Here you go. Definitely improvements could be made but rear wing is pretty free.
Here you go. Definitely improvements could be made but rear wing is pretty free.
Very nice pic! And really nice from you to share this pic!jjn9128 wrote: ↑22 May 2020, 20:20Here you go. Definitely improvements could be made but rear wing is pretty free.
https://pt1kqw.db.files.1drv.com/y4mC-r ... pmode=none
Not sure if how it works with the mflow software but you should be able to write a batch/shell script to run 2/3 cases sequentially. You'd have to start it from the terminal rather than the mflow GUI though, so it depends how confident you are in that environment.MaccaRacing wrote: ↑23 May 2020, 09:17I would like to ask you some question regarding Mantium Flow and openfoam.. is there any chance to get a "conditional" launch of a case? I explain better.. since I can launch three cases (fast) in two days more or less, and since I can't control my PC during the night and during work hours, I would like to launch the second or the third case according to the results of the previous.. maybe I am asking too much
Which should run the cases one after the other.cd [case_file1]
bash runCase.sh
cd ..
cd [case_file2]
bash runCase.sh
cd ..
...etc
Thank you for the reply, but maybe I was not clear enough in explaining it
k.ko100v wrote: ↑08 May 2020, 21:10Hm, No, the cooling setup is separate file and it is one and the same for both cases. I was wondering how a messy looking flow gives better results, compared to better looking flow and lower results.jjn9128 wrote: ↑08 May 2020, 17:15With any weird result like this check for holes in the mesh. The first case the streamlines look odd. Is there a second set of heat exchangers or some other accident?!?k.ko100v wrote: ↑08 May 2020, 16:04Hi Guys,
Something strange happens.
2 days ago, I recieved this kind of cooling flow shape, after designing a brand new diffuser, without any flaps.
https://imgur.com/Cq5TM8Z.jpg
I thought that the diffuser is stalling, so I managed to fix it, by slightly changing the shape and adding some flaps to guide the flow inside the diffuser. The flow shape was improved, BUT I lost arround 0.2 Lift and the CoP move to the front by 0.1m
https://imgur.com/PijJXdd.jpg
So I am a bit confused...
Has anybody seen something like this?
Regards,
Krasen
I have the assumption that, if any aero element is stalled, it is not aero effective and I espected that after the "corrective actions" the case will be improved. Unfortunately no, but I hope that this is a sign of a good potential
I am testing the case on Mflow from last year. In the current version I miss the "U_nearWalls.vtk" file. I compared the both versions. What I've observed (based on my cases) the newer version is given equal or better results. I would recommend to use the older version for qually
EDIT:
Yeah... it looks like that the diff is stalling (or I am wrong), and somehow the flow is concentrated to the middle of it and makes it stronger
https://imgur.com/lll1FCz.jpg
Regards,
Krasen
My saga continues with the rear diffuser problems. I tryed more than 20 different setups (diffuser shape, strakes shapes etc)... with very familiar results.
That does look pretty strange. You can send me your case. From the image, I am wondering if you are using an extra coarse mesh? That could explain why the flow stays so attached.k.ko100v wrote: ↑23 May 2020, 12:58k.ko100v wrote: ↑08 May 2020, 21:10Hm, No, the cooling setup is separate file and it is one and the same for both cases. I was wondering how a messy looking flow gives better results, compared to better looking flow and lower results.
I have the assumption that, if any aero element is stalled, it is not aero effective and I espected that after the "corrective actions" the case will be improved. Unfortunately no, but I hope that this is a sign of a good potential
I am testing the case on Mflow from last year. In the current version I miss the "U_nearWalls.vtk" file. I compared the both versions. What I've observed (based on my cases) the newer version is given equal or better results. I would recommend to use the older version for qually
EDIT:
Yeah... it looks like that the diff is stalling (or I am wrong), and somehow the flow is concentrated to the middle of it and makes it stronger
https://imgur.com/lll1FCz.jpg
Regards,
KrasenMy saga continues with the rear diffuser problems. I tryed more than 20 different setups (diffuser shape, strakes shapes etc)... with very familiar results.
I am suspecting that there is something wrong with the rear tyre wake calculations.
Would you please check if this is normaw air behaviour arround a tyre?:
https://imgur.com/UPoTNJm.jpg
Compared with the front tyre wake:
https://imgur.com/d0Qszsi.jpg
Regards,
Krasen
Yes, which exactly files do you need?LVDH wrote: ↑23 May 2020, 14:23That does look pretty strange. You can send me your case. From the image, I am wondering if you are using an extra coarse mesh? That could explain why the flow stays so attached.k.ko100v wrote: ↑23 May 2020, 12:58k.ko100v wrote: ↑08 May 2020, 21:10
Hm, No, the cooling setup is separate file and it is one and the same for both cases. I was wondering how a messy looking flow gives better results, compared to better looking flow and lower results.
I have the assumption that, if any aero element is stalled, it is not aero effective and I espected that after the "corrective actions" the case will be improved. Unfortunately no, but I hope that this is a sign of a good potential
I am testing the case on Mflow from last year. In the current version I miss the "U_nearWalls.vtk" file. I compared the both versions. What I've observed (based on my cases) the newer version is given equal or better results. I would recommend to use the older version for qually
EDIT:
Yeah... it looks like that the diff is stalling (or I am wrong), and somehow the flow is concentrated to the middle of it and makes it stronger
https://imgur.com/lll1FCz.jpg
Regards,
KrasenMy saga continues with the rear diffuser problems. I tryed more than 20 different setups (diffuser shape, strakes shapes etc)... with very familiar results.
I am suspecting that there is something wrong with the rear tyre wake calculations.
Would you please check if this is normaw air behaviour arround a tyre?:
https://imgur.com/UPoTNJm.jpg
Compared with the front tyre wake:
https://imgur.com/d0Qszsi.jpg
Regards,
Krasen
Tell me about it. I want to shoot myselfLVDH wrote: ↑23 May 2020, 16:38The whole case would be good. Dropbox will not be able to deal with this. If you do not have any means to send it, I could setup an ftp account for you.
I just checked to be sure, the wheels are rotating correctly, which is good as otherwise I would have to hurt myself.
hmmmmmm that's a little beyond me, but using the timestep data won't necessarily give you the desired result - depending how accurate you want to be the final timestep could be in the order of 0.1 out from the average. You can also find that just increasing downforce will not necessarily be better for cooling/ balance or efficiency so you really want to be checking 2/3 parameters before choosing how to progress.
??FOR "time = 5000" IN solver.log DO FIND "Cl"
IF Cl > x.xxx
...etc as before
This for sure, the example with the downforce was only to write something quickly. I did not know about the average, so this makes things much more difficult.. I think I will drop down this ideajjn9128 wrote: ↑23 May 2020, 18:54
hmmmmmm that's a little beyond me, but using the timestep data won't necessarily give you the desired result - depending how accurate you want to be the final timestep could be in the order of 0.1 out from the average. You can also find that just increasing downforce will not necessarily be better for cooling/ balance or efficiency so you really want to be checking 2/3 parameters before choosing how to progress.