Formula One uncovered!
/forum/
Well, I'm going to disagree with you there. I use a lot of that volume for cooling exhaust (and so does real F1). Maybe some of the engine geometry can be cleaned up to reduce the chance of having empty pockets (something you pointed out earlier in the year) but I would definitely not want to have a solid engine cover.
I agree. No need to make the closed volume of engine cover mandatory: each team will conveniently limit the not used portion to reduce mesh size.spacehead3 wrote: ↑30 Jan 2024, 21:05Well, I'm going to disagree with you there. I use a lot of that volume for cooling exhaust (and so does real F1). Maybe some of the engine geometry can be cleaned up to reduce the chance of having empty pockets (something you pointed out earlier in the year) but I would definitely not want to have a solid engine cover.
And BTW that is a great looking surface Keith.
I agree with this. This gives us a lot of freedom without potential silly designs.yinlad wrote: ↑24 Jan 2024, 22:15
2) Suspension design freedom. I'd like to see something like this where we can make our own aero shrouds around smaller internal mandatory members, example mandatory part replacement in second image.
https://i.imgur.com/fBIcCqe.png
https://i.imgur.com/vfjxsjK.png
For this I imagine a sub set of rules where the arms have to be straight, one section in X, Y, Z. The usual 'no funny business' requirements
I like this idea, but imo the the new reference volume should not be much larger than the current suspension arms:yinlad wrote: ↑24 Jan 2024, 22:15I had a think about this today, it mostly echoes points made here already.
1) Reduce the engine cover volume / get rid of the sails.
2) Suspension design freedom. I'd like to see something like this where we can make our own aero shrouds around smaller internal mandatory members, example mandatory part replacement in second image.
...
I think these volumes are a touch limiting in terms of available range of angles, but generally speaking exactly what I was talking aboutKoldskaal wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024, 09:49I like this idea, but imo the the new reference volume should not be much larger than the current suspension arms:yinlad wrote: ↑24 Jan 2024, 22:15I had a think about this today, it mostly echoes points made here already.
1) Reduce the engine cover volume / get rid of the sails.
2) Suspension design freedom. I'd like to see something like this where we can make our own aero shrouds around smaller internal mandatory members, example mandatory part replacement in second image.
...
https://i.imgur.com/8QJy4FR.gif
https://i.imgur.com/aXM4vwv.gif
I think the only additional rule you need for this region is max 4 sections in any y-plane.
I think it looks more restrictive than it actually is. It is pretty easy to fit +/- 15 degrees aoa in there, which imo is plentyyinlad wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024, 16:33I think these volumes are a touch limiting in terms of available range of angles, but generally speaking exactly what I was talking aboutKoldskaal wrote: ↑07 Feb 2024, 09:49I like this idea, but imo the the new reference volume should not be much larger than the current suspension arms:yinlad wrote: ↑24 Jan 2024, 22:15
I had a think about this today, it mostly echoes points made here already.
1) Reduce the engine cover volume / get rid of the sails.
2) Suspension design freedom. I'd like to see something like this where we can make our own aero shrouds around smaller internal mandatory members, example mandatory part replacement in second image.
...
https://i.imgur.com/8QJy4FR.gif
https://i.imgur.com/aXM4vwv.gif
I think the only additional rule you need for this region is max 4 sections in any y-plane.
Kinda crazy to think but this is only 56 days away. Would be ideal to have a V1 of rules and parts "soon", or even a WIP ruleset with the changes integrated so we have an idea of what to expect ahead of R01LVDH wrote: ↑25 Jan 2024, 21:56Best is to just list your concerns here on the forum. But if you want, you can also get directly in touch with me. At a minimum, you have my email address.
Generally, I will have a new version well in advance of the first race ready. Right now, I am aiming for the Suzuka race of F1 to be our first race, so I have to hurry.
Given how tight the midfield was last year, I'm not sure adding double points and a hit of randomness does much for me. It felt like everyone last year was pretty engaged until the final race, in part to the former point that the field was already close and providing good competition.CAEdevice wrote: ↑10 Feb 2024, 19:37I was thinking that it would be useful to reward the evolution of the cars, also to keep interest alive until the end of the championship. My proposal is to run a double final race: same car (same submission) but two races on two circuits, one with a high load and one with a very low load (e.g. Classic Hockenheimring vs Shorted Hockenheimring). This would allow, without increasing the number of simulations, differentiated strategies (those who are not fighting for the championship could choose a specific setup and aim to win the race) and double scoring. The other four races before the "finals" would be in the traditional version.
