Detailed Design Report

MECHISMU RACING
Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad
Car no. 26
for
Formula Student India

Wheel Size Selection

FSAE rules set the minimum wheel size to be eight inches in diameter. For the
purposes of this design, the smallest applicable wheel size was ten inches. Using a
wheel with an inner diameter smaller than ten inches makes packaging of the wheel
upright difficult, and greatly increases the loading conditions on the upper and lower
control arms.
The consideration categories were based on factors deemed important to the size of the
wheel and tire. They were:
1. Mass Moment of Inertia The rotating mass of different tire sizes varies and affects
dynamic performance.
2. Tire Availability As we are limited to using what is available for purchase, the
selection matters.
3. Upright Packaging Different size wheels dictate how much room there is to place
components such as uprights and brake rotors inside of them.
4. Chassis Impact The tire size ultimately affects the positioning and packaging of the
rest of the chassis.
5. Wheel Availability Less important than tire availability since making a wheel is much
easier than making a tire, but this is still a consideration.
6. Cost The budget is limited for this project and it does play a role in the decision.
7. Mass Effect This is how the larger mass moment of inertia affects the car with
respect to acceleration and braking.
8. Mass Addition This is the total mass difference of the tire and wheel package.

YAMAHA FZ6-R ENGINE

Stock Engine Specs:

Reasons for Preferring this Engine

Performance:
1) The primary ideas behind choosing a four cylinder engine were as follows
Greater power developed i.e. Better power to weight ratio.
Completely balanced primary forces and use of secondary balancer
shafts in these engines to balance secondary forces. Thus engine
generates very less vibrations.
Balanced torque output i.e. less torque fluctuation.
Single cylinder and double cylinder engine were ruled out due to
high vibrations, unbalanced forces, torque fluctuations, reliability and
less power than counterpart 4 cylinder.
FZ6-R EngineWeight: 65 kg
Weight of Car Without Engine: 150 kg
Power to Weight Ratio of Car: 66/(150+65) = 0.30697
EX500 EngineWeight: 52 kg
Type: Double Cylinder 500cc
Power: 52hp
Power To weight Ratio of Car: 52/(150+52)= 0.257
CBR250 EngineWeight: 38kg
Type: Single Cylinder 250cc
Power: 26 hp
Power to weight ratio of Car: 26/(150+38)= 0.138
2) The power output of this engine 66 hp @ 9800rpm and 53nm @
8300rpm of
torque was better than considerable options within budget constraints

and performance targets of the car owing to experience of the team.

3) The engine is basically designed of good midrange power rather than maximum
power and flat torque curve both being suitable for most of the events.
Availability and Cost:

The best deal sorted after extensive survey and search of engine had following
Salient features:
Cost- Well within the budget constraints. Costing aprox. 1 lac INR
including taxes and shipping.
Ebay list price: $949/The deal engine was used and clocked 4600 miles. The engine was
removed from 2009 FZ6-R model with no quoted damages.
The package consisted of complete engine and transmission, wiring
harness, ECU, injectors, throttle body, starter motor, CDI, sparkplugs, but
lacks exhaust manifold and fuel pump.
Calculated Vehicle Performance
Parameters:
Stock engine performance of 66hp max. power and 53nm of torque.
Driver Weight: 65 kg
Vehicle Weight: 220 kg
Tyres: 155/65 R13
Primary Reduction: 1.955 (Stock)
Gear Ratios (Stock):
1- 2.846
2- 1.947
3- 1.556
4- 1.333
5- 1.190
6- 1.083
Secondary Ratio: 3.4 (Stock: 2.875)
Drag Coefficient: .25
Estimated Performance
Top speed: 150.28kmph
0-75 m in 4.09 sec (ignoring shift delay)
Maximum acceleration (1st gear): 1.5g
0-60kmph in 1.65 sec
0-100kmph in 3.24 sec

Drag Run (Distance vs Time)

Shiftings:
Gear Shift
1
2
3
4
5
6

RPM
0-10750
7550-10750
8650-10750
9300-10750
9650-10750
9850-10750

Top Speed (kmph)

57.2
83.22
104.18
122.11
136.76
150.28

Performance in different gears. (Acceleration vs Speed)

Usage and Planned Modifications:
The engine hangs below the motorcycle midframe through relevant
mountings. The same mountings will be used to mount engine on the
chassis.
Engine will be naturally aspirated owing to budget, time, resource and
experience constraints.
The intake manifold between the throttle body and restrictor, exhaust
manifold and cooling system were not acquired and will be needed to
design and fabricate to optimize performance.
Stock ECU will be replaced with a programmable aftermarket ECU to
facilitate mapping of spark timings and fuel injections for performance
optimization.
Stock injectors will be used although timings will be mapped for
performance.

