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

[yinlad]

Have you tried Meshlab or Meshmixer to check your model?

yeah I tried Meshmixer, I found a couple of places that holes appeared in when I tried to create a solid with the mesh on a low resolution so I'm currently testing if that's where the issue is

my best advice is to overlap your geometries by 1-2mm

that's the thing, it's 1 solid piece with some subtractive lofts so I'm not sure how it's leaking honestly.

EDIT: Seem to have located the roof of the diffuser was a little thin towards the exit and was turning to swiss cheese when meshing for CFD

[samuel_l25]

hmmmmmm. I'm going to guess something has gone wrong with my .stl files...

[LVDH]

yeah I tried Meshmixer, I found a couple of places that holes appeared in when I tried to create a solid with the mesh on a low resolution so I'm currently testing if that's where the issue is

my best advice is to overlap your geometries by 1-2mm

that's the thing, it's 1 solid piece with some subtractive lofts so I'm not sure how it's leaking honestly.

EDIT: Seem to have located the roof of the diffuser was a little thin towards the exit and was turning to swiss cheese when meshing for CFD

Maybe this old post helps:
https://mantiumchallenge.com/locating-h ... mulations/

hmmmmmm. I'm going to guess something has gone wrong with my .stl files...

The wrong car dimensions can probably be ignored. I saw this test yesterday and possibly did not adjust the settings correctly for the new cars. I think the minimum Z-dimension is wrong in my code. Just make sure your parts are inside of the reference volumes.

[variante]

What's the relation between cooling flow and engine power? 1 to 1?

[CAEdevice]

A question about rule 13.1 (mirrors): does it mean that a kind of winglet with oval shape would be allowed, but an airbag foil (reverse, with concavity oriented towards the ground) would not be allowed?

[LVDH]

What's the relation between cooling flow and engine power? 1 to 1?

This is a question for Max, but I would not assume that 1% of reduced cooling flow would result into exactly 1% less performance.

A question about rule 13.1 (mirrors): does it mean that a kind of winglet with oval shape would be allowed, but an airbag foil (reverse, with concavity oriented towards the ground) would not be allowed?

https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/convex ... functions/

[spacehead3]

What's the relation between cooling flow and engine power? 1 to 1?

This is a question for Max, but I would not assume that 1% of reduced cooling flow would result into exactly 1% less performance.

Not sure how this was done in previous years, but 1 to 1 sounds reasonable to me, unless anyone has data to say otherwise.

Maybe in future seasons we can try to flesh it out a bit more, would be interesting to have cooling requirements vary based on circuit speed or something, but no time for that now.

So simply: [Power] = [Total Cooling Flow] / 3, keeping in mind that [Total Cooling Flow] is the left + the right heat exchanger. And probably if you manage to get less than 50% power that should be a DNF.

[yinlad]

What's the relation between cooling flow and engine power? 1 to 1?

This is a question for Max, but I would not assume that 1% of reduced cooling flow would result into exactly 1% less performance.

Not sure how this was done in previous years, but 1 to 1 sounds reasonable to me, unless anyone has data to say otherwise.

Maybe in future seasons we can try to flesh it out a bit more, would be interesting to have cooling requirements vary based on circuit speed or something, but no time for that now.

So simply: [Power] = [Total Cooling Flow] / 3, keeping in mind that [Total Cooling Flow] is the left + the right heat exchanger. And probably if you manage to get less than 50% power that should be a DNF.

I'm curious how others are getting on towards achieving 1.5m/s per side because I've yet to achieve it over 5 separate cooling layouts.

I am trying to make a traditional sidepod package which I know tends not to be the 'meta' way of doing things in MVRC, but I still think the flow across the radiator is too restrictive. I think we'd see much more varied and creative designs if the size and orientation of the radiators was more free (in the sense that to stand any chance of hitting the cooling targets there is a small window of viable options)

of course this is all just my experience and maybe I'm just bad

[LVDH]

What's the relation between cooling flow and engine power? 1 to 1?

This is a question for Max, but I would not assume that 1% of reduced cooling flow would result into exactly 1% less performance.

Not sure how this was done in previous years, but 1 to 1 sounds reasonable to me, unless anyone has data to say otherwise.

Maybe in future seasons we can try to flesh it out a bit more, would be interesting to have cooling requirements vary based on circuit speed or something, but no time for that now.

So simply: [Power] = [Total Cooling Flow] / 3, keeping in mind that [Total Cooling Flow] is the left + the right heat exchanger. And probably if you manage to get less than 50% power that should be a DNF.

OK, Max is in charge of this. I like the idea of DNF of overheating a lot! Maybe for race one, we do not do it, but why not for the following races?

Regarding questions about achieving the required flow rates: This has been an issue for a long time and I have questioned myself a lot about it and also asked engineers that have nothing to do with MVRC including F1 aerodynamics engineers and the approach we are taking is not unreasonable. Also keep in mind while many people at the beginnig of teh seasons (old cars included) complain a lot about this challenge, as the season progresses, the teams achieve the goal with crazy looking solutions. So in the past this challenge has always been achievable. If any one finds an issue with what we are doing and can prove it with data and equations, I am happy to make adjustments. I will not adjust it because it "feels" too hard to achieve and the cars look unrealistic.

[yinlad]

This is a question for Max, but I would not assume that 1% of reduced cooling flow would result into exactly 1% less performance.

