[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post here information about your own engineering projects, including but not limited to building your own car or designing a virtual car through CAD.
rjsa
rjsa
51
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:01 am

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Another question:

I'm reviewing my design against the rulebook.

The last paragraph from K3.3: "there must be no gaps in any of the sections formed"

Now this:
Image
My doubt: A Y normal plane crossing the rounded internal diffuser surface would create more than one separated section, being each on of them separate but closed curves. Is this valid?
Image

rjsa
rjsa
51
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:01 am

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

CAEdevice wrote:
Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:07 am
rjsa wrote:
Wed Apr 12, 2017 2:55 pm
Quick question: Are wing endplates subject to the same 10mm thickness limit as wing elements?
I think so, let's wait for Chirs or Andre to be sure.

Btw: may the 10mm minimum thickness rule be changed into a 5mm thickness rule + a minimum thickness for the trailing edge (1÷2mm, rounded)? It would help to design small winglets.

There will be any change about the mesh in 2017?
Tks, that's my assumption.

One problem with refining the meshes too much isn't processing time? Is it like rendering? If it is a mesh with twice the resolution could take 8 times longer to solve, right?

User avatar
RicME85
52
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:11 pm
Location: Derby

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

There is a part that says once the criteria is met then you can add dividers to the diffuser. Basically, exclude the dividers when checking for holes

rjsa
rjsa
51
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:01 am

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Oh that's what that means... Tks

User avatar
CAEdevice
45
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:33 pm
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

RicME85 wrote:
Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:27 am
There is a part that says once the criteria is met then you can add dividers to the diffuser. Basically, exclude the dividers when checking for holes
Interesting. I used to include the dividers when checking, but your point of view looks reasonable.

rjsa
rjsa
51
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:01 am

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

I got wondering since nobody tried any 3d dividers that I was able to see.

rjsa
rjsa
51
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:01 am

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Do you guys use anything specific to keep control of interactions and versions?

Branching control?

Keep model files or visual reference from each simulation for future reference?

Any specific tools? Charts?

I've been doing an excel worksheet with cfd results, lap times and comments and keep the major cad file versions with adopted changes over time. That is getting vague, missing information and very hard to search and correlate.

User avatar
CAEdevice
45
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:33 pm
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

rjsa wrote:
Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:52 pm
Do you guys use anything specific to keep control of interactions and versions?

Branching control?

Keep model files or visual reference from each simulation for future reference?

Any specific tools? Charts?

I've been doing an excel worksheet with cfd results, lap times and comments and keep the major cad file versions with adopted changes over time. That is getting vague, missing information and very hard to search and correlate.
I use an excel table with a code to identify the simulation and the original SWX geometry.

rjsa
rjsa
51
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:01 am

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

So you keep all the geometry?

User avatar
CAEdevice
45
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:33 pm
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

rjsa wrote:
Tue Apr 18, 2017 5:25 pm
So you keep all the geometry?
Yes, I keep the geometry and the HTML report

User avatar
CAEdevice
45
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:33 pm
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Apologies if I insist with this question (that is about a very small detail... but important for an idea I am working about).

The maximum heat exchanger height is 450mm. Would it be possible to change the allowed value to 500÷550mm ? It would look realistic anyway.

User avatar
CAEdevice
45
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:33 pm
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Hi there! Any news from the big boss? I hope that the hx new features are not making you get crazy.

User avatar
RicME85
52
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 12:11 pm
Location: Derby

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Matteo the man with the least patience in the world :D

User avatar
CAEdevice
45
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:33 pm
Location: Erba, Italy

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

RicME85 wrote:
Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:25 pm
Matteo the man with the least patience in the world :D
ahah you are right! :D

That happens everytime I have to leave the office for a while (1 week this time) and I can't take the workstation I use for CFD with me.

User avatar
LVDH
44
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2015 1:23 pm

Re: [MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2016

Post

Ha, I am sorry. I was very busy lately. I am getting ahead of my projects again though. So I really hope to get MVRC going again very soon. And Matteo there will not be rule changes about small design details like you requested. If I would do that I would be doing nothing else.
Although I have far from done what I planned I did work on doing multiple cooling duct simulations. I will present the results soon. They were quite surprising to me. I thought that a good cooling duct would have an opening about a third or half the size of the radiator area and an outlet about 50% the size. So far in all settings and velocities the best solution was always to open both as far as possible. This is something I did not understand and wanted to figure out. So far I still do not completely understand it.
But now in a new project with almost the same question I used an adjoint solver to optimize an air intake system, which is almost the same as an cooling duct as it is a duct with a flow resistance in the middle which acts pretty much like a radiator. So what did the adjoint solver tell me? Well, to have a duct with a limited area up to the resistance then expand and converge again behind it. So in this case I got the text book solution. So now I know even less...