[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2022 (Grand Prix Cars)

[yinlad]

For Appendix 1.1, the rule about minimum 10mm thickness for front and rear wing aerofoil sections, by my understanding the wording states only one point along each chord length does it have to be at least 10mm thick, so does that mean the trailing edges can be a bit sharper, ie around 2mm thick? Obviously in ideal situations you would want a trailing edge tapering to a sharp as possible point, but manufacturing tolerences dictates it wont really be possible, and of course meshing doesn't like sharp points or edges anyway and is the main purpose for this rule.

So just wanted to clarify that I am correct in assuming I can still have a trailing edge thickness less than 10mm?

A1.2 For thin bodywork elements (plates, strakes / fences), once the 10mm thickness requirement is met, a sharp trailing edge and rounded leading edge (roughly circular in shape) are permitted. The 10mm thickness should be maintained over approximately ⅔ of the length or more, and must be maintained in any load-bearing region.

[Koldskaal]

Also worth pointing out that there is a typo between 2.4 and 14.3, one states -0.4 and the other 0.4. I suspect -0.4 is the correct value

Yes, I agree. But why not 0°?

Yeah, why not 0°? 2022 F1 cars aren't really set up with rake.
The little amount they might have goes away at medium speed already. And at high speed, part of the floor even deforms giving the impression of opposite rake.

I think Andre wants the rear suspension to morph according to rake angle. And since it has not been fully implemented in Mflow yet, he just chose a representative value based on the 2020 cars. The fixed rake angle only applies to the first race.

[Hutchie.91]

A1.2 For thin bodywork elements (plates, strakes / fences), once the 10mm thickness requirement is met, a sharp trailing edge and rounded leading edge (roughly circular in shape) are permitted. The 10mm thickness should be maintained over approximately ⅔ of the length or more, and must be maintained in any load-bearing region.

That's A1.2, I was talking about A1.1 which specifically talks about wing profiles, but if thats the rule for other elements then im assuming that would be the same for A1.1 meaning we can have sharper TE thicknesses less than 10mm.

[yinlad]

A1.2 For thin bodywork elements (plates, strakes / fences), once the 10mm thickness requirement is met, a sharp trailing edge and rounded leading edge (roughly circular in shape) are permitted. The 10mm thickness should be maintained over approximately ⅔ of the length or more, and must be maintained in any load-bearing region.

That's A1.2, I was talking about A1.1 which specifically talks about wing profiles, but if thats the rule for other elements then im assuming that would be the same for A1.1 meaning we can have sharper TE thicknesses less than 10mm.

Ah apologies was too tired when I replied! But yes the same applies

[yinlad]

I'm also curious is there is any change to the radiator porosity this year? I seem to remember there being big issues with them choking if you tried to run any significant angle on them

[CAEdevice]

What do you think of a check on the entry surface of the brake ducts (resultant positive pressure)? Otherwise I have the impression that we will have unrealistic front wings. The measure should be simple to implement automatically.

[spacehead3]

What do you think of a check on the entry surface of the brake ducts (resultant positive pressure)? Otherwise I have the impression that we will have unrealistic front wings. The measure should be simple to implement automatically.

I think you will need to use the entire front wing volume to get enough front downforce. From what I can tell the real cars use most of the volume as well. Plus the MVRC brake ducts are much bigger and lower than most of the real cars.

[CAEdevice]

Considering the zero effort (just need to add a control surface to the template) during technical check and the post processing, the measure of the pressure resultant would bring only advantages. I will apply the rule to my car anyway, realistic cars are more funny to design

I am not sure that all the front wing surface is used to generate front downforce, and, in any case, there are different ways to generate the same amount of downforce.

[spacehead3]

Not saying that we shouldn't do it, just wondering why you feel that the front wings would be unrealistic... I just don't see brake duct airflow being a major design constraint for the wing.

Anyway, that will be for Christian and Andre to decide.

[etsmc]

Quick question, when I do my initial design of the car I have previously used Autodesk Flow Design, it was handy as I could get a quick ROUGH idea of flow around the car.
This has however been discontinued and no longer runs.
Does anyone use anything similar for quick visualisation of the flow around the car without having to run a full case with mantium flow??

[CAEdevice]

Quick question, when I do my initial design of the car I have previously used Autodesk Flow Design, it was handy as I could get a quick ROUGH idea of flow around the car.
This has however been discontinued and no longer runs.
Does anyone use anything similar for quick visualisation of the flow around the car without having to run a full case with mantium flow??

I used to set "quick" option of MantiumFlow in 2020. By the way: is MFlow 2020 license still working? A new version has been released?

[etsmc]

thanks, think I will have to go back to doing the quick option.
The licence for the old version of mantium flow must be expired as that's the warning i got when i went to fire it up today.

[Koldskaal]

There is a new version of the CAD files on the website. This should fix the issues some of you mentioned.

[k.ko100v]

There is a new version of the CAD files on the website. This should fix the issues some of you mentioned.

There are no .stl files in the folder. And I cannot setup my SolidWorks 2020 to work with the .step files. Can someone guide me how to work with them?

Last time I used to import the .stl files in to a part drawing and it was simply fine.

[CAEdevice]

There is a new version of the CAD files on the website. This should fix the issues some of you mentioned.

There are no .stl files in the folder. And I cannot setup my SolidWorks 2020 to work with the .step files. Can someone guide me how to work with them?

Last time I used to import the .stl files in to a part drawing and it was simply fine.

What is thew problema with STEP and SolidWorks? SWX can import STEP (and if you model with SWX, STEP is a better base than STL)