F1technical.net

When looking at the cars, I thought that other dash guy would easily win. But dash the II definitely has the better base car with more potential.

Lol

Yay

Right.. let's see if I can remember how to do this...



Here's the direct link in case that doesn't work:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBEDyzWdNGM

Oh boy, nicely done Matteo.

Great race, thanks to André, Chris, Richard.

Has there ever been a race in KVRC/MVRC where JJR does not have fought for the podium?

Considering the numeric tolerance of any simulation, I consider this race finished in a tie.

It looks that TF car can be fast even in a high df track. I am a bit worried about that.

when are the results going to be up on the challenge page?

Yes Matteo; it was very tight! Only a few small parameter changes in Virtual Stopwatch or Mantium WFlow would probably reverse the result... I guess this is not too far from reality; the impact of different weather conditions, track temperature, track adhesion (for example if the laid-down rubber gets washed away by rain) etc. could easily provide a +/- 0.05 second (or more) advantage to one car over another... I'm sure Vettel or Hamilton would take a 0.05 second advantage in qualifying gladly!

Andre sent me the completed lap time chart, but he is away today, so I expect the full results will be on the Challenge page sometime during the coming week.

machin wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2017, 16:55

Yes Matteo; it was very tight! Only a few small parameter changes in Virtual Stopwatch or Mantium WFlow would probably reverse the result... I guess this is not too far from reality; the impact of different weather conditions, track temperature, track adhesion (for example if the laid-down rubber gets washed away by rain) etc. could easily provide a +/- 0.05 second (or more) advantage to one car over another... I'm sure Vettel or Hamilton would take a 0.05 second advantage in qualifying gladly!

Andre sent me the completed lap time chart, but he is away today, so I expect the full results will be on the Challenge page sometime during the coming week.

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k248/ ... msbjyb.png

It's broken, photo bucket is blocking remote hosting.

LVDH wrote: ↑

26 Jul 2017, 17:06

The fix is now up.

The changes between 2017.4 and 2017.5 are mostly a change in OF versions. The numbers will only slightly change, I have not tested extensively as I am running all of your cars for the race.
The differences will not be comparable to the jump to last year as there the major change was in the numerical schemes which affect the results a lot.

I'm doing my first run parallel in 1606+ and 4.1. Small changes to fix CDSavage remarks on my model. The one running on 1606+ went bonkers, Cd is 4.6xE16 already halfway the run. The exact same files seem to be behaving on 4.1.

Is that what you meant when you said this version was more stable? Less prone to diverging?

How much laptimes are the intro cars losing from the different powertrain?

Full results for round 1:

1. CAEdevice: 1:21.99
2. JJR Racing: 1:22.04
3. TF: 1:22.96
4. Variante: 1:24.14
5. IDADOX: 1:24.63
6. MercuryMotorsport: 1:24.87
7. Pure Power Racing: 1:26.95
8. Brook Motorsport (I): 1:29.20
9. SHM Racing: 1:30.18
10. Evolve Performance Racing (I): 1:30.52

RicME85 wrote: ↑

30 Jul 2017, 18:40

How much laptimes are the intro cars losing from the different powertrain?

About 3 seconds at Monaco, depending on the other factors... you can test it for yourself by selecting between the two engines on the MVRC Virtual Stopwatch:-

http://www.competition-car-engineering. ... Timing.htm

Hi,
sorry about the delay with the lap times. Here you go:


I have comments about two cars. These are the IDADOX and the SHM entry. This will have to wait until tomorrow.
Probably I will update the page tomorrow morning and send out the full reports Tuesday morning.

I just noticed that the 2016 Monaco winner, despite an higher diffuser and a solver that gave 20% more df, would have been out of podium in Monaco 2017.

I think that we would have to work very much to reach the development limit with this cars.

This amazed me as well, when I compared the results of last year. On the one hand we now have different numerical schemes, but I do not think that they work in your favor. When you look at the force coefficient plots, you can see a jump somewhere around 500-1000 iterations. This is where the solver switches to second order accuracy. So you have two disadvantages, this and the lower floor, yet you guys have extreme downforce levels.
One reason for this is the very advanced way in how the flows now get channeled through the good cars. As this is very hidden it will be difficult to copy for the other teams.

The other aspect is when you look at what CFD and what wind tunnels are good for. CFD is good for developing the overall concept of the car and the wind tunnel is good for adding all these small additional parts that slightly affect the performance. The guys with the top cars in this challenge are so good at developing a good concept that they should get offers to join motor sport teams.
Adding all the small gurneys and kicks and so on is then the job for the guys in the wind tunnel.