TRANSMISSION
Objective: To transfer the power output of the engine to tyres via torsen differential so
as to improve torque biasing in driving wheels during cornering.
The transmission of the vehicle comprises of 3 sub components:
1. Stock Yamaha FZ6-R 6 speed manual gearbox;
2. Torsen differential;
3. Axle.
Rear wheel drive was selected with the engine at the rear of the vehicle for maximum
traction during acceleration and better weight distribution during braking.
Torsen differential was opted because it improves the traction in the outer tyre during
cornering. It has bias ratio ranging from 3.7- 4:1.
The gear box is connected to the differential by a chain drive. As this was the best
possible option we have.
The gear ratio has been set based on for achieving maximum performance on the AutoCross event.
The speed of the wheel on the road has been set between 25km/hr - 110 km/hr in 3 rd
gear so that whole auto-cross event can be covered without a gear change and
supplying torque which is approximately under the traction supplied by the road in
accelerating condition of 1-g.
The speed of the wheel on road is calculated bySpeed=(2N/60)*n1*n2*n3
n1=Primary ratio
n2=Secondary ratio
n3=Final drive ratio(48/13)
25km/hr is considered as the maximum turning speed in a sharp turn.

The chain and sprocket pitch is 0.525 inch (transferring around 600 Nm Torque), it is
used in 500cc off-road bikes.
Selection is based on:->Performance requirement in autocross event.

->Availability in market.
The differential assembly except for the gears is designed and will be manufactured at
college workshop. We choose to use inboard brake on the rear side in order to reduce
the unsprung mass of the brake assembly on the upright. Aluminium 6061-T6 was used
to reduce the weight of assembly. The differential assembly comprises of 2 differential
uprights 1 brake sleeve, drive sleeve, brake flange, 2 bearings and 2 bushings. Brake
calliper is mounted on the differential upright and the brake rotor is bolted to brake
flange Brake flange is constrained by brake sleeve which is connected with splines to
torsen differential housing.
The axles have Tripod joints whose housing is custom designed and manufactured.
Suspension Report

Tires chosen are Hoosier R25B 13in tires because of following reasons :
1. Rim diameter being 13in which will allow easy packaging of brake components,
upright and hub.
2. Availability of tire data on FSAE TTC.
Basic Decisions

Unequal length a-arm type of suspension design has been chosen, because of the ease
with which kinematics of the design can be studied and changed. It allows ease of
fabrication, easy calculation of forces and corresponding analysis.
The major setback in the design process is the unavailability of tire data due to lack of
funds. However, the best possible option for getting a ballpark value for a number of
parameters is to use the available data for another 13in tire, i.e. Michelin FSAE tires.
A MATLAB simulation has been programmed to study the effect of various front and rear
slip angles on a vehicle in steady state cornering, for provided roll center heights, wheel
base and track widths. It has been used in deciding track widths, calculating jacking
force, deciding roll center heights and in general seeing the balance of car for different
slip angles.
Deciding camber angle based on pattern given by Michelin data
The lateral force generated by the outside laden tire in a corner is considered to be
the primary factor. In the below shown figures, values of lateral force for different
vertical loads is shown, corresponding to negative slip angles from 0 to -5 deg.
Following are the curves of lateral vs. normal force for various slip angles, at
various camber angles:
Tire pressure = 1.1 Mpa
Abscissa: Fy, Ordinate: Fz

Camber0

Camber-1

Camber-2

Camber-3

Camber-4

Camber-5

Observations:
The lateral force (Fy) for various vertical loads (Fz) is falling on decreasing camber
angles beyond 0 deg. The decrease is more pronounced for larger slip angles than for
smaller sip angles. The difference in lateral force values for camber 0 and -1 deg is
considerably less, than it is for further angles.
Inference:
The necessary force is easily available for all the camber angles. But the value for
lateral force is max for camber angle = 0deg and it decreases thereafter.
Result:
It can be seen that the maximum lateral force value occurs at slightly negative camber
angle. So, the camber has been chosen to be -1.5 deg. This ensures the camber angle
remains at 0 or slightly lesser throughout suspension travel. This negative value is
meant to account for the positive camber gain of outside tire during roll and bump,
although in the front, it will be tried to be compensated through the negative camber

change during steering due to positive castor angle. Provision for camber change will
be there.

Caster angle:
The caster angle is decided based on following considerations:
1. Desirable mechanical trail so as to provide sufficient feedback to the
driver.
2. Will be kept slightly positive to provide self-aligning moment.
3. It will be tried to offset the positive camber change due to roll through the
camber change during steering.

KPI A positive value of KPI causes positive camber change during roll. So a slightly
positive value will be chosen during iteration on any desired software. The value cant
be very large as that might result in untolerable jacking during steering.

Mechanical trail The range of desirable values was decided through steering
considerations, which could provide just sufficient feedback to driver. Also, the value for
trail will be kept sufficiently small so that there might be greater contribution of
pneumatic trail in aligning torque. The pneumatic trail decreases with increasing slip
angle, thus, giving indications to the driver of breaking grip.
Virtual swing arm length and instantaneous center The VSAL will be kept large enough
to minimize camber change during roll. The height of IC from the ground will be small
enough to minimize vertical component of jacking forces.

