0306419015624984

Original Article
International Journal of Mechanical

Engineering Education
Design, build, and test a 2016, Vol. 44(1) 56–93
ß The Author(s) 2016
formula student racing Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
car: An educational DOI: 10.1177/0306419015624984

ijj.sagepub.com
engineering exercise at
Philadelphia University
Munzer SY Ebaid, Shatha Ammoura and
Kutiaba JM Al-khishali
Abstract
This current project is carried out at Philadelphia University and describes the work
associated with the design, build, and test a Formula Student racing car in order to
compete at Formula Student competition at UK 2014. Following the Formula Society of
Automotive Engineers regulations 2014,1 this car must be a single seat car with an
engine displacement not exceeding 610 cc. It is important to recognize that the
design of a Formula Student racing car must involve the study of material structure,
aerodynamics, suspension dynamics, internal combustion engine, selection of materials,
and the requirements for manufacturing. All of these procedures must be followed to
reach an optimum design. The challenge to teams is to develop a vehicle that can
successfully compete in all the events (static and dynamic) described in the Formula
Society of Automotive Engineers rules. This project is considered as an educational,
practical, and training exercise on mechanical engineering principles for the undergradu-
ate and graduate students. Also, it is a high performance engineering project for engin-
eering students to acquire design concepts in automotive, engineering skills, and the
freedom to express their creativity and imaginations. Finally, this project will develop
experience, skills, and professionalism as ‘hands on engineers’, and hopefully to enhance
automotive industry in Jordan.
Keywords
Formula student, component design, manufacturing, hands on engineer, Automotive
industry
Philadelphia University-Jordan, Amman, Jordan

Corresponding author:
Munzer SY Ebaid, Philadelphia University-Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Email: mebaid2@philadelphia.edu.jo
Ebaid et al. 57
Formula student racing car

Introduction
Formula Student or Formula SAE (FSAE) is a worldwide university competition,
organized by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), which encourages uni-
versity teams to design, build, and compete with a Formula-style race car. FSAE is
a collegiate design competition where groups of students design, build, and race
their own open wheel race cars. Since its beginnings in the USA in 1981, this FSAE
competition has spread to Europe, Asia, South America, and Australia, with sev-
eral hundred international teams racing every year in a number of competitions
held worldwide. FSAE is a high performance engineering project which is valued
by universities as a part of degree-level project; it meets the motorsport industry
standards for engineering graduates and its mission is to encourage young people
to take up a career in engineering.
FSAE overview and competition

FSAE competition objective. The FSAE series competitions challenge teams of
university undergraduate and graduate students to conceive, design, fabricate,
develop, and compete with small, formula style, vehicles, and to give teams the
maximum design flexibility and the freedom to express their creativity and imagin-
ations. There are very few restrictions on the overall vehicle design. The challenge
to teams is to develop a vehicle that can successfully compete in all the events
described in the FSAE rules. The competitions themselves give teams the chance
to demonstrate and prove both their creativity and their engineering skills in com-
parison to teams from other universities around the world.
Vehicle design objectives. For the purpose of the FSAE 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, compe-
tition market. The vehicle should have very high performance in terms of acceler-
ation, braking, and handling, and be sufficiently durable to successfully complete
all the events described in the FSAE rules and held at the FSAE competitions.
The vehicle must accommodate drivers whose stature ranges from 5th percent-
ile female to 95th percentile male and must satisfy the requirements of the
FSAE rules.
Additional design factors to be considered include aesthetics, cost, ergonomics,
maintainability, manufacturability, and reliability. Once the vehicle has been
completed and tested, the selected design firm will attempt to sell the design to a
corporation that is considering the production of a competition vehicle. The chal-
lenge to the design team is to develop a prototype car that best meets the FSAE
vehicle design goals, and which can be profitably marketed. Each design will be
judged and evaluated against other competing designs to determine the best overall
58 International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education 44(1)
Table 1. Car specifications related to FSAE 2014 regulations.
Car component Features
Engine Maximum capacity 610 cc

