RicME85 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2017, 00:27
The point I was making was if it was the same geometry that was submitted for two races in a row with the same issues then IMO that is a case of the minor issue not being fixed and therefore a penalty should be issued. If the minor issue was raised then the next race different geometry was submitted then IMO that should be a new minor issue and not a repeat.
I think you are a bit wrong on that. If you have a rule violation, you should not repeat it. I do not see why it would matter that your redesigned a certain part.
RicME85 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2017, 00:27
Its actually a different wing but anyway, the main points were a) do we actually have the regulations for penalties actually written down and b) does the 10mm limit actually have to be in the rules or is it something that can be looked at in the future.
a) Sadly no. Chris and I sometimes talk about writing down the sporting regulations but have not found the time yet. So far the championship has always worked based on common sense and the discussions with you guys. If we want to grow, we will need to write it down. Usually it works like this: If a compliance issue is found, Chris decides if it is minor or not. Minor issues receive a warning. A repeated offense results in a penalty. You were the example of this, this race. Big and obvious violations that likely also affect car performance get the penalty right away. I am not sure if someone has managed to pull this off yet.
b) My main concern with this rule was always how does Chris always find the violations? On the other hand, last race, time with the CFD simulation would have been saved if your front wing would have been complaint. In real racing series your sometimes find these kind of rules as well. So I do not really see why it should be looked at as long as Chris is fine with checking it.
RicME85 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2017, 00:27
But last race your front wing violated the rule and the simulation crashed. After I fixed your front wing it worked perfectly.
Is there something different to the way you run the simulations to the way we do then? I have never had a crash with my geometry this season or any other issues and thats using each of the MVRC run options, what could cause things to behave differently between my simulation and yours?
Maybe in the rush of submitting you made a mistake? The simulation found trouble quite early and from the log pointed to the front wing. There was not much for me to miss there.
RicME85 wrote: ↑24 Sep 2017, 00:27
Oh, and no need for an aggressive response, its all curiosity on my part trying to understand everything. I have been trying to use real airfoil profiles but they never seem to work out (as these 10mm issues point out). Trying to fit them into the limited space in front of the front wheel fenders has lead to the issues. Im struggling to understand the approach people are taking to their airfoils with the 10mm regulation. Is their geometry meeting at a point on the trailing edge but suddenly going to 10mm thickness really quickly? When I have tried a number of profiles they dont look right. Or are people making the trailing edge of their profiles 10mm squared off?
I think you might not completely get the 10mm rule. If you have a wing profile, only two thirds of it has to be above the 10mm. So a tear drop shape is no problem.
And I just calculated the lap times including the penalties and can tell you that your position is not affected.