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

[variante]

Great to finally see all the cars. As mentioned already, they're all solid designs.
I think that everyone can dream of victory or podium. If not in this race, in the next.

I can't find my design solutions in other cars, and i'm not sure whether such divergence is positive or negative...
But i do know that i need to keep working on rear downforce.

One complaint: the dark parts are pitch black. Can't see much at all.
André, if you could lighten them up next time, that would be great.

[yinlad]

But i do know that i need to keep working on rear downforce.

You and me both brother. In reality I think we are missing a few volumes for lower rear deflectors that actual F1 cars will have, but as it stands it's going to be a fight for making the rear of the car work.

[Koldskaal]

ROUND 1 AMERICAN GRAND PRIX


EDIT: btw if someone want to create liveries for the cars then I will include them in the next race.
The car is RSS Formula Hybrid X 2026 for Assetto Corsa

[The Rusted One]

But i do know that i need to keep working on rear downforce.

You and me both brother. In reality I think we are missing a few volumes for lower rear deflectors that actual F1 cars will have, but as it stands it's going to be a fight for making the rear of the car work.

I believe there’s also a volume missing in the bargeboard area. Might be the board brace I think it’s called…

[Koldskaal]

But i do know that i need to keep working on rear downforce.

You and me both brother. In reality I think we are missing a few volumes for lower rear deflectors that actual F1 cars will have, but as it stands it's going to be a fight for making the rear of the car work.

I believe there’s also a volume missing in the bargeboard area. Might be the board brace I think it’s called…

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the "Floor Board Brace" is a "Floor Auxiliary Component" to avoid the floardboards flapping around. The FIA only allow geometry inside a 30 mm diameter radius. So with the 10 mm rule that is practically just a rod. I don't see this as significant exclusion.

from page C23 issue 10 of the 2026 regulations.

[Ft5fTL]

Congratulations to JJR, nice comeback to the championship.

From my side of things, i had around -2.7cl/cd and 2.4 m3/s cooling on my sims. I'm very disapointed how it turned out on the long template.

[janci_kp]

Congratulations to JJR, nice comeback to the championship.

From my side of things, i had around -2.7cl/cd and 2.4 m3/s cooling on my sims. I'm very disapointed how it turned out on the long template.

Can there be big difference between fast and long run? And can it be because different MFlow version? I’m running v2403a and I had totally different results. Maybe they didn’t change rake and ride height, but still very happy with p5 in my first race

[CAEdevice]

Congratulations to JJR, nice comeback to the championship.

From my side of things, i had around -2.7cl/cd and 2.4 m3/s cooling on my sims. I'm very disapointed how it turned out on the long template.

Can there be big difference between fast and long run? And can it be because different MFlow version? I’m running v2403a and I had totally different results. Maybe they didn’t change rake and ride height, but still very happy with p5 in my first race

The difference between Fast and Standard/Long is huge, because "Fast" uses a simplified mesh.
Difference between "Standard" and "Long" (same mesh) is less significant and, if your simulation converges soon, sometimes negligible.

[AeroStarKnight]

Hey everyone,
First of all, Congratulations to JJR Racing for winning the Miami GP!
I am new to CFD and MVRC. I want to participate as soon as possible and earn some points .
That's my Goal for this Year.

Please help me with the finer details of the competition rules.
Hoping to submit my car for one of the races soon.

Regards,
AeroStar

[Ft5fTL]

Congratulations to JJR, nice comeback to the championship.

From my side of things, i had around -2.7cl/cd and 2.4 m3/s cooling on my sims. I'm very disapointed how it turned out on the long template.

Can there be big difference between fast and long run? And can it be because different MFlow version? I’m running v2403a and I had totally different results. Maybe they didn’t change rake and ride height, but still very happy with p5 in my first race

As Matteo said, there is huge difference between fast and long. In my case i am using the Standart template with the latest version of mFlow but still experienced the same difference. I need to check the race report first to understand what happened.