Four pistons and four-stroke engine
Natural spread
Chassis Steel pipes, minimum 1 in. diameter and 2 mm wall thickness
A front hoop requirement is to protect driver’s legs
A main hoop requirement is to protect driver’s head
There must be a clearance (2 in.) between the driver’s helmet and
the line between the front and main hoop
Suspension system Springs and dampers systems are required
Brake system Four disk brakes required
Two main oil cylinders must be fitted near to pedal box
Impact attenuator 20 cm 20 cm 10 cm box required in order that the bulkhead can
absorb the impact energy
Body Must be made of fibre glass
Steering system Up to team choice; kingpin and Ackerman angles
Ergonomic Driver seat must fit 95% male and 5% female
Wheels Wheels should be a minimum of 203.2 mm (8.0 in.) in diameter
Minimum wheelbase must be 1525 mm, and minimum track width
no less than 75% of the larger track
car. Vehicles entered into FSAE competitions are expected to be designed and
fabricated in accordance with good engineering practices.
Judging categories. The cars are judged in a series of static and dynamic events
including technical inspection, cost, presentation, and engineering design, solo per-
formance trials, and high performance track endurance.
FSAE CAR
FSAE is held annually in the UK. It is run by the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers and uses the same rules as the original FSAE with supplementary regu-
lations. To participate in the competition, the vehicles must comply with the
FSAE’s strict rules and regulations as shown in Table 1. The teams are awarded
points for eight different events, and the team with the highest cumulative total
wins. There are three ‘static events’ (cost, presentation, design) where teams are
judged on their design justification, presentation and costing skills, and five
dynamic events (acceleration, skid pan, autocross, fuel economy, endurance),
which test the performance of the car and student drivers on-track.
Ebaid et al. 59
Aims of project
. To design, build, and test the first high performance racing car at Philadelphia
University (PU) in Jordan.
. To compete with 114 different university teams from all over the globe, in static
and dynamic events, in the most important motorsport competition (Formula
Student 2014).
. To acquire high level of knowledge and experience in autotronics, aerodynam-
ics, and automotive engineering.
. To enhance experience in reverse and forward engineering.
. To exploit and make use of the low potential resources to get the best possible
results.
. To acquire engineering skills in design, manufacturing, and the ability to solve
problems.
Previous studies
Several studies related to FSAE car, main components, and performance have been
found in the open literature. Arvanitpoulos-darginis et al.2 carried out a study on
modelling and optimization of the FSAE car with the use of finite element method
and with the aid of software packages. They found that the use of good optimiza-
tion tool in several components led to a significant reduction of weight without
compromising in structural stiffness. Sapuan et al.3 presented a total design method
to develop a systematic route to design a car body and the design was carried out to
meet the rules and regulation of ‘Formula UTEM’ 2008 competition organized by
University Teknikal Malaysia (UTEM). The material selected in this car body
design was carbon fibre reinforced polymer composite. The performance and reli-
ability of the designed car body are considered by the means of engineering ana-
lysis, such as aerodynamic and stability.
For the engine, Marquenie4 described a modification on how the control variable
transmission is to be connected to the engine. Vass5 found that the new redesigned
cam profile improved not only the torque in the mid r/min range but also the max-
imum power too. This was caused by decreased loss of gas exchange and the higher
volumetric efficiency. Hamiton and Klang6 worked on developing a software tool to
help the design of FSAE brakes system. Suhaimi7 worked on the design and fabri-
cation of an upright with brake caliper mounting for formula race car.
For the chassis, Singh8 studied the structural (chassis) performance analysis of the
FSAE car and found that good design allows a light, stiff, and extremely safe design to
be produced at a reasonably manufacturing cost. Further work was done by
Kerkhoven9 on the design of a lightweight, high stiffness, and hybrid chassis consisting
of a carbon fibre reinforced composite combining structural, aesthetic, ergonomic and
crash properties, and a steel tubular rear space frame. Similar work carried out by
Kemna10 concluded that the whole chassis of the formula car should be made of a
carbon fibre instead of a hybrid. This will reduce the weight while increasing stiffness
(no transition between carbon and steel). In addition to, the problem with the posi-
tioning of systems due to side impact structure is also decreased. However, this means
that the mould needs to be redesigned and manufactured which takes time and money.
Gaffney and Salinas11 designed an FSAE suspension system. Other work on the
design of the suspension and steering geometry for the formula race car was carried
out by Theander,12 Popa,13 while Lim et al.14 work was restricted to the suspension
system only. Advanced work on the design of suspension system for formula race
car using carbon fibre was carried out by Cobi.15 Totu and Alexandru16 used a
multibody systems software solution in the optimization process of the front sus-
pension system for a FSAE car.
Work related to the impact attenuator (IA) was done by several researchers,
namely Belingardi and Obradovic17 and Boria and Forasassi18 whom their work
were addressed to the design of the IA for a FSAE racing car using numerical
simulation of the impact crash test. Pumchaloen et al.19 studied the assessment of
student formula driver’s safety through optimization of IA sizing. Kumar et al.20
proposed a new design of IA of FSAE based on drop test. More work related to the
impact front attenuator was presented by Schormans.21
Wordley and Saunders22 studied the aerodynamics rules of the FSAE car to
develop realistic parameters for the specifications of front and rear inverted air-
foils or wings to produce maximum down force within the stated acceptable
limits of increased drag and reduced top speed. Other work on improving the
aerodynamics of cooling system of FSAE car was carried out by Siitonen.23
Further work by Kennedy et al.24 in which he developed a new air intake and
exhaust system for a single seat race car using solid works software for simula-
tion. Kegl and Pehan25 work was on the control ignition and fuel injection system
for FSAE car.
It can be seen from previous studies that all the literature found was related only
to the design or performance of Formula Car components and no studies, as far as
the authors aware of, were addressed to the design and manufacture of all com-
ponents of the FSAE racing car as one package. This motivates our work and this
paper describes the work undertaken on the design, build, and test of PU FSAE.
Work methodology
The work methodology of designing, building, and testing a PU FSAE racing car
will be carried out as follows:
1. Careful reading of rules and regulations of the formula car SAE competition.
2. Literature review of the previous work.
3. A complete theoretical design and selection of the main components of the
formula car. This will include the following:
. Selection of the engine, differential gear box, and intake manifold and
exhaust systems;
Ebaid et al. 61
. The chassis, suspension system, and aesthetics and ergonomics of the driver
cockpit;
. Steering and braking system;
. Aerodynamics performance;
. Cooling system;
. Design and test of the impact attenuater (IA);
. Control and electrical systems.
4. Conceptual design and modelling of the main components.
5. Fabrication and assembly.
6. Check, test, tune, running the formula car and carry out modifications if needed.
Design and manufacturing processes

