[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2025 (Grand Prix Cars)

[k.ko100v]

New wings, new car, No mirrors . This is my progress so far.

Nothing special—just a basic and clean design, so there's nothing to hide at this stage.

[CAEdevice]

New wings, new car, No mirrors . This is my progress so far.
https://imgur.com/FAArmzE.jpg
Nothing special—just a basic and clean design, so there's nothing to hide at this stage.

Very good and clean modeling! Can I share it on LinkedIn? Could you remind me the name of your team?

[k.ko100v]

New wings, new car, No mirrors . This is my progress so far.
https://imgur.com/FAArmzE.jpg
Nothing special—just a basic and clean design, so there's nothing to hide at this stage.

Very good and clean modeling! Can I share it on LinkedIn? Could you remind me the name of your team?

Yes of course. The name of my team is "Kostov Racing", and this is my profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/krasen-kostov-730988a8/

[spacehead3]

Regarding the rear wing pylon, what constitutes structurally realistic? I recall that in the past we had minimum dimensions for it.

[LVDH]

Regarding the rear wing pylon, what constitutes structurally realistic? I recall that in the past we had minimum dimensions for it.

I think we had a rule about three main attachment points.

There was also a question about where to place certain suspension and wheel parts (somehow I cannot scroll far enough back): Rotating parts go into the wheel folders, while non-rotating parts go into the suspension folders.


Today, I have uploaded a new version of MFlow to the challenge page. I spent a lot of time, making MFlow ready to run with OF12 with MVRC and had to come to the conclusion that it simply does not work as major post-processing functionality has been removed / abandoned.
So, if we want to have a newer version that does offer use nice features, we actually profit from, we will have to use OFv2412 from the .com branch.
One of the nice features we now already have with this new version is near wall streamlines. This is pretty much the most requested feature for MFlow and I totally agree on that.
Very soon, I can also implement an early stopping mechanism esp. useful for fast runs.

The main issue with this approach is that we cannot use blueCFD anymore (well if you really want you can, you are just not using the "official" MVRC OF version anymore).
Windows people will have to install WSL and use OF through that. It is not difficult, From what I understand, MFlow exports to runCase script slight misformatted when creating it through Windows to then run on WSL. It is not very hard to fix, so I should be able to have MFlow do something smart as well.

And then, I also wonder about the feedback regarding the rules for 2025. I would have expected much more complaining and mistakes we have made. I have noticed that we are missing more specific rules regrading the new mandatory side mirror surface. This, I have spotted and will fix. But I cannot believe that the rules are so clear and we did not make more mistakes. Please, you should all have a look and let us know what you think.

Finally, there is a chance, I will have to delay the race for one week, as I might have to take a short trip. This should get confirmed soon.


We will use OFv2412.
Check the current rules.
Race one might get delayed by one week.

[variante]

I would have expected much more complaining

Oh, i have some. And questions. And suggestions.

1 - Chassis: there is a protrusion where the side impact structure would go. I suggest to remove such protrusion because it's oddly positioned and annoyingly in the way, and it serves no purpose.

2 - Roll-Hoop: it's too far back (by some 50mm) and too narrow compared to real cars, making it weird to work with. Do we even need it...? I think not.

3 - Floor boundary: there's a non-horizontal boundary near the plank. I don't know why F1 diabolical rules are like that, but i propose to flatten it. Let's not needlessly complicate our design job.

4 - Radius rule: you can't rely on the goodwill of designers like me, self-imposing the 75mm radius. Without such a rule, you'll eventually see some crazy geometry. And that's bad for realism. And if realism is disregarded, what's even the point of following F1 rules? What's the point of testing 2026 rules? Sure, it may be difficult to enforce such a rule, but a reasonable system among gentlemen can work just fine, like the one proposed by CAEdevice.

5 - Halo: it's too rounded, and points upwards too much. I haven't tested it yet, but i predict drang and bad interactions with the airbox and rear wing. I suggest implementing a kamm-back profile, and flattening the AoA.

6 - Mirrors: very small complaint, but i suggest they should be extruded along the X axis, not their normal axis.

7 - Movable wings: what's the current state of affairs? How should we design our cars?

8 - Folder structure: there are conflicting indications on the forum and on the rules. Which should we follow?

