(KVRC) CAEdevice

Post here information about your own engineering projects, including but not limited to building your own car or designing a virtual car through CAD.
CAEdevice
38
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:33 pm
Location: Erba, Italy

(KVRC) CAEdevice

Post by CAEdevice » Fri Jan 24, 2014 12:00 pm

Image

Hello everyone, this is my first year so I have developed a very rough model with which to test some ideas. I hope to improve a few things in the next two weeks.

astracrazy
50
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:04 pm

Re: (KVRC) CAEdevice

Post by astracrazy » Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:45 pm

looks good. looks like you got some 1 or 2 ideas there

CAEdevice
38
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:33 pm
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: (KVRC) CAEdevice

Post by CAEdevice » Fri Jan 24, 2014 1:53 pm

I'm going to send you the car for evalutating the nose respect of the rules, even if the front wing-plates are completely approximate.
I've found quite difficult to comply with the section area (120000mm2 and 50000mm2) fo the side pods.
The nose 2014 rules don't impact deeply on the downforce, on the contrary the absence of the rear beam plate seems to be quite important.

A confirmation: is it right that the lower part of the floor (central part) is about 30-40mm from the ground? I would expect F1 were nearer to the floor.

astracrazy
50
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:04 pm

Re: (KVRC) CAEdevice

Post by astracrazy » Fri Jan 24, 2014 2:35 pm

The sidepods were expected to be bigger this year and we also got some very unrealistic small sidepods last year. So this was sort of voted upon as the best way. With your design it will be harder to hit the regs, so you'll need to find some sort of compromise (after all thats what it's about) maybe make them wider?

the nose rules will give you more front downforce, so the cop will move forward. The challenge is balancing this out and getting more from the rear. As you say, the beam wing and shallower rear wing make this harder. A good diffuser would work wonders

that sounds about right. It would be much lower, its just something carried over from last year. I presume there was a reason why, maybe to do with the cfd or something.

variante
100
User avatar
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:36 am
Location: Monza

Re: (KVRC) CAEdevice

Post by variante » Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:54 pm

Oh, well done!
Can't see much, but the rear wing seems to be nicely made, which is promising.

CAEdevice
38
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:33 pm
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: (KVRC) CAEdevice

Post by CAEdevice » Fri Jan 24, 2014 4:58 pm

Well... the rear wing works quite well, but the diffuser is not working at all

CAEdevice
38
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:33 pm
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: (KVRC) CAEdevice

Post by CAEdevice » Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:56 am

New release: downforce is still too low, but it's legal at least (except for the nose pillars)

Image

astracrazy
50
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:04 pm

Re: (KVRC) CAEdevice

Post by astracrazy » Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:14 pm

i notice you don't really have any aerofoil shapes going on with your flaps. Those little winglets as well will be giving you drag and not much downforce as they will prob be stalling.

CAEdevice
38
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:33 pm
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: (KVRC) CAEdevice

Post by CAEdevice » Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:23 pm

Yes, I actually don't have any idea about wich airfoil design to adopt, so I'm using simplyfied profiles now and I'm planning to run a CFD optimization of the flaps in the next weeks (in the meanwhile I'm studying airfoil theory...)

The biggest problem now is to make the floor work. I'm trying a lot of different diffuser design, but I'm still computing no more than 100kg of downforce generated by the floor and diffuser.

astracrazy
50
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:04 pm

Re: (KVRC) CAEdevice

Post by astracrazy » Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:41 pm

just a basic shape will do

Image

I wouldn't worry too much about the diffuser at the moment. There's no point working on different designs when your not maximizing the flow to it. Try and work getting as much clean air to it as possible then work on your design.

CAEdevice
38
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:33 pm
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: (KVRC) CAEdevice

Post by CAEdevice » Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:46 pm

Yes, it seems to works better than my approximation :)

About the floor/diffuser: I extimate that it should generate about 40-60% of the total downforce (depending on the setup), what do you think about?

astracrazy
50
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:04 pm

Re: (KVRC) CAEdevice

Post by astracrazy » Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:18 pm

well, maybe for f1 but i think we'd be lucky to achieve that

with some good simple clean wings using some aero shapes you'll make better progress. Look at f1 2009 cars for simple wings. Your getting complex without starting simple so you don't know whats not working.

CAEdevice
38
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:33 pm
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: (KVRC) CAEdevice

Post by CAEdevice » Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:20 pm

Yes I agree :)

CAEdevice
38
User avatar
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:33 pm
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: (KVRC) CAEdevice

Post by CAEdevice » Fri Jan 31, 2014 3:58 pm

The performance is still ridiculous (less than 1100N at the speed of 100mph, I really couldn't do better) but for a while or at the end (because of some things I need to resolve at work), this is the car.

Image

Daliracing
21
User avatar
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:19 pm

Re: (KVRC) CAEdevice

Post by Daliracing » Tue Feb 04, 2014 11:04 pm

nice car i like the shape of the side pods :D