[variante]

Congratulations to JJR, not just for his victorious comeback, but also for being a clear step ahead.
His car may look especially basic, but everything just works fine.

I'm happy about my second place. Nice damage control.
But i know that i was lucky, and that i need to find a better development path.

Solid 3rd spot from Panthera. Well done. It may not be a coincidence that JJR and Panthera achieved the highest rear downforce AND adopted those wide inwashing sidepods...

As predicted, everyone else is pretty close, and can reasonably aim to the top. Very exciting!
I think CAEdevice will bounce back a lot, by next race.

PS: when i input the numbers in the laptime simulator, the output is much different from the official one. What's going on?

[stefano.segneri]

Hi everyone, I have a question about rule 7.1.3 regarding the power unit inlet:
"This template must not intersect any other parts or templates with the exception of the engine intake plenum."

I cannot find any part named "engine intake plenum" among the supplied parts/volumes. Is it referring to the "MAND_Engine_inlet_Volume_V01" part?
Thanks in advance and happy developing to all!

[yinlad]

Congrats to JJR,

Congratulations to JJR, not just for his victorious comeback, but also for being a clear step ahead.
His car may look especially basic, but everything just works fine.

I'm happy about my second place. Nice damage control.
But i know that i was lucky, and that i need to find a better development path.

Solid 3rd spot from Panthera. Well done. It may not be a coincidence that JJR and Panthera achieved the highest rear downforce AND adopted those wide inwashing sidepods...

As predicted, everyone else is pretty close, and can reasonably aim to the top. Very exciting!
I think CAEdevice will bounce back a lot, by next race.

PS: when i input the numbers in the laptime simulator, the output is much different from the official one. What's going on?

A little surprised to be on the podium for sure. My fears were that one or more people would get to around -3.4 to -3.5 and while it was only JJR, my fears were realised. My main shock is how far rearward his CoP is and how gentle the diffuser looks at the kick. Very interesting.

My downforce numbers were as I had seen in simulation luckily, although my cooling is lower than expected which I suspect may have cost me second place here! Fixing the cooling is going to eat into 'useful' development time before the next race so it'll be tough to catch and pass JJR for Monaco. And with how efficient the car is maybe at any other track too!

[JJR]

Thanks guys.
I´m glad to be back with you.
My car is let´s say in basic form as Variante mentioned, but I din´t want to overcomplicate things at the beginning.
This time I designed car from the "rear" and overshoot it little bit and have no time to balance the car only just wit small rake to shift balance without check in CFD.
Congratulations to Variante and Panthera for podiums and I ´m pretty sure others will catch up quickly as there are´t big differences.

[CAEdevice]

Congratulations to JJR on a remarkable comeback and a dominant victory
Congratulations to Variante who has demonstrated outstanding performance once again and to Panthera for confirming the improving trend.

Very consistent performance shown by the new teams as well: the competition will be tough this year.

I am happy with the performance of my car, despite it being classified near the bottom of the standings.
The actual performances are significantly better than the officially computed ones, due to an inconsistency in the geometry of the “common parts” provided by MVRC.

This issue was not caused by a modelling or interpretation mistake on my side, but rather by a mismatch between the different formats of files supplied by the organisers. Specifically, the suspension layout (cover and inner arms) differs between the official assembly file (MVRC_R09.STEP) and the single-part STEP and STL files. These inconsistencies appear to have originated during the file conversion process handled by the MVRC staff.



Unfortunately, I relied on MVRC_R09.STEP as the reference for development, while the official simulations were conducted using the STL parts, which present a different geometry.

The staff should consider re-running the simulation of my car with the inner arm protrusions removed, using the official suspension components. While this would still be a disadvantage, since the car was optimised based on an alternate suspension placement, it would be considerably less penalising than the current configuration.

Additionally, given we are close to the next race, it would be advisable to promptly update the STL and STEP files of the single parts, especially considering that the survival cell (chassis), provided as a “common part”, was designed with reference to the suspension positioning in the MVRC_R09.STEP assembly.