You are on page 1of 9

Design De-Brief Notes Silverstone July 2009

An enjoyable event and I think everyone came away having learned something, even the
Judges! The Design part is separate from the track times: it should be as they are different mainly
in that the design part does not assess the biggest variable of all, the driver.

I apologise if this is a little unstructured: I have laid out the pertinent Rules, summarised a
number of common areas of concern which were seen, provided some information on how I would
consider structuring the Report and finally offered some future observations that may provoke
some more radical thoughts amongst the more experienced teams out there.

Read the Rules

I make no apologies for repeating a few things that have been heard time and time again. The
reason for doing so is that you may hear it but you need to then act on it. This is primarily an
educational exercise where hopefully we all learn something. It is dressed up for some reason as
motorsport but we want to help you to be better engineers (and keep an eye on costs too).

You need to not only read the Rules but to understand their intent. Deadlines exist for a
reason; why on earth wait until the last 10 minutes after a whole 12 months?

You may have noticed an added emphasis this year in the Design Judging on cost and
manufacturability. It is worth me printing the actual FS/FSAE objectives directly:

1.2 Vehicle Design Objectives

For the purpose of the Formula SAE competition, teams are to assume that they work for a design
firm that is designing, fabricating, testing and demonstrating a prototype vehicle for the non-
professional, weekend, competition racer market.

1.2.1 The vehicle should have very high performance in terms of acceleration, braking and
handling and be sufficiently durable to successfully complete all the events described in the
Formula SAE Rules and held at the Formula SAE competitions.

1.2.2 The vehicle must accommodate drivers whose stature ranges from 5th percentile female to
95th percentile male and must satisfy the requirements of the Formula SAE Rules.

1.2.3 Additional design factors to be considered include: aesthetics, cost, ergonomics,


maintainability, manufacturability, and reliability.

1.2.4 Once the vehicle has been completed and tested, your design firm will attempt to sell the
design to a corporation that is considering the production of a competition vehicle. The challenge
to the design team is to develop a prototype car that best meets the FSAE vehicle design goals
and which can be profitably marketed.

1.2.5 Each design will be judged and evaluated against other competing designs to determine the
best overall car.

1.3 Good Engineering Practices

Vehicles entered into Formula SAE competitions are expected to be designed and fabricated in
accordance with good engineering practices.

5.2 Responsibilities

Page | 1
Faculty Advisors may advise their teams on general engineering and engineering project
management theory.

5.3 Limitations

Faculty Advisors may not design any part of the vehicle nor directly participate in the development
of any documentation or presentation.

Additionally, Faculty Advisors may not fabricate nor assemble any components nor assist in the
preparation, maintenance, testing or operation of the vehicle.

In Brief Faculty Advisors may not design, build or repair any part of the car.

ARTICLE 6: VEHICLE ELGIBILITY

6.1 Student Developed Vehicle

Vehicles entered into Formula SAE competitions must be conceived, designed, fabricated and
maintained by the student team members without direct involvement from professional engineers,
automotive engineers, racers, machinists or related professionals.

6.2 Information Sources

The student team may use any literature or knowledge related to car design and information from
professionals or from academics as long as the information is given as a discussion of alternatives
with their pros and cons.

6.3 Professional Assistance

Professionals may not make design decisions or drawings and the Faculty Advisor may be required
to sign a statement of compliance with this restriction.

6.4 Student Fabrication

It is the intent of the SAE Collegiate Design Series competitions to provide direct hands-on
experience to the students. Therefore, students should perform all fabrication tasks whenever
possible.

ARTICLE 5: DESIGN EVENT

5.1.1 The concept of the design event is to evaluate the engineering effort that went into the
design of the car and how the engineering meets the intent of the market.

5.1.2 The car that illustrates the best use of engineering to meet the design goals and the best
understanding of the design by the team members will win the design event.

5.10 Design Event Vehicle Condition

5.10.1 Cars must be presented for design judging in finished condition, i.e. fully assembled,
complete and ready-to-run.

5.11 Judging Criteria

5.11.1 The design judges will evaluate the engineering effort based upon the teams Design
Report, Spec Sheet, responses to questions and an inspection of the car.

5.11.2 The design judges will inspect the car to determine if the design concepts are adequate
and appropriate for the application (relative to the objectives set forth in the rules).
Page | 2
5.11.3 It is the responsibility of the judges to deduct points on the design judging form, as given
in Appendix C-7, if the team cannot adequately explain the engineering and construction of the
car.

