[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2017

[CAEdevice]

To imagine the next season is part of the fun.

Interesting points from a former champion, Variante, who deserve to be considered.

potentially simpler cars to design and develope (I find it very time consuming to design or modify car of the current layout. An open wheeler, for example, is quite a bit better by this point of view). I think this characteristic would encourage a good number of people to join the challenge.

I think that is becasue you are using the wrong CAD tools. Try with FreeCAD or SolidWorks/Inventor/SolidEdge: you will reduce the time to modify the car dramatically. I know that at least one team is using Catia: the same technology used in F1/WEC (toghether with NX and Creo/ProE).

potentially simpler cars to design and develope

If you point to victory, even a wheelbarrow becomes complex, because the complexity, even at the level of CAD modeling, is found in the details

linear points distribution (10, 8, 6, ...) >> closer to reflecting actual preformance gaps, championship open untill the end

Not sure that the actual perfomances are "linear", to match the performance distribution we should use an odd point distribution such as: 10-8-7-6-3-2-1...

more linear rules templates and quotes

Present rules are very very simple (but would it be possibile to make simpler). I think that more realism is introduced into the simulation (es. automatically considering the inertial effects of some strange location for the hxs) the more simple the rulebook could be, because there will be less need to "regulate" the design in order to avoid not physical effects.

[CAEdevice]

Sorry for the low resolution and frame rate:

http://www.caedevice.net/SERVER/MVRC/Te ... n_001.html

[variante]

I think that is becasue you are using the wrong CAD tools.

I knew this was coming hahah
Actually I was referring to that design phase where you are forced to try many and radically different layouts, beyond any parametric setting of your CAD tool. But I know your philosophy is different, since you choose to develope the very same car layout for years. On the other hand, I explored tenths of layouts (ok, maybe it didn't pay out so much by pure performance )

Not sure that the actual perfomances are "linear", to match the performance distribution we should use an odd point distribution such as: 10-8-7-6-3-2-1...

Of course it is not linear, but it is much closer to that than to nowadays point distribution.
For example, this season the 2nd classified in each race got on average 0.5% of gap (calibrated on the best laptime of each race) from the 1st classified; 0.7% from 2nd to 3rd; 0.7% from 3rd to 4th; then 1.4%, 0.8%, 2.7%, 2.1%, 2.5%, and so on...

Present rules are very very simple (but would it be possibile to make simpler).

2 examples:
1st: why those limitations on radiators' maximum dimensions? Actual maximum dimensions allowed by templates volumes are not so different!
2nd: templates are full of annoying curved surfaces (see the gearbox...), and weird quotes (but maybe that only happens after importing them as STL)
And lastly, I think the arrangement and aesthetics of the rulebook could be much improved.

[CAEdevice]

I completely agree about the hx dimensions: there is no reason for such strict rules. I think that they come from the old KVRC rukebook (based on a less advanced simulation of the hx).

A maximum volume 650x650x60 would be enough.

The double direction rotation (or any rotation) would be an important upgrade too.

About the templates: I think that they are realistic, included the curved shape of the gearbox. I import them as STEP and I have no problem to attach quotes and references to them. I quite agree with the possibility of slight aesthetic upgrade (less rear overhang for example).

I would add the possibility to rotate the sospension beams around their axis, or, starting from beams with circular section, the possibility to add material around it (with a maximum section template).

[machin]

Perhaps you guys could take the rulebook and make your proposed amendments to it and then send it off to Chris/Andre? I tend to agree that a "box rule" should be applied where possible: if you're in the box then you're rule compliant; that would probably be easier to police too, probably easy to automate.

In terms of making life even easier for people I think the Intro class car already does this... for example I didn't read any of the rules with the car I entered (admittedly it wasn't that fast!)... I just used what was on the CAESES App... My plan this year is to use this car as the basis and possibly make additions using FreeCAD (I just had a look at the website after reading Matteo's recommendation above). If we use the same powertrain on the Intro Car this year then that gives people a really easy starting point into the championship. Maybe we should come up with a better name for the class...?

