On the topic of suspension, did anyone manage to make these things work? I would love to just have a free reference volume for the front and rear suspension winglets.
On the topic of suspension, did anyone manage to make these things work? I would love to just have a free reference volume for the front and rear suspension winglets.
When I modeled that winglet I tried to model something that could work for everyone, but I clearly failed, then I was hoping nobody would notice ... For the next season I suggest to define a box where each team can add (or not) their winglet in accordance with its specific flow.
Sorry I've been quiet on that topic. I promised that I would suggest new front wing rules to force closer geometries to the current F1 cars, but everytime I think of some wording I can immediately find loopholes that would allow the designs with strakes and complex endplates to come back. So I'm sorry but I currently don't have any suggestion on that front.
However, regarding the other topics of discussions, here are my thoughts :
- Cooling
I agree with André that the simplistic approach of a single radiator with a minimum size and a defined thickness works well for this challenge. So I don't think any of that needs to change. However, as I have said before (and everyone else has too) I think we should reduce the massflow requirement a little bit. I suggested from 3.0 to 2.5, but I'm happy to go with any number. The "proof" that this is needed is that all competitors clearly needed much bigger inlets, louvres and outlets than the real 2022 cars.
- Tyre wakes
I know this is a very complex topic that could involve a lot of CFD settings. To keep things simple and manageable, I think the main thing to try is to have tyres (front and rear) with a more rounded tread and therefore a smaller contact pacth, as seen on the pictures that have been posted in the last few days. Increasing front tyre camber would also help but should be less important than the tyre shape, and may be too complicated to maintain the CAD model at various rake angles.
- Rake angle
Talking of which... I'm also quite quite keen to use that feature as a design parameter.
However, I don't think offering a rake increase by rotating around the front axle is the right way to go. I know this would make the front wing more efficient, but it will also raise the floor away from the ground, so I firmly believe that in the end, everyone will choose to keep 0deg rake angle.
It would be ideal if we could choose front and rear ride height independantly. Failing that, having the choice to modify rake angle by rotating around the rear tyre would be nice.
Maybe I'm asking for too much here, but I just want to warn you that you might spend some time to add a complex feature that no one will use.
- Suspensions and brake ducts
I would enjoy being able to design my own brake duct winglets (especially rear) and aero surfaces around the suspensions (especially front), but I can see that being quite complex for newcomers.
So I would also be happy if these were redesigned by any of this year's competitors and used as spec parts.
I agree with most suggestions here.
But I'll make my own wish-list, why not.
WHEELS and SUSPENSIONS
- more rounded wheels cross section for more realistic wake;
- smaller wheels contact patch for more realistic wake;
- optimized brake ducts and winglets for more realistic wake (and look);
- fewer internal wheel geometries to save polygons;
- optimized suspensions angle of attack.
COOLING
The point isn't necessarily whether the current numbers are realistic, but whether they suit this challenge.
We don't have an entire F1 department working on cooling optimization. So, if you want to see F1-style sidepods in this challenge, the cooling requirement should be dropped.
Else, we'll keep spending way too many hours working on louvers and stuff, and you'll keep seeing chunky bodyworks. So:
- 2m3/s cooling requirement for more realistic car shapes;
- 120,000mm2 minimum radiator area for more design freedom;
- bigger volumes for the cooling exhaust, as in F1;
- tapered chassis chassis for more radiator design freedom as in F1.
If you agree with the spirit of these modifications, i'll design new sidepods to see if these specific numbers make sense.
GENERAL
- better powertrain model for more realism and design freedom (an attempt has already been made on the MVRC thread);
- less strict floor edges requirements, as in F1, for more realism and ease of design (ex: smaller Floor-Plan);
- simpler/better wording in the rules to avoid bizarre interpretations; - no rake but lower ride height, for more realistic forces and CoP position.
I also really dislike the curved and oblique shapes of the rule boxes, but that's FIA's fault. And i'm not sure how much you'd like to modify them...
I agree with Variante about most of the points (maybe everything except the cooling flow, I would keep more or less as it is and internal rim geometry, because we are using a filling volume just now).
The final point is the most important: do we actually need rake parameter (including the complexity which prevented that functionality to be ready in 2022) , provided we are going to allow a bit more freedom in floor design and optimized suspension arm section?
http://ibb.co/sg6R110 [media]http://ibb.co/gJtXmG4[/media] I noticed all my front wings show weird mesh / boundary layer settings related separation that is very very not realistic. I am currently trying with a denser than 0.5 mesh setting (0.25) also the same wing didn't have separation problems at STARCCM+ setup of mine. And even if it did with that LiC scene its obvious that much backed off profiles wont start separating at the leading edge. Can you guys also check out your Front wings.
It's alright on my wings. Just normal boundary layer build-up.
Yeah, your mesh doesn't look great, but i can't really tell what's going on due to that ungodly color scale.
Anyway, you should expect separation on the back of your first airfoil, as SurfaceLiC hints.
How does your near-wall velocity look like?
It's alright on my wings. Just normal boundary layer build-up.
Yeah, your mesh doesn't look great, but i can't really tell what's going on due to that ungodly color scale.
Anyway, you should expect separation on the back of your first airfoil, as SurfaceLiC hints.
How does your near-wall velocity look like?
I mean the mesh is the default settings 0.5 base size. no reason why it should be worse than yours. What is concerning is that the flow loses all of its CpT right at the leading edge which is not physical. Also My profiles are not controversial by any means so not sure where exactly the problem lies. Near Wall images look fine (looks attached where it should be and separated where it should be . but that also doesn't corelate with how much the CpT changes.
So this image is from a former competitors car which performed well and also has no issues in near wall stuff but this clearly shows the first layer thickness "in the mesh" is way to small therefore it has issues with the boundary layer. the CpT drops below -0.5 at the leading edge and for a pretty thick margin and then the normal boundary layer develops the issue is this is all waaay to thick from what it should be and it is not consistent around any part of the FW or the car , RW and UT boundary layer suffers the same first way to thick no slip effect on the suction side for some reason. Normally to visualize boundary layer growth and CpT -0.5 at a leading edge you would need to go in to 1E-7 m scale but since that's not available here some modelling should be done or at least we can add some really prism layers to the wings . I encourage you all to scale your CpT from -0.5 to 1 and zoom hard into leading edges of your wings. It is a massive issue as the wake carries on for the rest of the body. Basically from this image you can see that in the suction side prism layers the boundary layer starts with - scale which irl really applies to no slip line which is basically non existent for the purpose of this simulation and scales. So the delta99 of the boundary layer at the leading edge should be at maximum 1.E-6 scale which would be invisible to eye in this plot (without further zooming). This really demotives me since its really effecting accuracy of the solver massively. maybe if we can promote better boundary layer treatment at high quality surfaces this can be avoided ?
It's alright on my wings. Just normal boundary layer build-up.
Yeah, your mesh doesn't look great, but i can't really tell what's going on due to that ungodly color scale.
Anyway, you should expect separation on the back of your first airfoil, as SurfaceLiC hints.
How does your near-wall velocity look like?
You can also check ptotal images which show wake basically
... For the next season I suggest to define a box where each team can add (or not) their winglet in accordance with its specific flow.