The new template rules should have been the biggest priority and so too should an eye on
cost under the new rules. Design responsibility naturally includes consideration of costs. Several
again failed to meet the time deadlines, some still simply submit their FSAE paperwork forgetting
this is not an identical event and several failed to complete their specification sheets. At the stage
these are demanded you should know which engine and what size tyres etc. but will be forgiven if
gearing and spring rates are not 100% finalised.

Some Common Observations

These were noticed more than once:

It is your responsibility to present your design to the Judges. The space available is
limited and so you dont need all of your team and your entire garage! I suggest 6 team
members is optimum and you can always call up a particular expert if required. However
whoever is in charge (of your students) should steer the discussion and should know
enough in overview. Not bringing the engine man will not help score you points.

The car must be finished as in ready to run. Presenting a car that is obviously
incomplete, e.g. no chain, no brake lines etc. will significantly influence the Judges
marking. Poor preparation is more a judgment of potential reliability. A complete car but
with odd wheel angles for example because it has yet to be aligned will be OK as long as
you can answer what the wheel alignment and geometry settings will be.

Toe control is still an issue: front and rear. I fear some of this has crept back in as a
result of the new rules, with some odd steering rack placements and track rod angles.
Short steering arms may allow for quick steering from a standard rack and pinion but
then all the forces at the outboard end are increased, everything gets floppy and things
wear quickly. Small rod ends may take the loads but they will wear quickly. Use high
quality joints and think about reliability from the outset. Drivers, and Judges, hate
friction and play in any controls.

Making the rear toe base look large when it actually isnt does not fool the Judges. A
200mm bracket attached to the upright on 80mm centres is no stiffer than the 80mm
base!

There were many examples where major loads simply had nowhere to go! This includes
rocker pivots halfway along unsupported tubes where no obvious attempt had been
made to increase their bending stiffness and generally they could have been easily
improved. Brackets that missed structural hard points by 20-30mm, again with no
obvious reasons as to why. Brackets usually need to be welded on the side of tubes and
not along their centres as this will be stiffer and longer lived. One of the major loads will
be from the diff supports and ideally these need to be reacted directly beck to whence
they came: the engine/gearbox sprocket area.

A lot of cars, despite the awkward placement of columns and racks due to the cockpit
rules had high quality steering feel: no friction and minimal play, at least when they
were judged. Well done to all those who achieved this.
Page | 3
Wheel attachments: I am not sure if at the most basic decision level whether a centre
lock wheelnut is fully appropriate for this event given the objectives. One team proved,
in the Design Final that it was fully justified; another team struggled to do so, especially
with regards to cost! It is these sorts of rational decisions that does not automatically
mean that the standard formula car approach is correct: for this event.

I am going to do something that I said I would never do: purely in your interests I am
going to outline how I would write the Design Report and then to outline conceptually the car. Be
aware that the latter is not aimed at new teams but rather at those slightly more experienced
universities that may be getting bored, have refined several solutions now and are getting
criticised for mere evolution.

The Report

We want to see:

WHAT, WHEN, HOW, WHY and HOW MUCH

Of these the WHY and HOW are most important, the HOW MUCH an influence. WHAT and

WHEN are descriptive things and in themselves convey little of your understanding.

WHAT:

Sets the ground for the detail to follow. Basically to summarise the challenge set by the Rules,
especially any new rules, any safety stuff and with an eye proportionally on the points to be
gained and the effort therefore to be expended.

WHEN:

A few words about timescales, planning, working backwards from the event, testing,
construction and design etc. Shows that you understand the importance of the relevant stages,
have some contingency built in. Also allows you to make big decisions early on and to cut your
cloth according to your resources.

HOW and WHY:

The main body of the text to be used to show you understand the competition objectives as
opposed to simply stating what you did (or worse, what you were going to do until you ran out of
time or money).

The Rules basically set questions that you need to answer in the Report. In reality there are no
correct answers, merely the best compromise that suits you. Therefore you need to demonstrate
why that compromise is best and how you came to that conclusion. To do this you need to show
all the possible options that could answer the question and then a logical method by which you
chose one. For example the Rules define an engine of no more than 610cc, begging the question
of which engine to use. Outline the possible choices and then set some parameters to score each
option and then make the informed choice. Past experience is a factor and if needed you can
allocate that a high weighting in your choice criteria. Weight, cost, what oil system it comes with,

Page | 4
gear ratios, how much work for ancillaries, i.e. self starter to be made etc. You then have reasons
to defend your choice. Simply stating the single cylinder is lighter has little merit on its own.