9 - Airbox simulation: there are conflicting indications on the forum and on the rules. Which should we follow?

10 - Points system: how about we open a discussion on it? Is it best for MVRC to use the 25-18-15 system?

[yinlad]

I would have expected much more complaining

Oh, i have some. And questions. And suggestions.

1 - Chassis: there is a protrusion where the side impact structure would go. I suggest to remove such protrusion because it's oddly positioned and annoyingly in the way, and it serves no purpose.

2 - Roll-Hoop: it's too far back (by some 50mm) and too narrow compared to real cars, making it weird to work with. Do we even need it...? I think not.

3 - Floor boundary: there's a non-horizontal boundary near the plank. I don't know why F1 diabolical rules are like that, but i propose to flatten it. Let's not needlessly complicate our design job.

4 - Radius rule: you can't rely on the goodwill of designers like me, self-imposing the 75mm radius. Without such a rule, you'll eventually see some crazy geometry. And that's bad for realism. And if realism is disregarded, what's even the point of following F1 rules? What's the point of testing 2026 rules? Sure, it may be difficult to enforce such a rule, but a reasonable system among gentlemen can work just fine, like the one proposed by CAEdevice.

5 - Halo: it's too rounded, and points upwards too much. I haven't tested it yet, but i predict drang and bad interactions with the airbox and rear wing. I suggest implementing a kamm-back profile, and flattening the AoA.

6 - Mirrors: very small complaint, but i suggest they should be extruded along the X axis, not their normal axis.

7 - Movable wings: what's the current state of affairs? How should we design our cars?

8 - Folder structure: there are conflicting indications on the forum and on the rules. Which should we follow?

9 - Airbox simulation: there are conflicting indications on the forum and on the rules. Which should we follow?

10 - Points system: how about we open a discussion on it? Is it best for MVRC to use the 25-18-15 system?

Solid list. One thing that remains from my side is cooling outlet locations. We have the correct volume to define where they are allowed in F1 so I propose we use it. It should primarily prevent 'cheap' chimney cooling stacks that dump the air outside or over the rear wheel and reward those who can integrate cooling air back into the main flow with the least losses at the rear of the car.

[LVDH]

Solid list.

Solid list indeed, would have been very nice to hear all this a month ago...

1 - Chassis: there is a protrusion where the side impact structure would go. I suggest to remove such protrusion because it's oddly positioned and annoyingly in the way, and it serves no purpose.

From what I understand, the purpose is to be annoying.

2 - Roll-Hoop: it's too far back (by some 50mm) and too narrow compared to real cars, making it weird to work with. Do we even need it...? I think not.

This one was discussed earlier (I think). It is based on some drawing but was modified to make your modelling life easier.

3 - Floor boundary: there's a non-horizontal boundary near the plank. I don't know why F1 diabolical rules are like that, but i propose to flatten it. Let's not needlessly complicate our design job.

Not sure what you mean, but I think this is simply how it is, as the plank is in real life supposed to slow the cars down (yes, I know mainly by limiting drive height).

4 - Radius rule: you can't rely on the goodwill of designers like me, self-imposing the 75mm radius. Without such a rule, you'll eventually see some crazy geometry. And that's bad for realism. And if realism is disregarded, what's even the point of following F1 rules? What's the point of testing 2026 rules? Sure, it may be difficult to enforce such a rule, but a reasonable system among gentlemen can work just fine, like the one proposed by CAEdevice.

We discussed this today and I think we have a good idea on how to modify the rules that will prevent gaggles of wings forming on the cars while being very easy to understand and also check against.

5 - Halo: it's too rounded, and points upwards too much. I haven't tested it yet, but i predict drang and bad interactions with the airbox and rear wing. I suggest implementing a kamm-back profile, and flattening the AoA.

Comparing with images, I can find, I think it actually looks pretty good. I think rather than changing the main geometry, a small volume where you could add a wiglet would make more sense.

6 - Mirrors: very small complaint, but i suggest they should be extruded along the X axis, not their normal axis.

Not sure why, but as it is so small and we are getting close to the first race, this one can stay. Although we will slightly move the surface in -x direction.

7 - Movable wings: what's the current state of affairs? How should we design our cars?

