- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
The winter might have a god ending. You could possible win the MVRC Intro class with five victories in a row. Even four out of five should be a nice end to the year.
CorrectLVDH wrote:...and we now have SRacing, which I assume is run by "Schwepes"?
LVDH wrote: ↑11 Dec 2017, 12:15
The winter might have a god ending. You could possible win the MVRC Intro class with five victories in a row. Even four out of five should be a nice end to the year.
We have two new teams. The Green Melon is back and we now have SRacing, which I assume is run by "Schwepes"?
I promise you that I did not enter the team called "Machin's Shiny Melon"!!!
Ok, I will send it today. STP file will be ok?LVDH wrote:It looks like your car is better now. Now I have to zoom in much more to see the issues. The stl represents the original geometry better than before. Only on sharp edges and corners you still have issues. Overall there are many many needle like triangles, which is not good but does not hurt too much. But it shows that the algorithm you are using is not very good.
The new car from SRacing also has quiet some issues with the tessellation. Maybe Schwepes can send me the original CAD data, so I can at least create a cool render.
Why do you exclude to use a rear wing?AratzH wrote: ↑11 Dec 2017, 02:36Uploaded.... Not super happy (first I am late, second performance is far from what's needed).
I have to do some analysis and figure out where I lost track in the development. I was able to increase front DF a lot from last year but totally unable to compensate on the rear without using rear wings... Depending on what rules we chose to follow next year I might have to think of a different approach to the "flow trough"
https://ibb.co/kx4NkG
The rear wing (for the best teams) has an efficiency ratio around 7.5, so there is no reason to not use it (if well designed).machin wrote: ↑11 Dec 2017, 15:23I guess if he can get enough rear downforce from the floor/diffuser to balance the front then the rear wing is not necessary...?
I am hoping we see someone with a really low drag configuration so we can watch them streak ahead on the Mulsanne and then see if others can catch them later in the Porsche Curves!!!
STP is perfect.schwepes wrote: ↑11 Dec 2017, 14:58Ok, I will send it today. STP file will be ok?LVDH wrote:It looks like your car is better now. Now I have to zoom in much more to see the issues. The stl represents the original geometry better than before. Only on sharp edges and corners you still have issues. Overall there are many many needle like triangles, which is not good but does not hurt too much. But it shows that the algorithm you are using is not very good.
The new car from SRacing also has quiet some issues with the tessellation. Maybe Schwepes can send me the original CAD data, so I can at least create a cool render.
A good rear wing should even be better than 7.5. The problem is what the efficiency of the front down force generation to balance the car costs. I think running without rear wing can be a very good idea.CAEdevice wrote: ↑11 Dec 2017, 15:33The rear wing (for the best teams) has an efficiency ratio around 7.5, so there is no reason to not use it (if well designed).machin wrote: ↑11 Dec 2017, 15:23I guess if he can get enough rear downforce from the floor/diffuser to balance the front then the rear wing is not necessary...?
I am hoping we see someone with a really low drag configuration so we can watch them streak ahead on the Mulsanne and then see if others can catch them later in the Porsche Curves!!!
In my case, the efficiency of the rear wing is probably is lower, but I use it anyway because, positioned at a lower height than allowed, it helps the "extraction" of the air form the diffuser and from the cooling outlets.
About the low downforce: it depends on the car layout. With my layout, the extreme low downforce setup is not the most efficient one (I'm running with a medium df level at Le Mans).
