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

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
variante
103
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:36 am
Location: Monza

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

Post

Bring it on! :D

However, i would suggest to send reports for illegal cars as soon as they're available, and not after 3 weeks of waiting and hoping.
At this point i would be a little upset to find out that i deserved a penalty... Especially considering that i feel the urge to compensate for the lack of performance of real life Italian cars... :oops:

MaccaRacing
MaccaRacing
0
Joined: Fri May 08, 2020 8:22 pm

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

Post

As Italian, tomorrow @variante is really the only team to cheer on... What a shame the Ferrari... By the way.. Let's hope about a public video this time😂

User avatar
machin
187
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:45 pm

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

Post

...I hope everyone checks their cars before submitting... so scrutineering shouldn’t be much of a surprise? 🤣🤣🤣

But I will say more about the rear wing supports.

The rules say that there must be two supports, one on each side of the car, and each 10mm thick.

Last year the first time we saw it someone came up with the clever idea of locating those two supports very close together on the centreline, making what appeared to be a single support just over 20mm thick; originally I was going to apply a penalty, since there didn’t appear to be TWO supports... but Andre pointed out that there were two, they were just VERY close together (<1mm gap). Very clever.

Now some people “copied” that and placed the two supports so that they were touching, but still a total of 20mm thick, 10mm on each side of the car. Again, I wanted to apply a penalty, but Andre and I agreed that as long as there was a >10mm thick support on each side of the car it would still be legal.

For the latest round a further number of cars “copied” the single support... but they neither had the gap, nor the mandated 10mm thickness on each side of the car... so a penalty has been awarded to 3 cars.

It is an interesting scenario, where the original, very clever, solution was blindly copied without really thinking of the rules.

Other infractions are:

▪️Bodywork outside of legality volumes.

▪️Floating parts

▪️Internal parts not enclosed by user bodywork.
COMPETITION CAR ENGINEERING -Home of VIRTUAL STOPWATCH

User avatar
variante
103
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:36 am
Location: Monza

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

Post

machin wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 11:17 pm
they were just VERY close together (<1mm gap).
I thought about keeping them separate by a ridiculously small amount, but that would have meant playing with you (the rulechecker), rather than with the rules. And the mesh would close a small gap anyway, still making it one piece. So i just went for the double thickness.

User avatar
yinlad
1
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2019 7:10 pm

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

Post

machin wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 11:17 pm
...I hope everyone checks their cars before submitting... so scrutineering shouldn’t be much of a surprise? 🤣🤣🤣

But I will say more about the rear wing supports.

The rules say that there must be two supports, one on each side of the car, and each 10mm thick.

Last year the first time we saw it someone came up with the clever idea of locating those two supports very close together on the centreline, making what appeared to be a single support just over 20mm thick; originally I was going to apply a penalty, since there didn’t appear to be TWO supports... but Andre pointed out that there were two, they were just VERY close together (<1mm gap). Very clever.

Now some people “copied” that and placed the two supports so that they were touching, but still a total of 20mm thick, 10mm on each side of the car. Again, I wanted to apply a penalty, but Andre and I agreed that as long as there was a >10mm thick support on each side of the car it would still be legal.

For the latest round a further number of cars “copied” the single support... but they neither had the gap, nor the mandated 10mm thickness on each side of the car... so a penalty has been awarded to 3 cars.

It is an interesting scenario, where the original, very clever, solution was blindly copied without really thinking of the rules.

Other infractions are:

▪️Bodywork outside of legality volumes.

▪️Floating parts

▪️Internal parts not enclosed by user bodywork.
I'll admit I've fallen guilty to messing up the thickness of the supports and not having a 'gap'. However I'm curious on the line between handing out warning and penalties. Some cars were issues warnings in the first round for rule breaches, but here we see three cars given penalties for first time infringement too.

To say the rules hadn't been considered and this 'blindly' copied is a bit disingenuous too. I've been considering the concept since last season and wondered how it was legal to begin with, but I simply missed that EACH support should be 10mm, and it not being 10mm total bodywork minimum width.

