[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2023 (Grand Prix Cars)

[yinlad]

That's correct, the part in the frt_suspension folder, so the front wheel deflector volume, doesn't appear in any of the post processing images.

I am not sure I understand your answer. Please make a screenshot or something.

https://i.imgur.com/0sMwH66.png

Left is expected, right is official post processing. The missing file with regard to the entry .zip file is

Panthera_R02_v1\frt_suspension\defl003.stl

Any update on this? I use the results package from the race for development and it's not possible at the moment

[LVDH]

Any update on this? I use the results package from the race for development and it's not possible at the moment

Sorry, I had an unusually busy week. The car is now running again, as the parts were clearly in the submission. No idea what happened to them.
I should be able to send the results on Monday.

[yinlad]

Any update on this? I use the results package from the race for development and it's not possible at the moment

Sorry, I had an unusually busy week. The car is now running again, as the parts were clearly in the submission. No idea what happened to them.
I should be able to send the results on Monday.

Thanks a lot. I'm expecting 0.2-0.4cl improvement but a forward CoP shift, so probably won't change the results.

I did notice I developed the car until now on the old tyres things actually correlate a bit better now.... Ha

[BlueCheetah66]

12. Floor

12.3 When intersected with any X-plane, it must only produce only continuous closed sections with all parts of the section either visibly from above or below.

I've always been a bit confused about the wording of this rule in bold. Would it mean a section like below would be illegal because the small footplates would make not all the parts of the section visible from below?

[G-raph]

12. Floor

12.3 When intersected with any X-plane, it must only produce only continuous closed sections with all parts of the section either visibly from above or below.

I've always been a bit confused about the wording of this rule in bold. Would it mean a section like below would be illegal because the small footplates would make not all the parts of the section visible from below?

Correct, this would be illegal.

What do you guys want to see for the next race? I am looking forward to either a y=0 slice or we look at the floors. Any preferences?

Thank you for the CFD pictures of Race 02.

For the next one, I'm not sure there is much to see on a Y=0 slice to be honest. The only interesting bit would be the rear wing profiles, but given the next race is Monza that makes it even less exciting.

I'd prefer to have some X slices, either behind the car like last year, or at the floor leading edge to see how we all manage the front wheel wake. Or both?

[yinlad]

Any update on this? I use the results package from the race for development and it's not possible at the moment

Sorry, I had an unusually busy week. The car is now running again, as the parts were clearly in the submission. No idea what happened to them.
I should be able to send the results on Monday.

Got those now, thanks for that. Pretty much in line with what I was expecting numbers wise, not enough to change the results but still a step forward and the results package will feed straight into the R03 car

[yinlad]

What I thought was interesting was how much most teams pushed to get as close as possible to the required cooling flow, getting values just slightly under the mark.

Preparing the result presentation on the page, I realized, we are now at 2.8 and not 3.0 m³/s anymore, so it was not that close after all. But looking at how much everybody complained about the 3, I want to see everybody at 2.8 for the next race.
So here is a full summary:
https://mantiumchallenge.com/results-mv ... tone-2023/
And here we have some CFD images:
https://mantiumchallenge.com/wp-content ... images.gif
https://mantiumchallenge.com/cfd-images ... mvrc-2023/
What do you guys want to see for the next race? I am looking forward to either a y=0 slice or we look at the floors. Any preferences?

A thought for next year, it would be interesting to have variations on the cooling requirement on a race-by-race basis

[spacehead3]

A thought for next year, it would be interesting to have variations on the cooling requirement on a race-by-race basis

I haven't looking into the sensitivity, but nothing is stopping you from sacrificing cooling for drag / downforce as long as you don't go below 50%.

[yinlad]

A thought for next year, it would be interesting to have variations on the cooling requirement on a race-by-race basis

I haven't looking into the sensitivity, but nothing is stopping you from sacrificing cooling for drag / downforce as long as you don't go below 50%.

It's almost never worth it because the power drop off is very quick, but I just mean it as a bit of variation race to race on the cooling package. Just to add a bit of flavour

[wesley123]

12. Floor

12.3 When intersected with any X-plane, it must only produce only continuous closed sections with all parts of the section either visibly from above or below.

I've always been a bit confused about the wording of this rule in bold. Would it mean a section like below would be illegal because the small footplates would make not all the parts of the section visible from below?

https://i.imgur.com/XtIlJSe.png

The wording uses or, thus if you are nitpicky you could conclude both do not need to be true at the same time. Parts of the selection will be visible from above, but not from below and vice versa. If you the would add top + bottom view together you would see the whole selection.

