F1technical.net

machin wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2018, 22:56

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2018, 18:15

...but just now, after a crazy experiment, I have find another gold mine. I know it is too late for high efficiency races (and it is not useful for the extreme df races), but it is funny: that is what makes MVRC and aerodynamics so interesting.

I am intrigued what you have found... is it a big visual change?!

Have we left you stewing long enough over the potential penalty yet?

I found that a shorter diffuser, working together with a high downforce rear wing could replicate a double airfoil wing principle: the rear wing helps the diffuser work better (it already happens with the extended diffuser, but in this new case efficiency has greater advantages than max downforce). I am sure that I could reach df/dr 7 with another month of development (about the same of 2017: consider that my 2017 car, with the 2018 rules and no optimization, lost most of the efficency, from 7.0 to 5.2 in August... I could not imagine to recover al the performance).

This not the only improvement: the other one is partially introduced and visible in the car I have submitted (cooling ducts with internal flow guides). It not only improves cooling, but also helps with front df and drug reduction.

machin wrote: ↑ Have we left you stewing long enough over the potential penalty yet?

Ahahah yes I looked on the dictionary the meaning of "stewing" You choose a perfect word!

I am a bit less pessimistic after my usual "mental" CFD simulation of other cars! I think the podium will be possible despite a possible penalty... so I started to think about the high downforce car... especially for the last race since I am to busy to try to many things for the very next track.

LVDH wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2018, 19:03

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2018, 18:50

LVDH wrote: ↑

15 Nov 2018, 18:10

Unfortunately it is at (0,0,0)

No problem, the important thing is to know where it is.
Is it on the intersection of the plane that passes thorugh the front wheels axle (and normal to ground) and the simmetry plane, am I right? Just a bit lower.

No, but I will check that out now

Sorry, I think I got that question wrong yesterday because I thought Matteo was pointing to parts I need to check on his car. The rotation point for the rake is at the global (0,0,0) around the y-axis.

I am checking the first results. One interesting thing is that the JJR car is driving his laps as if the car was on tracks. Maybe he did get something sorted out on his car.

I hope to get the scruteneering results out soon. Right now I have to fight with the last simulation. One of the top cars is in some trouble.

LVDH wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2018, 10:52

The rotation point for the rake is at the global (0,0,0) around the y-axis.

Thanks!

Thanks Machin for the clarification. It would come in handy having laptime gains expressed as a percentage of the laptime (to ease track to track comparisons).

Anyway, I had a look at the new cars and I can't express how fascinated I am by the attention to details from CAEdevice side. By naked eye, his car looks nearly identical to the previous ones, but actually nearly all of it has been modified, optimized. I admire him because my heart could never withstand such a painfully gradual process.
Jokes aside, he is my candidate for victory.
JJR's car has a fantastic and elegant rear end, but trading 0.1 in efficiency just to balance the car doesn't seem so promising for Sao Paulo.

The other cars keep looking better and better. I particularly like Pure Power's car (and his rear wing, which I'll test before or later) and Talno's car (which remind me of Matteo's car, which means it's good). I also like the brave approach from the two dutch guys; I hope it will pay off.

Thanks Variante! The most painful choice was to leave Race02 car, go back to the first release and waste 1 month of development, but I am sure it was a good decision.

The performance is good, but there are some regions (diffuser sides with the new rules, central section of the front wing, the volume behind front wheels) where I think there should have been a lot of research to do, for another couple of seasons at least.

In a week I will start to design the car for Pikes Peak and Daytona, and the big rear wing will completely change the boundary conditions of the diffuser, so everything will be different.

variante wrote: ↑

16 Nov 2018, 22:49

Thanks Machin for the clarification. It would come in handy having laptime gains expressed as a percentage of the laptime (to ease track to track comparisons).

I will do this. If I haven’t done it within 1 week, please remind me.

So, scrutineering is over... I am sure that the official findings will be published soon... but I will reveal there are no penalties for the championship front runners...

The race will be live at 12:00 GMT tomorrow (Sunday 18th) ... you will be able to watch using the following link:

machin wrote: ↑

17 Nov 2018, 13:51

So, scrutineering is over... I am sure that the official findings will be published soon... but I will reveal there are no penalties for the championship front runners...

You were supposed to have a look before I publish the results they were waiting for you. Anyways, I published them now and you can find them in the news section of the challenge page. Only Mercury received a penalty for repeating an actually small rule violation. There were two seemingly big issues on the CAEdevice entry but after reading the rules quite a few times we concluded that both issues were fine. Somehow I think he did not read the rules as thoroughly as we did now though and was a bit lucky.

Exhaust routing problems were to be expected , I was worried about upsetting airflow so chose to not reroute it so close before the deadline of the submission.

Thanks machin, good news for me.

I am very curious about that issues with my car... I think I would prefer a penalty or a public warning rather than so many doubts.

This situation reminds me Mercedes rims or Ferrari floor cuts. This is good for realism but I would like to avoid this in the future. Please, feel free to show the detailed images of the critical areas.

Yes, we were debating floor cuts... some of the wording in the rules is sometimes difficult to figure out what was really intended...

Our conclusion; no holes, cuts or similar are allowed in the spaces directly below the floor guides (which would result in a “double” or “twin-deck” diffuser), however, there is a small portion outboard of the floor guides where holes and cuts are allowed.

machin wrote: ↑

17 Nov 2018, 17:05

Yes, we were debating floor cuts... some of the wording in the rules is sometimes difficult to figure out what was really intended...

Our conclusion; no holes, cuts or similar are allowed in the spaces deirectly below the floor guides (which would result in a “double” or “twin-deck” diffuser), however, there is a small portion outboard of the floor guides where holes and cuts are allowed.

Yes, 50mm, I measured it from the template. It is a "free area" that has been there since KVRC age

The other issue was related to your rear wheels. From the top view, I thought there was too much wheel visible but it turned out to be OK as well.

LVDH wrote: ↑

17 Nov 2018, 19:26

The other issue was related to your rear wheels. From the top view, I thought there was too much wheel visible but it turned out to be OK as well.

Yes, I think of something connected to the template too