The car is not as hardcore as the MVRC cars but I was interesting to see how the front diffuser works. After that I through away all my ideas to later fall in love with JJRs tripple front wing.
The smaller rear diffuser (MVRC 320mm vs LMP1 200mm) makes a great difference and influences the whole design (in order to have the right balance).
In the KVRC-age, large front wings were allowed by the rough simulation of the cooling requirements and by a less realistic simulation of flow separation.
The MVRC 2016 season was a great step forward in my opinion.
Hi, I hope to be in Monza for the WEC prologue (or for the European Le Mans Series) at the beginning of April (or at the end of March). Is there someone among the MVRC partecipants who is planning to be there too?
A question about the new rulebook: the influence of the heat exchangers position on the CoG will be considered (even with a rough scheme)?
Do you think that is necessary? The heat exchangers are a very small proportion of the overall car weight. And if we assume that all cars are built underweight then it would be possible to re-balance the cars using lead ballast. (i.e. Exactly what happens in most top-class real championships).
(My personal view is that this is an unnecessary overcomplication; is the MVRC an aerodynamics competition or a whole-car set-up competition? Virtual Stopwatch can easily handle changes in CofG, tyre sizes, wheelbase, track, etc... But do we actually want to go down that road? I think the people who have time to study and optimise aerodynamics will also be better at optimising the mechanical side... So the gap between the teams would likely grow... That's just my thoughts)
Hi Machin, if you look at the numbers of the efficiency races, you will notice that the extreme position of the heat exchangers can influence very much the aerodynamic performance... also consider that the effect of a mass depends on the square distance from the reference point (ok, it is not a matter of cog, but a matter of inertia).
Does the laptime simulator consider cog and inertia? With any CAD package (except SketchUp) it will be easy to compute it (using simplified densities for the mechanical templates).
But we could also choose a more rough way, just assigning mass properties to each layout (we will have no more than two or three possibilities).
Everything would be ok for me anyway:
I am just worried about the possibility to have all the cars based on the same template, that is definitely the most efficient in the MVRC virtual evironement, but not so diffused in the real cars.
I don't think squaring the distance makes so much sense in this analysis, you are not talking yaw and pitch moments of inertia here, just plain COG position, it's effect on weight distribution and transfer under acceleration - and all that is first power of distance. Angular speeds are too small to be considered.
I stuck a wall with balance in my car and started testing around the other guys solutons to see what they do. That little gurney from TFs car is amazing! It does the opposite of what I need to balance but just wow.
rjsa wrote:I stuck a wall with balance in my car and started testing around the other guys solutons to see what they do. That little gurney from TFs car is amazing! It does the opposite of what I need to balance but just wow.
That one I got right, it's around 3.5m3/s now. But in my setup the front diffuser pumps fully into the HX, and that's what I suspect is limiting me on balance.
I can't wait to see your car on the (virtual) track, your are working hard this winter.
Is there any news about the rulebook 2017? The "customer" (or "opensource") car is ready from the CAD modeling point of view, but it needs some cfd testing before being released. I also need to know if I have to "fine tune" it for the top class or for an LMP2 like class.
