[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2020 (Grand Prix Cars)

[jjn9128]

About airfoils:
I'd say that already existing foils need to be studied and their functioning understood, but then a tailor made wing profile is the way to go, especially when dealing with a wing with multiple flaps.
Even Benzing wings, optimized for racecars, might not suit our cars. They were developed a million years ago, and the needs of those cars might be very different from the needs of our cars.
Splines are not absolutely necessary for CAD. Arcs and ellipses can be enough, which is what i used in the first years of this competition.

I agree that for beginners/non-aerodynamicists existing aerofoils is definitely the place to start rather than faffing with aerofoil parameterization straight away. Understand the effects of camber and slot gap/overlap before trying to deal with however many variables in some algorithm and the numerous issues which can come with that e.g. my cad software got an update which wrecked my method (it kept saying my sketches were unsolvable even though they were previously fully defined) so I had to modify it somewhat for the same results.

I think you're being harsh on the Benzing wings, being older doesn't necessarily make something bad and besides most of the other families of wings are 50 odd years older.

Some of us are already on the discord. It's my first foray into it too

[variante]

I think you're being harsh on the Benzing wings, being older doesn't necessarily make something bad and besides most of the other families of wings are 50 odd years older.

Like NACA? Most of them were designed for single element wings, and intended to be used on aircrafts (where the wing is 90% of the aerodynamics) and away from ground effect.
It's not the age per se, but what they were doing at those times.

[etsmc]

I have managed to get the Benzing profile into inventor but it's not quite right at the tail end, once I fix this up I will export it as an obj file as this can be converted to just about anything in Meshlab.
I have a bunch of other profiles that I will do the same for and I will upload them for others if they would like to use them. As a beginner with no aero or CAD background, this is the easiest way for me to produce wings so hopefully, it helps some others like me.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/riumwddk9nr5 ... hV2ma?dl=0

UPDATE:
Here is a link to a dropbox folder where I will upload all the obj files to of the different wing profiles i have done.
If there is a particular one you want just ask. I think the intro to racecar aerodynamics by CCE mentioned a naca 4434 profile so I might add that one.

CAR UPDATE:
I have a case running now with the BE153-175 as the main element of the rear wing so lets see how it goes [-o<

[jjn9128]

CAR UPDATE:
I have a case running now with the BE153-175 as the main element of the rear wing so lets see how it goes [-o<

Let us know how you get on

[etsmc]

Not had time to look at the images from the post-processing yet but the numbers are in.
With the BE153-175 as the main element of the rear wing it increased the downforce produced by the wing from -0.503 to -0.690 but it dod almost double the drag, now this was the first run so I am sure changes in angle will help here.
The other notable changes were the floor, plank and the rest of the body(inc diffuser) all lost downforce but did not see a reduction in drag.
this means overall numbers were worse than the previous run (s1223 as main element (again first run)) and lap times were slower by around 0.11 except for Interlagos which saw a -0.06 improvement.
There was also a marginal increase in cooling flow but the big change was COP which shifted back from 1.342 to 1.51

UPDATE:
I think i found some of the inefficiency in the rear wing.

At a guess I think I need a slightly more cambered flap to be able to direct the oncoming air at the leading edge, also hope this may fix the underside of the trailing edge of the flap as it looks to be starting to separate in some areas.

[k.ko100v]

Hi,

Today I receieved the official Post Process folder. Thank you Andre.

I saw that the exhaust flow is included in the official simulation, while when i run mine, they are without exhaust flow.

What I have to do, in order to include the exhaust flow in to my further simulations?

Thanks,
Krasen

[jjn9128]

Hi,

Today I receieved the official Post Process folder. Thank you Andre.

I saw that the exhaust flow is included in the official simulation, while when i run mine, they are without exhaust flow.

What I have to do, in order to include the exhaust flow in to my further simulations?

Thanks,
Krasen

Do you have the "Exhaust_Out" part anywhere? I put it in "special_bc" which seems to work.

[k.ko100v]

Hi,

Today I receieved the official Post Process folder. Thank you Andre.

I saw that the exhaust flow is included in the official simulation, while when i run mine, they are without exhaust flow.

What I have to do, in order to include the exhaust flow in to my further simulations?

