[KVRC] Khamsin Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

[CAEdevice]

It is what I was thinking about. I tried a short diffuser, but I would have needed a lower additional wing profile.

[machin]

I just modelled that car as something to play with; it doesn't purposefully comply with any set of rules it just looks a bit like an LMP1 / KVRC car...

I agree that a fully modelled cooling system would be the most accurate and probably require almost no time to do a compliance check.... But I do strongly think it might be a step too far in terms of making the challenge accessible for more people.

Just to let you know; in the final round the cooling flow boundary conditions were set as usual but in addition the force (integral of the pressure over the area) was measured for all the cars. The idea is that the difference between the inlet and outlet pressure integrals would determine cooling and hence power output. This wasn't done for the final round, but we now have a set of data to work with for next year.... The "radiator volume" would (/could) be used to force competitors into sizing the actual sidepod realistically...

This way is a step towards more realism without drastically increasing workload for the entrant... I think it represents a good compromise... But ultimately it is Julien who will make the decision which way to go...

[graham.reeds]

How about time penalties for non compliance?

That would allow the most basic car in but almost guarantee they end up at the back of the field. As time passes they can correct the transgressions to move them further up the rankings.

If the rules state a list of time penalties for each noncompliance then people can't complain and designers can quickly gain back the time by targeting those that give them the most back.

Some checks should be able to be automated.

For instance, 1 second penalty for exceeding maximum allowed width, 1 second penalty for exceeding maximum allowed length, 1 second penalty for noncompliant crash structure, etc.

[CAEdevice]

Time penalties are already used, but after the first resubmission: I would agree to cancel the resubmission, but a check by the organizer would be required anyway.

I think that the target would be to avoid the rule check. My proposal is to limit the rule check to floor/diffuser and to general dimensions as max length/width, wheelbase, distance from the ground). Other datails could be checked only upon request, after publishing the images of the car (with a couple of projections with the indication of scale).

[RicME85]

I agree with the Matteo, focusing legality checks on the main performance areas rather than the whole car would make sense to me.
More to be gained from a diffuser that is not legal as its too big than a wheel pod encroaching in to another boundary box by a few mm.

[machin]

Another idea; this one very simple... Once one car is submitted by a team it would(/could) continue to be awarded laptimes for subsequent rounds until the entrant submits another car... That means we would still end up with a "full grid" at the end of the season, and it means if an entrant forgets to submit (or simply decides not to) he still gets awarded a lap time.... After all even some of the smaller F1 teams don't update their cars before every race....

[CAEdevice]

Another idea; this one very simple... Once one car is submitted by a team it would(/could) continue to be awarded laptimes for subsequent rounds until the entrant submits another car... That means we would still end up with a "full grid" at the end of the season, and it means if an entrant forgets to submit (or simply decides not to) he still gets awarded a lap time.... After all even some of the smaller F1 teams don't update their cars before every race....

Very good idea, I completely agree! It will save some computational resoirces too. Each partecipants should submit a new car or choose one of the previous submitted cars.

[variante]

It not always true that someone who decides not to submit wants the old car to race anyway. For example, if i get no time to work on an updated version of my car (and i'm not so interested in earning points at any cost), i don't like the idea to have my old and underperforming car humiliated by opponents. I think we had at least one guy who decided not to continue because of this reason, during this season.
If this condition doesn't bother the participant, i don't see any problem with it (i actually thought it was already being applied, somehow...).

About the cooling problems, any solution that doesn't imply a predefined shape is good to me. Otherwise, i guess i will have to adapt...

Speaking of the new regulations in general, I would push for a further...deregulation. It would make rule checking simpler, and would leave more room for original solutions, boosting R&D work and enhancing aesthetics.

[machin]

Which areas particularly would you deregulate?

[variante]

Some articles like K3.5 could be completely dropped. Others could be simplified or reworded.

[CAEdevice]

It not always true that someone who decides not to submit wants the old car to race anyway. For example, if i get no time to work on an updated version of my car (and i'm not so interested in earning points at any cost), i don't like the idea ...

Well, my interpretation is that I would have the additional choice of re-run a previous submitted car or a new one. No choice, no race.

[CAEdevice]

Speaking of the new regulations in general, I would push for a further...deregulation. It would make rule checking simpler, and would leave more room for original solutions, boosting R&D work and enhancing aesthetics.

Visibility of front suspension only forbidden from above and not from the frontal view !!! [-o<

[RicME85]

Front suspension visibility rule change would be welcomed.

Rear view mirror rule would be good too, would allow some neat Audi like placement

[TalnoRacing]

Please review the front suspension visibility rule.

Perhaps the rear view mirror can have a "visibility cone" applicable. Mirrors can then be integrated into the front fender (something like Audi does on their R18), with a visibility cone ensuring realism. The visibility cone can be submitted as part of the submission pack, and a simple check can be done to ensure it complies.

I was thinking something like this:



The sketch forming the rear end of the red cone is 3 times the size of the mirror (e.g 450mm wide, 225mm high with 75mm corners). The mirror face may be rotated around the "Z" axis but the red cone may not touch any part of the body or rear wing.

If your design does not allow for integrated mirrors, then add them on top of the fender as per the current rules.

[machin]

It not always true that someone who decides not to submit wants the old car to race anyway. For example, if i get no time to work on an updated version of my car (and i'm not so interested in earning points at any cost), i don't like the idea ...

Well, my interpretation is that I would have the additional choice of re-run a previous submitted car or a new one. No choice, no race.

Personally I would suggest the opposite: the previous car would be used unless you submit a new car or you specifically asked for your team to be withdrawn... that means if you accidentally miss a submission (maybe you are busy or just on holiday) then you don't lose out too much on the championship, and we are still likely to end up with big "grids" by the end of the season which looks better publically. As in real life: small grids don't do the championship any favours.