[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2018

[CAEdevice]

Still work in progress: the brake duct is a separate body, you can translate it together with the suspension arms, or to place it above the suspension or between upper and lower arms.



STEP:
https://www.caedevice.net/SERVER/MVRC/2 ... Rev02.STEP

Geometry is still approximate (copied from pictures), I added a small camber angle.
I wonder if we need to model the steering rod.

[Henryjap]

BTW, I was thinking that this could be something that we all work towards, more like a challenge for the CAA as a whole

[etsmc]

Modeling the break duct is cool but how far should it go? If its just measuring the amount of flow into the duct then should it be the same for everyone or should it have some design freedom.
As far as i know we cant simulate the airflow through the wheel so i just dont see the need for the complexity.

Dont get me wrong im up for the challenge but thinking of newcomers it might be the straw that breaks the camels back.

I have to agree that open cockpit would be more appealing to the people on this forum who are the most likely to join.

I do like the initial rule sketch with a speced intake. I think this would make it more realistic, either that or a monitoring surface ontop of the intake manifold.

[CAEdevice]

No, no measure needed at the moment. But the presence of the duct itself has an effect on the flow in that area.

[variante]

As far as i know we cant simulate the airflow through the wheel so i just dont see the need for the complexity.

Agreed. Unless LVDH decides to fully simulate it, having the duct is useless or worse. It would basically be a little parachute behind the front wing.

[CAEdevice]

As far as i know we cant simulate the airflow through the wheel so i just dont see the need for the complexity.

Agreed. Unless LVDH decides to fully simulate it, having the duct is useless or worse. It would basically be a little parachute behind the front wing.

Yes, this is exactly what I mean: a small parachute without any measurement or requirement. If this kind of parachutes are annoying, we are simply talking about different things than motorsport. Why don't we eliminate mirror wings or gearbox volume or cockpit minimal dimensions?

I think it is much more fun and useful to race with realistic cars. I am going to include mirrors and brake ducts in my next car, even if not required by the rules, just like I did the same with other details I had on my LmpX 2018 car.

[BlakjeKaas]

Shouldn't CFD rims be solids of revolution? i.e. no spokes.

Are you sure? I would think that using the brake ducts would mean that the rims should be porous at some points to provide a cooling flow for the brake ducts. I could also massively misunderstand that bit of aero. Another option is to have some sort of in- and outflow like a sink at the brake duct entry and a source at the side of the rim.

In regards to the direction of the rules for next season, it would be very interesting to use the current rules or rules which make it possible to use the current rules as it would make things more interesting for the forum.

[LVDH]

What Matteo did there is very good. I will have to check it in my CAD tool, but I am almost sure we can use this.

Regarding the spokes: They should be in there. The spokes affect to air flow a lot. In our steady-state simulations this will be taken into account by using an MRF on each wheel. In previous years, you guys were asking about simulating brake cooling flow. I will run tests to see if this will make sense for the new F1 cars.

But first Richard and I have to get a first version of the rules done. I can at least tell you that we are making progress thanks to Richard, who seems to be pretty motivated.
And anyone who is intersted to see hwo they will look like, should just check the official F1 rules. That is what we are looking at.

[CAEdevice]

I will have to check it in my CAD tool, but I am almost sure we can use this.

Hi, please consider that it is only a draft, there are some details that can be improved (I am working on the deformed tyre meanwhile).

EDIT: I have greatly underestimated the difficulty in shaping the deformed tyre while considering the camber angle (preserving realism at least for the area of ​​the footprint). This time I don't make the STEP available because I'm ashamed of how inaccurate the geometry is, I have to work on it a little bit more.



PS: I am testing the tyres on my KVRC2015 old (and ridiculous) car and they look cool

[BlakjeKaas]

And anyone who is intersted to see hwo they will look like, should just check the official F1 rules. That is what we are looking at.

This is very promising to say the least

It should be very interesting to see what you guys come up with regarding cooling flow, intake and exhaust, I can only imagine what a pain that must be

I already made a large part of an F1-car during the 2017 rule shake-up, so I've got a decent base to start from. Or at least, I had a decent base to start from as I might have made a start in designing the car already.

I'm looking forward to the first set of rules.

Many thanks to you guys for the amount of work and effort you put into this, can't wait for next season!

[variante]

Shouldn't CFD rims be solids of revolution? i.e. no spokes.

Are you sure? I would think that using the brake ducts would mean that the rims should be porous at some points to provide a cooling flow for the brake ducts. I could also massively misunderstand that bit of aero. Another option is to have some sort of in- and outflow like a sink at the brake duct entry and a source at the side of the rim.

Brake duct can just have some boundary condition applied to it. No need for an actual duct.
And yes, i'm sure for how last years' simulations were set up, where a velocity field was wrapped around the wheel. But apparently LVDH wants something new (and interesting):

In our steady-state simulations this will be taken into account by using an MRF on each wheel.

...which i thought was computationally heavy, but apparently our little processors can deal with it (?)

I like the greater CFD fidelity to real life, but i'm a bit concerned about simulation times.

a small parachute without any measurement or requirement. If this kind of parachutes are annoying, we are simply talking about different things than motorsport. Why don't we eliminate mirror wings or gearbox volume or cockpit minimal dimensions?

I think it is much more fun and useful to race with realistic cars. I am going to include mirrors and brake ducts in my next car, even if not required by the rules, just like I did the same with other details I had on my LmpX 2018 car.

A non functioning brake duct is NOT realistic. It may look so...but it isn't.

[CAEdevice]

A non functioning brake duct is NOT realistic. It may look so...but it isn't.

It is not real, just more realistic than to not have it. Consider that, differently from the HXs, the energy loss inside the brake ducts is much more relevant.

[machin]

The wheel/tyre with camber looks really cool.

[etsmc]

What Matteo did there is very good. I will have to check it in my CAD tool, but I am almost sure we can use this.

Regarding the spokes: They should be in there. The spokes affect to air flow a lot. In our steady-state simulations this will be taken into account by using an MRF on each wheel. In previous years, you guys were asking about simulating brake cooling flow. I will run tests to see if this will make sense for the new F1 cars.

Agreed Matteo is going above and beyond your models are great.

The change to how the wheels are simulated will be great, but as Variante said how much of an effect will this have on time to run simulations.

I feel if we are simulating the brake duct then the part should be speced (Matteo's) and not part of the design rules.

[LVDH]

Hi,
I am currently working on the software quite a lot. There will be many changes under the hood to make new features available much faster. Soon I will start with the F1 tests. The probably coming MRF regions in the wheels will not affect run times noticeably. I think that the mesh size will grow though, as the aerodynamics of the F1 cars will be determined by much finer details which will simply require finer meshes. However there are many tuning possibilities in OF that I have not been exploiting yet and will have to implement to prevent run times from getting completely get out of hand and keeping the challenge accessible. Some features require newer OF versions though. I will have to look into the newest OF Windows version from the .com branch and check how easy it is to install and use.