F1technical.net

Note: KVRC has ended and followed up by the Mantium VRC, using a similar rulebook but different software

KVRC 2015 (http://www.khamsinvirtualracecarchallen ... lenge-2015) is progressing nicely with 2 rounds still to go, but we'd like to start the discussion on the 2016 competition.

On the rulebook side, the first decision is whether we should stick to the 2015 concept of an 'imaginary' LMP-like rulebook, or go with a larger change, such as going back to a rulebook based on F1. I don't think there are strong feelings on this from our side one way or the other, but using the 2015 rulebook as a base would obviously make things easier. If we choose to stick to the general direction from 2015 and just make small changes, then at some point I'd like to try making a Google doc version of the rulebook public for viewing and adding comments. This might focus the discussion on specific rule details rather than higher-level preferences.

Let us know what you think about this. If you have any comments on other aspects of the competition, then we'd be keen to hear them too.

Thanks.

I think that the best option would be to use an evolved release of the 2015 rulebook, so it would be possible to include the improvements from the 2015 experience.

Agree with that. I think it would make sense to go with an evolution of 2015, and keep radical changes for 2017. My ideas were wherever we should change the following:

- increase engine size therefore increasing cooling needs
- decreasing engine size therefore decreasing cooling needs
- increase slightly rear wing template volume
- allow more freedom in the placement of cooling areas especially for the exits, to allow more horizontal setups

Just my first thoughts

Some other points that I found important during 2015 design:

- visibility of the front suspension in frontal view (it is quite a big design contraint, but we should evaluate the consequences of allowing such visibility)
- trying to find a (simplified) relation between the pressure resultant onto the inlet/outlet cooling and engine performance

Also something that I wish we could do is to play with wheel covers. At least at the rear, but that's the old-fashioned Matt talking here

evolution of 2015 is fine with me

MadMatt wrote:I think it would make sense to go with an evolution of 2015, and keep radical changes for 2017.

Wise words.

CAEdevice wrote:- visibility of the front suspension in frontal view (it is quite a big design contraint, but we should evaluate the consequences of allowing such visibility)

Agree, but that might be classified as a "huge change", good for 2017

My proposal concerns "cooling inlet external templates". I think it's too restrictive, and doesn't allow us to go for an actual LMP design, for example. A good compromise would be: external template made of two stages (as today) --> the first one not allowed to intersect bodywork or other templates; the second one allowed to intersect anything we want as long as airflow is granted.
Otherwise, CAE's proposal:

CAEdevice wrote:- trying to find a (simplified) relation between the pressure resultant onto the inlet/outlet cooling and engine performance

Which, however, would be extremely hard to manage.

I've always liked the idea of components that are supplies, like the drivetrains.
Rather than having models of a radiator etc could just have say four or five boxes or varying sizes that have to be fitted into a sidepod.

I do think this is an area that needs improving for next season to a) move away from these stupid little box sidepods that a few of us have used and b) open up the design possibilities.

RicME85 wrote:I've always liked the idea of components that are supplies, like the drivetrains.
Rather than having models of a radiator etc could just have say four or five boxes or varying sizes that have to be fitted into a sidepod.

I do think this is an area that needs improving for next season to a) move away from these stupid little box sidepods that a few of us have used and b) open up the design possibilities.

About this point, I think that the rule update that was introduced in the last race improved the sidepod design very much (look at my car during 3rd and 4th race). A further improvement could be obtained sligthly increasing the internal surface template from 180000mm2 to 200000/220000mm2).

I would be favorable also to a surface area template instead of the "side impact template" volume.

A general consideration about the KVRC visibility: to have a good number of qualified partecipants and to be more interesting for a potential sponsors, more resources should be dedicated to the marketing field. Maybe the staff is too small at the moment?

variante wrote:A good compromise would be: external template made of two stages (as today) --> the first one not allowed to intersect bodywork or other templates; the second one allowed to intersect anything we want as long as airflow is granted.

How would we go about judging the requirement on the second template? For example, if there was a full, conic / pyramid shaped shroud enclosing the first template and entering into the second template with only a tiny hole at the front, would this be legal, and if not, how large would the hole need to be before it would be considered legal?