Stage one: Design, manufacture, and selection of the car components
Chassis design and manufacture. PU car-proposed chassis is made from steel pipes
AISI 1010 of outer diameter 27 mm and thickness of 3 mm, except for the main and
front hoops in which their dimensions are as follows: outer diameter 37 mm and
thickness 3 mm; larger diameter is needed because they are the most loaded parts
when accident happens. In designing and fabricating the chassis, several design
considerations are taken into account as follows:
1. It has been decided to be one tubular frame with five members on each side
for upper frame and side impact as shown in Figure 1(a). To prevent buck-
ling in the chassis (because it is a rear-engine car), two pipes are added to the
chassis floor (coloured in yellow as shown in Figure 1(b) starting from the
bulkhead and ending under the main hoop). For rear protection, a 12-
member box is added to protect the differential, sprocket, and chain. Also,
to give support for the eight brackets and main hoop braces as shown in
Figure 1(b).
2. For our ergonomics study, it has been found that narrow space for FSAE car’s
driver gives better performance and control for his car, especially for steering,
because the controlling must be using hands and elbows without moving the
shoulders. Figure 2(a) to (c) illustrates three views of the chassis with the engine
and chair which is fully ergonomic for a 165–180 cm driver.
3. In order to decide the method of fabrication of the chassis, three options were
investigated as follows: (a) machine the component from one piece of material,
(b) by casting, and (c) by welding parts together. Our decision was to use option
3, because it takes less time than the other two options, and it is considered the
least cost. Rutlle-basic electrode welding Arosta 347/347-16/199 nb filler has
been selected and used for welding. Figure 3 shows the fabricated chassis, the
engine, and the driver’s chair attached to the car wheels.
Figure 1. (a). CAD models of proposed initial chassis design. (b) CAD models of proposed
final chassis design.
Ebaid et al. 63
Figure 2. Final ergonomics design of chassis, driver’s chair, and engine. (a) Top view, (b) Side
view, (c) Front view.
Figure 3. Fabricated chassis, engine, and chair attached to the car wheels.
Suspension system design and fabrication

