F1technical.net

niiiiccee. it looks pretty awesome man!

Nice smooth car =D>

I'm not sure you can fit an engine in that car...BUT that's the whole point of this competition I think! The slimmest the regulations will allow. Good job!

amouzouris wrote:I'm not sure you can fit an engine in that car...BUT that's the whole point of this competition I think! The slimmest the regulations will allow. Good job!

Yes, IMO there need to be more regulations over just inlet and outlet area. With the rules as they are, there's nothing really stopping you from going even more extreme with the size of the sidepods, other than the stipulation that they should be "sensible". But how far can you go before they are no longer "sensible"?

nice car

you must of designed your car with the supplied engine inside the car? so if that engine doesn't fit then your cars illegal

astracrazy wrote:you must of designed your car with the supplied engine inside the car? so if that engine doesn't fit then your cars illegal

All the spec parts fit.

ye it looks good mate, have you tested it with Khamsin?

I've done some very basic runs in a different CFD package, but I haven't had the time to make many modifications based on what I found. Maybe by the time the next round starts.

Best looking car I've seen, it'll be interesting to see how this more complicated design performs against the other simpler designs.

A very belated update to my car thread...

Results from round 1:
Coefficient of lift: -2.854
Coefficient of drag: 1.548
Center of pressure: 2.122m

I managed 3rd in round 1. The car had a good amount of downforce but it was far too draggy, being the draggiest of all the competitors. For Magny Cours I figured that I would go for absolute maximum downforce, but I really should have kept an eye on L/D.

Another big problem was the F/R balance - by my own testing I had it pretty close to the ~1.8m optimum, but I guess the difference in mesh settings between my tests and the KVRC simulation meant that I ended up quite a long way off.

Round 2 was Monza, so given that and the fact my round 1 car was very draggy, the obvious priority was drag reduction, followed by F/R balance. Main changes for round 2 (among many other small tweaks):
-Rear wing and beam wing profiles made far less aggressive, monkey seat removed
-Beam wing split into two parts, one either side of the gearbox (since the spec gearbox/crash structure is quite high)
-Smaller diffuser gurney, especially in the free y75 area
-Reworked bargeboard and floor leading edge (moved rearwards a bit)
-Removed turning vanes under the nose
-Front wing reworked to balance out the new rear DF level






Results for round 2:
Coefficient of lift: -2.525
Coefficient of drag: 1.151
Center of pressure: 2.148m

I managed to win round 2 with very low drag and reasonable downforce, though the results were close. I didnt fix the balance problem, which was disappointing.

Round 3 was Silverstone. While I would need more downforce than round 2, the results from the first two rounds showed that drag is punished fairly heavily, so I was aiming for a fairly low drag target. So I used the Monza car as a base, with the following modifications:
-Rear wing and beam wing profiles somewhere inbetween the wings for round 1 and round 2
-Beam wing returned to full width
-Different concept for the center of the diffuser
-More tweaks to the bargeboards and floor leading edge, no real gains here over round 2
-Added turning vanes under the nose, more efficient than the version from round 1
-Front wing completely reworked for much more front downforce

I finally managed to sort out the mesh settings at this point - for the first two rounds, the size of the mesh used in KVRC was such that the slot gaps in my front wing were being meshed over, so I had much less front downforce than I expected in round 1 and 2 - hence the balance problem. For round 3 the slot gaps in the front wing were made much larger, which pushed me towards a 2 element front wing. I also moved to away from having a slotted diffuser gurney, since details like this were far too small to be carried over into the final mesh.

In retrospect, I spent too little time on the front wing. I started off with changes to the rear of the car, assuming that front downforce would be easy to find. In reality I was front limited, had I focused on the front wing first I could have found more front downforce and then easily added more rear wing.






Results for round 3:
Coefficient of lift: -2.645
Coefficient of drag: 1.243
Center of pressure: 1.837m

I managed to win round 3. I was very happy to finally get the F/R balance spot on which was important, as I was beaten by JJR for overall downforce but I had a quicker lap time because of CofP and drag (although there wasnt much in it in L/D).

Even though the overall downforce level wasnt much higher in round 3 compared to round 2, the useable level of downforce was substantially higher because the F/R balance was pretty much perfect. For pure L/D there was a lot of rear downforce left on the table, but adding it would have only given a slower result because the balance would shift away from the optimum, and drag would be higher.

With that I managed to win the championship More info on KVRC here - http://www.khamsinvirtualracecarchallenge.com/home

Cool, nice to see your train of thought!

well done mate

I found the same i struggled with front df because i thought it would be easier than rear, FW is key and simple design seems to be king. I think many got caught out by the mesh size - but everyone should clock on to it in the future

a good read. Looking forward to seeing your 3d print out and looking forward to next year

great work mate the car looks fantastic and it's great to see that backed up with strong performances

What software packages did you use?