CAEdevice wrote:A general consideration about the KVRC visibility: to have a good number of qualified partecipants and to be more interesting for a potential sponsors, more resources should be dedicated to the marketing field. Maybe the staff is too small at the moment?

It's definitely something we need to improve. I think Julien and I have both found this year to be a bit of a challenge in terms of time constraints. If anyone is interested, we'd be really happy to have another person onboard for 2016.

I would support an evolution of the 2015 rules. But, I found the front suspension visibility a big challenge - perhaps the templates can be refined to slimmer, more aerodynamic shapes which will allow smaller covers over them.

cdsavage wrote:

variante wrote:A good compromise would be: external template made of two stages (as today) --> the first one not allowed to intersect bodywork or other templates; the second one allowed to intersect anything we want as long as airflow is granted.

How would we go about judging the requirement on the second template? For example, if there was a full, conic / pyramid shaped shroud enclosing the first template and entering into the second template with only a tiny hole at the front, would this be legal, and if not, how large would the hole need to be before it would be considered legal?

You can regulate the surface area of both the first and second stage of the external template. So, as cdsavage said, the first stage may not intersect body parts or templates, but then the second stage may be a different shape, as long as the surface area remains the same, or within a certain percentage of the first stage.

cdsavage wrote:

CAEdevice wrote:A general consideration about the KVRC visibility: to have a good number of qualified partecipants and to be more interesting for a potential sponsors, more resources should be dedicated to the marketing field. Maybe the staff is too small at the moment?

It's definitely something we need to improve. I think Julien and I have both found this year to be a bit of a challenge in terms of time constraints. If anyone is interested, we'd be really happy to have another person onboard for 2016.

I'd like to help, but being a partecipant there are many things that I could not do without interfering with the competition. Feel free to contact me if you have any ideo about any kind of cooperation.
I'll probably continue with the sponsorship of final prize in 2016, but I hope that KVRC will found technical sponsors like CFD software producers (or other companies, CAD software houses or GrabCAD itself). This would be easier if someone could concentrate in the "marketing" field.

I must admit, I'm a big fan of Sportscar racing... probably more so than F1... however, I would personally advocate going back towards something of a mix between a sportscar and a singleseater... So covered wheels like we have now, but open suspension and a narrower cockpit area... in the same philosophy as the Adrian Newey-Red Bull concept I posted on the 2015 thread....

The reason I suggest this is:

1, It keeps the competition fresh... but....
2, Its not too much of a change from what we have now
3, I think there are more people "into" F1 than sportscars, so we're more likely to get more competitors...

I was also thinking about the rules and trying to make them a little simpler... so I was thinking something along the lines of:-

A. You must use the supplied chassis, suspension, wheels, engine, exhaust and gearbox parts, unmodified and in the given position.
B. The Inlet, heat exchanger, and outlet templates must remain in the given longitudinal positions and orientations, but can be a different shape as long as their area remains as given.
C. The inlet, heat exchanger and outlet templates must not intersect any of the given parts.
D. The inlet and outlet templates must not be covered with bodywork when viewed from the front or rear respectively. The heat exchanger template must be completely enclosed by bodywork.
E.The engine intake template must not be moved or changed in shape and must be completely visible from the front.
F. Bodywork must not be visible outside of the bodywork legality box.

The legality box is designed to restrict the car shape to something resembling an f1 car, but otherwise the designer is fairly free to try lots of different solutions....



I also had another idea to try and increase participation... making a "Division B" championship in which the competitors must use the normal supplied parts listed above, but also including the following:-

Nose cone
Side pods
Engine Cover
Floor

Leaving only the following parts available for user design:

Front wing
Rear Wing
Diffuser

But within the "legaility boxes" for those parts they would be free to design whatever they wanted: i.e. no limits on number of elements.



This should enable a more casual user to take part without them having to face the daunting task of designing the whole car.....

The intention would be that a good Division A car should be faster than the Best Division B cars, but the competitors in Division B are fighting for their own championship title... ("Division B Champion")...

While I am not currently participating I am practising hoping to have a car ready for the last round.

I think evolution of the current ruleset is best. Maybe mandate a certain number of items that need to be present but not mandate where. So a front engined car would be possible.