[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2026 (Grand Prix Cars)

[CAEdevice]

Good morning everyone,

I have applied the suggestions that were made, particularly regarding the front and rear brake areas.
Unfortunately, the regulated volumes I drew were done by eye, because I could not find the precise details of the FIA regulations.

As for the rear cascades, I moved them back by about 200 mm.

Another modification was made to the exhaust. I noticed that, on the 2026 cars, the exhaust pipe axis is lower than on ours. This also explains why Ferrari managed to create that small wing that takes advantage of the exhaust gases. Considering that, in our case, everything is a compromise because the exhaust system is the same for everyone, I added a slightly greater tolerance in the wing pylon volume area in order to potentially allow similar solutions.

Important note: since I slightly modified the exhaust position, the exhuasts BC surface has also been modified.

Please let me know if there is anything that should be modified.

https://www.caedevice.net/SERVER/MVRC/2 ... 26_V04.zip

[Ft5fTL]

Great work. My only feedback would be about the cascade. In my opinion 200 mm is too much, the upper end touches the rearwing endplate with this change. What i observed via photos suggest that moving that box back should be around 100 to 150mm.

[CAEdevice]

Great work. My only feedback would be about the cascade. In my opinion 200 mm is too much, the upper end touches the rearwing endplate with this change. What i observed via photos suggest that moving that box back should be around 100 to 150mm.

I confirm that 200 mm is probably too much. I would propose 175 mm in the next release. I am waiting for approval of V04 from the staff before releasing it (probably as V01, if officially approved).

[CAEdevice]

New release (cascades moved forward by 40mm):

Rules V05: https://www.caedevice.net/SERVER/MVRC/2 ... 26_V05.zip

[AlexTitaneGP]

Hi Everyone

I'll hapilly come back with a couple of friends to MVRC 2026 after one race in 2024

I've finally succeed to make wsl work nicely. We're looking forward to develop a car for this season.

just one question though, I've ran the "matteo Body" and some first basic cars, however, in everycase I ran with OF2412, I don't have any energy / pressure loss when the air go through the rad / porous media (I do have the stl in the porous media directory, and I can see it when I build the case in mflow...)

am I doing something wrong ? is there any particular name to be applied to the stl that define the rads ?

with no pressure loss I've got crazy high massflow as the monitoring surface are working ^^

best regards

Alex

[CAEdevice]

Hi Everyone

I'll hapilly come back with a couple of friends to MVRC 2026 after one race in 2024

I've finally succeed to make wsl work nicely. We're looking forward to develop a car for this season.

just one question though, I've ran the "matteo Body" and some first basic cars, however, in everycase I ran with OF2412, I don't have any energy / pressure loss when the air go through the rad / porous media (I do have the stl in the porous media directory, and I can see it when I build the case in mflow...)

am I doing something wrong ? is there any particular name to be applied to the stl that define the rads ?

with no pressure loss I've got crazy high massflow as the monitoring surface are working ^^

best regards

Alex

Hi, which version of MFlow are you currently testing?

[AlexTitaneGP]

Hi, the latest available on the website, 25.09_linux

[CAEdevice]

Hi, the latest available on the website, 25.09_linux

I had problems with that release, so I went back to 25.06

[AlexTitaneGP]

Hi, the latest available on the website, 25.09_linux

I had problems with that release, so I went back to 25.06

Thank you !
I've checked of both mantium challenge website and mantium flow website, I haven't succeed to find an older version of MFlow ? Could you share a linux_25.06 version so that I could give it a try ?

many thanks in advance
regards
Alex

[CAEdevice]

Hi, the latest available on the website, 25.09_linux

I had problems with that release, so I went back to 25.06

Thank you !
I've checked of both mantium challenge website and mantium flow website, I haven't succeed to find an older version of MFlow ? Could you share a linux_25.06 version so that I could give it a try ?

many thanks in advance
regards
Alex

I am sending a PM

[CAEdevice]

Hi everyone, just a quick note to let you know that file version V05, containing the components and the 2026 rules proposal, has been updated. Nothing has changed in substance, and the link remains valid. The only correction concerns the name of one component, which was incorrectly indicated in the previous version.

[erdosg]

I had problems with that release, so I went back to 25.06

Thank you !
I've checked of both mantium challenge website and mantium flow website, I haven't succeed to find an older version of MFlow ? Could you share a linux_25.06 version so that I could give it a try ?

many thanks in advance
regards
Alex

I am sending a PM

Hi All, I am new to the challenge, and facing the same issue to AlexTitaneGP at the moment. I am using a mix of the windows version of MFlow 2509 and linux based openfoam 2412 in WSL2. (I had some issue with linux based MFlow in WSL due to a driver related openGL issue, this mix seems to work fine except for the same issue with the porous media). So the older win version or some advice would be highly appreciated.

[yinlad]

Coming back to a bit of rules discussion, how do we feel about thinning the rads down a bit this year? 60 -> 40mm? I'm not sure how that would impact the cooling numbers, but I'm trying to think of ways we can free up sidepod/cooling design a bit. It's quite a constrained/small area and our rad specifications are quite large it feels

[CAEdevice]

Coming back to a bit of rules discussion, how do we feel about thinning the rads down a bit this year? 60 -> 40mm? I'm not sure how that would impact the cooling numbers, but I'm trying to think of ways we can free up sidepod/cooling design a bit. It's quite a constrained/small area and our rad specifications are quite large it feels

Yes, I agree. Reducing the radiator thickness by 1–2 cm could make the CAD modeling easier, while still allowing us to maintain the same pressure drop by adjusting the permeability parameters. In any case, I am fairly convinced that we could move to a slightly lower airflow value.

[AlexTitaneGP]

Hi all,
On the cooling topic, what about allowing an Z axis rotation, or basically any 3D positionning as long as it remains planar ?
As for the thickness, I think 60mm was quite representative (either of big rads, or 2 smaller stack rads), in go kart, gearbox category we're already running like 40mm thickness. 50mm could be a good spot !
Alex