F1technical.net

I didn't use CAESES but i can use the logo for render if thats okay.

I think using the logo is OK. Next week, I will talk to them about it and ask if they are really fine with it. I am happy for you guys to use my logos on your cars. Next year I will hopefully finally provide you with a standard decal package including your start numbers so you can make even better renders.

Do we have wording for rule infringements anywhere?
Have got a penalty for the 10mm thickness ruling....but its not the same part that was on the car last race (front wing was judged to be too thin in places last race and again this race but its a completely different component). IMO this is unfair as its not that the part wasnt fixed, it was replaced with another wing with different profiles that has also been judged to infringe the 10mm rule.
Anyway, is the 10mm rule not a bit....rubbish? It says in the rules it can cause issues in the meshing but I have never experienced an issue whilst using MFlow and even on the fast option.

Well, I am not exactly sure about how you got it this time. But last race your front wing violated the rule and the simulation crashed. After I fixed your front wing it worked perfectly. And trust me, often there are a quite a few emails that go back and forth before the penalty gets imposed. With this one there was not much discussion. As far as I understand you did not only violate the 10mm rule twice but both times on the front wing. Why should it matter that you redesigned the front wing? You had to. If rules are rubbish or not is a different question. This can be discussed before your are affected ad so far discussions about the rules have always been very contructive.

RicME85 wrote: ↑

23 Sep 2017, 19:01

Do we have wording for rule infringements anywhere?
Have got a penalty for the 10mm thickness ruling....but its not the same part that was on the car last race (front wing was judged to be too thin in places last race and again this race but its a completely different component). IMO this is unfair as its not that the part wasnt fixed, it was replaced with another wing with different profiles that has also been judged to infringe the 10mm rule.
Anyway, is the 10mm rule not a bit....rubbish? It says in the rules it can cause issues in the meshing but I have never experienced an issue whilst using MFlow and even on the fast option.

Have a look at the image from the round 2 email and compare to the image from the round 3 email. One area was fixed but others (the side winglets and the wing spanning the full width) were effectively identical to round 2.

Why should it matter that you redesigned the front wing? You had to.

The point I was making was if it was the same geometry that was submitted for two races in a row with the same issues then IMO that is a case of the minor issue not being fixed and therefore a penalty should be issued. If the minor issue was raised then the next race different geometry was submitted then IMO that should be a new minor issue and not a repeat.

Its actually a different wing but anyway, the main points were a) do we actually have the regulations for penalties actually written down and b) does the 10mm limit actually have to be in the rules or is it something that can be looked at in the future.

But last race your front wing violated the rule and the simulation crashed. After I fixed your front wing it worked perfectly.

Is there something different to the way you run the simulations to the way we do then? I have never had a crash with my geometry this season or any other issues and thats using each of the MVRC run options, what could cause things to behave differently between my simulation and yours?

Oh, and no need for an aggressive response, its all curiosity on my part trying to understand everything. I have been trying to use real airfoil profiles but they never seem to work out (as these 10mm issues point out). Trying to fit them into the limited space in front of the front wheel fenders has lead to the issues. Im struggling to understand the approach people are taking to their airfoils with the 10mm regulation. Is their geometry meeting at a point on the trailing edge but suddenly going to 10mm thickness really quickly? When I have tried a number of profiles they dont look right. Or are people making the trailing edge of their profiles 10mm squared off?

RicME85 wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2017, 00:27

The point I was making was if it was the same geometry that was submitted for two races in a row with the same issues then IMO that is a case of the minor issue not being fixed and therefore a penalty should be issued. If the minor issue was raised then the next race different geometry was submitted then IMO that should be a new minor issue and not a repeat.

I think you are a bit wrong on that. If you have a rule violation, you should not repeat it. I do not see why it would matter that your redesigned a certain part.

RicME85 wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2017, 00:27

Its actually a different wing but anyway, the main points were a) do we actually have the regulations for penalties actually written down and b) does the 10mm limit actually have to be in the rules or is it something that can be looked at in the future.

a) Sadly no. Chris and I sometimes talk about writing down the sporting regulations but have not found the time yet. So far the championship has always worked based on common sense and the discussions with you guys. If we want to grow, we will need to write it down. Usually it works like this: If a compliance issue is found, Chris decides if it is minor or not. Minor issues receive a warning. A repeated offense results in a penalty. You were the example of this, this race. Big and obvious violations that likely also affect car performance get the penalty right away. I am not sure if someone has managed to pull this off yet.
b) My main concern with this rule was always how does Chris always find the violations? On the other hand, last race, time with the CFD simulation would have been saved if your front wing would have been complaint. In real racing series your sometimes find these kind of rules as well. So I do not really see why it should be looked at as long as Chris is fine with checking it.

RicME85 wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2017, 00:27

But last race your front wing violated the rule and the simulation crashed. After I fixed your front wing it worked perfectly.

Is there something different to the way you run the simulations to the way we do then? I have never had a crash with my geometry this season or any other issues and thats using each of the MVRC run options, what could cause things to behave differently between my simulation and yours?

Maybe in the rush of submitting you made a mistake? The simulation found trouble quite early and from the log pointed to the front wing. There was not much for me to miss there.

RicME85 wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2017, 00:27

Oh, and no need for an aggressive response, its all curiosity on my part trying to understand everything. I have been trying to use real airfoil profiles but they never seem to work out (as these 10mm issues point out). Trying to fit them into the limited space in front of the front wheel fenders has lead to the issues. Im struggling to understand the approach people are taking to their airfoils with the 10mm regulation. Is their geometry meeting at a point on the trailing edge but suddenly going to 10mm thickness really quickly? When I have tried a number of profiles they dont look right. Or are people making the trailing edge of their profiles 10mm squared off?

I think you might not completely get the 10mm rule. If you have a wing profile, only two thirds of it has to be above the 10mm. So a tear drop shape is no problem.

And I just calculated the lap times including the penalties and can tell you that your position is not affected.

RicME85 wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2017, 00:27

Why should it matter that you redesigned the front wing? You had to.

The point I was making was if it was the same geometry that was submitted for two races in a row with the same issues then IMO that is a case of the minor issue not being fixed and therefore a penalty should be issued. If the minor issue was raised then the next race different geometry was submitted then IMO that should be a new minor issue and not a repeat.

I have compared the front wing parts from round 2 and round 3, and the areas pointed out in both rounds are 100% identical. The thickness of each of those elements never goes above about 6mm. You should look at the first point in appendix 1 for these elements.

The fact it is identical shouldn't matter anyway: if a tiny change was always considered a completely new part and it 'reset' the warning, then it would be possible to just keep making insignificant changes each round and you could keep violating the rules without ever getting a penalty. This is not how the warning system works, if someone gets a warning then they have already broken the rules in some minor way, instead of getting a penalty they have now been made aware of what is and isn't acceptable, and no leeway is given if a similar problem happens in the next round.

On a lighter note.... We're getting close to race time!

Here is the first batch of results:

I wonder how the podium will look like...

Wow, did TF have any problem?
Happy to see Variante on the podium!

No, problems. The only penalty went out to Brook as we have discussed in length now and nobody suffered cooling flow related performance issues. The top five are simple all on the same high level and Variante is obviously back, somebody had to slip down the ladder.

LVDH wrote: ↑

24 Sep 2017, 13:07

No, problems. The only penalty went out to Brook as we have discussed in length now and nobody suffered cooling flow related performance issues. The top five are simple all on the same high level and Variante is obviously back, somebody had to slip down the ladder.

I would have expected to be 1s behind TF, no doubts about Variante's return.

Wow I think we need times to the thousenth of a second

Slight delay whilst the track is cleaned up following an incident in the preceding support race....