Khamsin Virtual Racecar Challenge 2014

[astracrazy]

Bazza - Ok, i see what you mean. The best thing you can do is pre-register which will send you an e-mail to the files. Sorry i haven't got the link to hand. Although please bare in mind there is no gaurantee on the format for 2015.

cd - Julien was on holiday last week until Sunday so I have e-mailed him

cae - The rule only applies to 100mm above the reference plane. But we included this
"Due to the difficulty in accurately taking this measurement, this rule will be judged subjectively on a car-by-car basis. Radii of less than 75mm will be permitted if the
intent of the rule is respected" - which is mainly to prevent pre-2009 flick ups. So on this basis, I would allow both of the above designs. Because they are similar with the same intent (if you get me).
As cd stated, its the yellow boxed area.

A note for everyone really, if you want me to check any designs please e-mail me as much info as you can (pictures etc) and i'll check. Obviously no design info will be released. The way i look at it is its better to check before a submission date as its a lot less workload for everyone. You won't have to adjust your car within 2-3 days and i won't have to check your car twice

[CAEdevice]

Thank you. I choosed the first geometry (R75) to be sure that the design will be acceptable.

[astracrazy]

no worries. anything else feel free to ask

[CAEdevice]

I have problems in managing the geometry of suspensions/helmet/wheels in my CAD evironement: It would be useful to have a "not faceted" version of this parts. Would it be possible? Thanks

[CottrellGP]

Hi all, just a little confused about the side pod intake regulations there seems to be two regulations regarding the side pod area, could anyone tell me what size it should be? Thanks Dan

[astracrazy]

cae - what software are you trying to use?

cottrell -

K3.5 There must be 1 sidepod intake each side of the car. Each intake must be planar and normal to the car centre line (facing forward). They must be located:
a)No less than 450mm forward of section CC
Any inlet must be visible in its entirety when viewed from the front of the car (ignoring the front wheel/suspension assembly). The area of each intake must be at least 45000mm^2.

where is the other one?

[CAEdevice]

cae - what software are you trying to use?

I'm using an old release of SpaceClaim (2010) and SolidWorks 2014 for a quick check of the design.
The final model will be modeled with Creo 2.0.

With faceted geometry I have problems in taking edge/points as reference and (only with SpaceClaim) I sometimes have difficulties in mirroring the suspensions. Nothing that I can't resolve with some workaround, but it would be easier to have continuos surfaces instead of triangular faces.

[CAEdevice]

I'm testing a rough geometry with a CFD code and I noticed that result are slightly more accurate (even not considering the internal flow) if the inlets are modeled including a 25/50mm depression. The same happens for the outlets. The total drag is a bit greater. I think that it would be useful to include that small depressions in the geometry rules (it would make esasier to measure the inlet/outlet areas and the "look" of the model would be more realistic in CFD post processing).
If this would not be useful please don't consider the suggestion (it's my first year in KVRC and may you have already discussed about it).

[astracrazy]

m using an old release of SpaceClaim (2010) and SolidWorks 2014 for a quick check of the design.
The final model will be modeled with Creo 2.0.

With faceted geometry I have problems in taking edge/points as reference and (only with SpaceClaim) I sometimes have difficulties in mirroring the suspensions. Nothing that I can't resolve with some workaround, but it would be easier to have continuos surfaces instead of triangular faces.

I can appreciate what you are asking for because we do not specifically require you to use sketchup and Khamsin. But as a competition it isn't ideal for us to make different variations for other programs as some of the reason why Julien is involved is to increase awareness of his program(s) i.e Khamsin. So we obviously advise you use this and this should be much easier if/once we get this portal off the ground.

What I can suggest though is if you speak to cdsavage and see if he can make these changes for you as they were designed by him. But please make sure when you post your model you use the original specification (in the basic file) to ensure you car is legal and gains no potential advantages.

I'm testing a rough geometry with a CFD code and I noticed that result are slightly more accurate (even not considering the internal flow) if the inlets are modeled including a 25/50mm depression. The same happens for the outlets. The total drag is a bit greater. I think that it would be useful to include that small depressions in the geometry rules (it would make esasier to measure the inlet/outlet areas and the "look" of the model would be more realistic in CFD post processing).
If this would not be useful please don't consider the suggestion (it's my first year in KVRC and may you have already discussed about it)

I have to admit i don't think it was something that was looked into last year and so hasn't been carried over this year. So thank you for passing this feedback on but unfortunately it is too late to change the rules. I will take this into consideration in the future though

[cdsavage]

I have problems in managing the geometry of suspensions/helmet/wheels in my CAD evironement: It would be useful to have a "not faceted" version of this parts. Would it be possible? Thanks

There is no nurbs model for the helmet as it started out as a polygonal model. I do have a nurbs version of the suspension/wheels that you can use for reference, but like astracrazy said, you will need to use the original faceted version for your submitted car. I will PM you with details.

Hi all, just a little confused about the side pod intake regulations there seems to be two regulations regarding the side pod area, could anyone tell me what size it should be? Thanks Dan

Just to be clear, there is the area for the actual sidepod inlet face (K3.5), and then two cross section areas for the sidepod shape further along the car (K8.3).

[CAEdevice]

I can appreciate what you are asking for because we do not specifically require you to use sketchup and Khamsin. But as a competition it isn't ideal for us to make different variations for other programs as some of the reason why Julien is involved is to increase awareness of his program(s) i.e Khamsin. So we obviously advise you use this and this should be much easier if/once we get this portal off the ground.

What I can suggest though is if you speak to cdsavage and see if he can make these changes for you as they were designed by him. But please make sure when you post your model you use the original specification (in the basic file) to ensure you car is legal and gains no potential advantages.

I thought that the faceted version was an export option of the software you used to model the wheels, so it would be easy to generate a STEP version (or other not faceted format). On the contrary, if to obtain a "smooth" version would take too much time, I don't want you to waste time, I've found a way to use the original parts (faceted) even with SC2010.

I really don't like SketchUp, but I'l like very much to test Kahmsin that seems very promising... the only reason I'm not tested it yet and I'm doing preliminary calculations on my F1 model with another software is that I could find the time to do it! I hope to remedy as soon as I can

[CAEdevice]

There is no nurbs model for the helmet as it started out as a polygonal model. I do have a nurbs version of the suspension/wheels that you can use for reference, but like astracrazy said, you will need to use the original faceted version for your submitted car. I will PM you with details.

Thank you very much!

[CAEdevice]

I think there could be en error in the "Main_volume" reference part: the maxium vertical distance of the diffuser seems to be 150mm from the reference line and not 125mm as written at point K7.5 of the Rules. But maybe I'm making confusion about it

[cdsavage]

The diffuser height isnt determined by the main volume, there is a separate surface in the guide file to show the maximum height of the underside of the diffuser (125mm from the reference plane). This area is all the same as the full F1 regs.

I would recommend that everybody read the rules PDF carefully, and not rely on the guide file alone, because there are a lot of other important rules that arent in the guide file.

[CAEdevice]

I' m not sure about the minimum allowable thickness of the diffuser (and horizontal plane above the 50mm step): the 10mm rule must be applied to these parts? Which minimum thickness would be realistic? 5mm could work?