No one is stopping anybody from releasing customer cars, but I would suggest that these are not allowed to gain points in the Intro class championship: as you guys say; it takes a lot of effort to develop one of these cars and we should not require the intro class competitors to each undertake back-to-back studies to decide which chassis to use as a starting point.

Regarding championship points I was originally against the idea of more points for the last race... but reading Matteo's argument I am actually quite convinced by it: I think the best cars are the fastest ones at the last race... so encouraging people to develop throughout the season, and building to a climax...

[Alonso Fan]

No please, not the same engine for intro cars. They'll make mince meat of me especially in the high df races!

[CAEdevice]

No please, not the same engine for intro cars. They'll make mince meat of me especially in the high df races!

You made great progress during the season, just go on next year!

[etsmc]

I would have to agree that the intro class should not run the same engine as has been said its a learning class.
If you want to bring a bit of excitement to the results how about a handicap?

I don't think a weight handicap would be all that impressive but a time handicap may be exciting.

1st 1.5s
2nd 1s
3rd 0.5s

Haven't got time at the moment but would be interesting to see if a handicap system like this is applied to the 2017 results how it would affect the final results. A time handicap would be easier to apply than a weight or other system I believe.


A question to you all, How many of you actually work in the field of aerodynamics, CFD, CAD or something closely related to what we do with this championship.

Personally, this is a bit of a hobby for me as I actually work in an IT support role so all I have learned has been through this challenge.

[schwepes]

I'm against handicaps. Purpose of handicaps is to add some excitement for fans/supporters. In the challenge there are no supporters (or maybe I'm wrong? ) but mainly participants are involved. For me winning the race on a worse car, just because I was lower in the classification before the race, is not rewarding, because main purpose of this event is knowlegde/experience how to make cars faster thanks to aerodynamics.

Adding more options like HX rotation, suspension rotation etc. for me is good, because I have access to top level CAD software at work, but I also understand that some limitations are necessary because some of us use freeware software with limited capabilities.

Nevertheless I would like to have a option to adjust HX to any position/angle within already existing constraints in the rulebook.

[CAEdevice]

I work in the FEM simulation field (80%) and we also do product design of small electrical aplliances. CFD applied to motorsport was new for me in 2014 but my target is to improve and MVRC is a good training.

I am contrary to time handicap: in my opinion the right way to balance professionals and amateurs is to work on the inteo class rules.

[CAEdevice]

About new layouts: I rembered an old proposal. What about adding a front engine template? I love cars with that layout.

[schwepes]

I'm afraid of different layouts. It is not design challenge and we can end up with some unrealistic advantage of one of layouts because some relationships between components may not be constrained realistic in the rulebook (i.e.,engine, gearbox, crash structures, pipe routing, suspension layout...). I'm not against in general. I'm just pointing potential risks .

Maybe a good idea, with easy implementation within current rules, would be 2 different suspension layouts (pushrod and pullrod)? It will provide us some additional options to direct the airflow.

[CAEdevice]

Maybe a good idea, with easy implementation within current rules, would be 2 different suspension layouts (pushrod and pullrod)? It will provide us some additional options to direct the airflow.

Good idea. Another interesting point would be, at least, to move up and down the suspension rod, within a 100mm range, indipendently from the other sospension beams.



...but we must be aware that every new option will need a new rule (more complex rulebook and template: not a problem for me anyway).

Let's wait for Bernie's... oops André's decision. The 2017 challenge has just finished: at the moment the only thing I would like to know is when the new challenge will begin, because I am considering another project that could distract me a bit.

[Alonso Fan]

A question to you all, How many of you actually work in the field of aerodynamics, CFD, CAD or something closely related to what we do with this championship?

I am studying mechanical engineering and am now in the third and final year. So I have no experience of such work in industry or any industry for that matter. All I've learnt has come from participation in this challenge.

[schwepes]

A question to you all, How many of you actually work in the field of aerodynamics, CFD, CAD or something closely related to what we do with this championship.

I'm CAD designer in railway industry.