Thanks,
Krasen

Do you have the "Exhaust_Out" part anywhere? I put it in "special_bc" which seems to work.

Yes I have it, but it stays in "vehicle_body"

Thanks Mate,
Cheers

[LVDH]

Today I receieved the official Post Process folder. Thank you Andre.

Yes, I sent out the reports. I had to create them with offscreen rendering which somehow deactivates AA, sorry for that.
I hope to get some other open issues tackled tomorrow. Currently I am crazy busy. That is why things like the homepage do not get updated. I hope to compile a small list of open issues where people can help. Some of it is coding scripts to automate the MVRC processes. I think, I will create some kind of Git account where people could contribute, if interested.

Yes I have it, but it stays in "vehicle_body"

Not sure what this means. But if you have the exhaust exit surface in both folders they will be overlapping and the result will be arbitrary. This can mean some elements that are and exhaust and some that are a wall. As the BC is defined with a flow rate, this could cause crazy velocities.

[etsmc]

Hi,

Today I receieved the official Post Process folder. Thank you Andre.

I saw that the exhaust flow is included in the official simulation, while when i run mine, they are without exhaust flow.

What I have to do, in order to include the exhaust flow in to my further simulations?

Thanks,
Krasen

Do you have the "Exhaust_Out" part anywhere? I put it in "special_bc" which seems to work.

Yes I have it, but it stays in "vehicle_body"

Thanks Mate,
Cheers

if you have the "exhaust_out" file in both the "vehicle_body" folder and the "special_bc" folder the flow will be blocked.
delete it from the vehicle_body folder.

[k.ko100v]

Today I receieved the official Post Process folder. Thank you Andre.

Yes, I sent out the reports. I had to create them with offscreen rendering which somehow deactivates AA, sorry for that.
I hope to get some other open issues tackled tomorrow. Currently I am crazy busy. That is why things like the homepage do not get updated. I hope to compile a small list of open issues where people can help. Some of it is coding scripts to automate the MVRC processes. I think, I will create some kind of Git account where people could contribute, if interested.

Yes I have it, but it stays in "vehicle_body"

Not sure what this means. But if you have the exhaust exit surface in both folders they will be overlapping and the result will be arbitrary. This can mean some elements that are and exhaust and some that are a wall. As the BC is defined with a flow rate, this could cause crazy velocities.

I had only one exhaust out file and It stayed in the "vehicle body" folder. Now i moved it to the "special_bc" folder. Should I expect any performance drop, or increase?

[jjn9128]

Andre can I ask a clarification regarding the warning for CAE(?) for having the exhaust visible when looking through the cooling duct. For me that satisfied the rule about covering the engine but obviously there was a warning.


Also for next season can we get a smaller engine template? The current one is annoying me It's so big e.g. this is a comparison to a simplified version of the 1988 Honda V6 placed at a more representative height relative to the plank. The 1988 engine is also 200mm shorter!!

[CAEdevice]

Hi Jjn, do you refer to me with "CAE"? If so, I don't think I have received any warning, expecially the one about the exhausts visible. My car includes (boolean addition) the whole internal templates so it impossible to see anything (some surfaces may overlap in the worst scenario).

By the way: the official report includes some parts of the internal template that should not be there... the seem to have not zero drag and lift, but the general numbers are ok.

[jjn9128]

Hi Jjn, do you refer to me with "CAE"? If so, I don't think I have received any warning, expecially the one about the exhausts visible. My car includes (boolean addition) the whole internal templates so it impossible to see anything (some surfaces may overlap in the worst scenario).

By the way: the official report includes some parts of the internal template that should not be there... the seem to have not zero drag and lift, but the general numbers are ok.

My mistake, it was one of the cars with a wing behind the cooling exit like yours.

[CAEdevice]

Hi Jjn, do you refer to me with "CAE"? If so, I don't think I have received any warning, expecially the one about the exhausts visible. My car includes (boolean addition) the whole internal templates so it impossible to see anything (some surfaces may overlap in the worst scenario).

By the way: the official report includes some parts of the internal template that should not be there... the seem to have not zero drag and lift, but the general numbers are ok.

My mistake, it was one of the cars with a wing behind the cooling exit like yours.

I have just seen the video: it looks very similar to my car, you may be right. Let's wait for André to clarifications.