RicME Motorsport - RME-001

Post here information about your own engineering projects, including but not limited to building your own car or designing a virtual car through CAD.
User avatar
jordangp
0
Joined: 12 Jan 2011, 19:28
Location: Staffordshire, UK
Contact:

Re: RicME Motorsport - RME-001

Post

N12ck wrote:
jordangp wrote:Don't worry guys I'll speak to Ben, and I'm sure something will be done in the next 2013 regulation revision before the final copy
I mean if all of them things were done I wouldn't have left, it's a shame because the idea has potential, its just it's not being done properly at the moment,
Well this year wasn't even going to run, because we didn't have any serious entrants, other than Jordan GP (Innovo), Hansen GP, and Worboys - who left anyway. They were going to stop this year, and build up for 2013. Instead they pushed to get everyone and anybody involved, just to get a season running, because otherwise serious entrants would have left, as they do not want to wait a year in order to compete.

User avatar
N12ck
11
Joined: 19 Dec 2010, 19:10

Re: RicME Motorsport - RME-001

Post

If it got running properly and was ran properly, I would have carried on, like the rules need to be stricter, they need a proper quantifying method of measuring aero efficiency and suitability, rather than the current method, which I discovered clashes with CFD data (which I know is more reliable than their methods) intake areas need specified, outlet areas need specified, number of tubs per season needs specified, I think also if someone has overly small sidepods (as I knew mine pushed it a bit far) they should tell them to beef the sidepods up a bit more taking reference from existing f1 cars,

the rules for 2013, I had a scan through (providing they haven't changed) and looking at it, you will see 2 major routes which people will go down for development (kinda like the RBR Ramp vs the Mclaren bulges),

the results changing 3 times in 1 day was an example of poor attention taken to the results (which makes me question their methods further)

I just think the whole idea has potential if it was done properly, which at the moment it isn't being done properly,

Nick
Budding F1 Engineer

User avatar
jordangp
0
Joined: 12 Jan 2011, 19:28
Location: Staffordshire, UK
Contact:

Re: RicME Motorsport - RME-001

Post

N12ck wrote:If it got running properly and was ran properly, I would have carried on, like the rules need to be stricter, they need a proper quantifying method of measuring aero efficiency and suitability, rather than the current method, which I discovered clashes with CFD data (which I know is more reliable than their methods) intake areas need specified, outlet areas need specified, number of tubs per season needs specified, I think also if someone has overly small sidepods (as I knew mine pushed it a bit far) they should tell them to beef the sidepods up a bit more taking reference from existing f1 cars,

the rules for 2013, I had a scan through (providing they haven't changed) and looking at it, you will see 2 major routes which people will go down for development (kinda like the RBR Ramp vs the Mclaren bulges),

the results changing 3 times in 1 day was an example of poor attention taken to the results (which makes me question their methods further)

I just think the whole idea has potential if it was done properly, which at the moment it isn't being done properly,

Nick
I've said this before Nick, there are several other parameters other than CFD evidence that go into consideration. However, I don't think there should be intake parameters, if they're too small, you'll find out on track...
However the tub rule, is definitely something I will be pushing to have done. As for the results, it was out of everyone's control. I had been away all day on that day. However I tried the system, and something was clearly technically wrong.

Hopefully the future will be fairer and more realistic. Now we have the platform, we can build realism for 2013.

User avatar
N12ck
11
Joined: 19 Dec 2010, 19:10

Re: RicME Motorsport - RME-001

Post

jordangp wrote:
N12ck wrote:If it got running properly and was ran properly, I would have carried on, like the rules need to be stricter, they need a proper quantifying method of measuring aero efficiency and suitability, rather than the current method, which I discovered clashes with CFD data (which I know is more reliable than their methods) intake areas need specified, outlet areas need specified, number of tubs per season needs specified, I think also if someone has overly small sidepods (as I knew mine pushed it a bit far) they should tell them to beef the sidepods up a bit more taking reference from existing f1 cars,

the rules for 2013, I had a scan through (providing they haven't changed) and looking at it, you will see 2 major routes which people will go down for development (kinda like the RBR Ramp vs the Mclaren bulges),

the results changing 3 times in 1 day was an example of poor attention taken to the results (which makes me question their methods further)

I just think the whole idea has potential if it was done properly, which at the moment it isn't being done properly,

Nick
I've said this before Nick, there are several other parameters other than CFD evidence that go into consideration. However, I don't think there should be intake parameters, if they're too small, you'll find out on track...
However the tub rule, is definitely something I will be pushing to have done. As for the results, it was out of everyone's control. I had been away all day on that day. However I tried the system, and something was clearly technically wrong.

