F1technical.net

LVDH wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2019, 12:22

Hi,
count me in. My team will be MantiumRay.
And of course I can provide a version of MFlow, adapted for your challenge.
Could you please elaborate what the deal with the points is?

Thanks, which points?

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2019, 12:43

LVDH wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2019, 12:22

Hi,
count me in. My team will be MantiumRay.
And of course I can provide a version of MFlow, adapted for your challenge.
Could you please elaborate what the deal with the points is?

Thanks, which points?

I think Andre means the points system for determining who can take the 10 entry places...

maunde wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2019, 02:40

I would be eager to participate. Team name - MuginsMotorsport (If needed). I understand there may not be enough spots, but please keep me updated!

Cheers.

(BTW, what software are you using for your CAD modelling?)

Hi, I think you will be in, not many teams have signed in yet.
I will prepare a table with the entering points list, but not today, I am struggling with temperature, frame FEM simulation (just to have a realistic set of tubes) and ordinary job.

PS: I use Solidworks Standard 2018 (I will update to SWX 2020 in the next months).

machin wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2019, 12:49

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2019, 12:43

LVDH wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2019, 12:22

Hi,
count me in. My team will be MantiumRay.
And of course I can provide a version of MFlow, adapted for your challenge.
Could you please elaborate what the deal with the points is?

Thanks, which points?

I think Andre means the points system for determining who can take the 10 entry places...

Thanks, it is a way to give priority to MVRC partecipants and technical sponsors. I will dedicate a post to it later... I am a bit confused for other reasons today.

Last update for today: engine inlet/outlet monitoring/BC surfaces will be already set and included into the template (they are highlighted in the image below, but I have not modeled the space behind them yet). You will be free to design the final part of the exhaust and the airscope (different and creative solution will be accepted).

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2019, 13:04

Last update for today: engine inlet/outlet monitoring/BC surfaces will be already set and included into the template (they are highlighted in the image below, but I have not modeled the space behind them yet). You will be free to design the final part of the exhaust and the airscope (different and creative solution will be accepted).

https://www.caedevice.net/SERVER/Formul ... _00004.jpg

Looks like fun! I assume you are using weldments to model your vehicle?

maunde wrote: ↑

15 Dec 2019, 10:36

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

14 Dec 2019, 13:04

Last update for today: engine inlet/outlet monitoring/BC surfaces will be already set and included into the template (they are highlighted in the image below, but I have not modeled the space behind them yet). You will be free to design the final part of the exhaust and the airscope (different and creative solution will be accepted).

https://www.caedevice.net/SERVER/Formul ... _00004.jpg

Looks like fun! I assume you are using weldments to model your vehicle?

Yes, I am using weldments and structural members, but the frame will be released as a STEP (the same for any common part).

Here are the data for MFlow setup (many thanks to LDVH and MantiumCAE for providing MFlow):

• Engine intake flow rate 0,1 m^3/s for the whole car (it is a compromise, considering the max power of the engine but also that during corners the car is not aty full throttle
• Engine intake total​ ​surface​ ​integral​ ​of​ ​pressure​ ​must​ ​be​ ​>=​ ​0​ ​Pa.m​2 for the whole car (same as MVRC)
• Engine exhuast flow rate 0,2 m^3/s for the whole car (as for intake it is a compromise)
• Engine intake total​ ​surface​ ​integral​ ​of​ ​pressure​ ​must​ ​be​ ​<=​ ​4.5​ ​Pa.m​2 for the whole car (same as MVRC)
• Combined​ ​flow​ ​rate​ ​through​ ​heat​ ​exchangers​ ​must​ ​be​ ​>=​ ​1​ ​m3/s
• Darcy coefficients (local tensor e1,e2 e3): same as MVRC but the HXs thickness will be 40mm instead of 60mm (so less pressure drop is expected). No minimum HX surface required, but aspect ratio must be <= 3
• Wheelbase = 2600mm (Confirmed: I was tempted to leave this parameter free, linking it to the total weight, but I decided to not include to many news)
• I need to measure the pressure (or pressure integral) measured on the inlets surface of the brake ducts, there will be no imposed flow, considering that the energy drop inside the ducts is very high and I don't want to add too complicated BC this time. I can do it in Paraview, but it would be great to have it automatically computed and showed by MFlow
• Asphalt position and placement of the car in the calculation volume is the same as in MVRC template, so it is for the coordinate system
• Rear wheels average diameter = 660mm
• Front wheels average diameter = 660mm
• Mesh settings: I am not an expert, but I would confirm MVRC template (with the "high resolution" folder option)

Center of mass has not been confirmed yet, the provisional value is 1560mm.

Generally speaking, I think that the MFlow "MVRC" template should be a good base, also consdiering the job that has been done to fine tuining the CoP calculation. Please let me know if you need any other parameter.

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2019, 10:48

Thanks for participating, may I ask you to write your team name in the post?

MercuryMotorsport

I've lurked around a fair bit on the mvrc 2019 thread but never actually made an account/posted until recently and now that the semester is over I have time and if there's space left I'd love to be a part of this.

If there's space left count me in under the team name Rerps Tacing.

Hi pmmeducks, welcome! I hope there is a place (at the moment you are in).

And you guys said my team-name was silly... . But honestly, welcome to the ducks.

Hi I added this additional specifications to the parameters in the first post.

• Rolling radius front wheels = 320mm
• Rolling radius rearwheels = 320mm
• Rear and front wheels have the same diameter and about the same deformed shape, measures changes a bit because they have different camber angles, you can consider the rear wheels center aligned with the front wheels center, except for the wheelbase (2600mm): given the front wheels center in (0,0,0), the rear wheels center is: (2600,0,0)
• Rake: there will be more freedom about the foor, only the central part (the "step") will have a detailed template (and not in the gearbox area), so it think that the rake can be set to 0°, without any option to modify it

Next week I will start the tests on the template.

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2019, 19:44

Hi I added this additional specifications to the parameters in the first post.

• Rolling radius front wheels = 320mm
• Rolling radius rearwheels = 320mm
• Rear and front wheels have the same diameter and about the same deformed shape, measures changes a bit because they have different camber angles, you can consider the rear wheels center aligned with the front wheels center, except for the wheelbase (2600mm): given the front wheels center in (0,0,0), the rear wheels center is: (2600,0,0)
• Rake: there will be more freedom about the foor, only the central part (the "step") will have a detailed template (and not in the gearbox area), so it think that the rake can be set to 0°, without any option to modify it

Next week I will start the tests on the template.

Off topic: how do you choose what shape to use when you model deformed tires?

maunde wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2019, 21:16

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

18 Dec 2019, 19:44

Hi I added this additional specifications to the parameters in the first post.

• Rolling radius front wheels = 320mm
• Rolling radius rearwheels = 320mm
• Rear and front wheels have the same diameter and about the same deformed shape, measures changes a bit because they have different camber angles, you can consider the rear wheels center aligned with the front wheels center, except for the wheelbase (2600mm): given the front wheels center in (0,0,0), the rear wheels center is: (2600,0,0)
• Rake: there will be more freedom about the foor, only the central part (the "step") will have a detailed template (and not in the gearbox area), so it think that the rake can be set to 0°, without any option to modify it

Next week I will start the tests on the template.

Off topic: how do you choose what shape to use when you model deformed tires?

I have a simplified FEM model (it considers inner pressure and other parameters and uses the contact area as a reference check).

The problem is that loads on the tyre change along the track and each car has its own aerodynamic resultants: that is the reason we will come to compromise.