Not sure how this was done in previous years, but 1 to 1 sounds reasonable to me, unless anyone has data to say otherwise.

Maybe in future seasons we can try to flesh it out a bit more, would be interesting to have cooling requirements vary based on circuit speed or something, but no time for that now.

So simply: [Power] = [Total Cooling Flow] / 3, keeping in mind that [Total Cooling Flow] is the left + the right heat exchanger. And probably if you manage to get less than 50% power that should be a DNF.

OK, Max is in charge of this. I like the idea of DNF of overheating a lot! Maybe for race one, we do not do it, but why not for the following races?

Regarding questions about achieving the required flow rates: This has been an issue for a long time and I have questioned myself a lot about it and also asked engineers that have nothing to do with MVRC including F1 aerodynamics engineers and the approach we are taking is not unreasonable. Also keep in mind while many people at the beginnig of teh seasons (old cars included) complain a lot about this challenge, as the season progresses, the teams achieve the goal with crazy looking solutions. So in the past this challenge has always been achievable. If any one finds an issue with what we are doing and can prove it with data and equations, I am happy to make adjustments. I will not adjust it because it "feels" too hard to achieve and the cars look unrealistic.

I'd love to give you figures but I'm not going to lose my job over MVRC all I'll say is that I don't base my opinion on guesses. I don't think the approach is bad, only that something about the radiator porosity is behaving too 'dense'

[CAEdevice]

Cooling is an important part of aerodynamic (realistic) design (and not only): my car was designed from a cooling scheme and I am quite happy with it (even if it involved a big compromise on performance). The value set for MVRC is reasonable: if possibile, I would also introduce flow requirements for brakes and oil cooling.

I agree about the DNF proposal: a minimum cooling equal to 50% and scaling the motor performance linearly in relation to the other 50%

[variante]

I'm curious how others are getting on towards achieving 1.5m/s per side because I've yet to achieve it over 5 separate cooling layouts.

I am trying to make a traditional sidepod package which I know tends not to be the 'meta' way of doing things in MVRC, but I still think the flow across the radiator is too restrictive. I think we'd see much more varied and creative designs if the size and orientation of the radiators was more free (in the sense that to stand any chance of hitting the cooling targets there is a small window of viable options)

I agree, it's definitely too restrictive (even though i don't think that any change should be made for the 1st race).

My realistic and FIA-legal sidepods couldn't really get past 1m3/s per side. Nothing stalled or received bad flow. All seemed good.
Maybe i could have pulled off the required 1.5m3/s somehow, but only after:
A - spending too much time on that, or
B - making the design bulky and unrealistic

I'm still trying to keep the design realistic and close to FIA legality, but i'm now forced to use large exhaust gills which compromise performance. Going for a crazy design (like last year) would definitely make my life easier.

I'm not saying that the requirements are unrealistic. The point is that F1 teams have much more design freedom than we do. They can place radiators in tandem or behind the airbox, they can afford to optimize and micromanage every detail.
This situation encourages creative design on our side, but also discourages realism.

[yinlad]

Cooling is an important part of aerodynamic (realistic) design (and not onlye): my car was designed from a cooling scheme and I am quite happy with it (even if it involved a big compromise on performance). The value set for MVRC is reasonable, if possibile, I would also introduce flow requirements for brake and oil cooling.

I agree about the DNF proposal: a minimum cooling equal to 50% and scaling the motor performance linearly in relation to the other 50%

yeah that's fine my point is that the current setup actively restricts the number of viable options for cooling, which limits creativity quite heavily

[JJR]

Hi!
About cooling requirements from racecar engineering (Formula 1 technical review 2018). There is full table of flow rates for every circuit (looks like data are from Caterham CT06):

Hungaroring AVG speed 49,78 m/s, airT 36deg, Water coolers flow rate = 1,070 kg/sec , Oil coolers = 0,754 kg / sec,
ERS = 0,483 kg/sec.
So for Hungaroring = 2,307 kg / sec @ 49,78 m/s

Monza AVG speed 64,37 m/s, airT 31deg, Water coolers flow rate = 0,828 kg/sec , Oil coolers = 0,566 kg / sec,
ERS = 0,316 kg/sec.
So for Monza = 1,710 kg / sec @ 49,78 m/s

So our 3,0m3 / sec @ 40,00 m/s is enough.

[yinlad]

Hi!
About cooling requirements from racecar engineering (Formula 1 technical review 2018). There is full table of flow rates for every circuit (looks like data are from Caterham CT06):

Hungaroring AVG speed 49,78 m/s, airT 36deg, Water coolers flow rate = 1,070 kg/sec , Oil coolers = 0,754 kg / sec,
ERS = 0,483 kg/sec.
So for Hungaroring = 2,307 kg / sec @ 49,78 m/s

Monza AVG speed 64,37 m/s, airT 31deg, Water coolers flow rate = 0,828 kg/sec , Oil coolers = 0,566 kg / sec,
ERS = 0,316 kg/sec.
So for Monza = 1,710 kg / sec @ 49,78 m/s

So our 3,0m3 / sec @ 40,00 m/s is enough.

the total value isn't the problem, it's the ability to achieve that value through such a 'chokey' radiator.

But it'll be whatever it is. Just have to get on with it and chop the sidepods off