[MVRC] Mantium Virtual Racecar Challenge 2018

[etsmc]

came across this last night found it quite interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGEnmAefUFI

those cars all look really nice JJR, hows the balance on the GT car?

[machin]

Yeah, nice cars JJR!

I like the F1 style car a lot. It will be great if next season's car look like that.

When we asked a little while back there seemed to be a majority preference for the next set of rules to be very closely aligned with the current F1 rules (open cockpit, open wheels, etc)... so that is what Andre and I are currently working on...

[variante]

When we asked a little while back there seemed to be a majority preference for the next set of rules to be very closely aligned with the current F1 rules (open cockpit, open wheels, etc)... so that is what Andre and I are currently working on...

From my point of view, there are two ways:

1 - RedBull X1 style (basically, a closed cockpit and covered wheels F1). This is the one that i prefer as a designer.
There are more indipendent structures (like the front wheel cover, which is detached from the rest of the bodywork), and more forbidden volumes (meaning less surfaces), which makes it easier to model.
For instance, you can swap (or heavily modify) an entire wheel cover without having to re-model other 5 parts. Maybe [CAEdevice will say that with parametric modeling there are no problems anyways, but from my experience it takes a lot of effort to make a parametric model that withstands heavy changes without giving error messages.]
A closed cockpit is also 10 times easier to model than an open one.

2 - basically F1. This is the one that could attract more attention in a forum like F1Technical.
Drawbacks being:
F1 regulation is absurdly intricate (i experienced it while designing my 2017/18 F1 car...). You'd have to simplify it quite a lot.
Some rules are hard to check (for instance, the 75mm radius rule).
Design nightmares, such as the transition between cockpit and rear bodywork, or complex internal aerodynamics (cooling etc.).
Design freedom would be limited. This can be good for results, as laptimes would be more flattened, but it would be bad for fantasy and aerodynamics experiments.


Finally, i'd suggest you to work together with us for the writing of the new rules --> less work on you, less mistakes,...
Or if you don't want to show too much too early, let us give you generic feedbacks (like this one) and let us review the regulations before the final version is written.

[CAEdevice]

From my point of view, there are two ways:

1 - RedBull X1 style (basically, a closed cockpit and covered wheels F1). This is the one that i prefer as a designer.
There are more indipendent structures (like the front wheel cover, which is detached from the rest of the bodywork), and more forbidden volumes (meaning less surfaces), which makes it easier to model.

It is only a videogame, it is not even officially used in driving simulators

CAEdevice will say that with parametric modeling there are no problems anyways, but from my experience it takes a lot of effort to make a parametric model that withstands heavy changes without giving error messages.

I don't think F1 teams would consider a CV with no parametric CAD skills They use NX and Catia, but FreeCAD (btw: it has an interesting OpenFOAM based module) or a Student Edition of SolidWorks would be a good base. I think that MVRC should try to grow. Also Autodesk 360 is free for students and small companies (not parametric, but definetly a good tool).

A closed cockpit is also 10 times easier to model than an open one.

I quite agree about this point, but I also could provide a cockpit with helmet, halo, legal dimensions to be integrated into your design. Anyway: a closed cockpit would require less mesh cells, and it would be a point to consider.

2 - basically F1. This is the one that could attract more attention in a forum like F1Technical.
Drawbacks being:
F1 regulation is absurdly intricate (i experienced it while designing my 2017/18 F1 car...). You'd have to simplify it quite a lot.
Some rules are hard to check (for instance, the 75mm radius rule).
Design nightmares, such as the transition between cockpit and rear bodywork, or complex internal aerodynamics (cooling etc.).
Design freedom would be limited. This can be good for results, as laptimes would be more flattened, but it would be bad for fantasy and aerodynamics experiments.

Yes I agree. Also consider that F1 cars are ugly, with a ridicolous wheelbase. 3500mm should be the limit.

I don't agree about the 75mm radius rule: if you work with a seriuos CAD ( https://www.caedevice.net/SERVER/MVRC/2 ... vatura.jpg ) it is a standard function.

I also suggest to start working with STEP and not with faceted geoemtry (STL, ...). It would make the legalty check much easier and the geoemtry wuality would improve very much. The STL conversion required by OpenFOAM could be done with standard parameters using a common and open source tools as http://www.meshlab.net/ (one among many others).It also does curvature check.

Finally, i'd suggest you to work together with us for the writing of the new rules --> less work on you, less mistakes,...
Or if you don't want to show too much too early, let us give you generic feedbacks (like this one) and let us review the regulations before the final version is written.

I definetly agree.

I think the staff should be the only one to make decisions (I don't like the abuse of democracy), but an "open source" process in the definition of rules and templates would be useful, both for the reasons that Variante listed, and because it could be and an additional way of getting visibility.



This is my mantra in defining the rules. "Everything can work (Feyerabend quote) but great design freedom must correspond to a higher level of simulations (more or less Spider-Man quote)".

More simulation >>> Less rules

(I was tempted to put the radiators at the sides of the engine but like wings, completely outside the shape of the sidepods for the Pikes Peak race, but the center of gravity and inertia would have been affected )

[variante]

It is only a videogame, it is not even officially used in driving simulators

A car similar to the JJR F1 style car, if you think this example is more realistic.

