[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2025 (Grand Prix Cars)

[LVDH]

OK, I have some renders for you.
It took a bit as we have 15 cars! Most of them submitted only yesterday.
Here you go:

https://mantiumchallenge.com/cars-mvrc-monaco-2025/
I am a bit fan of Swift's color scheme. Max is pretty close to a classic.
One team seems to be so new, they could not get the car colored in time. Lets see what is coming for the next race.

[yinlad]

Funky rear wing from JJR, and based on how loaded up the front wing is with gurney's I suspect he's going to be difficult to beat. I was hoping to see little to no development from him to maybe sneak a win, no such luck

[LVDH]

For those waiting for the results:
There is an issue with one of the simulations that I still do not understand.
I hope to have some news rather soon and to deliver the results this week.

[LVDH]

First of all apologies about the delay. There was an issue on one car and I had to find out what was wrong, as potentially many cars could have been affected. And as so much is automated, there was the possibility of a systematic issue. To make things worse, there was a second car with issues that really made me question myself and the processes behind MVRC. On that car, there were simply a number of questionable user decisions (also hard to find as there was not one single problem).
On the very problematic car, we get results, the numbers are just a bit funky, which was caused by a mandatory part which was submitted.
From what I can tell, these would now be my options about this car:

• 1.) Rerun the simulation without the part

• 2.) Keep the numbers and apply a warning or penalty

• 3.) Stick to Sporting regulations 1.6 (car has to run through CFD process) and use numbers from previous race

Here are my thought on these points:

• 1.) This is not possible anymore in MVRC. In previous years, we had less cars and in general there was not that much work for me during one race. I cannot fix issues, the competitors are responsible for, anymore. I understand, that I could have removed the part during the initial scrutineering step and just issue a penalty, like I do with many cars. Well, what can I say, scrutineering will never be 100% perfect and things can pass unnoticed. Also in this case, not only was the mandatory part submitted but also renamed.

• 2.) Well in this case, the cars performance was reduced because of this issue. If I do this, what would it mean? You could do something like this on purpose and increase performance and just get a warning / penalty? I think it would set a bad president. Also, in this case, we get a crazy high exhaust pressure which would mean a DNF, which is another good reason to not do this.

• 3.) I think this the the only option. A mandatory part with a modified name was submitted and made it into the simulation. While the simulation did not crash, it produces funky numbers that should not be used for the results. The reason for the rule about not submitting mandatory parts and having cars that pass the CFD process are to limit the work on the MVRC staff. And in this case these rules were violated, which resulted into hours and hours of me searching for what went wrong. The only realy bad thing about this solution is that the mistake on the team side was very small and usually results in a warning, in this case, it completely destroys the team's results.

As harsh it it may seem, I hope everyone understands that MVRC works a bit like many sports. The competitors are responsible to show up on time with equipment that works. I am pretty sure that the day Ferrari shows up at a starting grid with only three wheels on the car, the FIA will not remind them to attach additional wheels.
In MVRC, I occasionally help the teams but it is not my responsibility that can be relied on.

[CAEdevice]

First of all apologies about the delay. There was an issue on one car and I had to find out what was wrong, as potentially many cars could have been affected. And as so much is automated, there was the possibility of a systematic issue. To make things worse, there was a second car with issues that really made me question myself and the processes behind MVRC. On that car, there were simply a number of questionable user decisions (also hard to find as there was not one single problem).

Alright guys, the car in question is mine.

The issue (which is not the only one that caused the delay) is that I included, among the submitted files, the surface related to the exhaust pipe diameter, which was used as a BC, that actually is a "mandatory part".

From my point of view, this is a minor violation, which is normally sanctioned with a warning (https://mantiumchallenge.com/results-mv ... agos-2023/). I don't think rule 1.6 is applicable, as I believe it refers to the submission of unworkable geometry (e.g., a non-watertight solid).

Unfortunately, I now find myself facing a problem (in my opinion a minor one) caused by my own responsibility, after having lost the first race due to defective files provided by the staff (so not my fault). I'm very sorry about this, considering how much time I (like all of you) have invested in developing the car for MVRC.

I hope the results of the first two races (expecialy the present one) can be reconsidered, and I thank André for bringing the topic into public discussion, in light of the fact that I was not responsible for the issue in the first race (where I would have finished third), and considering that, in the past, cases comparable to what is happening in the second race (I don't know the results yet, but I believe the car was very very competitive), has been managed differently.

Unfortunately, due to work commitments, I won’t be - in any case - able to work on the car or contribute to the MVRC common geometry management, and to the social network presence of the Challenge, in the coming months. I’ve often neglected personal commitments for MVRC, but, also due to the disappointment, I won’t be able to do that this time.

I will follow the evolution of the pending regulations and your races here on the forum, but no CAEdevice car will be submitted for the next Silverstone race (29.06.2025). There are a couple of teams I’ll be cheering for, but I wish everyone enjoyment and satisfaction.

For the same reason, I ask the staff not to list CAEdevice among the sponsors, at least until I can contribute again, since I cannot guarantee the proper attention to the championship.

I am considering to be back in September for the Monza race, only as a competitor.

See you soon, enjoy the races and have a great summer everyone

[yinlad]

See you soon, enjoy the races and have a great summer everyone

It’s a real shame you hit issues in both races we’ve had this year and I hope it doesn’t discourage you too much. Real life does come first of course, take it easy my friend and I look forward to seeing you back soon.