Hopefully the future will be fairer and more realistic. Now we have the platform, we can build realism for 2013.

F1 teams cannot simulate the several other parameters all at once without super computers, so I doubt that fsketch can, which is why the only thing this championship can be judged on realistically is aerodynamics, CFD can be ran on a decent computer, so what I'm saying is the results they are putting out cannot be argued against CFD,

Formula sketch is based off google sketchup where you only design the cars shape, and therefore aerodynamics, so you cannot simulate tyre grip, or a car 'suiting' a track as they say, or how good the suspension is without all the internals of such suspension systems, from this I know that CFD data is alot more reliable than their methods,

if they start using CFD, or start using it properly, then it could be a good championship, if not, then it's just going to be guesswork as usual,

As I say I support the idea of it, but I don't support how it is being run at the moment,
Budding F1 Engineer

User avatar
jordangp
0
Joined: 12 Jan 2011, 19:28
Location: Staffordshire, UK
Contact:

Re: RicME Motorsport - RME-001

Post

The issue being that it needs support in order to get to where it wants and needs to be...

And btw, sorry for spamming your thread Rich

User avatar
N12ck
11
Joined: 19 Dec 2010, 19:10

Re: RicME Motorsport - RME-001

Post

jordangp wrote:The issue being that it needs support in order to get to where it wants and needs to be...

And btw, sorry for spamming your thread Rich
Yeah, but to get support, it needs to lay good foundations and do it properly and professionally then support will come :)
yes I must apologise, sorry richard :D
Budding F1 Engineer

User avatar
RicME85
52
Joined: 09 Feb 2012, 13:11
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: RicME Motorsport - RME-001

Post

Its fine guys, its stuff that needs discussing anyway, at least it has found a home rather than not being said.
As payment for spamming my thread I expect lots of extra niceties about my car :lol:


User avatar
MIKEY_!
7
Joined: 10 Jul 2011, 03:07

Re: RicME Motorsport - RME-001

Post

The r-cascade on the front wing is very low, any reason for that?

Aussie
0
Joined: 18 Nov 2011, 04:11

Re: RicME Motorsport - RME-001

Post

also why the very square intacts??

User avatar
RicME85
52
Joined: 09 Feb 2012, 13:11
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: RicME Motorsport - RME-001

Post

MIKEY_! wrote:The r-cascade on the front wing is very low, any reason for that?
As I recently, the front wing is an old spec that I have used just as a placeholder until I get a new bespoke wing made.
Aussie wrote:also why the very square intacts??
Like above really, old style intake. The intake is one area that I have struggled to get to look right with the skills I have so have gone with the best solution I have for now. Im going to try and create a more MP4-27 look to them whilst also exploring Andy's Innovo launch idea.

Overall opinions, what do people think? Compare it to the most recently raced car and also where I have come from in the last 4 months.

User avatar
N12ck
11
Joined: 19 Dec 2010, 19:10

Re: RicME Motorsport - RME-001

Post

your rbr style hole is now illegal, without a legality slot, its illegal :D
Budding F1 Engineer

User avatar
RicME85
52
Joined: 09 Feb 2012, 13:11
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: RicME Motorsport - RME-001

Post

there is a tiny slot where the edge of the 'scoop' should meet the floor

User avatar
RicME85
52
Joined: 09 Feb 2012, 13:11
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: RicME Motorsport - RME-001

Post

New front wing design, incorporating vortex tunnels and strakes on the underside.

Image

Image

User avatar
N12ck
11
Joined: 19 Dec 2010, 19:10

Re: RicME Motorsport - RME-001

Post

RicME85 wrote:New front wing design, incorporating vortex tunnels and strakes on the underside.
I think your old front wing was better, here is my reasoning

the 'vortex tunnels' have too much of a sudden transition to the wing underside which will separate the flow making your front wing inefficient, you arent utilizing the full area that can be used for the front wing which means you must have a larger AoA than an average front wing, the risk with this again is separation and a very bad DF to Drag ratio,

Nick
Budding F1 Engineer

Locked