F1technical.net

Is the question from a "realism" point of view?

They look a bit too "flimsy" to me: I would reduce the amount of taper and increase the connection area to the wing...

DTM rear wing mount example:

Like the Koenigseggseggsegg One1?

machin wrote:Is the question from a "realism" point of view?

They look a bit too "flimsy" to me: I would reduce the amount of taper and increase the connection area to the wing...

DTM rear wing mount example:

http://www.eurocarnews.com/media/pictor ... /17311.jpg

I'm more worried about the rule compliance.
Realism is not a problem, I can run a structural simulation to verify the resistence and the vibrational behaviour (it's my job, I'm confindent about it... not the same for CFD simulations )

graham.reeds wrote:Like the Koenigseggseggsegg One1?

They copied my wing (or I copied their one...)

CAEdevice wrote:
I'm more worried about the rule compliance.

I don't see why it wouldn't be. The rules require the wing to be mounted by max. 2 points. This is in compliance with rule K3.2

Other than that, I'd say it could classify as bodywork for any part outside of the wing box. So imo, as long as it's thickness is 10mm, it is legal. I'm not sure how big the thinnest point is across the Z-axle, but as long as it's over 10mm it should be okay. Which means it complies with K1.2

wesley123 wrote:

CAEdevice wrote:
I'm more worried about the rule compliance.

I don't see why it wouldn't be. The rules require the wing to be mounted by max. 2 points. This is in compliance with rule K3.2

Other than that, I'd say it could classify as bodywork for any part outside of the wing box. So imo, as long as it's thickness is 10mm, it is legal. I'm not sure how big the thinnest point is across the Z-axle, but as long as it's over 10mm it should be okay. Which means it complies with K1.2

Thanks. The thickness (for meshing and realism) is 20mm.

Im with Wesley

I'd need to have a look at the model to say for sure. K3.2 states "The attachments must provide a realistic load path to the body of the car", so it's not only a matter of meeting the 10mm thickness.

cdsavage wrote:I'd need to have a look at the model to say for sure. K3.2 states "The attachments must provide a realistic load path to the body of the car", so it's not only a matter of meeting the 10mm thickness.

Thanks Chris, if I decide to use that configuration, I'll prove the structural realism with a FEM simualtion (static + modal analysism, using multi directional carbon fiber). At the moment it gives some advantages, but I have other problems to solve (can't find the idea to improve the floor/diffuser efficiency from the latest race...).

Interesting Matteo! Which FEA software are you using for composites?

MadMatt wrote:Interesting Matteo! Which FEA software are you using for composites?

Creo Simulate (in the past I used NEiNastran, but I don't have a license now)

cdsavage wrote:A few more images of the top 3:

[...]

I was wondering... where are the front suspensions?

I assumed just removed for the purpose of that image

I would agree except for the fact that the other 2 shown do have the suspension arms mounted

It´s completly covered with body and moved 100mm upwards.

CAEdevice wrote:

cdsavage wrote:A few more images of the top 3:

[...]

http://www.khamsinvirtualracecarchallen ... or_jjr.jpg

I was wondering... where are the front suspensions?