F1technical.net

LVDH wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2017, 16:09

A good rear wing should even be better than 7.5. The problem is what the efficiency of the front down force generation to balance the car costs. I think running without rear wing can be a very good idea.

Ok, but TF had the opposite problem, he had too much front DF.
I also had a balance weak point but I went in the opposite direction: I added a beam wing! Should I start worrying?

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2017, 18:52

LVDH wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2017, 16:09

A good rear wing should even be better than 7.5. The problem is what the efficiency of the front down force generation to balance the car costs. I think running without rear wing can be a very good idea.

Ok, but TF had the opposite problem, he had too much front DF.
I also had the same balance weak point but I went in the opposite direction: I added a beam wing! Should I start worrying?

Yes, the championship is slipping through your hands...

LVDH wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2017, 18:58

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2017, 18:52

LVDH wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2017, 16:09

A good rear wing should even be better than 7.5. The problem is what the efficiency of the front down force generation to balance the car costs. I think running without rear wing can be a very good idea.

Ok, but TF had the opposite problem, he had too much front DF.
I also had a balance weak point but I went in the opposite direction: I added a beam wing! Should I start worrying?

Yes, the championship is slipping through your hands...

Considering that I did not checked the compliancy of final submission everthing might happen...

LVDH wrote:Actually it is now pretty good (at least at first sight). MAybe you can explain how you did it. You are so far the fastest learner when it comes to improving the stl quality.

I was working on Catia and it has special module for STL which I didn't know earlier. It's just software related.

LVDH wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2017, 18:58

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2017, 18:52

LVDH wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2017, 16:09

A good rear wing should even be better than 7.5. The problem is what the efficiency of the front down force generation to balance the car costs. I think running without rear wing can be a very good idea.

Ok, but TF had the opposite problem, he had too much front DF.
I also had the same balance weak point but I went in the opposite direction: I added a beam wing! Should I start worrying?

Yes, the championship is slipping through your hands...

The main problem is that in the flow through design front DF is very sensitive to rear DF. Last year, with the different sim settings, I was able to "tune" the system so adding more rear DF would self compensate at the front. This year I haven't been able to replicate that behaviour. I do get an increase in front DF but it is not proportional anymore. So basically I am lost in this loop where if I add too much rear DF the front spikes and I cannot balance. If I don't add enough the front plummets and the balance is wrong again.

The car I submitted for LM does have a rear wing of sorts. It sits as low as the template allows. I haven't really tested this setup so it's more of a "desperate" final try but we'll see.

Can't wait to know what will come next year!

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2017, 15:33

I'm running with a medium df level at Le Mans.

I was expecting your car to be the one doing the catching through the Porsche Curves... And maybe Aratz (TF) as the one streaking ahead on the Mulsanne!

Should be a good race!

I can't wait for the results!
What about JJR and Variante?

I'm happy that so many new teams managed to get in. Hopefully this last round will be useful for them to start the next season in the best way. Also happy to see the comeback of TF and Machin's Shin... Machin.

On a more technical note...I just need to finish the race in front of IDADOX (rjsa) to reach the final 3rd position, and I can't hope for anything better... Yet, the podium is not sure at all: last time I had CFD correlation issues, and only 2.77 m³/s of air passed through my radiators during the official race (for those who don't know, 3 is the minimum to have full power). For this round I increased inlet and outlet size (and modified the canards). But I did not test anything, so...

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2017, 22:29

I can't wait for the results!
What about JJR and Variante?

I made small changes with removing dive plates and rebalancing with rear wing. So a little less drag and little more L/D ratio ( I hope to get aroun 7,0 .... ).
So I think my car is not enough good to beat Matteo car.

JJR wrote: ↑

12 Dec 2017, 11:42

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

11 Dec 2017, 22:29

I can't wait for the results!
What about JJR and Variante?

I made small changes with removing dive plates and rebalancing with rear wing. So a little less drag and little more L/D ratio ( I hope to get aroun 7,0 .... ).
So I think my car is not enough good to beat Matteo car.

I believe we will be close. My car has improved, but I noticed a strong sensitivity of the results (especially for the drag) from the mesh, so I'm not sure of finding the same numbers I received from the simulation.

You can now have a look at the cars:

More here:
http://mantiumchallenge.com/cars-mvrc-le-mans-2017/

SRacing car is very very interesting. Congratulations, that is a good job considering that it is the first race.

Variante 's car reminds me of a Speed Racer episode, something with the dive plate.

CAEdevice wrote: ↑

13 Dec 2017, 15:18

SRacing car is very very interesting. Congratulations, that is a good job considering that it is the first race.

The slowest good looking car .

Maybe I will get some advice here. I couldn't run a calculation on my model when the tesselation was small. I couldn't run intro model also, because it also is quite "precise" STL. Calculations were stopped at time = 30 ... 50, even after 15h at "fast" setting. I suppose because of "massive" amount of RAM (4Gb) .

When I finally managed to run calculation on simplified model (in terms of STL quality), I had results after 4-5h, but plots have peaks at ~550 iterations (pic: https://imgur.com/a/Zwskj). Do you think it is mesh related problem? From your experience - has it big influence on the CFD data? Because CFD data were very unoptimistic .

Last changes were not even calculated and it was desperate try to move CoP from the rear axle a bit to the front .

The "peak" is ok: it happens when the solver switches to 2nd order model.