Top and bottom wishbone lengths Deciding the top and bottom wishbone lengths and
inclination is a compromise in terms of camber change and roll center migration, with
dive and roll, as is discussed in detail by Smith(p.54). No geometry can give the best
results, thus a compromise will be chosen.
Track width
A min of 40 in track is assumed to be required for packaging all the components
(template rule in front and differential in rear) along with giving ample space for aarms designing.
Checking for 40 in track width:
Total mass of vehicle = 240 kg
Assuming 40:60 weight distribution, weight of either front wheel = 470 N
Weight on either rear wheel = 707.2 N
RCH front (zf ) = -2.5 in
[justification for RC heights given later]
RCH rear (zr) = -0.5 in
Assuming roll stiffness to be equal in front and rear; and equal to 250 Nm/deg
Then the weight transfer on front shouldnt exceed 470 N, while that on rear
shouldnt exceed 707.2 N

Weight transfer on front = ((la*240)/t f)*((0.4*zf)+(kf*(.254(0.6*z r)

+(0.4*zf))/(kf+kr)))
Where, la = acc. to be tested during tilt test = 1.7 g
Tf=front track
zf=frnt RCH
zr=rear RCH
kf=front roll stiffness
kr=rear roll stiffness
Therefore, weight transfer on front= 365.2263 N
Similarly, weight transfer on rear = ((la*240)/tr)*((0.6*zr)+(kr*(.254- (0.6*zr)
+(0.4*zf))/(kf+kr)))
= 435.2697 N
So, both the values are well under limits
Now, the narrowest possible track width is desired to be selected because:
1.) It lowers yaw moment of inertia contribution by unsprung mass for given
wheelbase.
2.) It allows more room to the driver during any corner as he gets more space.
3.) It is especially helpful during slalom course; because narrower is the car lesser
the car has to be steered.
Also, it has been decided that the front track will be kept slightly larger than rear. The
reason being the curve to be traced by rear has slightly smaller radius than front. So,
larger front track will ensure that the car does not fall out of track just due to the rear
portion.
Then, various values of track were used in the matlab simulation to get a slightly
positive over steering yaw moment, because in the steady state being analyzed by
the model, a slight over steer will help the driver to turn sharply for rest of the part of
corner. However the value should not be very large. So, the values of track from 4050in, with rear being narrower were tested and 46in for front and 44 in for rear was
worked out. Although other track dimension also gave satisfactory results, these
values were chosen as they would allow ample space for designing suspension
geometry.
Front track = 46 in
Rear track = 44in

Roll center analysis and justification:

Above ground or below ground:
Roll center away from ground are known to produce jacking forces. So, to analyze
effects of jacking forces, following calculations were done.
Jacking force calculations:

Above picture shows an example case where the lateral force on roll center (above
the ground at 1in) is reacted by the forces from tire contact patches. It shows a right
turn, so F1 represents the force from laden wheel while F2 from the unladen one.
The horizontal components of these forces add up to give the lateral force, while the
vertical ones result in jacking forces.
Now, = = atan (2RCH/t) [can be seen from the figure]
So, if A is the lateral force then,
(F1+F2) cos () = A
And, jacking force = (F1-F2) sin ()
Now, using an example case using the data from matlab simulation for front slip
angles =2(assuming 0% Ackermann)
Rear slip angles = 0.5
F1 cos()= 841.1840 N
F2 cos( )= 366.5166 [for front]
Now, = atan(2RCH/t) = atan(2*1/46) = 2.489 deg
F1= 841.978 N
F2= 365.861 N
Jacking force = (841.978-365.861) sin (2.489) N
= 20.6765 N
Again, taking the case when RCH has increased to 2in for the same geometry
= 4.969
F1=844.3573
F2=367.899
Jacking force = 41.269 N
Considering ride stiffness = 45000N/m
The
deflection
in
sprung
mass
due
to
jacking
(RCH=1in)
=
(20.6765/45000)m=0.4594mm
The deflection in sprung mass due to jacking (when RCH changes from 1in to 2in)
= (41.269-20.6765/45000)m=0.4576mm

AS we can see, the jacking forces produce practically 0 defection and thus no
change in CG height, so in further considerations, jacking forces will not be
considered.

