F1technical.net

LegendaryM wrote: ↑

10 Sep 2022, 12:23

I did actually ask for clarification on the nose to check if it was realistic - I don't think its any more extreme than the 2006 Mclaren or the Mercedes of recent years, its actually quite thick from the side view.

To be fair, the 2006 McLaren wasn't carrying around a dining table under its nose.

1.4m vs 1.95m

RicME85 wrote: ↑

10 Sep 2022, 19:02

LegendaryM wrote: ↑

10 Sep 2022, 12:23

I did actually ask for clarification on the nose to check if it was realistic - I don't think its any more extreme than the 2006 Mclaren or the Mercedes of recent years, its actually quite thick from the side view.

To be fair, the 2006 McLaren wasn't carrying around a dining table under its nose.

1.4m vs 1.95m

I don't think we should waste too many energies on the structural issue.

Why? Because not much performance can be gained from that anyway, and because complex new rules written in a hurry might worsen the situation, and because the MVRC team should focus its limited resources on more important things for this challenge (like releasing engaging pictures, updating the website, writing promotional articles, etc.).

Legendary's nose looks structurally acceptable, as far as i'm concerned.
The blade nose obviously not, but it's not the end of the world if it remains legal.

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

10 Sep 2022, 11:57

This is MP009 ready for Monza (except for the front wing and the nose that will be a bit different: I am waiting for the latest simualation).

https://www.caedevice.net/SERVER/MVRC/2 ... _forum.jpg

Nice and clean.
Tighter rear end, it seems. And maybe optimized floor deflectors?

variante wrote: ↑

10 Sep 2022, 21:24

Nice and clean.
Tighter rear end, it seems. And maybe optimized floor deflectors?

Nothing escapes your eyes. Yes, besides optimizing the floor (I run the first race with a car studied for a different floor height, slightly modified strakes are part of this process), I tried to improve cooling to obtain tighter rear with the aim of reducing flow blockage.

Having to leave so much performance off the rear of the car to maintain an optimal balance really struggling to find downforce up front with these regulations!

yinlad wrote: ↑

10 Sep 2022, 21:49

Having to leave so much performance off the rear of the car to maintain an optimal balance really struggling to find downforce up front with these regulations!

Just draw a bigger front wing!


Here is my Race 2 car. I know it doesn't look lile much has changed, but as I have finally been able to do a little bit of development in CFD, I think I have made a decent step. I didn't have time to do any Monza-specific low drag wings, though.



Good luck everyone!

Here is my car for round 2.
It should be a decent step forward compared to last race. Although, I am not sure that I share Matteos optimism


Considering the results of the last race:

I would expect that variante and Max have sorted their cooling by now. I think variante is the favorite for this race

Koldskaal wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2022, 11:59

Here is my car for round 2.
It should be a decent step forward compared to last race. Although, I am not sure that I share Matteos optimism
https://i.imgur.com/6bPRF9H.png
https://i.imgur.com/SRRjd41.png
Considering the results of the last race:
https://i.imgur.com/CzNP6Bq.png
I would expect that variante and Max have sorted their cooling by now. I think variante is the favorite for this race

I am worried about these step forward

By the way: which tyres and how much fuel are simulated by Max Laptime algorithm? Some of the best cars, with Hungary setup, would be faster than yesterday pole lap in Monza

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2022, 13:19

By the way: which tyres and how much fuel are simulated by Max Laptime algorithm? Some of the best cars, with Hungary setup, would be faster than yesterday pole lap in Monza

All the lap sims are correlated to telemetry from Hamilton's 2020 qualifying laps (c4 tire). So yes, definitely possible that we could be faster.

I don't recall if I mentioned before but for the purposes of the lap sim I double all of our CL values in order to make the time line up better with the real cars. Here are the values that I have derived from telemetry for the real 2020 cars:

Budapest | Monza
CL -8.169 | -6.371
CD 1.74 | 1.322
CLF/CL 0.47 | 0.47
L/D -4.69 | -4.82

So, many of us may get close to the Monza setup, but so far no one has come close to the -4.08 CL required to match a "real" Hungary setup.

spacehead3 wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2022, 13:41

I double all of our CL values in order to make the time line up better with the real cars.

Sorry I missed it.
I don't agree, we do not need to artificially match the real laptimes.

I have to think about it, but I fear that this trick has no linear effects on the laptime, expecially on low downforce tracks. My first impression is that I don't like this.

We are running about 10mm higher than real cars and without rake (1° would solve most of problems caused by the lack of front downforce) and we are not professionals (except for a couple guys), it would not be a problem to be 5 o 6 seconds slower, and we can gain 2 o 3 seconds simply developing the car and updating the template.

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2022, 13:57

spacehead3 wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2022, 13:41

I double all of our CL values in order to make the time line up better with the real cars.

We can gain 2 or 3 seconds simply developing the car and updating the template.

I agree completely. We can gain chunks of time with trimming the engine template size,
reducing the required cooling flow and adding some rake angle.

Ft5fTL wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2022, 14:24

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2022, 13:57

spacehead3 wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2022, 13:41

I double all of our CL values in order to make the time line up better with the real cars.

We can gain 2 or 3 seconds simply developing the car and updating the template.

I agree completely. We can gain chunks of time with trimming the engine template size,
reducing the required cooling flow and with some rake angle.

You are right, I forgot to mention it.
Engine and gearbox are from 2020. New rules would require new gearbox (higher) and new engine package (a bit lower), this would also partially solve the rake problem (suspensions not connected).
2022 components anyway are available any time, the staff just have to ask.

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2022, 13:57

spacehead3 wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2022, 13:41

I double all of our CL values in order to make the time line up better with the real cars.

I have to think about it, but I fear that this trick has no linear effects on the laptime, expecially on low downforce tracks. My first impression is that I don't like this.

Trust me, it all works out.

The main thing is that it significantly changes the optimum downforce vs drag ratio for each track. You can see clearly from the CL-CD-Laptime plots on the sim page that lower downforce reduces the car's sensitivity to drag. If I used our true values every track would be a high downforce track...

I could scale things differently, it just depends on how I originally correlated the lap sim and the tire data that I used.

But at the end of the day it's the same for everyone, so no need to worry too much about it.

spacehead3 wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2022, 15:15

lower downforce reduces the car's sensitivity to drag.

Well, that means that arbitraly changing the df alters the correct performance scale.

spacehead3 wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2022, 15:15

If I used our true values every track would be a high downforce track...

This is how it should be, considering that we need to (and we can) improve our cars for the reasons I listed before.

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2022, 15:28

spacehead3 wrote: ↑

11 Sep 2022, 15:15

If I used our true values every track would be a high downforce track...

This is how it should be, considering that we need to improve our cars for the reason I listed before.

Of course, if we improve the template in the future I would adjust accordingly, but for this year it is what it is.

For the purposes of a fun competition I thinks it's important to have tracks with different characteristics.