[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2019 (Grand Prix Cars)

[rjsa]

I’ll figure that out. It’s jut too little time I have & I was counting on throwing it in and be ready. I’m not sure I’ll have a complete, legal car with at least one sim done - that wll have to do for the 2 first races.

Schedule was too tight.

[LVDH]

Hi there, mflow is culling geomery:
"current file name: Z_Suspension_frt_V01.stl
current file name: Z_Suspension_rr_V01.stl
current file name: Z_Wheels_frt_V01.stl
current file name: Z_Wheels_rr_V01.stl
The demo version of MantiumFlow only accepts a maximum of 30 stl files!
Everything above that will not be used for this simulation."

I just checked the code. Are you sure you are not using one of the MVRC templates? If so, the limit should be disabled.
I am always working on the code and it seems like I implemented something for very challenging cfd simulations that also helps on the MVRC cars. I will test a bit more on the cars but I think I will release a new version this weekend so you guys can benefit from this improvement. Would just be good to confirm that the stl limit is deactivated when choosing an MVRC template.

[rjsa]

I didn’t get to the template point, so yes, must be it. I’ll check.

[rjsa]

MVRC_Long has the limit of 30 files.

[rjsa]

Now it's complaining about rear wheel position, I guess those should not be merged to the rest.

And it won't build because I don't have blueCFD on the machine, how do I do it to skip this verification?

Warning: MantiumFlow could not find the configured blueCFD installation path.
 right now it is set to: C:\Program Files\blueCFD-Core-2017

Warning: Rear wheels seem to be positioned incorrectly. In MVRC they should be in global (3.4,0,0).

Warning: MantiumFlow could not find the configured blueCFD installation path.
 right now it is set to: C:\Program Files\blueCFD-Core-2017

Warning: Rear wheels seem to be positioned incorrectly. In MVRC they should be in global (3.4,0,0).
writing case: E:\CFD\2019f1_mk01_0001

[rjsa]

The problem with the wheels wasn't merging with the other parts. I've got them separated now and sill get the error message.

[rjsa]

It is running despite the wheels and bluecfd error messages.

BUT:

60803 wall                MVRC_bool_reduced_patch60794  
60804 wall                MVRC_bool_reduced_patch60795  
60805 wall                MVRC_bool_reduced_patch60796  
60806 wall                MVRC_bool_reduced_patch60797  

Seems to be on and endless loop.

No it's not caught on a loop, moved on to another part.

[Ft5fTL]

I finished my first couple of cfd's with the new software and my new cpu. There is some significant difference on the results that i got from different cfd options.

Time = 1200
forceCoeffs forceCoeffs write:
    Cm    = 0.27190957
    Cd    = 1.1457955
    Cl    = -1.63347
    Cl(f) = -0.5448254
    Cl(r) = -1.0886445

Time = 1200
forceCoeffs forceCoeffs write:
    Cm    = 1.366718
    Cd    = 1.1547571
    Cl    = -1.4156811
    Cl(f) = 0.65887749
    Cl(r) = -2.0745586

The first one is the standart MVRC option. Second one is the MVRC_Fast option with same car. I think this is a serious thing since i often use the fast option for quick results.

[CAEdevice]

I have about the same differences, I think it is normal considering the mesh settings.

[Team_Bart]

Hi Guys, I jus read the email about the new season. Nice to see you managed to design a complete set of rules! I hope it will attract a lot of new competitors because I think this is one of the best engineering competitions which is accessibele for anyone. You can really learn a lot skills in engineering and aerodynamics in specific.
Unfortunately I decided to not join (the beginning of) this season. Last season I was really enjoying the competition and I learned a lot. The main reason is that I have too little time to run the simulations on my laptop. I hoped to find a solution for this but I still have none

Good luck all with the development of your cars, I will keep follow the competition and probably I can join later.

[Ft5fTL]

I have about the same differences, I think it is normal considering the mesh settings.

What is the point having a fast option if it gives complete different results than the full one? I don't think that's normal. I dont know what changed as settings but i always used the fast option on the previous years software (even on my F1 car) and i never got a positive lift value.

[CAEdevice]

I have about the same differences, I think it is normal considering the mesh settings.