Suspension proposed features
1. Double ‘C- arms’ to tolerate more force with large ball joints to tolerate extra
force.
2. Vertical brackets to make the arms move vertically only; to reduce losses while
accelerating and in turning corners.
3. Double spring; right-hand spring and left-hand spring to prevent spring buck-
ling, with a damper inside.
4. Cast iron uprights are used instead of aluminium and hub in order to increase
the weight on the wheel which gives more traction with street.
5. Suspension weight which consists of the total weight of rim, tyre, upright, hub,
disk brake, caliper, and spring equal to 27 kg. There are two ways to increase the
traction: the down force and good weight distribution. In order to transfer the
weight from in to out (wheels), heavy suspension system is used after
optimization.
6. Car’s weight is equal to 390 kg; 108 kg of the weight is related to wheels, each
wheel weighs 27 kg to increase the traction. Most of the suspension parts are
made of steel with BBS rims, but the other parts which are located inside the car
like the steering system are made mostly of aluminium.
Ebaid et al. 65
Figure 4. Philadelphia Formula Student proposed suspension system with uprights.
The geometric parameters involved in designing the suspension system are as fol-
lows: wheel camber and camber angle, rate of camber change, wheel caster and caster
angle, and finally rate of caster change. Also, the suspension kinematic parameters
are as follows: instantaneous centre, roll centre, roll centre location, and finally roll
resistance arm. The suspension system for PU racer car 2014 consists of four wheel
independent suspensions with double A-arm (wish-bone), holded by the upright that
were selected from the Korean motors cooperation company KIA. These uprights are
made of cast iron, weigh approximately 3.5 kg, and are activated by direct spring as
shown in Figure 4. The main reason for using KIA uprights is that they have extre-
mely similar vehicle geometry and, using a carryover parts will always be cost effect-
ive. For the safety purpose, the bearings inside the hubs are replaced with SKF (a
bearing type manufactured by the Swedish ball bearing company AB) bearing and
some extra parts have been machined and added to fit into the wheel. The design in
Figure 5 showed the uprights with the springs attached to car wheels.
Fabrication of suspension system
Control arms and suspension arm. All control arms or so called wishbones, and sus-
pension arms were manufactured from circular steel with diameter of 25.4 mm.
Adjustable spherical rod ends of different dimensions were used. Also, some
extra rails have been welded onto the chassis for mounting point’s location. The
brackets as shown in Figure 6 were fabricated from flat mild steel with 5 mm
thickness; therefore, the design is proved to be robust. Figure 7 shows the force
analysis for the brackets and the wheel.
Steering system
Steering system features
. To rotate the steering wheel at 45 which will turn the car to the maximum (i.e.
more comfortable for the driver);
. Easy to adjust toe and slip angles for the wheel that is related to the protrusion
at the end of each steering rod;
. Simple and light-weight steering system.
Figure 5. CAD model of the upright suspension system attached to wheels.
Figure 6. Suspension system with mounting brackets.
Steering proposed design and fabrication. The idea presented in our steering system
is to replace the rack and pinion system with a simple and light mechanism to achieve
high efficiency. The steering tie rods were manufactured from circular steel with
diameter of 25.4 mm, and the tie rod end has been modified with a ball joint to
Ebaid et al. 67
Figure 7. Force analysis for the brackets and the wheel.
connect the two steering rods with the aluminium plate which is connected to the
steering column, so that to give the required Ackerman angle as shown in Figure 8.
Brake system design and selection

Brake system design features. The brake system must be capable of locking all
four wheels during the test. It should be noted that ‘brake-by-wire’ systems and
unarmoured plastic brake lines are prohibited. The brake system must be protected
with scatter shields from failure of the drive train or from minor collisions. The
brake pedal shall 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. The
brake pedal must be fabricated from steel or aluminium or machined from steel,
aluminium, or titanium. The brake system will be dynamically tested and must
demonstrate the capability of locking all four wheels and stopping the vehicle in a
straight line at the end of an acceleration run specified by the brake inspectors.
A brake pedal over-travel switch must be installed on the car as part of the shut-
down system and wired in series with the shutdown buttons and must be designed so
that the driver cannot reset it. The switch must be implemented with analogue com-
ponents, and not through recourse to programmable logic controllers, engine con-
trol units, or similar functioning digital controllers. Also, the brake over-travel
switch must be a mechanical single pole, single throw (commonly known as a two-
position) switch (push-pull or flip type). Also, the car must be equipped with a red
brake light with a minimum shining surface of at least 15 cm2. Each brake light must
be clearly visible and must be mounted between the wheel centreline and driver’s
shoulder level vertically and approximately on vehicle centreline laterally.
PU FSAE brake system. The brake system in a formula car is located next to the
wheel suspension, and the choice of the tyre is the most important component for
Figure 8. Schematic diagram of the proposed steering system: (a) normal situation, (b) rotat-
ing situation.
effective acceleration and deceleration in fast laps of the racing course. In the
current work, the proposed brake system was selected as shown in Figure 9.
Disk brake specifications. In tight racecourses such as those for the FSAE cars, the cars
spend a large amount of the lap time under braking. This means that the ability for a
car to decelerate will affect lap times significantly. With a greater ability to decelerate,
more time can be spent building up speed to the next corner. To be competitive, most
of FSAE teams feel that the brakes should be able to provide at least 1.2g of decel-
eration. How this deceleration is attained depends on many parameters, most of
which are included in the data shown in the Table 2.
Ebaid et al. 69
Figure 9. PU formula student proposed brake system.
Table 2. Disk brake parameters.
Brake data Vehicle data
Braking from 10–80 km/h Wheel base 156.5 cm