Keeping RC above the ground ladens the outside wheel instantaneously

through geometric weight transfer, while its the opposite in case where RC is
below ground, where inner wheels are laden first. Then, finally the outer
wheels are laden when body roll takes place with time. However this is not
expected to create any significant changes in handling or driver feel.
When RC is kept above the ground, as the body rolls during cornering, IC for
laden wheel shifts down while that for unladen wheel goes up. The kinematic
roll center no longer remains useful as both the tire contribute unequal
amount of forces. Since most of the cornering forces are produced by outside
wheel, so the roll center height effectively goes down. This causes roll
stiffness to decrease progressively during a roll while cornering. While the
opposite is true when RC is below ground. This causes roll stiffness to
increase with roll as effective RC moves up. Thus, RC is chosen to be below
the ground. However a low point is comparatively lesser roll stiffness. Also,
although a negative RC can be produced by a positive as well as negative
swing arm length, but only in case of positive swing arm length, the IC of
laden wheel will rise, leading to increasing height of effective roll center.
Thus, producing increasing roll stiffness.
Rear RC will be higher than front RC in an attempt to keep roll-axis parallel to
mass inertia axis. This will cause linear roll generation and the roll moment
will be equal from front to rear. Also it causes roll under steer, while the
opposite causes roll over steer, which is not desirable.
During pitching, roll center heights in front and rear should be kept the same
as it gives a stable feedback to the driver. On the other hand, a migrating roll
axis gives confusing feedback. So, roll center migration will be kept to a
minimum.
Keeping above points in mind, for the decided track and wheelbases, effects
of various roll center heights on balance has been observed using the matlab
simulation, and RCH = -2.5 in for front and -0.5 in for rear has been chosen.
During cornering, the motion of front and rear roll centers will be tried to be
kept similar, within the constraints.
So, using above considerations, suspension geometry has to be decided.
The effects of various inputs on various kinematic variables can be studied
through following methods:
1. Graphical analysis
2. Computational analysis
3. Using suitable kinematic software
The 3rd method was chosen due to ease with which the geometry could
be changed to study the corresponding effects. Software used was Suspension
Analyzer v2.4.
Anti- consideration

The front and rear heave motions were calculated to be under 1in under
braking/acceleration. Anti-geometry is used to decrease squat/lift, whatever is
applicable, by dividing the spring force into force through suspension arms. This might
be useful when the pitching deflections are large, however, for such small deflections,
considering anti geometry will add to complexity along with deadening the feel to driver.
It also increases tire compliance, and might be leading to unexpected behavior.
Although, due to lesser front ride stiffness, very small anti squat could have been
considered, but it would add to difficulty in chassis manufacture with negligible gains. In
rear, if only upper points were varied, pro geometry is achieved which is not desirable.

The suspension geometry decided :

Front:

Specifications:
RC height
Camber gain
RC height change (bump)
RC height change (rebound)
Ground clearance (with no ARB)
Track
Rear

-2.57 in
0.499 deg/deg of roll
1.021in/in
1.1 in/in
3.8in
46 in

Specifications:
RC height
Camber gain
RC height change (bump)
RC height change (rebound)
Ground clearance
Track

-1.2 in
0.665 deg/deg of roll
0.537in/in
0.629 in/in
3.8in
44in

Ride and Roll rates calculation

Deciding ride frequencies:
The solution for frequencies of a vehicle involves formation of two equations, one for
pitching motion, and other for heave motion. However, we will be using an
oversimplified case,
Assuming (ry2/ab)=l
[ry=radius of gyration about transverse axis through CG, l=wheelbase, a and b=
distance of CG from front and rear wheel centerline respect.].
Then, the corresponding solution gives the frequencies at front and rear wheel
centerlines itself, separating the front and rear heave motions. Although not exact, this
solution gives fair idea of stiffness and other properties, with very simple analysis. On

the other hand, the full solution does not give any further insight into the design, in spite
of making the calculations complex.
The rear frequency is kept higher than front due to following reasons:
1. A higher rear frequency helps in elimination of pitching motion upon hitting a
bump, by allowing rear end to catch up with the front.
2. Also, for a rear weight biased car, a larger rear frequency and ride stiffness are
desirable.
There is no magical number for ride frequencies, however 0.64-1.27 Hz (vertical) are
associated with resonance of thorax abdomen resonance, while a frequency greater
than 4 Hz is associated with harshness. So, value of frequency selected should be
between 1.27 Hz 4 Hz.
Also, selection of frequency value for a given mass dictates amount of wheel travel
available. A lower frequency value implies a softer suspension, and more wheel travel.
Keeping above points in mind, following values are decided:
Front ride frequency = 2.5 Hz
Rear ride frequency = 2.65 Hz
Calculations:
Front
Front ride frequency desired = 2.5 Hz
So, front ride rate desired (from single wheel) = 4() 2mf ff2
= 4()2 (48)(2.5)2 =11831.52 N/m = Kf
Tire rate for given load = 140143 N/m
Wheel rate = tire rate*ride rate/(tire rate-ride rate)
= 140143*11831.45/(140143-11831.45) N/m
=12922.49 N/m
Wheel rate = spring rate (IR)2
For spring rate = 19267.42 N/m
IR = 0.8189
MR = 1/IR = 1.221
Roll rate = (()(tf2)Kf)/360 = 140.87 Nm/deg
[tf=46in]
Wheel travel due to static weight = 48*9.81/(12922.49) = 36.438 mm
Which is greater than minimum wheel travel required min rebound (=1in)
Sag developed in the spring = 29.84 mm
Free length of spring = 285mm
Rear
Rear ride frequency desired = 2.65 Hz
So, rear ride rate desired = 4()2mr fr2
=Kr
= 4()2(72)(2.65)2 N/m = 19949.84 N/m
Tire rate for given load = 141490.38 N/m

Wheel rate = tire rate*ride rate/(tire rate-ride rate)

