F1technical.net

I have 2017 and I don´t know if I can make it rearward compatible so there´s two links. One for SW assembly and one as an IGS.

https://mega.nz/#!4QY3nC6I!_7-evNVkbYHl ... usBYliI5As IGS

https://mega.nz/#!tA4kzQgR!WptDtoyWRuaa ... 5NUFZpMat4 SW

This is how it should look:



Just add a new part for your car and align its origin with the one of the parts_guide assembly (also its axes). The vehicle will be properly oriented for CFD when you do the STL conversion.

Thanks for the files and the explanation. SW one didnt work as you expected but the IGS did work.

The axis you see is from the global assembly. If you edit one of the sub-components you will notice that its axes are rotated as per MVRC rulebook. The idea is that, by inserting the part in an assembly, and oriented following the guide sub-components, it will show normally within the assembly and you can use the standard SW views.
If after inserting and editing the part inside the assembly you open it outside the assembly you will notice that it is rotated and the standard views don´t match what you see.
I forgot to mention that your car must be inserted as a new part in the assembly and then edit it within the assembly:


Then, once modeled:


Finally, when you open the "car body" part the axes are rotated:


It is from this last image´s state from where you have to export the body into stl:



Hope it helps!

Thanks for the big help and sorry for the trouble i caused you, i really appreciate the help .

Thanks for this. I'm also now using SW and this is a huge help

I guess its not that bad for a CAD noob




Will try on the wflow tonight. Didnt sketched the engine intakes for now.

Again thanks for the help AratzH.

Absolutely brilliant for a CAD 'noob'

Interesting 'outwash' design, and I see CAEdevice's concept is being adopted by yet more teams (there's a hint in the plural). Who can blame you though when its an easy route to a df/dr ratio of more than 3?
(not like you had any problem of achieving that with your previous car, but just saying)

Alonso Fan wrote:Absolutely brilliant for a CAD 'noob'

Interesting 'outwash' design, and I see CAEdevice's concept is being adopted by yet more teams (there's a hint in the plural). Who can blame you though when its an easy route to a df/dr ratio of more than 3?
(not like you had any problem of achieving that with your previous car, but just saying)

I was looking at the different design solutions (waiting for the new rules I decided to study the other cars).

The "closed wheels F1" design (Variante, CAEdevice) is the one with more DF, but not the best about efficiency. The "classic LeMans" design (MantiumRay) is much more efficient, especially in the TF version that uses a special path for the front diffuser flow (Nissan LMP1 like).
JJR used a "modern LeMans" design and an advanced "3D" diffuser and it looks a very good compromise.

My opinion is that, considering the whole challenge, any design can be the winning one and fine tuning will make the difference.

I have not chosen the design of my next car (on the contrary, the "customer" car will likely be an evolution of my 2016 concept) but these factors will have an important role:

1) Tracks (ratio between high df and high efficiency tracks)
2) The possibility that extreme locations of the heat exchangers impact CoG
3) Cooling requirements (espcially Darcy's law paramters)
4) Mesh and solutor settings (especially the way flow separation is managed: last year efficient and low df cars converged easier and faster in less that 1500 iterations).
5) Engine (engines?) Max power

Funny how my never raced car has evolved to the Nissan duct solution, even with me having no knowledge of how it works before. I still have the cooling in it, next step will be trying to relicate it to the front.

As of now L/D in minimum drag config is around 4.3 but CoL still far from target, around 1.85.

@rjsa: it looks you are working hard on your car, the numbers are interesting.

If he participated to challenge MVRC, I'm not sure that would have an easy time: http://www.perrinn.com/

CAEdevice wrote:If he participated to challenge MVRC, I'm not sure that would have an easy time: http://www.perrinn.com/

When I designed my first concepts for KVRC 2015 I only started producing useful ideas after simulating the open source Perrin car. I helped me a lot to learn.

Next week I will be back to work when it comes to MVRC 2017. Sorry I was so busy this year. I see some people could not stop working on the cars for this season. I understand that it is hard to quit but sometimes a small break helps to develop new ideas. I would hope that it will take less than three weeks to get the new rules sorted out.

LVDH wrote:

CAEdevice wrote:If he participated to challenge MVRC, I'm not sure that would have an easy time: http://www.perrinn.com/

When I designed my first concepts for KVRC 2015 I only started producing useful ideas after simulating the open source Perrin car. I helped me a lot to learn.

Next week I will be back to work when it comes to MVRC 2017. Sorry I was so busy this year. I see some people could not stop working on the cars for this season. I understand that it is hard to quit but sometimes a small break helps to develop new ideas. I would hope that it will take less than three weeks to get the new rules sorted out.

Don't worry there is a lot of time! I don't think we are going to have 5 races in 4 months as it happened in 2016.
If there will be not enough time to develop two cars (mine and the OS version), I will run the first race in the "intro" class .

The only part of the new rules I can't wait to know is the one about the "intro"/LMP2like/customer class.

About the two classes: what about using different official settings for the mesh (with the same BC)? I.e. max 4×10^6 cells for the intro class (or less) and max 8x10^6 cells for the top class.

There are many reasons for that:
- the intro class teams have usually less hardware resources
- the intro class teams could focus on the general flow (that is a huge field to explore) and the top class teams could have the possibility to better similate vortices and flow detachment.

Last season mesh had about 4x10^6 cells.

I made a test with my old car, manually modifing the mesh settings, and with 8x10^6 cells (2x10^6 dedicated to thinner layers and the rest to smaller cells around the car) and the differences were around 5% in dr and df. Not enough to make the two classes not comparable, but enough to have a more detailed model (I expect that the differences between the top teams will be less that 5%).

LVDH wrote:

CAEdevice wrote:If he participated to challenge MVRC, I'm not sure that would have an easy time: http://www.perrinn.com/

When I designed my first concepts for KVRC 2015 I only started producing useful ideas after simulating the open source Perrin car. I helped me a lot to learn.

Next week I will be back to work when it comes to MVRC 2017. Sorry I was so busy this year. I see some people could not stop working on the cars for this season. I understand that it is hard to quit but sometimes a small break helps to develop new ideas. I would hope that it will take less than three weeks to get the new rules sorted out.

Was it interesting being able to see the flow structures etc Perrin produced?
I have the files for the original LMP1 car they did, might look into simulating it for ideas if it.