F1technical.net

The ratio between inlet and outlet area, in my limited experience, depends also on the "energy loss" into the hx (influenced by the porous properties and by the hx area). The optimised geometry you found at the end is about the same I used during 2016.

Well, ok for freezing the rules (but I am still convinced that 500mm would be more realistic than 450mm for our hx... anyway: it is only a small detail).

Matteo, I think he meant the minimum thickness and other trinkets. If he's allowing us to rotated the HX those limits will have to change.

rjsa wrote: ↑

26 Apr 2017, 14:57

Matteo, I think he meant the minimum thickness and other trinkets. If he's allowing us to rotated the HX those limits will have to change.

In that case, a minimum area and a minimum width/height/thickness would be enough.

Hi, I was thinking about the most simple rules for the intro class: what do you think about?

Only three rules:

1) The portion of car that is publicly released by the "official team" must be rule compliant and previously approved by the staff. Any (staff approved) update may be released during the season.
2) The "customer team" may modify everything is included into two boxes, one in the front wing region, the other in the rear wing volume (otherwise it will be classified into the "top class")
3) The general rules are the same of the topclass, except the diffuser that must have a straight profile (this to avoid the need of big hardware resources to optimize the diffuser)

How many constructors will be interested? How many teams would race in this class? What about a constructors challenge?

Definitely in for the intro class

I'm in for the intro class

I'm in to be a constructor!

AratzH wrote: ↑

04 May 2017, 15:07

I'm in to be a constructor!

If you like you can send me a first version of your car so it can be used for the development of the online geometry generation tool.
It looks like the rotation of the HXs will be allowed and the intro class will have lower cooling requirements.

LVDH wrote: ↑

04 May 2017, 17:22

AratzH wrote: ↑

04 May 2017, 15:07

I'm in to be a constructor!

the intro class will have lower cooling requirements.

And less engine power?

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

04 May 2017, 17:59

LVDH wrote: ↑

04 May 2017, 17:22

AratzH wrote: ↑

04 May 2017, 15:07

I'm in to be a constructor!

the intro class will have lower cooling requirements.

And less engine power?

Yes, Sir!

LVDH wrote: ↑

04 May 2017, 21:21

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

04 May 2017, 17:59

LVDH wrote: ↑

04 May 2017, 17:22

the intro class will have lower cooling requirements.

And less engine power?

Yes, Sir!

Very good! Efficiency will be more important.

Will teams using intro class customer cars have to stick to a single "manufacturer" for the whole season?

AratzH wrote: ↑

04 May 2017, 22:10

Will teams using intro class customer cars have to stick to a single "manufacturer" for the whole season?

I don't think so: the "customer" cars should be "opensource" so every one could download them.

I insist on the "straight diffuser profile idea" for the intro class. It would be controlled by only one parameter (angle), so less cfd iterations to be optimised.

I'm afraid my toolset right now won't work too well with the customisation approach. Let's see how it goes and if it's still possible I'll join as a constructor later.

Well it's a bit late for me to go intro since I have already designed a car for this year. Hopefully I've learned a lot from last year. Now I just need to test it in wflow (and make some beautiful renders for you guys and the website)

So I'm in to be a constructor.