= 140143*19949.84/(140143-19949.84)
= 23213.96 N/m
Wheel rate = spring rate (IR)2
For spring rate = 21733 N/m
So, IR = 1.0408
MR = 1/IR = 0.9607
Roll rate = (()(tr2)Kr)/360 = 242.53 Nm/deg
[tr=44in]
Wheel travel due to static weight = 72*9.81/(23213.96) = 30.4265 mm
Which is greater than minimum wheel travel required in rebound (=1in)
Sag developed in the spring = 31.67 mm
Free length of spring = 320mm
Front roll rate is appreciably less so ARB has to be used in the front, else significant
over steer will occur during cornering due to more weight transfer in rear. Also, ARB will
be a very effective tool during testing of the car.
Roll gradient calculations:
Assuming unsprung mass = 35kg, sprung mass = 240kg-35kg = 205kg
Moment generated = ma*(CG to RC)
= 205*9.81*12.221*0.0254 N/m (a=1g, CG to RC = 12.221in)
= 624.256 Nm
Roll gradient without ARB = Moment generated/(K f+Kr)
= 624.256/(140.87+242.53) deg/g
= 1.628 deg/g
Front roll stiffness will be increased by ARB upto 65Nm/deg (tunable).
ARB calculations:
ARB Motion ratio in starting condition (M) =3.2 (approx.)

T =GJ (M )/ L ,
G = shear modulus of MS = 76 GPa
J = (3.14 d4)/32 m4

= 1 deg = 0.0174444 rad

M = 3.2

L = 350 mm
T = 45 Nm
Putting the values in the formula we get:
Or, d = 2r =14 mm (approx.)
New roll gradient = 624.256/(45+140.87+242.53)
= 1.46 deg/g
Check:
Assuming max twist = 5 deg
The max shear stress = G r/L
= 132 MPa
Which gives FOS = 180/132 =1.36
Dimensions of pushrod, ARB and rocker arm (FRONT)
Pushrod:
For a wheel travel of 1.5 in, compression in spring = 285-223.774 mm = 64.35 mm
Spring force = kx = 19267.42*0.061226 N
= 1289.85 N
Balancing moments about the chassis pivot,
Force in pushrod = 1460.004 N
ARB:
For max ARB twist = 5 deg,
Torque generated = 70.3125 Nm
Force in ARB arm = 70.3125/ (1.998*0.0254)N
= 1385.5 N
It has been assumed that this force remains in plane with rocker arm plane.
The shape of rocker arm has been optimized considering the hypothetical case of
maximum roll +heave, where the rocker arm will be experiencing the maximum forces
due to the spring and the arb-arm.
The corresponding force in pushrod = 3007.33 N

Dimensions of Pushrod
Inner Diameter of pushrod = 15 mm
Outer diameter of pushrod= 18mm
Dimensions of Arb
Diameter of arb arm = 14 mm
[The diameters have been checked for buckling]

Dimensions of pushrod, ARB and rocker arm (REAR)

ADJUSTMENT OF ANGLES:
For the front suspension, emphasis was put on independence and decoupling, since
adjustment is needed in the suspension for factors such as camber, caster and toe. The
method of adjustment is typically contained within the connection between various
components, i.e. Heim joints on the ends of control arms to adjust camber. The
important factor to remember here though is that depending on how the adjustment
method is designed, it may end up changing more than one suspension parameter
when adjusted. In Figure 7, a control arm design that uses Heim joints on the ends of
the control arms to adjust both caster and camber.

The
problem here is that it adjusts both at the same time, while also putting stress on the
control arm members during adjustment. This is a coupled design since multiple
functional requirements are controlled by one design parameter.
CAMBER ADJUSTMENT:
Adjustment for camber is controlled by a one piece offset plate. Two of these are
incorporated into each upper control arm pickup. By changing the location of the hole in
the plate, the distance the upper control arm pivots from the chassis can be adjusted, in
turn adjusting camber. Although this has a slight effect on roll center location and
migration.
Load Calculations
In order to determine appropriate dimensions and materials for components to be used,
we first needed to determine the forces they would be loaded under. Milliken's Race Car
Vehicle Dynamics book contains both equations and methods to aid in calculating these
loads. With this information, a MathCAD file was created allowing easy reference for
forces in the uprights, control arms, and pick-ups under braking, acceleration and
cornering. The scenarios used were 2g lateral and g longitudinal braking along with a
"worst case scenario" 3g bump where it was assumed that the entire vehicle was lifted

by one corner. This provided the information necessary to perform FEA of all
suspension components. Stresses and buckling loads could then be calculated.
WHEEL ASSEMBLY
CALCULATIONS FOR UPRIGHT

Assuming
Mass (m) = 300kg
Wheelbase (W) = 1575.42mm
tf

Front track width (

) =1168.86mm

tr
Rear track width ( ) = 1118.04mm
Centre of mass height=279.4mm
Worst Case Assumed For Design:
For front:
Braking=g
Lateral Acceleration=2g
Vertical Acceleration=3g
For Rear:
Braking=0
Lateral Acceleration=2g
Vertical Acceleration=3g

FOR FORNT UPRIGHT:

LONGITUDNAL WEIGHT TRANSFER:
N f (W ) ma( h) mg (0.4W )
mgh mg (0.4W )
W
N f 1697.4 N
Nf

FOR REAR:
N r (W) ma(h) mg(0.6 W)
N r (W ) mg (0.6W )
N r 1764 N

LATERAL WEIGHT TRANSFER:

N OF
=Normal on outer front tyre

N OR
=Normal on outer rear tyre
FOR FRONT:
N OF (t f ) N f (0.5t f ) ma(h)
N OF
N OF

N f (0.5t f )

Nf
g

(2 g )(h)

tf
N f (0.5t f ) 2hN f
tf

N OF 1660.18 N
Similarly,
FOR REAR:

NOR
=1763.93N
FORCES ON TYRE:

ON FRONT TYRE:

N OF
ax
g
1660.18
Fx
g
g
Fx

Fx 1660.18 N
N OF
ay
g
1660.18
Fy
2g
g
Fy

Fy 3320.36 N

N OF
az
g
1660.18
Fz
3g
g
Fz

Fz 4980.54 N
Similarly,
ON REAR TYRE:
Fx 0

N OR
ay
g
1763.93
Fy
2g
g
Fy

Fy 3527.86 N

N OR
az
g
1763.93
Fz
3g
g
Fz

Fz 5291.79 N
FORCES THROUGH BEARING ON UPRIGHT:
ON FRONT TYRE:
Fz 4.88
31 4.88
F1z 677.39 N

F1z

Fz 31
31 4.88
F2 z 4303.14 N

F2 z

Similarly,
F1x 225.79 N
F2 x 1434.88 N
F1 y 451.59 N
F2 y 0

ON REAR TYRE:
Fz 16
16 22
F1z 2228.12 N

F1z

Fz 22
22 16
F2 z 3063.66 N

F2 z

F1x 0 N
F2 x 0 N
F1 y 1485.41N
F2 y 0 N

THE UPRIGHT DESIGN:

The uprights were the most complex machined components on the car. While not ideal
from a machining standpoint, this allowed the uprights to be lightweight while still having
the strength necessary to take the loading on the front suspension. The inputs of
suspension pickup points were taken directly from suspension geometry. After this,
while considering the packaging inside the wheel selected, a basic design which
connected all the suspension points were connected to the wheel using bolts.
Aluminium 6061-T6 was selected as the material for the upright due to its higher
strength/ density ratio. Now, simulation of the loading conditions was done using
SOLIDWORKS. Mass was reduced by making circular holes in order to reduce mass
and promote good loading path.

Problem Definition
1. Need Statement
The brake system generates the necessary force to slow the car, both for racing and
for emergency situations. The system must be able to able to easily dissipate heat
and handle the energy dissipated by braking without compromising the safety or
performance of the car. A powerful and properly balanced brake system will allow the
driver to slow to necessary cornering speeds in shorter distances, and better use the
full capacity of the braking system.
Functional
Requirements
Below is a brief summary of the rules that will most affect the brake system design.
T7.1.3 The brake system must be capable of locking all four (4) wheels
during the brake test specified below.
T7.1.8 The brake pedal must be designed to withstand a force of 2000 N
without any failure of the brake system or pedal box. This may be tested by
pressing the pedal with the maximum force that can be exerted by any official
when seated normally.
Brake Test

T7.2.1 The brake system will be dynamically tested and must demonstrate
the capability of locking all four (4) wheels and stopping the vehicle in a
straight line at the end of an acceleration run specified by the brake
inspectors.
In complying with these rules, the brake system is need to be designed to stop the
car at a rate of up to 1.2gs, with a FoS of 2 in all components being manufactured.
Despite efforts to lower the FoS, the inability to accurately model heat transfer with
confidence and the importance of a reliable brake system forces the brake system is
be designed with extra redundancy to ensure driver safety.
Selection of Master Cylinder and calipers.
Various master cylinders of Wilwood,tilton ,Brembo and readily available maruti and
Honda master cylinders were taken into consideration. Final decision was taken on
following basis:
1. Keeping braking force not too high nor too low for driver as well as keeping bias
ratio close to 1.
2. Due to weight cost considerations, wilwood master cylinders having bore
diameter of 5/8 inches were selected.

Calculations:

Mass of car = 300 kg

Height of center of gravity from ground =10.42 inches=264.77mm.
Radius of tire = 0.533/2m=0.266 m.
Diameter of piston of TVS Fiero F2 caliper= 20.42 mm
Radius of front disc = 0.11m
During braking:T1 = 0
2N2l mg(0.4l) + mah = 0
N2 = 0.3mg mah/2l
T2 = 0

(1)

 2N1l mg(0.4l) mah = 0

N1 = 0.2mg + mah/2l

.(2)

How to limit value of maximum deceleration:

Fy = 0
2(N1 + N2) = mg
N1 = N2 = mg/2

..(3)

Also, 2(1N1 + 2N2) =ma

Assuming 1 = 2 =
2 (N1 + N2) = ma

For front calipers:

