LVDH wrote: ↑05 Nov 2017, 18:32
Variante´s cars all show very innovative features not seen on the other cars. Yet, I also think that he simply does not invest enough time to properly compete with the top guys here. The level displayed this year is just too good. JJR seems to stay true to what he said about the efficiency races. He just seems to be a bit unlucky that he is always missing that last little bit. And rsja is clearly a super duper newcomer. He was working a lot during the winter and came prepared like no one else.
Yes, I consider Variante performance disappointing only because he is an ex MVRC/KVRC champion and we will probably hear about him in motorsport in the next years.
I am convinced that JJR is a better aerodynamicist than me, but I have an advantage about 3D modeling when I have to translate into CAD geometry my ideas.
Rjsa's first season has been much better than my first (and second) one: we are going to have fun next year.
I hope new designers will be involved next year.
If I were a professor at univeristy, I would consider MVRC at the same level of Forumla SAE (Formula Student). Just a bit less trendy but truly competitive (I hope to find the same competitors I have in the "real" life someday).
CAEdevice clearly picked the best strategy by just improving his car from last year. I could see it getting better and better without any crazy new features. The other cars showed new interesting things that you guys were never able to see because they were in the inside of the car. Somehow I have to find a good way of showing the cars and features when the season is over.
It's funny: last year I won thanks to the "best strategy" about the cooling efficiency. This year it looks I still have the "best strategy". I think the best stategy is to design the fastest car
My car parametrically derives from the same CAD file I modeled in 2015 (and has lot of concepts I developed - not very well - for the F1-like car I used in KVRC): I don't believe in crazy features. I gave myself a rule: to not put in the car any detail without knowing what effects it has on the flow. Most of "crazy" details only bring drag or make other parts work worse.
No idea though if it will be a good idea to progress with Le Mans type cars then next year. On the other hand with a lot of material available about designing the cars it will be interesting to see how someone gets a competitive advantage like CAEdevice did this year.
Well, my car has been revealed at the beginning of the season: the intro car is 90% identical to the car I used for the "extreme downforce" race. It is mostly a matter of fine tuning and details (again: crazy details require very much time, hardware resources and CAD skills to be developed). The only new feature is the high nose for the efficiency races.
I would not mind to work on a new project (F1 like, including Halo? Formula E? Superformula? Indycar?), but at the same time I am sure that LMP1-LMP2-LMP3 "style" will still be the most interesting. As I wrote somewhere before, I think that the develpoment of my car is far to be completed. The target in 2018, excluding the effects of rule changes, would be an efficiency ratio around 7.5-8.0.
The most important things that I will consider when I will decide to take part to the next challenge will be the list of partecipants and the mesh/simulations improvements. The perfect scenario would be to have a transient simulation (I am convinced that most of the cars would be aerodynamically critical in a real track, including mine in the first two races), but I know it would be quite a heavy computing. Other interesting things would be to simulate the brake cooling flow and a separate oil heat exchanger, maybe only for the "top" class.