Part of what could argue this rule is that you would never be able to see the tips of the wall in the top view; and compared to the sidewall, your footplate would be no different.

My interpretation will be very nitpicky, but it should be valid as it says parts and not surfaces. Because the top surface of the footplate wouldn't be visible in any view, but the footplate is.

[spacehead3]

12. Floor

12.3 When intersected with any X-plane, it must only produce only continuous closed sections with all parts of the section either visibly from above or below.

I've always been a bit confused about the wording of this rule in bold. Would it mean a section like below would be illegal because the small footplates would make not all the parts of the section visible from below?

https://i.imgur.com/XtIlJSe.png

The wording uses or, thus if you are nitpicky you could conclude both do not need to be true at the same time. Parts of the selection will be visible from above, but not from below and vice versa. If you the would add top + bottom view together you would see the whole selection.

Part of what could argue this rule is that you would never be able to see the tips of the wall in the top view; and compared to the sidewall, your footplate would be no different.

My interpretation will be very nitpicky, but it should be valid as it says parts and not surfaces. Because the top surface of the footplate wouldn't be visible in any view, but the footplate is.

No I don't agree with this. To me it is pretty clear that any discrete point along the section must be visible from either above or below. The only possible argument is whether you need to have a draft angle on the vertical walls, but I hope we can all agree that would be too much effort to worry about.

[BlueCheetah66]

I've always been a bit confused about the wording of this rule in bold. Would it mean a section like below would be illegal because the small footplates would make not all the parts of the section visible from below?

https://i.imgur.com/XtIlJSe.png

The wording uses or, thus if you are nitpicky you could conclude both do not need to be true at the same time. Parts of the selection will be visible from above, but not from below and vice versa. If you the would add top + bottom view together you would see the whole selection.

Part of what could argue this rule is that you would never be able to see the tips of the wall in the top view; and compared to the sidewall, your footplate would be no different.

My interpretation will be very nitpicky, but it should be valid as it says parts and not surfaces. Because the top surface of the footplate wouldn't be visible in any view, but the footplate is.

No I don't agree with this. To me it is pretty clear that any discrete point along the section must be visible from either above or below. The only possible argument is whether you need to have a draft angle on the vertical walls, but I hope we can all agree that would be too much effort to worry about.

Yeah I agree. My original question was mainly just to confirm that it was illegal so that a car I submit won't be illegal. If I am being honest, I wasn't planning on using this rule to make a footplate, rather that it would be the easiest way to explain my query. I don't think we should or need to make any changes to rules

[yinlad]

I'll get the ball rolling with R03 car details! I'm a few days ahead of schedule which is nice.






To give a bit more detail on the changes front to back.

Front Wing: Low drag configuration (plus end plate changes) of R02 FW. 15% less downforce, 30% less drag.
Front Wheel Deflectors: Evolution of design from R02. No inherent performance on part but it enables better performance downstream.
Floor Fences: Position of fences adjusted to correct CoP of the car and adjust size/location of main floor vortex.
Side Pod: Cooling section as R02 but differs in blend to new engine cover. Louvres adjusted to bring cooling closer to target.
Engine Cover: New part, incorporates walls to capture and handle cockpit/halo losses while delivering better quality flow to the rear wing.
Rear Wheel Winglet: New design focused on encouraging diffuser lateral expansion and rear wheel wake control.

Based on my current correlation (but still quite speculative compared to an official run) I am expecting to see:

Cl: +10%
Cd: -3%
Cop: -1% (Rearward)
Cooling: -3%

Which equates to 1.1s a lap faster around Monza compared to R02 spec car.

[spacehead3]

This should be a fun race, we've got a huge difference in drag between all the cars...

[G-raph]

I'll get the ball rolling with R03 car details! I'm a few days ahead of schedule which is nice.

Nice one, your car is getting quite tidy with a lot of nice little details. It sounds like you made a decent step, and although I'm not sure it will be enough for a a podium, that gives you a shot at heading the midfield. Good luck!

This should be a fun race, we've got a huge difference in drag between all the cars...

I agree, this should be an interesting one!


I've submitted my car at the start of the week, but haven't had time to do any rendering yet. Hopefully I'll get that done this weekend.