[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

[rjsa]

I'm getting nowhere trying to add a stream tracer in paraview. What am I missing? I did run reconstructParMesh and reconstructPar on the case.

[CAEdevice]

Interested in dipping my toes back in....

Any chance we could look at opening the bodywork regulations up?

I'd love to remove the "wheels must not be viable from the front" regulation and try my CAD hand at something like the ROBOrace philosophy.

Still blocking visibility from the top however.

Thoughts?

I hope to see you back on the track this year.

Honestly I think that we will see something "revolutionary" even with the present rules.

TF was able to win two races with a "Nissan LMP1 aero" concept, and my "f1 with covered wheels" will be even more extreme in 2017.

[CAEdevice]

Hi, I was thinking about the reason it is so difficult to increase the flow rate above 3.0÷3.5 m^3/s, despite a good internal flow and energized air in the inlets.

I guess the pressure drop depends on v^2 (velocity inside the hx). Our hx are quite small (it would be difficult to locate bigger hx without rotating them): with higher flow, "v" increases and so the pressure drop.
With larger hx the internal resistence would be smaller.

@LDVH: what do you think about it? How are your tests going?

[rjsa]

That's what I meant when I mentioned rotating the HX. And from what I understood LDVH is considering that a valid alternative.

[CAEdevice]

In case it will not be possibile, I would not consider the option of increasing the internal resistance of the hx (or we should expect all the teams with frontal hx).

[rjsa]

I agree. I can squeeze another 10% or 20% but I'll never reach the numbers mentioned here with the layout I have.

[SR71]

Interested in dipping my toes back in....

Any chance we could look at opening the bodywork regulations up?

I'd love to remove the "wheels must not be viable from the front" regulation and try my CAD hand at something like the ROBOrace philosophy.

Still blocking visibility from the top however.

Thoughts?

I hope to see you back on the track this year.

Honestly I think that we will see something "revolutionary" even with the present rules.

TF was able to win two races with a "Nissan LMP1 aero" concept, and my "f1 with covered wheels" will be even more extreme in 2017.

Where can I see renderings of those cars?

[rjsa]

http://mantiumchallenge.com/renders-mvrc-le-mans-2016/

[Ft5fTL]

Interested in dipping my toes back in....

Any chance we could look at opening the bodywork regulations up?

I'd love to remove the "wheels must not be viable from the front" regulation and try my CAD hand at something like the ROBOrace philosophy.

Still blocking visibility from the top however.

Thoughts?

I hope to see you back on the track this year.

Honestly I think that we will see something "revolutionary" even with the present rules.

TF was able to win two races with a "Nissan LMP1 aero" concept, and my "f1 with covered wheels" will be even more extreme in 2017.

Where can I see renderings of those cars?

http://mantiumchallenge.com/renders-mvrc-le-mans-2016/

edit: nvm didnt see rjsa's post.

[LVDH]

Hi, I was thinking about the reason it is so difficult to increase the flow rate above 3.0÷3.5 m^3/s, despite a good internal flow and energized air in the inlets.

I guess the pressure drop depends on v^2 (velocity inside the hx). Our hx are quite small (it would be difficult to locate bigger hx without rotating them): with higher flow, "v" increases and so the pressure drop.
With larger hx the internal resistence would be smaller.

@LDVH: what do you think about it? How are your tests going?

Tests are not producing anything spectacular. So I might just keep everything as it is. Right now I want to focus on developing the Intro Class car. There will be a very cool feature if I and a partner can get it done which will mean that the challenge will be much more accessible.

About the HX and its size and rotation: I see the desire to maybe use a larger HX and then rotate it. But with it being 100mm thick (and that for a good reason) does it fit nicely in your cars when rotated?

[rjsa]

Hi, I was thinking about the reason it is so difficult to increase the flow rate above 3.0÷3.5 m^3/s, despite a good internal flow and energized air in the inlets.

I guess the pressure drop depends on v^2 (velocity inside the hx). Our hx are quite small (it would be difficult to locate bigger hx without rotating them): with higher flow, "v" increases and so the pressure drop.
With larger hx the internal resistence would be smaller.

@LDVH: what do you think about it? How are your tests going?

Tests are not producing anything spectacular. So I might just keep everything as it is. Right now I want to focus on developing the Intro Class car. There will be a very cool feature if I and a partner can get it done which will mean that the challenge will be much more accessible.

About the HX and its size and rotation: I see the desire to maybe use a larger HX and then rotate it. But with it being 100mm thick (and that for a good reason) does it fit nicely in your cars when rotated?

I can gain considerable HX area without much change with 100mm fre positioned boxes.

BUT it would be very nice to bring that down, as it seems a bit over the top to me. Is the 100mm thickness constraint simulation related?



I'd guess this being 50mm tops...

[CAEdevice]

Hi, I was thinking about the reason it is so difficult to increase the flow rate above 3.0÷3.5 m^3/s, despite a good internal flow and energized air in the inlets.

I guess the pressure drop depends on v^2 (velocity inside the hx). Our hx are quite small (it would be difficult to locate bigger hx without rotating them): with higher flow, "v" increases and so the pressure drop.
With larger hx the internal resistence would be smaller.

@LDVH: what do you think about it? How are your tests going?

Tests are not producing anything spectacular. So I might just keep everything as it is. Right now I want to focus on developing the Intro Class car. There will be a very cool feature if I and a partner can get it done which will mean that the challenge will be much more accessible.

About the HX and its size and rotation: I see the desire to maybe use a larger HX and then rotate it. But with it being 100mm thick (and that for a good reason) does it fit nicely in your cars when rotated?

50mm would be better if we could rotate the hx (balanced by a double value for the internal specific resistance)

I would increase the maximum height of the hx (now limited to 450mm) to 500-550mm.

If you can confirm:

- no rotation (in this case ok thickness 100mm)
- 3m3/s
- same porous properties
- the calendar (when the first race? still a perfect mix between extreme DF and efficiency tracks?)
- the rulebook (differences between "first class" and "customer class")
- the template

I can send you the lmp2 car in two weeks (and then I can release it as open source).

[CAEdevice]

I was wondering if the 10mm minimum thickness rule might be changed into a 5mm thickness rule... Generally speaking: there will be any improvements about the mesh (resolution, layers)?

[Alonso Fan]

i've posted about some gui issues over on the mvrc forum

[rjsa]

I'm kind of lost trying to place streamlines in paraview. I have a bad model doing strange things and it would help me a lot trying to figure out what's wrong to see the lines around the bad area.

With the basic tutorials I found I didn't get ahead one iota. I can place the emitter and that's it. What needs to be set up or post processed after I do a MVRC run for it to work?

Any help appreciated!

Ricardo