F1technical.net

I'm using the basic version of sketchup with a couple of plugins... Nothing special...

About the future regulations: i haven't really got any preference. F1 aerodynamics are fascinating, but the regulations are too strict to leave space for actual innovations. So, on the other hand, it would be just as exiting to explore a new and less strict formula.

variante wrote:I'm using the basic version of sketchup with a couple of plugins... Nothing special...

About the future regulations: i haven't really got any preference. F1 aerodynamics are fascinating, but the regulations are too strict to leave space for actual innovations. So, on the other hand, it would be just as exiting to explore a new and less strict formula.

I think that with F1 shaped cars it would be easier to find more partecipants, but it is not so important at the end, I quite agree with you. The most important thing is that there will be a 2015 KVRC edition

how do you put the sponsoring on the car? did you photoshop them? btw nice car i've been following it for a while

Daliracing wrote:how do you put the sponsoring on the car? did you photoshop them? btw nice car i've been following it for a while

I'm using SolidWorks to model the car, textures can be added to each surface.

CAEdevice wrote:

Daliracing wrote:how do you put the sponsoring on the car? did you photoshop them? btw nice car i've been following it for a while

I'm using SolidWorks to model the car, textures can be added to each surface.

thanks alot! I'm using SolidWorks to but i'm a noob at it

... the development of the 2014 project continues

Last update for KVRC2014, I'm finally satisfied with the CFD performance. Now let's wait for the KVRC rulebook 2015.

The endplate position is highly intrigueing. Cared to share what's the reasoning behind it?

If you are talking about the front wing endplate, it's just to respect the F1 rules that require a minimum surface proiection in that area. The front wing worked better with a smaller endplate...

CAEdevice wrote:If you are talking about the front wing endplate, it's just to respect the F1 rules that require a minimum surface proiection in that area. The front wing worked better with a smaller endplate...

Yes, but why more inboard of the wing? If I'm not mistaken, the rules demand a minimum surface for the endplate. Compared to teams and most other Khemsin renders I've seen, this looks like a very unique solution as in to move the endplate as much as inboard as possible, opposed to close of the edge of the wing, near the footplate. Is this done to make the edge of the front wing elements work harder, where the regulatory 'endplate' would otherwise be a nuisance?

To be honest, I could not make the endplate work as I wanted (the aim was to direct the flow inside or otside the wheel), so I decided to put the endplate in the position that mimized its effects. With a more external position I should have dedicated more (CPU) time to the front wing, but the weak point of my car was the region above the diffuser (expecially without the lower rear wing profile), so I simply preferred to invest more time elsewhere

A graphical comparison between first MP001 release and the last one: total downforce increased of 15% with about the same drag.









PS: The latest version is not very different from the "open source" model I released in the KVRC2014 topic of this forum (and Ithat I have uploaded on GrabCAD), it includes a 2015 rules compliant nose, optimized bargeboards and a more "parametric" front wing (but this does not influences CFD performance, it's only a way to improve 2015 setup).

CAEdevice wrote:To be honest, I could not make the endplate work as I wanted (the aim was to direct the flow inside or otside the wheel), so I decided to put the endplate in the position that mimized its effects. With a more external position I should have dedicated more (CPU) time to the front wing, but the weak point of my car was the region above the diffuser (expecially without the lower rear wing profile), so I simply preferred to invest more time elsewhere

Ah ok. Sorry for being persistent on it; it simply fascinated me .

I really like the design. Especially the chassis looks highly developed.

turbof1 wrote:

CAEdevice wrote:To be honest, I could not make the endplate work as I wanted (the aim was to direct the flow inside or otside the wheel), so I decided to put the endplate in the position that mimized its effects. With a more external position I should have dedicated more (CPU) time to the front wing, but the weak point of my car was the region above the diffuser (expecially without the lower rear wing profile), so I simply preferred to invest more time elsewhere

Ah ok. Sorry for being persistent on it; it simply fascinated me .

I really like the design. Especially the chassis looks highly developed.

I'm happy if you found interesting details!

After this first KVRC season I have learnt that the are two levels in the CFD development. At first general flows have to be defined with clear and simple ideas (if an aero device is not completely tested it's better to avoid mounting it). After that level, turbolences (big vortices) can make the differences between a 4th place car and a 1st place car. I think that my car at the moment could be placed between 1st and 3rd place (considering the KVRC2014 results, but I'm sure that some opponents are still improving their car...).

The car looks great. I'm impressed you've stuck at it after the competition is finished, by round 5 I was ready for a break

On my car at least, I found there was a fairly large gain in downforce when the endplate was shifted further outwards - it wasn't a particularly efficient gain though, so the position needed to be round-specific.