Right now, the rules make sure that these surfaces are their own part. During the season, I will look at you cars and implement a method into MFLow that makes them movable within one simulation. This will take a while, so it will either come for the last race of 2025, or for the next season.

8 - Folder structure: there are conflicting indications on the forum and on the rules. Which should we follow?

9 - Airbox simulation: there are conflicting indications on the forum and on the rules. Which should we follow?

Well, in general follow the rules. But these conflicts should not exist. Please point me to them, so I can fix them.

10 - Points system: how about we open a discussion on it? Is it best for MVRC to use the 25-18-15 system?

Not sure why, so please explain.

One thing that remains from my side is cooling outlet locations. We have the correct volume to define where they are allowed in F1 so I propose we use it. It should primarily prevent 'cheap' chimney cooling stacks that dump the air outside or over the rear wheel and reward those who can integrate cooling air back into the main flow with the least losses at the rear of the car.

We have these volumes and took them out for some reason. Maybe because there are always people that complain about how hard it is to cool the cars...
But I can have a look and think about it.

In general, I think we should make sure the rules are finalized end of this week.

[variante]

Solid list indeed, would have been very nice to hear all this a month ago...

Sorry, I was busy, and the forum wasn't even working a month ago.

Chassis protrusion:

From what I understand, the purpose is to be annoying.

We don't need additional annoyances. If you guys wanted to mimic a side impact structure, this is really not the way; better nothing that this.

Roll-hoop:

This one was discussed earlier (I think). It is based on some drawing but was modified to make your modelling life easier.

Ok, no big deal. But airboxes aren't gonna look more realistic than last year. Another case of annoyance without gain.

Volumes:

Not sure what you mean

The red surface. It's oblique. Needless annoyance n°3.


Radius rule:

We discussed this today and I think we have a good idea on how to modify the rules

Would have been very nice to hear all this a month ago...

Halo:

I think it actually looks pretty good.

Its wake goes exactly into the airbox (and rear wing). The model we had last year wasn't ideal either, but it was a bit better in this regard. F1 halos have a different cross section, as well as winglets to deal with such wake.


Mirrors:

Not sure why

Because real mirrors aren't 1cm thick. And if you extrude that much along the normal, the mirror casing get bigger than it needs to be. But yeah, small issue.

Movable wings:

Right now, the rules make sure that these surfaces are their own part.

Ok, but are the flaps treated as "movable" in the laptime simulator? Or no modifiers are applied at all?

Points system:

Not sure why, so please explain.

F1 points are conceived to encourage overtaking. Our points should be conceived to keep the championship alive until the end, or something like that. Different purposes.

[Koldskaal]

8 - Folder structure: there are conflicting indications on the forum and on the rules. Which should we follow?

Well, in general follow the rules. But these conflicts should not exist. Please point me to them, so I can fix them.

It is true that the submission folder specified in the rules is not the same as is expected by the scrutineering script.
My understanding, from messaging with Andre, is that the rules will change to the "new folder structure" when Andre has tested the scrutineering-script and integrated it into his workflow.
This might not happen until after the first race.

Speaking of the script, it has been updated.
Z-fighting is no longer an issue. So no need to worry about touching the boundaries of the RVs.
Verison 0.9 of the rules have also been added to the script. There's a link to the github-repo from the website.

[variante]

Rules conflicts:

Please point me to them, so I can fix them.

Koldskaal made a post about the new folder structure. There, the high-res folder doesn't appear anymore, each flap gets its own STL, and so on. The Rules don't state any of this.

Also, the complete folder structure is supposed to be: name -> input_files -> geometry -> etc.
Else, MantiumFlow doesn't pick it up.

[CAEdevice]

I don’t have much to say since we discussed it publicly during the drafting of the rules, and the answers given by André and the staff satisfy me.

The only thing I’d like to add concerns the Halo: we could provide a 'minimal' tubular structure and an offset volume within which custom sections could be created, similar to the suspension system.

Speaking of suspensions: I would suggest a slight reduction of the minimum sections (-5mm in diameter).

[spacehead3]

Ok, but are the flaps treated as "movable" in the laptime simulator? Or no modifiers are applied at all?

The provision for "x mode" exists in the LTS spreadsheet but we're not using it at the moment.