I'd also argue that if they are modeled as two pieces, but sit against each other on the centre line of the car, they aren't breaching the rules as there is no stipulation of there being a gap between the two supports. So long as they are 10mm each in width (which mine aren't this round)
Last edited by yinlad on Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jjn9128
364
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 10:53 pm

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

Post

variante wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 1:12 am
machin wrote:
Sat Jul 11, 2020 11:17 pm
they were just VERY close together (<1mm gap).
I thought about keeping them separate by a ridiculously small amount, but that would have meant playing with you (the rulechecker), rather than with the rules. And the mesh would close a small gap anyway, still making it one piece. So i just went for the double thickness.
This is my rationale. There is no gap between the 2 sides because meshing would close it anyway. You could also consider it 2 mounts covered in an aerodynamic fairing :lol:
#aerogandalf
"There is one big friend. It is downforce. And once you have this it’s a big mate and it’s helping a lot." Robert Kubica

User avatar
machin
187
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:45 pm

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

Post

yinlad wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:55 am
However I'm curious on the line between handing out warning and penalties.
Warnings are normally only given for instances where a clear aerodynamic advantage hasn't been gained; a small piece of bodywork outside the legality volume for example might be just a warning the first time.. but in all honesty everyone should be checking this as they design a new part anyway... I have the legality volume in my assembly and turn it on and off regularly just to check it's ok. I'm going to be more stringent on this in the future, as it's basically the one major rule we have.

..In this instance the "rules compliant" solution has been in the public domain for probably close to 12 months... If we only issue a warning you would get a one-race aerodynamic advantage... that's hardly fair against the teams who came up with rules compliant solutions to this issue, is it?

To say the rules hadn't been considered and this 'blindly' is a bit disingenuous too. I'd considered this since last season and wondered how it was legal, but simply missed that EACH support should be 10mm, and it not being 10mm total bodywork minimum width.
Well the people who made the infraction either missed the rule, or chose to ignore it :wink: , I assumed the kinder assumption... but "Ignorantia juris non excusat"...


I'd considered this since last season and wondered how it was legal..
That's what made the original "very close together" solution so clever. :-)


I'd also argue that if they are modeled as two pieces, but sit against each other on the centre line of the car, they aren't breaching the rules as there is no stipulation of there being a gap between the two supports. So long as they are 10mm each in width (which mine aren't this round)
And that's why we don't give a penalty for this arrangement. :)
Last edited by machin on Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
COMPETITION CAR ENGINEERING -Home of VIRTUAL STOPWATCH

User avatar
machin
187
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:45 pm

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

Post

OK, let's see if this works.. :-)

COMPETITION CAR ENGINEERING -Home of VIRTUAL STOPWATCH

etsmc
etsmc
7
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 12:20 pm

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

Post

Well do e all. Still a lot of ground to make up.. but just happy to be involved.
Regarding the rear wing support, my bad i completely forgot about the rule so no excuses for my penalty.

User avatar
CAEdevice
40
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:33 pm
Location: Erba, Italy

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

Post

machin wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 11:49 am
Warnings are normally only given for instances where a clear aerodynamic advantage hasn't been gained
I agree about being more stringent, but a bit disappointed about my penalty. It was clearly my fault (I updated the diffuser and not the strakes, so there was a gap - may be 1 or 2mm) but it reduced the performance, and I never did that specific violation before (no warning received).

The gaps are negligible (the template itself includes much bigger gaps and CAD modeling errors).

Anyway: I don't want to detract the attention from the great victory by Variante. In any case I would have beaten by his impressive performance. Congratulations!

User avatar
variante
103
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:36 am
Location: Monza

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

Post

Yay! Luckily i made it through the worst track!
But it's a pity for all those penalties... especially the one given to CAEdevice.
Well, congratulations to Koldskaal and JJR for the podium! :D

I'll have a look at the numbers later...i suspect there are some interesting performance developments.

User avatar
machin
187
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 1:45 pm

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

Post

etsmc wrote:
Sun Jul 12, 2020 12:42 pm
Well done all. Still a lot of ground to make up.. but just happy to be involved.
You made a big improvement in aero efficiency... I tried something with my rear wing, and basically had no rear downforce! #-o #-o #-o
COMPETITION CAR ENGINEERING -Home of VIRTUAL STOPWATCH

User avatar
Koldskaal
10
Joined: Tue May 14, 2019 9:02 am
Location: Denmark

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

Post

A few tenths weren't enough it seems :lol: The official simulation was kind to my car last time, this time... :? Congrats to variante.
MVRC - Team Koldskaal, name: Christian

Joe7218
Joe7218
0
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 12:40 am

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

Post

I scored my first point! (I think :D)Overall I'm super happy with my development from race 1 -> race 2, just need to lower my drag a bit. It was a super competitive race, 10 cars in the 68sec range! Congrats to variante, pulled a huge gap.
Edit:
Also, i have a suggestion for the mantium software (although i dont know how possible it would be to implement). Would it be possible to make it so that if I stop the simulation early (eg 1300/2000 iterations) it would still be able to be post processed correctly?
Mantium Challenge - Team Logozzo

User avatar
variante
103
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:36 am
Location: Monza

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

Post

Since the official website doesn't help us, here's some situational awarness:

Image

Image

Let me know if i messed up some numbers.