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

[variante]

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:
https://i.imgur.com/0crzHf7.png

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

Thank you!
I don't know how long a patient man would have waited, but i'm glad that my lack of patience brought results in a matter of hours.
I'm still one week behind everybody else, but i'm confident i'll make up for that.

[CAEdevice]

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.

I have never tested the "long" template, but in the past (not 2022) it happened to reject a detail of the car after a simulation with the "fast" template and then to realise that it was a progress after re running the simulation with the "standard" template.

If you are OK with the fast template, it probably means that your car is at a very early stage of the development, and the improvement curve is steep, so I am pessimistic about my chances for the next races

Seriously: maybe that 2022 cars are less sensitive to the simulation of vortices underfloor than 2020 cars (this was the main difference between different levels of accuracy) and I have to reconsider my simulation setup.

[LVDH]

We have always been running the races with 5000 iterations. And sorry about all the delays in this first race. I am sure that the next ones will be faster as one reason for the delays were the development of tools to automate as much as possible. This was an invest in time for me but should pay off in future. I am finishing the scrutineering step now.

[LVDH]

Scrutineering results:
Koldskaal:

• Unrealistic front wing mount (Appendix 4)

G Raph Racing:

• Open geometries

PantheraESports:

• No mirror strut (Rule 13.1 / 9.5)

PurePowerRacing:

• Openings in nose (Rule 9.6)

Samn:

• Unrealistic front wing mount (Appendix 4)

TalnoRacing:

• Unrealistic front wing mount (Appendix 4)

Variante:

• Rear end body too wide (Rule 9.1)

• Top of RS-RW-RWEP can be seen from side (Rule 11.4)

First race and nothing too bad. Only warnings issued this time. PurePowerRacing is sporting quite a funny rear wing mount. I need to change some rules...

[RicME85]

PurePowerRacings rear wing mount looks inspired by the real world ones post 2014 that went through the exhaust in a special channel.

[G-raph]

Can you please clarify what you mean by "open geometries"?
Is it because there are cells inside the front wing and rear wing? I did not get the issue when I ran my CFD simulation (albeit quite unrefined) so I'm struggling to see where the problem is. If you know the coordinates of the leak paths that would be greatly appreciated.

[LVDH]

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

I tried to send you a DM. It seems to be stuck in my outbox (of this forum) If you can send me an email, I can send the report.

PurePowerRacings rear wing mount looks inspired by the real world ones post 2014 that went through the exhaust in a special channel.

He read the rules and did what he had to do...

Can you please clarify what you mean by "open geometries"?
Is it because there are cells inside the front wing and rear wing? I did not get the issue when I ran my CFD simulation (albeit quite unrefined) so I'm struggling to see where the problem is. If you know the coordinates of the leak paths that would be greatly appreciated.

Open geometries results from gaps in your stl model. Sometime with some luck, a rather coarse simulation will close them for you. Usually you will find these gaps latest, when you have a look at the results and find checkerboard patterns on your car. These happen because the post processor visualizes both sides of the geometry. If the geometry was closed, then there is nothing on the other side and everything looks OK.
So how do you locate the holes?

• Your experienced CAE engineer eye simply looks at the part and finds them

• https://mantiumchallenge.com/locating-h ... mulations/

• Newer OpenFOAM versions have tools to help locate the holes: https://www.openfoam.com/news/main-news ... le-closure

[Ft5fTL]

"11.3 The rear wing must be attached with at least three sections with one or two such sections inside of the volume RV_RR_WING_PYLON_V01 attaching to the gearbox." It is three sections so i dont see any problem with my rw mounts

[CAEdevice]

"11.3 The rear wing must be attached with at least three sections with one or two such sections inside of the volume RV_RR_WING_PYLON_V01 attaching to the gearbox." It is three sections so i dont see any problem with my rw mounts

Probably your pylon was legal for the first race, but it would not be legal if the following rule and its volumes will be updated in order to clarify that grey area.

8.2 The volume inside of the tailpipe between exhaust out and the end of the exhaust pipe must remain unobstructed

In my opinion (but it is not your case, since you don't have advantages fronm this design) the staff has been very very forgiving in the first race. I estimate that a couple of cars could have gained some tenths (or more).

By the way: is there a minimum value for the cooling? I know we already talked about it, but I forgot it and I can't find the answer in the forum ... (@Max) would it be possible to know the relation between cooling coefficient and cooling flow? Is it linear?

[LVDH]

8.2 The volume inside of the tailpipe between exhaust out and the end of the exhaust pipe must remain unobstructed

That is what he did. I just have to delete a few words from the rule and his solution will not be legal anymore. I still think it is funny though.

[CAEdevice]

8.2 The volume inside of the tailpipe between exhaust out and the end of the exhaust pipe must remain unobstructed

That is what he did. I just have to delete a few words from the rule and his solution will not be legal anymore. I still think it is funny though.

yes, this why I consider legal the pylon.
The rule does not refer to the volume but only to the empty space, the intent is clear but the need for a "refinement".

[spacehead3]

By the way: is there a minimum value for the cooling? I know we already talked about it, but I forgot it and I can't find the answer in the forum ... (@Max) would it be possible to know the relation between cooling coefficient and cooling flow? Is it linear?

Power = Total Cooling Flow / 3
If > 1 it will be set to 1.
If < 0.5 it will be a DNF

[CAEdevice]

By the way: is there a minimum value for the cooling? I know we already talked about it, but I forgot it and I can't find the answer in the forum ... (@Max) would it be possible to know the relation between cooling coefficient and cooling flow? Is it linear?

Power = Total Cooling Flow / 3
If > 1 it will be set to 1.
If < 0.5 it will be a DNF

Thanks! Sorry for asking again.

We should include it in the rule book.

[G-raph]

Power = Total Cooling Flow / 3
If > 1 it will be set to 1.
If < 0.5 it will be a DNF

Has anyone else founds discrepancies between the official results and what the laptime sim page says (https://maxtayloraero.com/mvrc/)?

According to the above my engine power is 0.951, but I have to set it to 0.9257 in the tool to match my 78.699s laptime. With the results from this tool I would be one place higher with a 78.546s lap.

yes, this why I consider legal the pylon.
The rule does not refer to the volume but only to the empty space, the intent is clear but the need for a "refinement".

I am also of the opinion of leaving the RW pylons alone. What PurePowerRacing did is legal, creative, does not offer any advantage, and has been done before in F1. Given the timescales and the other issues already mentioned, I'm not sure a rule change in this region is needed.

[spacehead3]

Power = Total Cooling Flow / 3
If > 1 it will be set to 1.
If < 0.5 it will be a DNF

Has anyone else founds discrepancies between the official results and what the laptime sim page says (https://maxtayloraero.com/mvrc/)?

According to the above my engine power is 0.951, but I have to set it to 0.9257 in the tool to match my 78.699s laptime. With the results from this tool I would be one place higher with a 78.546s lap.

They will not match, you are correct. I mentioned this at the beginning but probably everyone was not paying attention yet... The web page is a second order regression of the results from my full lap-sim program which runs in MATLAB. The full program is used for the official results. In most cases they should be very close, within a few tenths at most. However, if you are close to any of the maximum or minimum values, or if your COP is far away from optimum, you will see a larger difference.

It looks like G-Raph and PurePower are the only pair who had a position change due to these differences. Bad luck I'm afraid.