Pedal force 2000 N Track F/R 126–128 cm
Front rotor diameter 22 cm Vehicle weight 270 kg
Front rotor mass 1.2 kg Front tyre diameter 55 cm
Rear rotor diameter 22 cm Rear tyre diameter 55 cm
Rear rotor mass 1.2 kg CG to ground 35 cm
Number of rear rotors 2 Wheel base 156.5 cm
Number of calliper pistons 1 for each
Piston diameter 2.2 cm
Master cylinder diameter 2.2 cm
Inboard and outboard brake selection. A preliminary design decision involved whether
the brakes for the rear were to be of an inboard or outboard design. The primary
argument for an inboard system is the reduction of mass, especially unsprung mass,
location near the centre of the rear axle, and some of the components are supported
by the springs of the car, reduces the complexity of the components in the wheel
area, which can provide for better compromises for suspension characteristics.
With these considerations in mind, the team decided to implement an inboard
system for the front and the rear.
Brake heat capacity. A brake system must be able to dissipate efficiently the heat that
is built up through deceleration. Improper management of heat dissipation will
Figure 10. Brake pad used by PU team.
lead to brake fade. Typically, the heat sinks are the rotors. The team has thus
decided to use rotors that are as large as possible. Therefore, the selected front
rotors are 22 cm in diameter and 6 mm thick, and the selected rear rotors are of the
same diameter with the same thickness. They are made of cast iron 4000, which has
a high heat capacity and negligible thermal expansion, and are drilled along their
circumference for ventilation reasons.
Brake pads. Brake pads come in a variety of compounds for different friction char-
acteristics, usually quantifiable with a coefficient of friction versus temperature
plot. Trade-offs need to be made between how stable a brake pad is across its
useable temperature range, its highest achievable friction coefficient, as well as its
wear characteristics. In general, the coefficient of friction between the brake pad
and the rotor is about 0.40–0.50. It should be noted that it is required to select the
pads for colder temperatures as these are usually stable up to mid-temperatures,
and also because the light-weight FSAE cars do not usually create extreme brake
temperatures. Therefore, motorbike brake pads have been selected and used by PU
team as shown in Figure 10.
Brake calipers. One variation in calipers is the number of pistons that they contain.
The greater the number of pistons, the greater the braking torque for a given fluid
pressure. Furthermore, using smaller pistons results in a stiffer caliper than one
large piston. The PU team decided to use fixed Haojin brake calipers as shown in
Figure 11 for the following reasons:
1. A fixed caliper has an even number of pistons; in a two piston design, for
example, a piston from each side of the rotor moves towards the rotor to provide
the clamping force.
2. Fixed calipers are usually not self-adjusting, but they are stiffer and apply even
force on each side of the rotor.
3. Less wear of brake pad compared with floating calipers.
Another important parameter with calipers is their piston size. The piston sizes
need to be determined together with the master cylinders such that appropriate
Ebaid et al. 71
Figure 11. Haojin brake caliper used by PU team.
hydraulic advantage ratios can be achieved to provide sufficient stopping power,

especially in the absence of power assist.
Master cylinders and hydraulics. The FSAE regulations dictate two separate hydraulic
systems for the front and rear brakes, so FSAE cars must have two master cylin-
ders, one for operating the brakes at each end of the vehicle. Material choice is also
important due to corrosion and chemical property changes that may affect brake
system performance. For racing, it is common to choose brake fluid with the
highest possible boiling point and to use stainless steel braided tubing for the
front wheels and fixed tubing for the rear wheels.
Engine and powertrain selection and design

Engine layout limitations. All parts of the engine air and fuel control systems
(including the throttle or carburettor, and the complete air intake system, including
the air cleaner and any air boxes) must lie within the surface defined by the top of
the roll bar and the outside edge of the four tyres. Any portion of the air intake
system that is less than 350 mm (13.8 in.) above the ground must be shielded from
side or rear impact collisions. The intake manifold must be securely attached to the
engine block or cylinder head with brackets and mechanical fasteners. This pre-
cludes the use of hose clamps, plastic ties, or safety wires. The use of rubber bushings
or hose is acceptable for creating and sealing air passages but is not considered a
structural attachment. Intake systems with significant mass or cantilever from the
cylinder head must be supported to prevent stress to the intake system. Supports to
the engine must be rigid. Supports to the frame or chassis must incorporate some
isolation to allow for engine movement and chassis flex. In order to limit the power
capability from the engine, a single circular restrictor must be placed in the intake
system between the throttle and the engine, and all engine airflow must pass through
the restrictor. Any device that has the ability to throttle the engine downstream of the
restrictor is prohibited. The maximum restrictor diameters which must be respected
at all times during the competition are as follows:
. Gasoline fuelled cars – 20.0 mm (0.7874 in.);
. E-85 fuelled cars – 19.0 mm (0.7480 in.).
Table 3. Engine specifications.
Engine parameter Specifications
Manufacturer Yamaha, 2011

