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

[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

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.

I'd take lower flow or more porous rads, I've probably been asking for either for about 4 years now Every time I try (and will try again this year) to make a smaller pod like the IRL cars I typically have to abandon it as the thick, tight rads just create so much blockage. Our minimum thickness rules and mesh size make adding meaningful vanes ahead of the rads unrealistic as they end up being massive at 10mm thick.

[yinlad]

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

The rotation I'm less concerned about, not sure what the IRL regs are but typically teams are running rads in the same config we're bound to. Whether they are also bound by regs on that front I do not know.

What I do know is that, having tried, any rad at this kind of angle for us for whatever reason, basically stops flowing at all (I've always suspected due to porosity and as previously mentioned lack of small turning vanes due to thickness restrictions). I challenge anyone to get this kind of configuration working

[janci_kp]

Greetings everyone,
I can’t share stl files from the fia renders but I made my own copy of the deflectors. If we wanna make it as a common part I can supply them in step. I also have the diffuser winglets which can be supplied in step with overlap into the diffuser where each team could trim it by their diffuser side wall.

EaJ Racing

[janci_kp]

https://imgur.com/a/napDtRj
https://imgur.com/a/CMwyk6Q
Greetings everyone,
I can’t share stl files from the fia renders but I made my own copy of the deflectors. If we wanna make it as a common part I can supply them in step. I also have the diffuser winglets which can be supplied in step with overlap into the diffuser where each team could trim it by their diffuser side wall.

EaJ Racing

Hopefully the pics will attach this time.

https://imgur.com/a/CMwyk6Q

https://imgur.com/a/napDtRj

[LVDH]

Hi guys,
I hope this weekend to finally take the steps to get MVRC going again.

Mainly thanks to Matteo, we have a good foundation to do so.
I just do not quite understand the last two topics.

Why the F1 teams rotate the radiators the way we do, I do not understand either. It must be packaging. We are limited because sometime MFlow would not correctly pick up the normal direction of the radiators. It is super rare, but as real teams basically also only rotate around the y-axis, the pragmatic solution was to limit yourselves.
I just do not understand why a 40mm radiator thickness would be so helpful. Also I think real ones are thicker than ours.


Having you guys provide CAD files is the way it should go, so big thanks to janci_kp. But do we not want a regulation box in that area? Every team should have certain freedoms. But teams are welcome to create public parts and share them. What do you think?

[CAEdevice]

For F1 radiators, I’m not entirely sure that they always have a main porosity direction orthogonal to the surface. I don’t know specifically for F1, but in other sectors (not automotive) there are more complex radiator designs. What we could do is also increase porosity in directions parallel to the plane, to achieve less performance drop at extreme angles.

[k.ko100v]

Is it possible to add an additional radiator (for example, behind the roll hoop) and combine the cooling from both?

[LVDH]

For F1 radiators, I’m not entirely sure that they always have a main porosity direction orthogonal to the surface. I don’t know specifically for F1, but in other sectors (not automotive) there are more complex radiator designs. What we could do is also increase porosity in directions parallel to the plane, to achieve less performance drop at extreme angles.

I never thought about this. But you are likely right. Does anyone have any good info on this? An image might be enough.

Is it possible to add an additional radiator (for example, behind the roll hoop) and combine the cooling from both?

Yes, this is something that bothers me as well. In real cars, they actually use the "airhoop" air for many things. In trying to keep things somewhat simple for MVRC, I never wanted to add this. And I have no good idea on how we could do this. But I am happy for suggestions.

[CAEdevice]

I never thought about this. But you are likely right. Does anyone have any good info on this? An image might be enough.

They are called "louvered fins radiators".

https://share.google/9w5tDYKNusqu03TQI

In the case of MVRC, we cannot simulate different porosity coefficients (Darcy–Forchheimer) for each car, but we could use a compromise by increasing the transverse porosity (up to 50% of the orthogonal one).

[LVDH]

I never thought about this. But you are likely right. Does anyone have any good info on this? An image might be enough.

They are called "louvered fins radiators".

https://share.google/9w5tDYKNusqu03TQI

In the case of MVRC, we cannot simulate different porosity coefficients (Darcy–Forchheimer) for each car, but we could use a compromise by increasing the transverse porosity (up to 50% of the orthogonal one).

Yes, I might have seen these things.
But from my memory, only until a few years ago, teams used super cool 3D printed radiators. They were so expensive that they agreed to use "normal" radiators. Does anyone have info on what is currently really used?

[LVDH]

I have published a race schedule for 2026, rules and CAD files.
As I was so swamped in work, there is nothing very spectacular, for the first races, we will pretty much continue like we did last year.
I am working on a new version for MFlow, which should be a bit faster, more reliable post-processing and you should be able to use it on cloudHPC. I am looking forward to get this released in the next days.
There are also to small things to sort out before I can send out an invitation email. I hope that will be a matter of some two or three days.

You guys also requested a change in how we count championship points. I am open to this, so bang out some suggestions.

[janci_kp]

Thank you for updated files and schedule. I have one inquiry regarding the regulations. The topic about minimum curvature was discussed pretty regularly last year. So I’m surprised you decided not to implement it this year. I know that having minimal radius of curvature would be difficult to measure on stl files but I still think we need to implement some sort of rule in a spirit of fair play and to avoid any crazy sidepods geometry very distant from the real 2026 cars. I have 2 proposals:
a) any airfoil shape on the engine cover/sidepods geometry will be deemed illegal according to the Appendix 4 of the MVRC rules 2026.
b) implement a rule that prohibits any VISIBLE sharp edges on the aerodynamic surface.
Let me know your thoughts! In my view it is much more efficient to ban auxiliary wings and strakes on the engine cover than to force all participants to develop them to stay competitive.
Thank you.

[LVDH]

Yes, you are right about this. I simply forgot about it and wanted to work on a new version of the autoscrutineering tool in the time right before the first race. I think I will speed this up and see if we can get the radius rule in right away.

[AlexTitaneGP]

Thank you for the calendar and the 2026 CAD / Rules !

a few questions / comments :
I think rule 9.2 has been modified : Parts inside of the volumes:

RV_Bargeboards_V*
RV_Diffuser_Cascades_V*
RV_FBrake_duct_frt_V*
RV_FBrake_duct_rear_V*
RV_Floor_fence_V*
RV_Floor_led_V*
RV_FW_Endplates_V*
RV_FW_Profiles_V*
RV_FW_Strakes_V*
RV_Halo_envelope_V*
RV_Mirrors_support_V*
RV_Rear_Wing_Profiles_V*
RV_Rear_Wing_V*
RV_Suspension_cover_Front_V*
RV_Suspension_cover_Rear_V*
must be included into the high_res folder.

should we wait for the new version of mantium to put suspensions / brake duct etc into the high res folder ?
RV bargeboard in the high res folder ==> does it mean we'll have to trim the floor to isolate the "floor-plate" to be able to have it in the high res folder ?

I've opened the CAD a couple of days ago, I think a front wheel is mssing (we do have 2 front left or 2 front right wheel )

regarding the radius rule, I really like Janci_KP proposal, to actually impose a 40mm ish minimum radius would require really really high level of CAD modelling, but to simply "ban" airfoil shape and to impose full tangency on the bodywork looks like a good compromise to me.

many thanks in advance

best regards

Alex

[CAEdevice]

Yes, you are right about this. I simply forgot about it and wanted to work on a new version of the autoscrutineering tool in the time right before the first race. I think I will speed this up and see if we can get the radius rule in right away.

It can work for me as well, provided that we give a general indication of what we mean by “airfoil shape.”