F1technical.net

Submitted! This time I have no margin about the cooling (3.01 m3/s)

cdsavage wrote:

etsmc wrote:if i remember right the old rule book said that suspension template was allowed to pass through the cooling duct, the new rules do not mention this is it still allowed?

Sorry for not replying to this sooner. There is now effectively no cooling duct as far as the rulebook is concerned, there is only a heat exchanger. Any bodywork that would form a duct is treated the same way as regular bodywork.

so do I have to cut holes in my cooling duct? since it runs right to the back of the car

Alonso Fan wrote:

cdsavage wrote:

etsmc wrote:if i remember right the old rule book said that suspension template was allowed to pass through the cooling duct, the new rules do not mention this is it still allowed?

Sorry for not replying to this sooner. There is now effectively no cooling duct as far as the rulebook is concerned, there is only a heat exchanger. Any bodywork that would form a duct is treated the same way as regular bodywork.

so do I have to cut holes in my cooling duct? since it runs right to the back of the car

You should, but for this round I think we will accept with or without holes for cases like these.

CAEdevice wrote:The car is detailed and refined, but I have doubts about the angle of attack of the leading edge of the wings.

the car is detailed, yes, but nowhere near refined

I have doubts about everything...

Alonso Fan wrote:

CAEdevice wrote:The car is detailed and refined, but I have doubts about the angle of attack of the leading edge of the wings.

the car is detailed, yes, but nowhere near refined

I have doubts about everything...

What I mean is that you could have flow detachment over the upper face of the wing. The direction of the flow when it wraps the wings is parallel to the ground or slightly directed upward and the initial angle of the wings should not be too different (especially for an "effciency" track as Sepang), the only exception is the region of the rear wing directly forward the airscope/engine cover.

http://www.caedevice.net/wp-content/upl ... 00x442.jpg

CAEdevice wrote:

Alonso Fan wrote:

CAEdevice wrote:The car is detailed and refined, but I have doubts about the angle of attack of the leading edge of the wings.

the car is detailed, yes, but nowhere near refined

I have doubts about everything...

What I mean is that you could have flow detachment over the upper face of the wing. The direction of the flow when it wraps the wings is parallel to the ground or slightly directed upward and the initial angle of the wings should not be too different (especially for an "effciency" track as Sepang), the only exception is the region of the rear wing directly forward the airscope/engine cover.

http://www.caedevice.net/wp-content/upl ... 00x442.jpg

Thanks I appreciate the help. It's all part of the learning process.

Alonso Fan wrote:

CAEdevice wrote:

Alonso Fan wrote:
the car is detailed, yes, but nowhere near refined

I have doubts about everything...

What I mean is that you could have flow detachment over the upper face of the wing. The direction of the flow when it wraps the wings is parallel to the ground or slightly directed upward and the initial angle of the wings should not be too different (especially for an "effciency" track as Sepang), the only exception is the region of the rear wing directly forward the airscope/engine cover.

http://www.caedevice.net/wp-content/upl ... 00x442.jpg

Thanks I appreciate the help. It's all part of the learning process.

The picture shows the rear airfoil I used in 2015. WFlow has a more refined mesh than OCCFD, and it is more sensitive about flow detachement: if you want to reproduce that wing with a good efficiency you should slightly reduce the trailing edge angle or use a double profile.

I could do with some clarification from Chris.

If using Matteo's open source car there is an issue with the bodywork protruding into the visibility volume.
Last round I used his car as a base but this round as I havent had enough time I have just used his car with some minor tweaks. In the last round compliance check you pointed this section out, would I get penalised for not changing this part (even though its not the same car as the last round submission) as the open source car is now considered the intro class car?

RicME85 wrote:I could do with some clarification from Chris.

If using Matteo's open source car there is an issue with the bodywork protruding into the visibility volume.
Last round I used his car as a base but this round as I havent had enough time I have just used his car with some minor tweaks. In the last round compliance check you pointed this section out, would I get penalised for not changing this part (even though its not the same car as the last round submission) as the open source car is now considered the intro class car?

Yep, I'll make an exception for that specific issue if you're using Matteo's base car.

RicME85 wrote:I could do with some clarification from Chris.

If using Matteo's open source car there is an issue with the bodywork protruding into the visibility volume.
Last round I used his car as a base but this round as I havent had enough time I have just used his car with some minor tweaks. In the last round compliance check you pointed this section out, would I get penalised for not changing this part (even though its not the same car as the last round submission) as the open source car is now considered the intro class car?

I am sorry, I will release an updated version soon. Could Chris send me a report with a list of the illegal detail?

CAEdevice wrote:

RicME85 wrote:I could do with some clarification from Chris.

If using Matteo's open source car there is an issue with the bodywork protruding into the visibility volume.
Last round I used his car as a base but this round as I havent had enough time I have just used his car with some minor tweaks. In the last round compliance check you pointed this section out, would I get penalised for not changing this part (even though its not the same car as the last round submission) as the open source car is now considered the intro class car?

I am sorry, I will release an updated version soon. Could Chris send me a report with a list of the illegal detail?

I included an image in my previous post but it was broken, have fixed it now.

There is also an issue with the exhaust, it is too long. (no issue for me as I have moved it but for new people downloading it it might be an idea to shorten the pipes)

I did a second submission because I forgot to include a component...you should find 2 zip file (maybe a third one tomorrow), named "CAEdevice_Race03_Submission0..."

what are we naming the monitoring surface inside the heat exchanger?
Has WFlow been updated to work with the new rule changes?

RicME85 wrote:what are we naming the monitoring surface inside the heat exchanger?
Has WFlow been updated to work with the new rule changes?

If you put a generic "mid-surface.stl" in the monitoring surface folder it works.

(I don't use the GUI)

In case anyone missed the email, there's about 11 hours left until the deadline. Let us know if you didn't receive the reminder email.