[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2025 (Grand Prix Cars)

[Dimitris]

I think this should be what you want: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... E6IDk/copy

Yeah, now it's nice and smooth. Thank you for the rapid fixes.

Anyway, official MVRC images are supposedly going to be released tomorrow. So i might as well reveal the car a day early. Here we go, in comparison with last year's car:

https://arcvstudio1.wordpress.com/wp-co ... iami-1.jpg
https://arcvstudio1.wordpress.com/wp-co ... iami-2.jpg
https://arcvstudio1.wordpress.com/wp-co ... iami-3.jpg
https://arcvstudio1.wordpress.com/wp-co ... iami-4.jpg

It's still a basic car, with design accents in 3 areas:
- around the front-wing, where i took advantage of the permissive endplate rules;
- around the floor-barge, where i imposed outwash where inwash was meant to be;
- around the rear-wing, where i used the 3rd airfoil allowed in a biplane configuration.

The overall performance is still underwhelming. I do not expect to do well in the 1st race, in Miami. But, for the moment, i'm more interested in seeing other people's take on the 2026 F1 regulations (*MVRC edition*). So far, all cars that have been revealed look solidly designed.

I had the same idea about the endplates. Great looking car!

[yinlad]

The overall performance is still underwhelming. I do not expect to do well in the 1st race, in Miami. But, for the moment, i'm more interested in seeing other people's take on the 2026 F1 regulations (*MVRC edition*). So far, all cars that have been revealed look solidly designed.

The one I was most curious to see. I'm encouraged by you also feeling underwhelmed another instance of features I'd tried and failed to find performance with though, particularly the barge board configuration and deeper sidepod undercut.

[CAEdevice]

This is CAEdevice (second) car, a bit simplified if compared to the first release.

[The Rusted One]

sounds like you may have developed them inside an old volume that was 50mm reward? Another good looking car though, this year is setting a new standard for modelling I think

Bargeboard wasn't misaligned in the CAD model which makes it all the more confusing and frustrating...

But looks like everyone else has some nice looking cars, so looking foward to the results and photos of every car soon.

[G-raph]

Good luck everyone! Very nice looking cars with some interesting ideas. The newcomers look impressive as well, so even if Variante has to be the favourite I wouldn't be suprised if a rookie gets a shock first win.

I intended to submit a car this year with minimal or even no CFD development, but I eventually ran out of time. I only have a front wing and a floor so far.

I will still try to join for race 02, which is why it would be really nice if you can clarify the bodywork curvature rules as soon as possible.

[variante]

I had the same idea about the endplates. Great looking car!
https://imgur.com/GC0UC6d.jpg

And why did you abandon it?

I will still try to join for race 02

Nice. I'll try to do a terrible 1st race, to avoid getting an unfair advantage.

[Dimitris]

I had the same idea about the endplates. Great looking car!
https://imgur.com/GC0UC6d.jpg

And why did you abandon it?

I didn't abandon it. It's just a later update than the front wing used in the pic i posted.
But i didn't have the time to do any CFD run with MantiumFlow before the first race, so for right now its just a cool idea that i hope it works.

[CAEdevice]

Good luck everyone! Very nice looking cars with some interesting ideas. The newcomers look impressive as well, so even if Variante has to be the favourite I wouldn't be suprised if a rookie gets a shock first win.

I intended to submit a car this year with minimal or even no CFD development, but I eventually ran out of time. I only have a front wing and a floor so far.

I will still try to join for race 02, which is why it would be really nice if you can clarify the bodywork curvature rules as soon as possible.

I'm sorry for the absence of the reigning champion at the first race, but if the car were as competitive as last year, you'd still win even with just 4 races.

[Koldskaal]

Update on the minimum curvature rules coming for race 2
We’ve had discussions in the staff chat, about how to best implement minimum curvature rules, mainly around the potential pitfalls, and how to actually check the curvature in a fair efficient manner. So I want to show you how we're implementing the rule and open up for discussion, so you guys can comment any issues we might have missed.

How do we check curvature?
Using the scrutineering script, we can color face-pairs based on the curvature. We color any curvature less than the allowed red, and all other grey. Then we take pictures of the car from different angles, and look for red pixels. This way we're certain that only the external surface of the engine cover is evaluated.
Here, every curvature smaller than 25 mm radius:

This is using the vertex-based geometry of the stl-file, so the curvature calculation can be a bit misleading in some regions. I think the best way to use this is to have make a manual judgement call based on the images. Many of these red spots are obviously due to some vertex simplifications.

There are, however, some more problematic areas: the sharkfin, near the sidepod outlet and close to the floor. Here it would be difficult to comply with the minimum curvature in a sensible way. So we introduce a new volume to "block out" these regions. We also block out the sidepod- and engine-inlet and engine-cover-louvres region, based on the FIA rules. The last one in particular is a bit large, so it would be nice to get some feedback as to how we can still allow some louvres without opening too many loopholes.
with louvres:

no louvres:

So, in your opinon, what should the minimum curvature be? 30mm? 50mm? Should the louvres volume be trimmed more? If you have an idea for a something that can be improved, then please share a stp-file with your improvements. You can download the volumes here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/ ... sp=sharing
The script will be updated to include curvature checking this weekend.

[janci_kp]

Speaking for EaJ racing I’m okay with 30 or even 50mm minimum radius. I have already build my bodywork with avoiding of sharp edges and small radiuses because these are prior to fail in cfd (not in matium but in the cfd I used before). Adding chimney was just temporary solution to solve my cooling issues.
I have one question though. The minimum radius will be only for engine cover or for chassis also?

[variante]

Cool job, but what if a radius is 1mm too little? The rigid machine-driven approach worries me because my software of choice (SkethUp) sucks with tangential surfaces. Also, such method might be too labor-intensive for you, the rule checkers.

An alternative is: only complaints from other competitors lead to checking someone's radiuses. Penalty is due when blatant infractions are committed, leading macroscopic unfair advantages. Else, no action is taken.

F1 mandates 50mm for convex and 100mm for concave radiuses on the sidepods, and 75mm for convex and 50mm for concave radiuses on the engine conver. And more. Simplifying: a single 50mm radius would give us nice visual fidelity to F1.

[CAEdevice]

Thanks for the cool job.

As for the minimum radius requirement, I propose allowing a relaxed version, where a minimum radius of 25 mm is accepted. This would facilitate compliance, particularly for those utilizing CAD software not specifically designed for advanced surface modeling or style design. I also support Variante's proposal, involving targeted inspections upon specific notification, limiting such notifications to one per team per event.

As for the louvres: I think there is a specific volume in the FIA rules where louvres are allowed.