[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2017

[cdsavage]

Hi everyone,

After a bit of a delay, the 2017 Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge is about ready to get started. The rulebook is now up on the MVRC site: http://mantiumchallenge.com/mvrc-rules-files-2017/

A quick summary of the changes:

- A reduction in diffuser height from 320mm to 270mm

- Heat exchanger is 60mm thick rather than 100mm. For now, the rest of the rules relating to the heat exchangers are unchanged, but as has been discussed in the 2016 thread, we may later be allowing rotation of the heat exchanger with some additional restrictions on shape (not until after the first round, at the earliest).

- Some small changes to the shape of the bodywork volume ahead of the front wheels and behind the rear wheels.

- Introductory subclass: CAEdevice has kindly supplied us with some standard bodywork which will be made available on the MVRC site shortly. Unlike what we did in 2016, there is no special set of regulation volumes for the introductory class, the rule checking process will be mostly the same as the full entries.

For the moment, the calendar is subject to change as there are a couple of minor things that aren't done yet. A provisional calendar is on the MVRC site here: http://mantiumchallenge.com/mvrc-calend ... ults-2017/

Some teams have signed up in the last few weeks, but the entry list is being reset so we would ask everyone who wants to enter to sign up again here: http://mantiumchallenge.com/mvrc-register/

[CAEdevice]

Thank you for the summary!

Good luck to all the partecipants.

First question: the rule check of the first race will work as any other race, without resubmission? I ask because I am going to submit my car very early, next week: I am leaving for three weeks, and I can't use my CAD (I will submit a mix between my future 2017 car and the car that raced, and won, the first 2016 race: basically it is the same concept of the intro class).

[rjsa]

I've just resigned, let me know if I did after the cut.

Besides that, ow should we proceed with rules doubts? There are a few discussions back in the 2016 thread that still concern me.

[LVDH]

A number of teams have now signed up, even new ones.
The rules can be found on the homepage. What are your doubts?

[CAEdevice]

A number of teams have now signed up, even new ones.
The rules can be found on the homepage. What are your doubts?

No doubts for me, except some small points:

- is the use of the finer mesh option for rear wing and diffuser strakes mandatory?

- paragraph 4.1 should "the 100 mm extrusion" be modified with "the 60 mm extrusion"?

- has a txt file with bc (flow) to be included in the "special bc" folder?

[LVDH]

No doubts for me, except some small points:

- is the use of the finer mesh option for rear wing and diffuser strakes mandatory?

Yes, K1.4

- paragraph 4.1 should "the 100 mm extrusion" be modified with "the 60 mm extrusion"?

You kind of got us there. A bit further up the yellow part says 60mm, though.

- has a txt file with bc (flow) to be included in the "special bc" folder?

No, I got rid of the txt files, that is why you now these parts have to start with a certain name according to K1.4.

[CAEdevice]

Thank you LDVH.

It looks that exhausts flow has be increased (about doubled): am I right?

[LVDH]

Yes, during the winter we discovered that it did not make too much sense that the amount of volume flow leaving the engine is that same that enters. According to Machin/Richard the density in the exhaust is about half compared to the surrounding air. I almost assume that it should even be more than it is now, but I did not want to add a source of numerical instability. I hope how it is now is a good compromise.

[CAEdevice]

Yes, during the winter we discovered that it did not make too much sense that the amount of volume flow leaving the engine is that same that enters. According to Machin/Richard the density in the exhaust is about half compared to the surrounding air. I almost assume that it should even be more than it is now, but I did not want to add a source of numerical instability. I hope how it is now is a good compromise.

I confirm that the old mesh/numerical scheme the new exhaust bc works very well (distance between exhaust surface and measure/bc surface 150mm).

[rjsa]

A number of teams have now signed up, even new ones.
The rules can be found on the homepage. What are your doubts?

Reposting from 2016:


Another question:

I'm reviewing my design against the rulebook.

The last paragraph from K3.3: "there must be no gaps in any of the sections formed"

Now this:

My doubt: A Y normal plane crossing the rounded internal diffuser surface would create more than one separated section, being each on of them separate but closed curves. Is this valid?

[rjsa]

Yes, during the winter we discovered that it did not make too much sense that the amount of volume flow leaving the engine is that same that enters. According to Machin/Richard the density in the exhaust is about half compared to the surrounding air. I almost assume that it should even be more than it is now, but I did not want to add a source of numerical instability. I hope how it is now is a good compromise.

I confirm that the old mesh/numerical scheme the new exhaust bc works very well (distance between exhaust surface and measure/bc surface 150mm).

This is something that bothers me: I have never seen a flow report for intake or exhaust. I've ran 100s of interactions but never took part in an actual race. Is it supposed to show on my reports? Where? How?

[cdsavage]

A number of teams have now signed up, even new ones.
The rules can be found on the homepage. What are your doubts?

Reposting from 2016:


Another question:

I'm reviewing my design against the rulebook.

The last paragraph from K3.3: "there must be no gaps in any of the sections formed"

Now this:
http://i.cubeupload.com/62IzN4.jpg
My doubt: A Y normal plane crossing the rounded internal diffuser surface would create more than one separated section, being each on of them separate but closed curves. Is this valid?
http://i.cubeupload.com/LSeqJI.jpg

This should be legal as long as those curved elements can be considered as the "thin elements" specified in K3.4. When you submit your entry, those parts should be separated from the main body, and included in the "high_res_surfaces" directory.

[CAEdevice]

This should be legal as long as those curved elements can be considered as the "thin elements" specified in K3.4. When you submit your entry, those parts should be separated from the main body, and included in the "high_res_surfaces" directory.

To cut out the diffuser strakes (especially if they are "3D" and with a "3D" diffuser) is not so easy. Would not be better to apply a mesh control with a box in the diffuser volume?

[rjsa]

A number of teams have now signed up, even new ones.
The rules can be found on the homepage. What are your doubts?

Reposting from 2016:


Another question:

I'm reviewing my design against the rulebook.

The last paragraph from K3.3: "there must be no gaps in any of the sections formed"

Now this:
http://i.cubeupload.com/62IzN4.jpg
My doubt: A Y normal plane crossing the rounded internal diffuser surface would create more than one separated section, being each on of them separate but closed curves. Is this valid?
http://i.cubeupload.com/LSeqJI.jpg

This should be legal as long as those curved elements can be considered as the "thin elements" specified in K3.4. When you submit your entry, those parts should be separated from the main body, and included in the "high_res_surfaces" directory.

Yep, I did that already, after the rues were published.

[rjsa]

This should be legal as long as those curved elements can be considered as the "thin elements" specified in K3.4. When you submit your entry, those parts should be separated from the main body, and included in the "high_res_surfaces" directory.

To cut out the diffuser strakes (especially if they are "3D" and with a "3D" diffuser) is not so easy. Would not be better to apply a mesh control with a box in the diffuser volume?

A 3D diffuser, with less than 25mm walls could go entirely in the high res area.