F1technical.net

0.5 is huge!!

I would like to ask Richard and Andre for some clarification. There is a tiny gap between the frontmost part of the bargeboard volume and the safety cell volume. At its largest it’s only about 3.8 mm. Can we assume that this is a mistake? I have been treating it as intentional, but I am starting to wonder. See pic:

I am not trying to call out anyone btw, I want the gap closed

Koldskaal wrote: ↑

20 May 2020, 23:08

I would like to ask Richard and Andre for some clarification. There is a tiny gap between the frontmost part of the bargeboard volume and the safety cell volume. At its largest it’s only about 3.8 mm. Can we assume that this is a mistake? I have been treating it as intentional, but I am starting to wonder. See pic:
https://i.imgur.com/rcqdEiR.png
I am not trying to call out anyone btw, I want the gap closed

Hi Christian, we talked about this point during MVRC2019:

viewtopic.php?p=854591#p854591

That gap brings another good point. According to the rules, geometry inside the barge board volume must/can be include in the high res folder. What happens if a single continuous part crosses the boundary between the barge board volume and the safety cell volume? Do we split it into different parts based on their location?

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

20 May 2020, 15:06

0.5 is huge!!

courtesy of basically reconstructing the entire front wing and floor

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

20 May 2020, 23:27

Koldskaal wrote: ↑

20 May 2020, 23:08

I would like to ask Richard and Andre for some clarification. There is a tiny gap between the frontmost part of the bargeboard volume and the safety cell volume. At its largest it’s only about 3.8 mm. Can we assume that this is a mistake? I have been treating it as intentional, but I am starting to wonder. See pic:
https://i.imgur.com/rcqdEiR.png
I am not trying to call out anyone btw, I want the gap closed

Hi Christian, we talked about this point during MVRC2019:

viewtopic.php?p=854591#p854591

Ok, thanks must have missed that

Missed the render championship but here's some pretty renders of my car anyways

Joe7218 wrote: ↑

21 May 2020, 11:03

Missed the render championship but here's some pretty renders of my car anyways

Nice! Some really good looking cars submitted for the first race!

Think its going to be interesting to see the cooling on some of these cars, some of them look like they have some really tight sidepods and cooling has always been a hot topic.
Wondering if we are converging on the angle of the heat exchangers yet, or even if there is an optimal angle to have?

I was really struggling with cooling but when I changed the angle of the HX just a few degrees it made a HUGE difference. No more cooling issues!

Stlawrks wrote: ↑

22 May 2020, 08:26

I was really struggling with cooling but when I changed the angle of the HX just a few degrees it made a HUGE difference. No more cooling issues!

i am guessing you stood it up straighter?

Still wondering how some have such tight sidepod areas.
If i stand the HX up it needs to be quite wide to be able to get the required surface area.

Mine's at 45deg. Last year I found shallower didn't work because of the porosity constraints and more upright made the sidepods bulky for the reasons stated by etsmc.

I think my sidepods need some time spent of them. My effort with floor and wings are being undone by an excess of lift.

machin wrote: ↑

21 May 2020, 20:41

Nice! Some really good looking cars submitted for the first race!

I wish we could see them too... [-o<
How are things going?

jjn9128 wrote: ↑

22 May 2020, 12:42

I think my sidepods need some time spent of them. My effort with floor and wings are being undone by an excess of lift.

Last year, openings on top of the sidepods helped me a lot with cooling, but they also interfered negatively with my rear wing. I spent quite some time trying to reduce the wake they created whilst preserving the cooling effects, but i ultimately decided to get rid of them entirely. In fact, i was a bit worried about such drawbacks when i saw your design, but obviously it depends on your priorities (cooling VS downforce).

As for radiators, i also mount them at 45°. I don't think that greater angles have an impact per se. The main issue for me is more about what happens before and after the radiator, i.e. how well the ducts feed the radiators and how easily they let the air out. For instance, a while ago i tried 90° radiators (flat, horizontal) and they kinda worked on the first try.

The cooling doesn't interfere with my rear wing because I'm creating a heap of downwash. My issue is that the downwash is produced by lift which is cancelling a lot of my floor. I'm not at home so can't post a pic but I'm pretty happy with where the cooling flow ends up in relation to the rear wing.

variante wrote: ↑

22 May 2020, 14:48

machin wrote: ↑

21 May 2020, 20:41

Nice! Some really good looking cars submitted for the first race!

I wish we could see them too... [-o<
How are things going?

I’ve only seen what’s been posted here... Andre hasn’t asked me for help with scrutineering... yet...

...”No news is good news” ?!?!