Tks Matteo.
Felice anniversario per il tuo bambino!
Usually your predictions are good. This time you are wrong on both, though.Alonso Fan wrote: ↑22 Sep 2017, 00:42I think that lowest Cd value and highest cooling flow might be mine
I would expect that the lower Cd came with the lower cooling flow.Alonso Fan wrote: ↑22 Sep 2017, 00:42I think that lowest Cd value and highest cooling flow might be mine
Exactly my thoughts. I was at a Cd of around 0.82 with the fast optionetsmc wrote: ↑22 Sep 2017, 01:49I know my car was down around Cd .85 but I do only run the fast option in MFlow so maybe with the long settings it might be lower but that also means there is a chance my downforce is lower
if so I don't think I will be in that top 5
Cars are looking good, looking forward to the results.
In theory, yes. But I think it's me the one with the lowest drag and greater cooling flow
Yes, the layout you introduced to this competition shows an immediate advantage, efficiency wise. (I think the "Nissan GT-R Nismo LM" was the common ancestor ). Still, it's interesting to see how CAEdevice's layout still manages to be competitive (I think you two will fight for victory, maybe JJR too): it prooves that continuous development can compensate for the non optimal layout.
Yes, continuous development is the best approach to MVRC (I work on the same layout since 2015, even the same parametric model!).
ahah... I can recognise my car!LVDH wrote: ↑22 Sep 2017, 13:50Here you can see the trade-off between cooling flow and drag on the full entries:
http://mantiumchallenge.com/wp-content/ ... s_drag.png
You can use every picture I published (including the animated gif)... sorry but I don't think I will have time to prepare something new, but if you have a specific request,please just ask.
Feel free to use mine as well. And if you need custom renders (bigger CAESES logo or something), just ask.