Model FZ6R
Engine type 4-stroke, in line four cylinders, DOHC 16 titanium valves
Engine displacement 600 cc
Bore and stroke 65.5 mm 44.5 mm
Compression ratio 12.2:1
Intake and exhaust valve angles 12.25, 11.5
Intake and exhaust valve diameters 27 mm, 23 mm
Cooling Liquid cooled
Fuel system Fuel injection
Ignition Digital transistor controlled ignition (TCI)
Starting system Electric
Transmission Six-speed; multiplate wet clutch
The restrictor must be located to facilitate measurement during the inspection

process. The circular restricting cross section may not be movable or flexible in
any way, e.g. the restrictor may not be part of the movable portion of a barrel
throttle body.
Engine selection by PU team
Engine specifications. YAMAHA FZ6R engine has been chosen by PU team due to
its characteristics which are ultra-compact, lightweight, and short stroke. Engine
specifications are listed in Table 3. The selected engine is shown in Figure 12.
Engine fuel injection. Mikuni fuel injection system with 41 mm throttle bodies features
twin injectors (primary and secondary). Each of the injectors utilizes 12 spray holes
to maximize the atomization process. The secondary injectors, located inside the
airbox, begin to function at mid-engine rotation (6000–7000 r/min) through to
redline. This system is lighter and simpler than the sub-motor-driven secondary
valve type fuel injection FI system. Special short intake tracts allow for higher
r/min and improved power.
Engine intake air system. Yamaha Chip Control Throttle (YCC-T) is selected from
Yamaha. This system electronically controls the throttle valves for outstanding
response and improved controllability at high r/min. The system features throttle
position sensor and D.C.-motor-driven throttle valves. The YCC-T is used to pro-
vide even more control of the intake air volume for a smoother torque character. The
YCC-T features three controls inside the main electronic control unit (ECU). These
are control ignition, fuel injection, and the YCC-T. This special ECU is capable of
responding to changes at a speed of 1000th of a second. Yamaha’s exclusive YCC-I
Ebaid et al. 73
Figure 12. Proposed engine YAMAHA FZ6R, 2011.
electric-control servo motor-driven variable intake funnel system is a world’s first on

a production motorcycle and works in conjunction with Yamaha’s fly-by-wire tech-
nology, and fuel injection systems 7.6 l air box utilizes a high-flow viscous paper-type
air filter. Ram air induction system with centrally located intake duct delivers cool,
high-pressure air ‘force-fed’ into the intake tract for optimal combustion and greater
horsepower at higher speeds. This design provides straight induction from the central
fairing duct to the airbox without a lot of bends or turns.
Exhaust system. The exhaust system features Yamaha’s exhaust ultimate power
valve system (EXUP) utilizing a titanium body and butterfly valves that prevent
the ‘blowback’ phenomenon caused by ‘valve overlap’. This design reduces weight
and maximizes cornering clearance. The EXUP system eliminates ‘flat spots’ in the
power band and reduces emissions too. High powered 32-bit ECU actually con-
tains three ECUs inside the main ECU to control the fuel ignition system, the
YCC-T system, and the ignition system. Air injection system injects fresh air
into the exhaust ports to fully burn any unburnt fuel in order to reduce harmful
CO and HC exhaust emissions. Alterations have been made to the exhaust mani-
fold because of the limited space engine compartment as shown in Figure 13. Also,
thermal analysis was conducted to investigate the high temperature spots in the
exhaust manifold as shown in Figure 14.
Engine differential. Close ratio six-speed transmission as shown in Figure 15
delivers seamless power delivery and maximum acceleration. Gear widths, splines,
and engagement dogs have been optimized to handle the engine power. The shift
drum and shifting mechanism are located on the right side of the cases for smooth
shifting feel under power. The gears use flat contact-type engagement dogs for
positive shifting and great durability. The ‘Tri-Axis’ or stacked transmission
design creates a more compact engine front to back that allows for optimum
engine placement in the ‘sweet spot’ of the frame for optimized weight distribution
Figure 13. Engine with exhaust manifold and exhaust pipes.
and incredible handling. Slipper or back limiter clutch assembly reduces rear wheel
hop when making hard down shifts or under hard braking. Key benefit is reduced
lap times and smoother control is when participating in either a race or track day.
This clutch uses nine paper-based friction plates and eight steel plates, plus six coil-
type clutch springs. The oil lubrication system has been optimized to reduce fric-
tional losses caused by ‘oil drag’. It features a ‘two side’ oil pump. There is separate
liquid-cooled oil cooler to ensure consistent engine temperatures for maximum
performance and extended service life. Figure 16 shows different CAD model
views of the engine differential assembly.
Cooling system. High capacity cooling system features a curved radiator with
dual ring-type fans for excellent engine cooling efficiency. The ring-type fan offers
more airflow than a conventional type fan. Direct ignition coils, iridium dual elec-
trode spark plugs and high-output magneto deliver reliable, super strong spark.
With this system, the ignition coils are integrated into the plug caps, significantly
reducing weight.
Ebaid et al. 75
Figure 14. High temperature spots in the exhaust manifold.
Figure 15. CAD model of the differential.
Tyres. Tyres are air springs that support the unsprung mass of the vehicle. The air
spring action of the tyre is very important to the ride quality and safe handling of
the racing vehicle. Tyre size, construction, compound, and inflation are very
important to the ride quality of the vehicle. There are three basic types of tyres,
namely: radial ply, bias ply, and bias belted. FSAE requirements are to use two sets
Figure 16. Different CAD model views of the engine differential assembly.
Figure 17. Type of tyres: (a) semislick tyres used by PU team, (b) wet tyre.
of tyres: dry and wet. The dry set is defined as the slick or the semislick tyre which
provides the car with high traction and high grip which is better for performance at
track especially at corners. PU team decided to use TOYO semislick tyre; its dimen-
sions 1500 700 and this is the best fit for the car and for the rim as shown in Figure
17(a). In contrast, the wet tyre has been selected with smaller dimensions in width
1500 600 (Figure 17(b)) to give less friction at the track, because the kinetic friction
coefficient at wet conditions is higher than the dry kinetic friction coefficient.
Ebaid et al. 77
Figure 18. Car configuration requirements according to FSAE regulations.
Stage two: Body work and aerodynamics analysis