Re the infraction I tend to agree that it’s a warning only. The issue is what we do with the results. I think it’s fine that the current results are used so long as they aren’t better than what the correct car would produce. The burden of proof there would lay with Matteo to communicate with Andre after running a full length MVRC simulation himself to show that is the case. There is a level of trust I believe we can operate with within this championship.

The results could be released anyway with a caveat that CAE’s final position is pending verification.

To avoid this specific instance (potentially engineIn related issues too), the pressures should have a minimum and maximum such that it would be classed a disqualification on those grounds. But I’m not sure it’s necessary.

I’m not sure what communication happened between Andre and the teams with issues this race but I think direct notification of there being an issue with the case and a 24 hour window for the competitor to check and respond stating they have found/acknowledge an issue with the submission, or that everything is as expected and in accordance with the regulations could lead to quicker resolution? Just a thought.

[janci_kp]

.

See you soon, enjoy the races and have a great summer everyone

First of all it’s really a shame that you won’t be competing. I wish you all the best and really looking forward to see you on track soon.
I agree that this should be a warning and the results can be taken seriously if they can be proven by home made long run CFD as Panthera suggested.
On the topic of submission before the race. This is my rookie season and I had issues getting everything right. MFlow wasn’t running, I was unsure about submission and also I was confused by some rules. But I texted some of you experienced guys or here in the forum and you were very helpful and helped me a lot in getting ready for the first race. So my advice for any newcomers is to ask other competitors if you are unsure or ask here in the forum. Even though we are competitors we want to have fair and proper battle in the championship. There isn’t a lot of stuff online regarding the competition and I don’t think it’s fair to be DSQ because of some “small” or rookie mistake. So I would take all of this into consideration and I think that submission violations should be addressed by a warning

[Koldskaal]

Round 2 results

[yinlad]

Interesting. Some how 0.2-0.3cl down on what I expected and a penalty to add on top. No idea what that might be for! That pretty much ruins any chances I had of being competitive this year.

[The Rusted One]

Penalty again.... no idea what that's for this time. Either way I ran too much rake so my CoP is way off and JJR is way too far away anyway with an impressively fast car

[CAEdevice]

Congratulations to JJR! Despite a low-drag setup, a great performance. Solid race by Koldskal, back on the podium, and a remarkable showing from Kostov Racing.

I'm extremely satisfied with my (real) performance.

It's unfortunate to read that other teams are experiencing discrepancies. Although I won’t be taking part in the Silverstone race, as I currently can't dedicate time to this confusing and disappointing phase, I will send a test car functioning as an “Ahmed body” (open source, with simulations and geometry available to the other teams) to help with correlation testing. I hope it will serve as a useful benchmark for everyone.

[JJR]

Thanks guys.

Congratulations to Koldskal and Kostov Racing to podium and great progress.

I made small adjustments mainly to shift balance to the front ( front wing gurneys, new underside part of front wing endplates, smaller rear wing ...).Basic concept is fine so nothing extreme, just refinements.

I hope to have Matteo back later in the season.

[CAEdevice]

Thanks guys.

Congratulations to Koldskal and Kostov Racing to podium and great progress.

I made small adjustments mainly to shift balance to the front ( front wing gurneys, new underside part of front wing endplates, smaller rear wing ...).Basic concept is fine so nothing extreme, just refinements.

I hope to have Matteo back later in the season.

I like to see your project succeed, it is very different from the "trend" of F1 in recent years (and from the 2026 hypotheses), it recalls the concepts of the first decade of the 2000s: it's a clearly indipendent idea.

I will definitely return, as soon as I have overcome the disappointment for the management of the first two races (the will is there, the car too).

[yinlad]

I realise I've cocked up the submission folder structure both races which has resulted in a penalty this race.

I think I'll pull myself out of the championship for the rest of the year.

Having already shot myself in the foot with the penalty and ruined any chances of a reasonable points finish given the short calendar and points structure (this is why some competitors wanted to change the points structure this year, as JJR has basically already won after 2 races) I don't have the time to start trying to understand why I gained drag and lost 0.3cl compared to expectation using a normal MVRC template. Typically the final results have always been an increase on a normal run, so with the below I was expecting to be in the 3.5 - 3.6cl region this race.



Fundamentally the only option I can see is running a 5000 iteration simulation any time I make a change, which obviously isn't reasonable. Perhaps I'll return later in the year if I end up with some free time to work on a brand new car but for now there's no point continuing with something that is going to return wildly different results compared to the hours of development shorter simulations led me into.

[CAEdevice]

I hope this can be useful to everyone in the future. Taking advantage of this "break" in the development of the car, I will release an "Ahmed Car" (an evolved version of the Ahmed Body) that can serve as a benchmark and help correlation.

In addition to the complete geometry and the OpenFOAM case folder, the full results of the "fast simulation", "standard simulation", and "long simulation" will be provided, run both locally and (with the collaboration of the staff) on the official MVRC servers.

I expect to be ready in a couple of weeks. The car is 90% based on the one that raced in Monaco (potentially a podium finisher), with some simplifications, since the goal in this case is not to win, but to provide a reference for testing one’s own simulations and software/hardware configuration.

The car will look like this: