F1technical.net

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2019, 23:50

At last... congratulations Variante!

... and thanks for taking 25 points!

Yeah impressive car from variante, first one to break into -3 Cl.
It seems like Variante pretty much cemented CAEdevice as championship winner. I have to win the next race and CAEdevice has to not make it onto the podium. On top of that it seems like Yas Marina really suits Matteos car.
On a unrelated note i would like to share some of my parts if anyone is interested j/k

Well we are

variante wrote: ↑

03 Nov 2019, 23:31

.... because of my diffuser problem....

I am wondering if we will see others copying the "stepped diffuser" or will you have even greater performance once you've integrated it nicely into the MVRC floor?!

Koldskaal wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2019, 13:03

On a unrelated note i would like to share some of my parts if anyone is interested j/k

I would at least be interested to know what aero figures you are getting for your front and rear wings and floor/diffuser...?

Koldskaal wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2019, 13:03

On top of that it seems like Yas Marina really suits Matteos car.

Yes, a bit more favorable then COTA and Suzuka, but still a high downforce track. I am specialized (as well as in the previous years) in circuits where efficiency counts.

Koldskaal wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2019, 13:03

On a unrelated note i would like to share some of my parts if anyone is interested j/k

I would be interested too

Meanwhile, here is set of front (5) and rear wings (2) I used this year, including the front wing I used in the last race.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/evobqh0te39cf ... s.zip?dl=0

(STEP format, but you can convert it into STL with FreeCAD).

Now that i think of it, it might be easier to invite some "friends" to take part in the final round (to fill the podium). Just as red bull has done in f1. Perhaps they could race as "Ciotola Fredda" or something similar

On the aero figures i might share some more in depth figures later but in general it looks something like:
Floor: 40-45% incl diffuser planck etc.
Front wing: ~33%
Rear wing ~25%
So nothing too surprising, no magic bullet. My approach to wing design seems to be rather different from both variante/Nick Perrin and CAEdevice. I plan on sharing some more around mid-November

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2019, 19:39

Yes, a bit more favorable then COTA and Suzuka, but still a high downforce track. I am specialized (as well as in the previous years) in circuits where efficiency counts.

hmmm I am not sure I agree that yas marina is a high downforce track. My numbers indicate that it would be more of a low downforce track. But then, this meta-development descision making is where i really feel my lack of experience. So take what i say with a grain of salt.

It depends on where you start: with my (present) numbers, I can gain a bit more working on downforce than on effciency. I don't think it would be the same for Variante or others.

Don't worry about inviting friends... my target is to win next race, the more we are the more I will be happy!

"Ciotola fredda" sounds good!

I was having a look at COTA cars/performance. First, i must say that nearly all cars seem essentially well though out and designed (although some might want to improve their CAD skills a bit), which makes me happy. Unfortunately, what makes me less happy is seeing Talno's car not getting much performance despite being -apparently- very well designed. Weird. I'm also sorry that many have stopped developing their cars despite starting the Season in a very promising way. Let me just say that i enjoyed developing the car and trying new weird things even when victory seemed out of reach.

JJR wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2019, 11:29

Variante manage once again to climb at the top. ( I will call his machine hyperformula 1 car from now ).

Hahah nah... I have a lot of downforce only to hide the fact that i can't reduce drag. But don't tell anyone!
Also, nice to see your car stretching its legs. I know you decided to have a more relaxed approach for this season (i promised myself the same, but ultimately i could't resist the call of CFD), but still...

machin wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2019, 14:43

I am wondering if we will see others copying the "stepped diffuser" or will you have even greater performance once you've integrated it nicely into the MVRC floor?!

Yeah, it's gonna be interesting to watch how that influences the performance of my diffuser. I'll probably launch a simulation tomorrow and report to you soon after. It wouldn't be the first time that a fortunate vortex/stream of air unexpectedly increases my car performance.


Anyway, Yas Marina really seems to favor high efficiency cars. If CAEdevice manages so solve his balance problem, he is a strong candidate for victory. Koldskaal will probably be faster than me too. Still, it would be nice to have yet another different car taking the 1st place...maybe Team Racing of JJR.

variante wrote: ↑

05 Nov 2019, 01:11

Unfortunately, what makes me less happy is seeing Talno's car not getting much performance despite being -apparently- very well designed. Weird.

