Sorry that you may have to change, but my opinion is that myself and others have made wings compliant with the MVRC rules and have spent a lot of time designing them. This woud be a major rule change that in my opinion is best left till next year.
Your car has a huge amount of front load. Looking at how Cl changes with CoP over the runs I've done, I think if you balanced your car to 1.92m it would be very competitive.G-raph wrote: ↑27 Sep 2022, 22:03Great video once again!
Congratulation to LegendaryM. I'm pleased that I picked up the correct winner once again. I'm getting good at this!
Regarding the race results, I'm not going to lie, I'm quite disappointed. Yes I made a good step (that would have been enough to win Race 1) but I was expecting a larger gain, and I thought I had found more than enough margin on cooling. I guess that's the joy of developing with a very unrefined CFD model.
You guys also made a big step between races, shoutout to Matteo in particular, I didn't see it coming. It shows the quality of the competition really, which is great to see.
I agree. I also went for the stricter F1 rules, but it was a self-imposed choice. It wouldn't be fair to force everyone else to change design in the middle of the season.LegendaryM wrote: ↑29 Sep 2022, 12:21Sorry that you may have to change, but my opinion is that myself and others have made wings compliant with the MVRC rules and have spent a lot of time designing them. This woud be a major rule change that in my opinion is best left till next year.
I'd like to see images with some more "bite". Like these:
100% agree with that.LegendaryM wrote: ↑29 Sep 2022, 12:21Sorry that you may have to change, but my opinion is that myself and others have made wings compliant with the MVRC rules and have spent a lot of time designing them. This woud be a major rule change that in my opinion is best left till next year.
Agree. IMO the real issue would be making "2022-alike" rules that are easy for us to enforce. The real F1 regulations are quite complicated this year, and as Aston has show they can still be sidestepped to a degree. On my wish list of MVRC rule changes I would put this pretty low.G-raph wrote: ↑29 Sep 2022, 20:12100% agree with that.LegendaryM wrote: ↑29 Sep 2022, 12:21Sorry that you may have to change, but my opinion is that myself and others have made wings compliant with the MVRC rules and have spent a lot of time designing them. This woud be a major rule change that in my opinion is best left till next year.
I'll propose something for next year in the other thread when I have some time, but for this year we should forget about it.
And for the record, I'll re-iterate it : only PurePower and JJR have a front wing endplate that I would consider to be close to "2022 compliant".
Disconnecting the flap elements from the endplate to expose shedding edges like CAEdevice and Variante is something all F1 teams would love to do and is very much against the intent of the 2022 F1 rules. So while I agree these design "look" more 2022 than the race winner, I don't think they are in reality.
. My front wing is almost legal by 2022 F1 rules. I simply didn't make the effort to design the little connections between flaps and endplate, which would have been eaten away by the mesh anyway.G-raph wrote: ↑29 Sep 2022, 20:12Disconnecting the flap elements from the endplate to expose shedding edges like CAEdevice and Variante is something all F1 teams would love to do and is very much against the intent of the 2022 F1 rules. So while I agree these design "look" more 2022 than the race winner, I don't think they are in reality.
I've been reading 'only one' as 'up to one' convex section in X, Y and Z directions. We'll see with scrutineering if my mirror stays are a problem or not I supposeCAEdevice wrote: ↑30 Sep 2022, 08:57Hi, I have doubts about rule 13.1 (mirrors).
This section (in red) in X direction can be considered convex? The convexity should be in X, Y,Z (as written in the rulebook) or only Y and Z as it looks more reasonable?
https://www.caedevice.net/SERVER/MVRC/2 ... e_13.1.jpg
Let's agree to disagree then. I don't want to come across as I have any problem with your design (inspired by Matteo's). I actually find it quite clever and elegant, and would like to evaluate it myself if I can find the time.
To me this rule is very clear, and your section is clearly concave in an X plane (on the underside). So not legal.
I'm not fundamentally against introducing a radius rule, but I'll repeat myself. F1 rules are much more complicated than a minimum radius on the front and rear wing endplates. There are exception for every leading edge, trailing edge and junction point, otherwise it would simply be impossible to make any wing design legal. If you can include that in your automatic checker, then great, but it sounds quite tricky to me.LVDH wrote: ↑30 Sep 2022, 17:35About the question regarding the rear wings:
The current rules in F1 detail in many places requirements about radii. Now I could simply copy the text, no problem, however, I do have the issue of being able to (automatically) measure these radii. For this reason some of the boxes might seem odd to you, as I could have easy constructed them, just like the real deal. I did not, because it could have been a loop hole to add wing like surfaces in certain areas. I really hope I did not give anyone ideas by revealing this. Now, I do not want to see wings with real endplates in our championship. The only way to avoid them, as far as I can tell, are rules about radii. So in case nobody has an idea for good rules about this, maybe somebody wold know how to hack together a few lines of Python code, that preferably would be able to run in VTK, Paraview of Blender to check the radius rules, we might need?
The rule mentions nothing about concavity in any direction, I think a lot of people are misreading the rule. It states you are allowed only one convex section in any axis. The intent I assume is to prevent a mass of wings or fins in the area like Merc have done this year.