F*r-tNfR = I*a/r

For pure rolling

a = R*
=a/R = (1.2 * 9.81)/0.266
I=mR2a/R ( In worst case assuming whole mass as peripheral)
=mRa
=6 x 0.266 x 1.2 x 9.81
=17.22 N.m.
tNR= 1.2 x 860.63 x 0.266
= 251.82N.m
=(2*p*A)x2
Now,
reff= radius of disc (width of pad/2)
= 11.00cm (2.5/2)cm
= 9.75cm
On disc, caliper pads are present on both sides, so friction forces are acting from both
sides.
Therefore, Friction force on disc
=2(Nd)
=2( x 2pA)
Fondisc = 4**p*A
Therefore, 4pA x r = I + tNR
p = (17.22 +251.82)/4Areff
= 263.04/( x 4 x 3.404 x 10-04 x 9.75 10-2)
= (269.04 x 106)/( x 132.756)
= (2.02 x106)/ N/m2

 front = 0.4
Pfront = 5.066 x 106 N/m2
= 734.76 psi
Area of master cylinder = 1.9808 x 10-4 m2 (Bore dia= 5/8 inches)
Therefore, Force required
= p x Am.c
Ffront =752.8 N
For rear:

Total piston area = 2.4 sq inches

= 15.48 x 10-4 m2

Friction force = 2(Nd) [Since pads are on both sides]

= 2 pA

F*r - 2tNR = I
Here, I taken to be approx. double as that of single tyre on front tyre
2pAr = 2tNR + I
= 357.55 +30
= 387.55 N.m.
P = 388/2pAr
= 2.506 x 106 N/m2
F = 496.038 N

Therefore, total force on combined master cylinders=(752.8+496.0)N

=1248.8N
Taking mechanical advantage as 3.5, total maximum force required by driver to
put on pedal=1248.8/3.5=356.8N
Bias Ratio=752.8/496.0=1.52.

STEERING DESIGN REPORT

1. STEERING TYPE
Pitman arm type

 Rack and pinion type

Out of the two, RACK AND PINION is selected as it has following advantages:
i) Simple and light weight
ii) Less number of components
iii) Quick Response
iv) Low cost
v) No Slop or slack associated as with steering box pitman arm type system.

2. PARAMETERS IMPORTED
Front track width = 46 in
Rear track width = 44 in
Wheelbase = 62 in
Camber= -1.5 deg
KPI = 4.55 deg
CG height = 11 in
Caster angle= 4.55 deg
Scrub radius = 0.49 in
3. MAXIMUM STEER ANGLE
Minimum turn radius= 4.5 m
Minimum width of track = 3.5 m
Track width of car = 46 in
Wheelbase= 62 in
Taking minimum radius of the car as 3.5 m, and distance between rear axle and cg
considering 60-40 weight distribution on rear and front axle respectively = b=
2
62 24.8 in.=629.92mm
5

R R12 b 2

Thus, radius about cg =

L
t
R

tan i 2
140

62
46

tan i 2

i 27.9
Now,

35002 629.922
3556.23mm=140in.

1
1
L

tan o tan i t

Also,

o 17.2

17
Thus turning angle at outer wheel at hairpin turn is approx.
and that at inner
28
wheel is approx.
.
But after calculating the maximum steerable angle in Solidworks, it was found out
24.5
that after wheel rotation of
, the wheel hits the lower wishbone. Therefore, it was
decided to use a steering geometry as close to parallel Ackerman as possible to get
maximum lateral force due to weight transfer on outside tyres considering that the
obtained steerable angle is less than the required value.

4. STEERING RATIO
Considering that driver does not need to move his hands considerably during the
entire course and maximum turning angle is 24 deg, steering ratio was decided
as 4:1.
This way driver does not need to move the steering wheel more than approx. 96
deg for the worst case, thus providing efficient turning situation during Autocross.

5. WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION DURING CORNERING

Mass of car with driver = 300 kg
Considering moment equilibrium about inner wheel and three forces namely
cornering (centripetal) force, weight of car and reaction on tires to be acting on
the car:
t
Fo t ma cg mg
2
45
Fo 45 300 1.5 9.81 11 300 9.81
2
Fo 2550.6N=260kgf
Thus force on inner tire will be outer tire load subtracted from total load:
Fi 40kgf
Considering 60-40 weight transfer ratio on rear and front wheels respectively:
Fof 0.4 260 104kgf

Fif 0.4 40 10 kgf

For critical condition so that inner wheels lift off +the ground:
300 9.81 45 300 a 11 300 9.81 22.5

a 20m/s 2 2.04 g
Velocity at this much value of acceleration is:

v a r 20 3 7.74m/s 27.8kmph

Considering weight distribution, vehicle is safe only up to 27.8 kmph at turning

radius of 3 m. But as lateral acceleration of 2g is never achieved by tires, this
much speed is not attained at hairpin bends, the design is completely safe.

