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

[BlueCheetah66]

This is my first time using MFLow. How do you get the wheels to rotate?

Create "frt_wheels" folder and "rr_wheels" folder and put them inside "geometry" folder, nearby all other car components. Put the stl files of the wheels (one stl for the front and one stl for the rear) in the respective folders.
Done. Launch the simulation.

I did all that but on the results for the simulation there was no sign of wake or any rotation. Does the wheel have to be one component for it to work?

[CAEdevice]

I will work out the rules around the front wing. The four section thing is not 100% clear but I assume you guys understand what is intended. Then we will get something to avoid these crazy designs we have seen from two cars. It will probably be a new mandatory crash can type of part.

How about 650mm forward of the front wheel centre line, (approx. just behind the front wing box) bodywork in an x-section must be 1 closed section with a minimum area of 7000mm^2, and this area may not decrease between here and the front wheel centre line.

This would give a reasonable cross sectional area for passing crash tests, but still allow a variety in shapes for the noses, which are quite unique and identifiying parts on cars.

I didn't check the area, but the way you "wrote" this rule is very reasonable.

[LVDH]

I registered under Tolo Racing, which I see now is quite close to Talno so if it's causing confusion I'm happy to change it

Ok, I have to confirm what happened here. Maybe when I opened the zip, I renamed it to Talno out of old habbit and forgot about it. Latest on Saturday, you will get the report.

No, sorry to clarify I didn't actually submit anything for the last race as I didn't have time, so it must be someone else.

OK, this is now getting mysterious. Is anyone missing his report?

This is my first time using MFLow. How do you get the wheels to rotate?

Create "frt_wheels" folder and "rr_wheels" folder and put them inside "geometry" folder, nearby all other car components. Put the stl files of the wheels (one stl for the front and one stl for the rear) in the respective folders.
Done. Launch the simulation.

I did all that but on the results for the simulation there was no sign of wake or any rotation. Does the wheel have to be one component for it to work?

You just have to put the wheels into the dedicated folders, as Variante explained. You can even create an empty case folder and point MFlow to it. It will then create the folder structure for you. After the sim is done, the best way to check the wheel rotation is in the images showing the wall velocities.

I will work out the rules around the front wing. The four section thing is not 100% clear but I assume you guys understand what is intended. Then we will get something to avoid these crazy designs we have seen from two cars. It will probably be a new mandatory crash can type of part.

How about 650mm forward of the front wheel centre line, (approx. just behind the front wing box) bodywork in an x-section must be 1 closed section with a minimum area of 7000mm^2, and this area may not decrease between here and the front wheel centre line.

This would give a reasonable cross sectional area for passing crash tests, but still allow a variety in shapes for the noses, which are quite unique and identifiying parts on cars.

I didn't check the area, but the way you "wrote" this rule is very reasonable.

Yes, it is, word wise. But how many people know how to measure this cross section? It is simply easier to provide some kind of box that needs to get covered. It is also easier for the automatic rule checking tool. Although, I think, I know how I would implement such a rule check.

[CAEdevice]

They could design a surface on the section plane, near to the section edges or coincident, and measure its area just like the measure the engine inlet or radiators (or make a temporary cut)

[CAEdevice]

I did not receive any legality check report: should I consider my car legal?
I was looking at some cooling outlets and I have doubts about their legality: it looks they are outside the RV_Vehiclebody volume (yes, I am trying everthing to scrape up 1 more point )

[LegendaryM]

It's weird, with these rules I find it much harder to add front load over rear load, whearas with old F1 cars it was easy to add load on the front but it was rear load that was much harder to come by. Its not helped by these front wing regulations which are backed off so much in front of the tyre, so if I add front wing load it takes air away from the floor and messes around with the cooling too. Don't even get me started on the front suspension...

[variante]

Yeah, and even more so if you follow full F1 rules (limiting airfoils angle on the front wing, and not allowing full endplates).
Being able to play with rake, like last year, would have solved quite a few problems.

[yinlad]

I did not receive any legality check report: should I consider my car legal?
I was looking at some cooling outlets and I have doubts about their legality: it looks they are outside the RV_Vehiclebody volume (yes, I am trying everthing to scrape up 1 more point )

On a legality note, are we actively checking radiator area? I have some suspicion that there's a fair few under sized rads

[TalnoRacing]

One question: There is one report I did not send out to not send it to the wrong person. The registered team "Talo Racing" is the typo variant of "Talno Racing"?

I've not answered this post and have not yet received the results files. I ma TalnoRacing that finished the last race second last

[variante]

@LVDH and @MVRC team
It's about time the actual results get published.
I've been waiting for a month for a feedback on my car's performance and legality, checking the forum everyday because no date was ever mentioned, and it feels like nothing is evolving.
I need that feedback to decide how much time it's still worth investing in this challenge. And each day that passes is one day less i have to prepare the car for the next race.
No need for a fancy presentation. Just publish the numbers.

[CAEdevice]

@LVDH and @MVRC team
It's about time the actual results get published.
I've been waiting for a month for a feedback on my car's performance and legality, checking the forum everyday because no date was ever mentioned, and it feels like nothing is evolving.
I need that feedback to decide how much time it's still worth investing in this challenge. And each day that passes is one day less i have to prepare the car for the next race.
No need for a fancy presentation. Just publish the numbers.

Actually, not knowing the results of the legality check and not knowing the numbers of two of the best cars, constitutes a limit in investing time in development. I can imagine that the work behind MVRC is great, for this reason I would have proposals to lighten the work of the staff: only 3 races, with times and numbers declared by each competitor, with points assigned only to the first 6 or less (only these recalculated and checked).

By the way: the gap between the first 5 cars is very small. In my opinion we should know which solver setting will be used for the official simulation (2500, 5000, 3000 iterations) because the small difference I found on my car (after fixing the issues with ground clearance I had for the first race, so with better numbers compared to the bad result of the first race) between 2500 and 5000 iterations would have been enough to determine a different final position.

[spacehead3]

Patience, friends, this is a side project for all of us. But I suspect things will start to move a little faster after this first round.

Anyway, here are the revised official results for round 1:


I believe Andre is wrapping up the scrutineering so you should be seeing that sometime this week as well.

[spacehead3]

In my opinion we should know which solver setting will be used for the official simulation

This was answered already:

CAEdevice wrote: ↑22 Aug 2022, 16:12
A question for André: the simulations were done with 2500 or more iterations?
MVRC_Long -> 5000 iterations

[CAEdevice]

In my opinion we should know which solver setting will be used for the official simulation

This was answered already:

CAEdevice wrote: ↑22 Aug 2022, 16:12
A question for André: the simulations were done with 2500 or more iterations?
MVRC_Long -> 5000 iterations

Yes, but in the past 2500 was the standard and cars not so close, so the convergence was enough in both cases. Let's start simulating with 5000 iterations, it's ok for me, but maybe a bit too long for a laptop.

[spacehead3]

Yes, but in the past 2500 was the standard and cars not so close, so the convergence was enough in both cases. Let's start simulating with 5000 iterations, it's ok for me, but maybe a bit too long for a laptop.

Personally I do everything with "mvrc fast" and 2000 iterations. The last time that I tried to run a "long" sim I think it took many days haha.