Car configuration requirements. The car must be open-wheeled and open-cockpit
(a formula style body) with four wheels that are not in a straight line. Definition
of ‘Open Wheel’ – open wheel cars must satisfy all of the following criteria:
1. The top 180 of the wheels/tyres must be unobstructed when viewed 68.6 mm
(2.7 in.) above the plane formed by the tops of the front and rear tyres.
2. The wheels/tyres must be unobstructed when viewed from the side.
3. No part of the vehicle may enter a keep out zone defined as a circle 68.6 mm
(2.7 in.) larger radially than the outside diameter of the tyre with the tyres
steered straight ahead with a 77 kg (170 lb) driver seated in the normal driving
position. The inner sidewall of the tyre (car side) is not included in this assess-
ment (see Figure 18).
Formula car body design. The purpose of the analysis was primarily to design the
body and the under-tray of the vehicle prior to carrying out software simulation.
The CAD models of the car body and under-tray were constructed using
Rhinoceros 3D V4.0, the computational domain also was meshed using
Rhinoceros 3D, and analysis was done using COMSOL Multiphysics. In any
Figure 19. CAD model design concepts of the car body: (a) first design, (b) second design,
(c) final design.
vehicle, 70% of friction is drag, so aerodynamics deserves spending a lot of time to

optimize the best shape for less drag and high down force in order to get more
traction on the ground. Two design concepts were considered for the FSAE car
before deciding to take the results. The first design was small with low drag coef-
ficient, but the problem was with the lack of down force as shown in Figure 19(a).
The second design concept was with better down force provided from the rear and
front wings. The front wing was designed to be two ply (layers) in order to provide
the car with the required stability while turning corners, the second design shown in
Figure 19(b). In order to improve the design more and provide the car with more
down force, the front wing had been changed, also the nose of the car, these
changes were the third design as shown in Figure 19(c). Also, two barge boards
were added to the car’s side, and two turning vanes and side pods, to make smooth
streamlines, and to increase the airflow to the engine air intake which means better
cooling for the radiator, and this will lead to better performance of the Yamaha
engine.
Focusing on down force issue, the following shapes of parts of the car body have
been designed to achieve our goals as described below.
Front wing and car nose. End plate and end plate width as indicated by circles (1)
and (2) in Figure 20(a) to stop air spilling over the side of the wing and draw the air
Ebaid et al. 79
Figure 20. (a) Front wing details. (b) Barge board, side pods, and mirrors.
over the front wing to maximize its effectiveness. Second element tiplet is to sep-
arate streamlines to flow over tyres and suspension parts as indicated by circle (3).
Nose to channel air around the front wing and direct it efficiently back towards the
under tray as indicated by circle (4).
Barge boards, side pods, and mirrors. To influence the wake of the air flowing
over the front wing and tidy its up before it gets back to the car to give better
cooling for the radiator as indicated by circle (5) in Figure 20(b). The horizontal
mirrors support cross section has been designed as an upside down aerfoil to give
more down force as indicated by circle (6) in Figure 20(b).
Rear wing and side flaps. Rear wing has been added to increase the down force
on the rear wheels as shown in Figure 21. It consists of two parts: the upper wing is
movable around its axis to apply the ‘brake by flaps’ while the bottom wing is
fixed.
In order to increase the brake efficiency and safety factors (more details are
given in safety section), the rear wing and other two side flaps have been designed
to be movable to help the driver in decelerating the car.
Figure 21. Rear wing cross section.
Figure 22. (a) Ultrasonic sensors placed at the car front, (b) open side flap sensing an
object, (c) closed side flap (no object is sensed).
Smart sensing system. The smart system consists of ultrasonic sensors: two in the
front of the car and two in the back as shown in Figure 22(a). If the front sensors
indicate an object in front of the car within a distance less than 5 m, it will
Ebaid et al. 81
automatically move the flaps to 80 (using electric motor connected to a cable) to
increase the drag force which will slow down the car slightly to keep the safety
distance between it and the other car as shown in Figure 22(b). If side flaps are in
closed position, this means that ultrasonic sensors are not sensing any object as
shown in Figure 22(c).
Aerodynamic analysis. Aerodynamic analysis of the front nose and for the car using
COMSOL Multiphysics software was carried out to find the trend of streamlines as
shown in Figure 23(a) and (b). Also, the aerodynamic analysis results at 80 km/h
are given in Table 4.
Final body design. Figure 23 shows the top, side, and front views for the final
body design of the proposed PU racing car. The dimensions of minimum wheel
base and widest track design for the car to get the best laps at endurance test are
also shown.
Car body manufacturing