I would suggest that your Report should include the above style of choice discussion broken
down proportionally into the basic areas as indicated in the Score Sheet that the Judges fill in. For
sure there will be lots more and in 2500 words you have to be succinct to summarise adequately
the key points. Simply leaving out all the drawbacks to your chosen solutions is not enough, a
balanced discussion is required no matter how brilliant your final solutions. Almost every answer
will be the compromise that best fitted with your own individual requirements. Prioritise the
amount allocated to each area as per the scoring of the Score Sheet, although if you have
something brilliant then by all means expand upon this.

The introduction to your Report would open with any new rules or odd challenges that are
unexpected maybe. An outline of some specific targets that you developed after reading the Rules
and doing some background research would help (dont forget to include at the end whether these
were obtained, and if not why not). Specific targets would be 200kg, 50 bhp, 3.3 litres fuel in
endurance, acceleration in 4.3 secs, skidpad 5.3 secs, costs of 14,000, chassis stiffness 1500
Nm/deg, camber gain 1 deg per 20mm travel etc. (Note these are not recommendations, merely
numbers). Non-specific aims would be lower CG, best UK team, high power to weight etc..

Overall Vehicle Concept.

Outline the overall concept, including how the design matched your specific targets generally.
Remember the Rules, the customer, the expected volumes and the costs. You need to consider
the integration of the package (everything gets a fair share of effort) and how and why this was a
sensible approach: this is a dynamic event, with no wheel to wheel racing and limited crash
possibilities. Summarise what you wanted, what you can afford, what facilities you have and what
time you allowed and show how this was met in your solution.

The Rules set specific targets in themselves, cockpit templates, Impact Attenuator, noise, brake
test, tilt test with no leaks to name a few. These must be the first priorities. After that you are
looking at choice of structure, engine, tyres, suspension concept, electronics and brakes and
steering and maybe aerodynamics. Ergonomics, build ease and cost will be natural factors.

Please do not build a camel by committee: a leader is needed and I re-iterate that the Rules
are framed as they are for a good reason. A car built to meet several sets of rules is unlikely to be
competitive in any of them: RAC MSA rules are not aimed at 600cc cars, the SVA/IVA road
homologation is not aimed at race cars at all.

You need to explain how your approach was verified and tested: some areas require more than
others. Gaps between FEA results and real tests need some sort of reasoning. You should show
some rationale behind where the loads in the FEA simulation came from. Fatigue and safety
factors need to be considered as rarely will every detail be fully modelled. Ultra safety critical
items like brake calipers need exemplary research, reasoning and testing.

Build quality at the Report stage is difficult to explain in words, but a few images of beautifully
made parts does the job handsomely. Time is always short; a rushed build will not be a quality
build. A plan helps to achieve decent build quality and preparation is more an attitude than a
complicated skill. The report can convey these, along with simple attention to detail, e.g. use of
waterproof connectors etc.

Page | 5
Reliability is created from the outset with careful and considered thinking. Testing the finished
parts or vehicle is the key to proof of basic reliability. Show some test results, even at part level.
A lack of proper photos in the Report is often an indication that nothing yet has been finished and
therefore perhaps not tested and therefore not reliable?

Weight is a key performance indicator and deserves constant attention. Set a target overall and
then break down for a mass budget for most obvious lumps. Weight and power will determine
overall performance to an extent and may also dictate costs of manufacture and reliability too.
When you set the original target and did not meet it at the end at least try and explain why this
became so. Safety may also be part of the discussion but remember the Rules and competition
intent: this is not Formula 1.

Driver Environment and Electrical.

Quite a few Rules driven issues to show consideration of here. This is customer focussed and
attention to detail counts. Basic ergonomics is part of the main structure design with control
systems a more detailed element. Adjustability is great but can create play and poor feel.
Stiffness of controls is also a priority, no-one appreciates a flexible pedal. Consider the way the
average customer will think, what they are used to, whether they will be able to see the small
cones defining a twisty course. Driver position and safety may be linked; the issue of an effective
firewall is very important.

Electrics may range from basic to mega sophisticated but attention to detail in layout and why
it is needed should be explained. If this is performance related show some proof, e.g. back to
back tests with shifter versus manual etc. or some simulation logic if very innovative and perhaps
unproven. If a student project for a lecturers pet subject then perhaps dont do it at all unless it
matches in with the overall vehicle concept. Unfinished systems, e.g. TC but decided not to run
it are statements that simply indicate ambition over reality and are not advised. Remember 20
per week production volumes.

