Hi, I believe that the lower limit of 10 mm is not so much due to the mesh, because an even smaller thickness like 5 mm would probably still be manageable with the current settings, but rather to the handling of cusps in the wing section. In my view, one could consider either enforcing a minimum angle between the tangents of the airfoil’s upper and lower surfaces at the trailing edge, or imposing a 2 mm trailing-edge fillet radius. This would allow removing the 10 mm rule or reducing it to 5 mm. I also agree that a 10 mm thickness is excessive in many areas.Ft5fTL wrote: ↑16 Nov 2025, 00:33Those photos are interesting. I would very much like to have volumes on a sensitive spot like that.yinlad wrote: ↑15 Nov 2025, 12:36https://i.postimg.cc/wvJCTDk0/IMG-0709.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/xdWr26LZ/IMG-0710.jpg
I think it would be great to see some additional volumes in the areas shown above, it would open up the options for rear of car development a ton.
I’d also like to see a means to create more freedom in suspension fairings. I think removing the mandatory arms and using a series of RS_* surfaces that must be covered could be a good way to do this without inviting extreme solutions.
Now that we have the CFD HPC available I’d love to see some selective mesh changes so we can get away from the 10mm minimum thickness rules in some places.
I’m sure I’ll come up with some more in time and look forward to the off season discussions.
Best of luck to all competing in the final race of the year
I agree with the suspensions. A bit more freedom would be nice.
I believe i proposed lowering the 10mm rule on some parts before the season start. That rule is as old as the competition (i had a i5 2500k with 8 gigs of ram back then). Even without the CloudHPC i think we can afford the additional computation that brings the thickness rule change.