Its simply a lack of resources. I do not have the ability to run any CFD, so each iteration of my car relies on my ability to understand the results from the previous race and find a solution that hopefully works. For example: it took 4 races to get to 100% power, but now my cooling outlet interferes with the rear wing....

My team is like Minardi of the early 2000's

Great battle! ive been following MVRC for 3 years or so, and its always interesting to see the cars each race.
ive been planning to learn a CAD program (solidworks) to give it a go some day... maybe next year

Koldskaal wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2019, 22:25

On the aero figures i might share some more in depth figures later but in general it looks something like:
Floor: 40-45% incl diffuser planck etc.
Front wing: ~33%
Rear wing ~25%

Coupled with the Cl.A of -2.613m^2 from the officially released results, that's enough for us to understand where us guys down the back of the grid are going wrong...

I'm not sure how much you guys looked at the CFD images in the race video over the weekend, but it is quite interesting to see how different the flow streams are coming off the front wing, even for cars with broadly similar performance, which kind of comes back to the observation we've made lots of times before: different solutions can be made to work just as well as eachother, and the best one is the one that is most refined (or most lucky to hit it straight away?!).

TalnoRacing wrote: ↑

05 Nov 2019, 13:05

Its simply a lack of resources. I do not have the ability to run any CFD, so each iteration of my car relies on my ability to understand the results from the previous race and find a solution that hopefully works...

So we are using the same development "technique"

In a way it is a good thing, as I know if I had the ability to do my own CFD I would lose even more time to MVRC...

Anyway, Yas Marina really seems to favor high efficiency cars.

I was a little surprised by that when I built the track model... but if you compare the Yas Marina track to COTA there are really no high speed corners, which is where downforce helps... so efficiency is more important for this last round...

Yeah, playing with Virtual Stopwatch it seems that the most downforce sensitive tracks are:
(top likes more downforce, bottom likes less drag)
COTA
Singapore
.
Yas Marina
Suzuka
.
.
Spa

And the most efficiency sensitive tracks are:
(top likes more efficiency, bottom cares less)
Spa
.
Suzuka
Yas Marina
COTA
.
.
Singapore

Hope i didn't mess with the numbers...



BTW i'm surprised with Koldskaal downforce distribution. I rely much more on wings (which would explain my problems):
FW: 1.310
Diff: 0.336
RW: 1.328

variante wrote: ↑

05 Nov 2019, 16:33

Yeah, playing with Virtual Stopwatch it seems that the most downforce sensitive tracks are:
(top likes more downforce, bottom likes less drag)
COTA
Singapore
.
Yas Marina
Suzuka
.
.
Spa

And the most efficiency sensitive tracks are:
(top likes more efficiency, bottom cares less)
Spa
.
Suzuka
Yas Marina
COTA
.
.
Singapore

Hope i didn't mess with the numbers...



BTW i'm surprised with Koldskaal downforce distribution. I rely much more on wings (which would explain my problems):
FW: 1.310
Diff: 0.336
RW: 1.328

Your rear wing has 40% more downforce than mine and your front wing 30%! So I guess that our floor/diffuser produce about the same downforce.

machin wrote: ↑

05 Nov 2019, 14:42

Koldskaal wrote: ↑

04 Nov 2019, 22:25

On the aero figures i might share some more in depth figures later but in general it looks something like:
Floor: 40-45% incl diffuser planck etc.
Front wing: ~33%
Rear wing ~25%

Coupled with the Cl.A of -2.613m^2 from the officially released results, that's enough for us to understand where us guys down the back of the grid are going wrong...

This distribution is only taking into account those parts. My car generates quite a bit of lift from the remaining parts especially the sidepod and cockpit.

variante wrote: ↑

05 Nov 2019, 16:33

BTW i'm surprised with Koldskaal downforce distribution. I rely much more on wings (which would explain my problems):
FW: 1.310
Diff: 0.336
RW: 1.328

I am equally surprised by your numbers. Anyway here are mine from COTA:
FW: 1.086 (excl. mand. midsection)
Entire floor: 1.314 (incl. diffuser), diffuser alone: 0.398
RW: 0.913