What is the point having a fast option if it gives complete different results than the full one? I don't think that's normal. I dont know what changed as settings but i always used the fast option on the previous years software (even on my F1 car) and i never got a positive lift value.

I agree, it is not useful. I edited the mesh setting manually in order to obtain a compromise.

Btw, good numbers compared to mine. If you are ok with cooling, Variante will have another competitor.

[variante]

I finished my first couple of cfd's with the new software and my new cpu. There is some significant difference on the results that i got from different cfd options.

Time = 1200
forceCoeffs forceCoeffs write:
    Cm    = 0.27190957
    Cd    = 1.1457955
    Cl    = -1.63347
    Cl(f) = -0.5448254
    Cl(r) = -1.0886445

Time = 1200
forceCoeffs forceCoeffs write:
    Cm    = 1.366718
    Cd    = 1.1547571
    Cl    = -1.4156811
    Cl(f) = 0.65887749
    Cl(r) = -2.0745586

The first one is the standart MVRC option. Second one is the MVRC_Fast option with same car. I think this is a serious thing since i often use the fast option for quick results.

Why "Time = 1200"? Iterations in "fast" go up to 2000; in "normal" even more, probably. Given the different settings between "normal" and "fast", i don't think that residuals compare. Let them converge and then lets see what happens.

I've just completed my first simulation in "fast" and everything seems right.

BTW if anyone has similar info about fast and normal, please share because i probably won't have the time to do any comparison.

Hi Guys, I jus read the email about the new season. Nice to see you managed to design a complete set of rules! I hope it will attract a lot of new competitors because I think this is one of the best engineering competitions which is accessibele for anyone. You can really learn a lot skills in engineering and aerodynamics in specific.
Unfortunately I decided to not join (the beginning of) this season. Last season I was really enjoying the competition and I learned a lot. The main reason is that I have too little time to run the simulations on my laptop. I hoped to find a solution for this but I still have none

Good luck all with the development of your cars, I will keep follow the competition and probably I can join later.

Come on! We're all late...I've made my first simulation today after putting together a car in 3 days!

[Ft5fTL]

I finished my first couple of cfd's with the new software and my new cpu. There is some significant difference on the results that i got from different cfd options.

Time = 1200
forceCoeffs forceCoeffs write:
    Cm    = 0.27190957
    Cd    = 1.1457955
    Cl    = -1.63347
    Cl(f) = -0.5448254
    Cl(r) = -1.0886445

Time = 1200
forceCoeffs forceCoeffs write:
    Cm    = 1.366718
    Cd    = 1.1547571
    Cl    = -1.4156811
    Cl(f) = 0.65887749
    Cl(r) = -2.0745586

The first one is the standart MVRC option. Second one is the MVRC_Fast option with same car. I think this is a serious thing since i often use the fast option for quick results.

Why "Time = 1200"? Iterations in "fast" go up to 2000; in "normal" even more, probably. Given the different settings between "normal" and "fast", i don't think that residuals compare. Let them converge and then lets see what happens.

I've just completed my first simulation in "fast" and everything seems right.

BTW if anyone has similar info about fast and normal, please share because i probably won't have the time to do any comparison.

I quit that one around 1250. Thats why i posted the results at 1200. I completed 3 sims at fast settings, i ended up with these results:

Cd: 1.1227065555, Cl: -0.3831973513, Cl(f): 1.7312270195, Cl(r): -2.1144243705, CoP: 18.761

Cd: 1.1888227472, Cl: -1.7330100288, Cl/Cd: -1.4577530863, Cl(f): -1.7699407171, Cl(r): 0.0369306882, CoP: -0.072

Cd: 1.2144504931, Cl: -1.8959802335, Cl/Cd: -1.5611836335, Cl(f): -1.7225041266, Cl(r): -0.1734761067, CoP: 0.311

[rjsa]

@Andre, what causes this?

60803 wall                MVRC_bool_reduced_patch60794  
60804 wall                MVRC_bool_reduced_patch60795  
60805 wall                MVRC_bool_reduced_patch60796  
60806 wall                MVRC_bool_reduced_patch60797  

It happens with the provided parts I decimated using magics to reduce size.