Chassis Design & Development

Show choice of all these major parts, structure, brakes, steering, suspension and all of the
minor items like bearings and joints. What was considered, what was important, how and why
were things chosen? Then what was done. Bonded parts need tests and costs to be considered. All
suspension is a compromise, sometimes linked to engine choice, diff choice and steering
geometry. Aero is perhaps limited and covered in the Overall Concept.

You need to demonstrate here the basic fundamental grasp of many engineering concepts
including the structural aspects. Brake balance, traction, mass distribution, steering geometry and
feel, dampers, springs, tyres and the driver. Chassis, suspension and driveline parts all have great
structural requirements. Material choice, production methods and heat treatments/joining
methods are all to be considered. Tolerancing and assembly methods need careful thought.
Tighter tolerances usually means more money.

Independent suspension is not necessarily best, a carbon tub is not always better than a steel
frame, carbon wheels/driveshaft/wishbones are not automatically superior to metal ones etc.

Page | 6
Powertrain

Please list the options available to meet the Rules, then set out what factors were used to
decide and how importantly weighted they were. Then you will get an answer. The Rules define a
number of targets, e.g. capacity, noise, cooling and self starting (heat soak), gearing (course is
defined), serviceability (Scrutineering inspections), economy and the restrictor. Remember 20 per
week target too. Costs and reliability may mean that limited dismantling (as in taking apart
engines to modify them) is a good thing; you need reliable driveable power and sensible economy
not measured peak numbers. Before and after tests for any modifications are a good thing.
Simulations are great but for best marks show comparison with real tests.

The transmission is usually inherited as part of the engine choice and should therefore be a
factor in its determination above. Gearing, and choice of diff both need reasoned argument. This
may also link to brake and steering geometry discussion. Material choice and chain tensioning are
also to be covered.

Practical Aspects

Eventually 20 per week are envisaged. Design for manufacture is therefore imperative and is
tricky to learn in a purely virtual world: just because you can model something does not mean you
can make it, especially for a profit! Really this is also cost to manufacture, and whilst formally
evaluate elsewhere it often becomes apparent from the Report. Sometimes a material choice will
dictate a manufacturing method and often the costs too. A carbon moulded tub often means the
need for an autoclave and also for carbon tooling. You need to explain all of this.

A Handbook would be a nice touch given the intended market: a simple leaflet with the basic
fluid types, capacities, procedures, service intervals, torque settings etc. which as you already
know these would be simple to consolidate to show at the Event. Add in some suspension settings
and also sensitivities and this would be a worthwhile publication. A simple checklist and service
sheet would be nice. Be aware that adjustability is great (usually) but too much can confuse the
amateur. Also many adjustable things are less stiff, more expensive and heavier than they could
be. As an example have a look at the kart Owners Manual at arrowkart.com

Applied Engineering Science

This is really where students should be better than us old guys. Show the overall approach by
which things went from idea to drawing to component to assembly to car. Include the logic, the
programmes, the simulations or calculations and the tests and validations. Indicate where loads
are real known ones or estimates. Explain the limitations or accuracies of any modelling. Did the
car end up assembling as you thought? Is any innovation genuine and real, or possibly just a
gimmick? Does it add value? Outline how your team shared their information and ideas and how
this can be passed down next year.

Deductions

Judges have always been instructed to penalise student teams at the event if they suspect a
lack of knowledge or an excess of carryover from a previous era. These are really part of the same
thing and judges do get an intuitive feel for when they feel something is not quite fully
understood. The Report can suffer the same instinctive feeling when it comes across as not quite
an original piece of work! However the carryover of successful proven concepts is ultimately
inevitable: if doing so it is best to make this clear and with excellent reasoning why and how the
Page | 7
new and the old differ, even if only in the detail. Please do remember that we do have all the old
Reports as well. Of note this is only likely to drop your Report Score if you display a serious lack of
fundamental knowledge, if we feel that you have not even read the Rules let alone understood
them, or if the Report is a complete cut & paste job. You have been warned.

Conclusion

To finish you need a couple of sentences that sum up whether your objectives set in the
Introduction were met and if not explain why not. Remember to state the word count too.

Summary

The team and the car are both assessed; the first thing to be assessed is the Report and for
both this and to score well at the event you need understanding of the Rules and all the
challenges set by the Rules. You need to plan time and costs carefully and to arrive at the event
with a tested design in order to have proven reliability. To do this requires that you be logical and
organised. You need to start on this now.

