantly disturb flow to the rear of the cars.
If there's a chance that the cooling related problems will be found and solved, then we can just re-simulate the entries that had problems (or the whole lot). I would have no problems waiting for that moment. This would be the best solution.cdsavage wrote:For round 1, if we were going to award full points, we would need to find a fix, and then re-simulate every entry. I don't think this is likely to happen in any reasonable amount of time, so we're probably going to need to stick with the numbers we already have. The only decision is how to award points, I would lean towards awarding no more than 50% points, but if there's a clear majority opinion on what we should do, I have no problem following that.
The porous option is unlikely to be ready for round 2. Getting rid of the boundary conditions, while still measuring the pressure integrals, is a good possibility for the upcoming rounds if we can verify that it improves things. I'd also like to make a change to the submission process to make the inlet/outlet geometry less of an issue - this would probably involve asking for body.stl to be a single, solid body, and then producing the inlet and outlet surfaces a different way.
It's 460kg for the full car. Anyway, it looks like they've got greater constraints than us...see the width of the gearbox/differential enclosing bodywork, for example. The wheelbase is also shorter: 2.65m VS 3.0m. Maybe the width too.LVDH wrote:230kg of downforce do not sound that impressive.
...with these wings...andylaurence wrote:If you're going to help a real racing team .... Ahem!