I don't think F1 teams would consider a CV with no parametric CAD skills They use NX and Catia, but FreeCAD (btw: it has an interesting OpenFOAM based module) or a Student Edition of SolidWorks would be a good base. I think that MVRC should try to grow. Also Autodesk 360 is free for students and small companies (not parametric, but definetly a good tool).

Two comments on this point:
1st: it's not about being possible to learn good parametric skills. It's about having the time to make it possible. I might have time. Instead, other people might be scared of the additional time required.
2nd: I have decent experience and skills with parametric design. Other people might just lack it.


A comment about time: i invited some friends to participate to MVRC in the past. Many were very interested, but ultimately no one accepted because they thought (rightfully) it would be very time consuming.
I think we should optimize this aspect as much as possible.

I don't agree about the 75mm radius rule: if you work with a seriuos CAD ( https://www.caedevice.net/SERVER/MVRC/2 ... vatura.jpg ) it is a standard function.

Sorry, i meant: not hard for me to make, but hard for them to check.

[JJR]

those cars all look really nice JJR, hows the balance on the GT car?

Thank you. Actually I always try to ballance all cars. GT style car weak side was front downforce as outlet of front diffuser was limitted by cockit dimmensions.So it has less agressive rear wing.


For new F1 style mvrc competition I prefer less restricted cars let ´s say early 90 ´s F1 cars with modern aero solutions.

[CAEdevice]

A car similar to the JJR F1 style car, if you think this example is more realistic.

At the moment it is, but it has not raced yet... let's us develop it

I don't think F1 teams would consider a CV with no parametric CAD skills They use NX and Catia, but FreeCAD (btw: it has an interesting OpenFOAM based module) or a Student Edition of SolidWorks would be a good base. I think that MVRC should try to grow. Also Autodesk 360 is free for students and small companies (not parametric, but definetly a good tool).

Two comments on this point:
1st: it's not about being possible to learn good parametric skills. It's about having the time to make it possible. I might have time. Instead, other people might be scared of the additional time required.
2nd: I have decent experience and skills with parametric design. Other people might just lack it.

About time: parametric development can save a lot of time.
About your skills: I know, I was generally speaking. And you are the Champion now, so I must be respectful

A comment about time: i invited some friends to participate to MVRC in the past. Many were very interested, but ultimately no one accepted because they thought (rightfully) it would be very time consuming.
I think we should optimize this aspect as much as possible.

I am not sure about this: once we had that fast and easy tool provided by CAESES, but not many people considered it.

I don't agree about the 75mm radius rule: if you work with a seriuos CAD ( https://www.caedevice.net/SERVER/MVRC/2 ... vatura.jpg ) it is a standard function.

Sorry, i meant: not hard for me to make, but hard for them to check.

It is an easy check, even with STL: http://www.meshlab.net/img/Carousel/Cur ... ation.jpeg

[machin]

So the idea we're working on is a really simple rulebook, which essentially has two main rules:- (please excuse my hand-drawn sketches!)



So we probably won't have things like the 75mm radius rule. We would also give you suspension, wheels and driver and HALO to complete the car (you won't need to draw these parts, nor will you be allowed to modify them).

This allows us to strongly define the look of the cars -it will clearly be an F1 car, but there will be a lot of design freedom within the boxes. It will also mean that checking legality will be easy: if your bodywork is in the legality boxes then it will most likely be legal (we may need to introduce a few restrictions, but we're trying not to).

Our plan is to draw up a draft copy of the rules this weekend, which Andre and I will review together, then we will let you guys see it for feedback.

[Alonso Fan]

This looks excellent

[variante]

Ok, so it's something in between. Fair enough.

Again, I think the closed cockpit would be more appreciated (not only by me), but let's see how that turns out

[machin]

Again, I think the closed cockpit would be more appreciated (not only by me), but let's see how that turns out

In all honesty both Andre and I also prefer closed cockpits and wheel fairings... but we had the feeling that this wasn't what the majority of competitors (or potential competitors) wanted....

[CAEdevice]

Thanks Machin, I like this perspective.
I like open cockpit, but closed cockpit would be ok. On the contrary, I would avoid wheels fairings.

What about an arrow shaped front wing volume?
The wheelbase will be around 3000mm (lmpx) or 3700mm (F1 2019)?

[machin]

What about an arrow shaped front wing volume?

Yes, we'll go with that, we will also likely go with the central neutral wing section like the real cars... (I did that sketch by hand... just to quickly show the general idea for discussion purposes).

The wheelbase will be around 3000mm (lmpx) or 3700mm (F1 2019)?

TBA...

[CAEdevice]

... we will also likely go with the central neutral wing section like the real cars... (I did that sketch by hand... just to quickly show the general idea for discussion purposes).

I can imagine Variante mastering the Y250 vortex

[Ft5fTL]

I would prefer to have similar rules to the current F1 rules (halo, big fat tires, limo sized wheel base , hybrid V6 engines etc...). That could boost the popularity of this competition and frankly i would prefer something up to date and has a real world basis.