variante wrote: ↑15 Mar 2019, 10:54
From my point of view, there are two ways:
1 - RedBull X1 style (basically, a closed cockpit and covered wheels F1). This is the one that i prefer as a designer.
There are more indipendent structures (like the front wheel cover, which is detached from the rest of the bodywork), and more forbidden volumes (meaning less surfaces), which makes it easier to model.
It is only a videogame, it is not even officially used in driving simulators
variante wrote: ↑15 Mar 2019, 10:54
CAEdevice will say that with parametric modeling there are no problems anyways, but from my experience it takes a lot of effort to make a parametric model that withstands heavy changes without giving error messages.
I don't think F1 teams would consider a CV with no parametric CAD skills
They use NX and Catia, but FreeCAD (btw: it has an interesting OpenFOAM based module) or a Student Edition of SolidWorks would be a good base. I think that MVRC should try to grow. Also Autodesk 360 is free for students and small companies (not parametric, but definetly a good tool).
variante wrote: ↑15 Mar 2019, 10:54
A closed cockpit is also 10 times easier to model than an open one.
I quite agree about this point, but I also could provide a cockpit with helmet, halo, legal dimensions to be integrated into your design. Anyway: a closed cockpit would require less mesh cells, and it would be a point to consider.
variante wrote: ↑15 Mar 2019, 10:54
2 - basically F1. This is the one that could attract more attention in a forum like F1Technical.
Drawbacks being:
F1 regulation is absurdly intricate (i experienced it while designing my 2017/18 F1 car...). You'd have to simplify it quite a lot.
Some rules are hard to check (for instance, the 75mm radius rule).
Design nightmares, such as the transition between cockpit and rear bodywork, or complex internal aerodynamics (cooling etc.).
Design freedom would be limited. This can be good for results, as laptimes would be more flattened, but it would be bad for fantasy and aerodynamics experiments.
Yes I agree. Also consider that F1 cars are ugly, with a ridicolous wheelbase. 3500mm should be the limit.
I don't agree about the 75mm radius rule: if you work with a seriuos CAD (
https://www.caedevice.net/SERVER/MVRC/2 ... vatura.jpg ) it is a standard function.
I also suggest to start working with STEP and not with faceted geoemtry (STL, ...). It would make the legalty check much easier and the geoemtry wuality would improve very much. The STL conversion required by OpenFOAM could be done with standard parameters using a common and open source tools as
http://www.meshlab.net/ (one among many others).It also does curvature check.
variante wrote: ↑15 Mar 2019, 10:54
Finally, i'd suggest you to work together with us for the writing of the new rules --> less work on you, less mistakes,...
Or if you don't want to show too much too early, let us give you generic feedbacks (like this one) and let us review the regulations before the final version is written.
I definetly agree.
I think the staff should be the only one to make decisions (I don't like the abuse of democracy), but an "open source" process in the definition of rules and templates would be useful, both for the reasons that Variante listed, and because it could be and an additional way of getting visibility.
This is my mantra in defining the rules. "Everything can work (Feyerabend quote) but great design freedom must correspond to a higher level of simulations (more or less Spider-Man quote)".
More simulation >>> Less rules
(I was tempted to put the radiators at the sides of the engine but like wings, completely outside the shape of the sidepods for the Pikes Peak race, but the center of gravity and inertia would have been affected
)
, hybrid V6 engines etc...). That could boost the popularity of this competition and frankly i would prefer something up to date and has a real world basis.