6. CASTER AND SCRUB

Caster was optimized at 4.55 deg using Susprog as this value provides optimum
camber change and body roll during roll. Moreover, adequate value of selfcentering effect is obtained, as calculated below, without putting too much
pressure on steering wheel.
Scrub was taken as 1.24 cm because it imposes a further moment of 10 N-m on
kingpin, as calculated below, with coefficient of friction of tires taken as 1 when
wheel starts slipping due to longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle. This length
cannot be more than this for it will require greater steering force and this much
value is required for adequate road feedback for the driver. Moreover this value
was also obtained from iterations using Susprog, at required kingpin inclination.
7. STEERING TORQUE ABOUT KINGPIN
Due to vertical force:
M V Fzl Fzr d sin sin Fzl Fzr d sin sin
104 10 9.81 0.0124 sin 4.55 sin 33

104 10 9.81 0.0124 sin 4.55 sin 33

0.599 0.494
0.104N-m

Due to lateral force:

M L Fyl Fyr r tan
10 104 1.5 9.81

10.5 2.54
tan 4.55
100

35.6N-m
Due to tractive force, taking rolling resistance coefficient as 0.03:

M T Fxl Fxr d

0.03 104 10 9.81 0.0124

0.34N-m

8. MOMENT DUE TO LONGITUDINAL SLIP OF TIRES

Taking coefficient of friction as 1, moment due to tractive force is:
M T Fxl Fxr d
1 104 10 9.81 0.0124
11.43N-m

Thus total torque at kingpin during cornering =

47.27N-m

9. STEERING RACK
The rack length was determined using bump steer geometry and the vertical
position was determined as per the mounting constraints on chassis. Thus it was
5 in.
decided to keep the steering rack
from the ground and rack length was
19.8in.
found out to be
at the aforesaid height.
Further, the movement of steering rack was analyzed using OptimumK and it was
found that the rack moves 1.111 in (28.2 mm), for the full rotation of wheels.

10. PINION GEAR

Face width = 25 mm
Module = 1.5
Pressure angle = 20 deg
No of teeth = 23
Involute teeth profile
Material = Tempered high carbon steel
23 1.5 34.5mm
Diameter =
(Thus actual rack displacement obtained with this pinion configuration is 28.9 mm
96
for
of pinion rotation)
11. STEERING ARM

Steering arm geometry was first found out by iterating in Solidworks at desired
Ackerman configuration and then was optimized using OptimumK to get a
decreasing Ackerman progression at maximum possible steerable angle. Finally
23
it was decided to have the steering arm 85.6 mm long at an angle of
from the
lateral vertical plane.

12. STEERING EFFORT

Steering wheel radius = 5 in
F steering wheeldiameter
cos 5.66 cos12.7 cos 23 steeringarm M
pinionradius
F 10 25.4
cos 5.66 cos12.7 cos 23 85.6 10 3 47.27
17.25
F 83.46N=8.5kgf
Thus the force exerted by the driver with each hand is 4.25 kgf which is
within attainable limits.

13. TORQUE AT GEARS

Torque transmitted by gears =
F steering wheel radius 83.46 5 2.54 102 10.59N-m

Torque at gear
10.59

613.9N
pinion radius
0.01725

Lateral force on rack =

Force on tie rod =

613.9 cos 5.66 cos12.7 595.9N

DESIGN OF CHASSIS
Objective: To make chassis stiff enough so that it does not affect the suspension
performance during cornering, hard braking and acceleration and at the same time
should have minimum weight. Driver ergonomics and safety were foremost priorities in
the design.
The chassis is triangulated node to node, especially at the mounting points to provide

optimum strength and rigidity. The weight of the chassis for 2014 car is 37 kg, taking
AISI 4130 round tubes as the material to be used as ratings for AISI 4130 steel as 3 and
AISI 1020 steel as 2.04 were inferred on comparison of ultimate tensile strength, yield
strength and density.
Design procedures followed
Preliminary sketches of chassis design were prepared on paper and then modelled in
Solidworks 2013, in accordance with the rules specified in the rule book. A PVC 1:1
prototype was then fabricated to ensure proper driver ergonomics, positioning of mounts
and brackets and auxiliary equipment.
FEA OF CHASSIS
Test for torsional rigidity:
The chassis model was constrained at the rear and a moment was applied by loading
front suspension pickup points by 1000 N on either end. The rigidity was then calculated
based on the obtained twist and was found to be 2285.9 Nm/Degree. This stiffness
value is approximately more than four times the sum of front and rear roll stiffness value
of the suspension which ensures that the chassis is stiff enough not to affect the
suspension performance.

Test

for

frontal

impact:

For frontal impact

case
using
deformation energy and considering maximum speed of vehicle at the impact, u 1=
14m/sec and crash time t of the order of 100ms. F=13650 N when this force was
applied in frontal impact condition the maximum stress obtained was 29.893 MPa which
was well under limits and the deflection was 15.8 mm which is under acceptable limits.

Side impact test

A force of 7kN was applied on the side impact structure connecting the front and the
main hoop. The deformation of cockpit was to be kept at minimum and the maximum
deflection obtained was 2.96 mm which does not deform the cockpit appreciably and is
safe from the point of view of drivers protection.