As mentioned just above things can get a little samey after a while, especially if you have
produced several successful and applauded designs. So where to next I hear you cry?

A Design Concept Thought?

This is not what you must do, nor what you can or will get maximum points for. Rather it is
intended to offer a few hints as to what those of you who are getting bored should perhaps
consider as a slightly different interpretation of the basic challenges set by the Rules.

The new template Rules and the new Cost analysis have, I think, prompted me to consider
what is actually important. However given the balance of points awarded I may be overly biased:
reliability is always going to be the key priority overall and nobody likes something adventurous
but untested.

For those that can see ahead of that and keep to time etc. (i.e. perhaps not new teams!) then I
offer a few, hopefully logical, pointers. I am not claiming this to be totally original thought as
some American teams have already considered some of this.

The new template and cost rules seem to me to further require consideration of overall weight,
parts count and assembly time. The middle part of the car is bigger and heavier and to neck it
back down around the engine for the rear suspension is more difficult. The cost of a carbon tub to
do that and to maintain and build is perhaps prohibitive within the spirit of the competition (FSAE
Rules 1.2.). it may also be difficult to service. The more parts you have the more, generally, costs
are, especially with tolerances and assembly time being considered.

I am tempted to start thinking kart: I have no evidence but guess a 125cc gearbox kart
would be very cheap and very quick, albeit illegal. Despite their simplistic nature and small parts
count karts dynamically are very complex to analyse. Relative to their mass they have a large

Page | 8
amount of tyre and grip. They have no (obvious) geometrically simple-to-define suspension (no
links) but they have springing (tyre and frame) and little formal damping.

I am also suspecting that with a lightweight car getting enough mass forwards is an issue: I
may be wrong but with no real standing start benefits, i.e. ahead of the competition as in a race,
(except the acceleration event) I think a more forwards weight bias would help. Generally the
track is fairly smooth, there is no downforce and there are a lot of driver induced upsets, i.e. a
dynamic course with lots of steer, throttle and brake applications.

The rear suspension and drivetrain is an area with many parts, many of which need to be
bespoke and therefore designed, drawn, tested and paid for. A simple live axle, like a kart, with
no diff, no CV joints, single disc etc. would appear a cheap and lightweight solution to this, albeit
bringing some other challenges. Simple location could work well with the new wider cockpit, and
done correctly chain tension (if that was used) would not be a concern. To be kart like a no-roll
solution would maybe help with the solid axle problems and would alleviate any chain
misalignment. This can be achieved in tandem with the suspension travel rule (FSAE Rule 6.1.1.).
A no-roll live axle solution could ultimately, in theory, save on two suspension links, one damper,
one spring, the roll bar and associated operating drop links, the diff, chain tensioner mechanism,
four CV joints, two rear uprights, one disc and mounting bell, one caliper and pads, and one brake
hose.

The toe control and brake torque reaction would dictate the actual axle and location design but
it is all reasonably simple to deal with. Testing would be important, for reliability, component
longevity (lifing) and compliance at the wheel and drive chain. With no outboard upright/brake
packaging issues the rear wheels can be as small as possible. All of this reduces rear weight and
cost. Material choice (does not have to be metallic) and stiffness overall and assembly details
would be the biggest challenges.

Engine choice and driveline concept would be most interesting and I think there are a few fairly
obvious contenders. An engine located alongside the driver could be done, this may move mass
forwards, perhaps not far enough and keep a short wheelbase and possibly also allow for a simple
beam front axle as well although the need for steering limits some of the possible parts count
reductions and costs savings but may still be possible. It may even be feasible then to have a kart
style steering linkage and save a substantial amount of cost. A leading double wishbone affair
type suspension may be possible and ease the structure design conflicts?

Be aware that the detail of steering geometry, how much roll should be accommodated at the
front and how that interacts with overall chassis stiffness (contact patch to contact patch) would
be quite awkward. It may be that the actual frame stiffness becomes less an issue in a controlled
manner, again akin to the kart. The downside then is how to control or adjust it, especially if
undamped. So again we seek reasoned explanation as to your balance of compromises.

A simplified tub could then perhaps be shown to be cost effective or perhaps a simpler tube
frame may come out best after consideration and analysis of all options and factors.

Neill Anderson

Head Design Judge Formula Student 2009.

Page | 9

You might also like