Philadelphia FSAE team decided to use fibre glass for the body manufacture for its
special characteristics such as long lasting, water proof, corrosion resistant, and non-
conductive and radio frequency transparent. Fibre glass absorbs sound waves more
than bounces off, thus giving it extremely good acoustics for lowering machinery
volumes and achieving acceptable and/or required sound levels. Unlike metal, plas-
tic, and wood, fibre glass has the least expansion and contraction with heat, cold,
and/or stress. It can be moulded into practically anything, giving design engineers
unlimited possibilities in the ability to make long and sweeping contours, and allow-
ing for much more design freedom than metal- or wood-based structures. Because of
these characteristics, fibre glass should be considered, whenever there is a significant
amount of fabrication, to aluminium or stainless steel. Fibre glass is stronger than
sheet metal and perfect for outside use or in locations near water, especially salt
water. Also, fibre glass is resistive to corrosive chemicals, and, when made with
special fire-retardant resins. Lower costs for maintenance and warranty work. A
lighter and stronger product results in lower costs for shipping and storage.
Multiple views of final body design for manufacturing is shown in Figure 24.
Moulds setup of the car body components. Before starting manufacturing and fabricat-
ing fibre glass for the car body, moulds are selected to be made of steel due to its
availability at Philadelphia workshops and low cost. Figure 25 shows the processes
of making the mould and fabrications of the car body components.
Stage three: Assembly process

The main components of the car are assembled as shown in Figure 26, and the final
car appearance is shown in Figure 27.
Figure 23. (a) Streamlines through the front wing and the front suspension done by
COMSOL Multiphysics, (b) streamlines over the car, analysis done by COMSOL Multiphysics.
Impact attenuator (IA)

IA requirements according to FSAE regulations
The IA must be designed according to the following rules:
. Installed forward of the front bulkhead.

Ebaid et al. 83
Table 4. Aerodynamics values.
Parameter Values
Down force 572 N

Drag 72 N
Drag coefficients 0.59
Lift coefficients 0.2
Frontal area 1.057 m2
Aero balance 30% front
. At least 200 mm (7.8 in.) long, with its length oriented along the fore/aft axis of
the frame.
. At least 100 mm (3.9 in.) high and 200 mm (7.8 in.) wide for a minimum distance
of 200 mm (7.8 in.) forward of the front bulkhead such that it cannot penetrate
the front bulk head in the event of an impact.
. Attached securely and directly to the front bulkhead and not by being part of
non-structural bodywork.
The attachment of the IA must be constructed to provide an adequate load path

for transverse and vertical loads in the event of off-centre and off-axis impacts. The
attachment of the IA to a monocoque structure requires an approved ‘Structural
Equivalency Spreadsheet’ that shows equivalency to a minimum of four 8 mm
Grade 8.8 (5/16 in. Grade 5) bolts. On all cars, a 1.5 mm (0.060 in.) solid steel or
4.0 mm (0.157 in.) solid aluminium ‘anti-intrusion plate’ must be integrated into the
IA. If the IA plate is bolted to the front bulkhead, it must be the same size as the
outside dimensions of the front bulkhead. If it is welded to the front bulkhead, it
must extend at least to the centreline of the front bulkhead tubing. If the anti-
intrusion plate is not integral with the frame, i.e. welded, a minimum of four 8 mm
Metric Grade 8.8 (5/16 in. SAE Grade 5) bolts must attach the IA to the front
bulkhead.
IA test strategy according to FSAE

The team must submit test data to show that their IA, when mounted on the front
of a vehicle with a total mass of 300 kg and run into a solid, non-yielding impact
barrier with a velocity of impact of 7.0 m/s, would give an average deceleration of
the vehicle not to exceed 20 g’s, with a peak deceleration less than or equal to
40 g’s. Total energy absorbed must meet or exceed 7350 J. When using acceleration
data, the average deceleration must be calculated based on the raw data. The peak
deceleration can be assessed based on the raw data, and if peaks above the 40 g
limit are apparent in the data, it can then be filtered with a channel filter class 60
Figure 24. Multiple views of the proposed formula PU car body with dimensions.
Ebaid et al. 85
Figure 25. Moulds setup of the car body components: (a) front nose, (b) side body, (c) front
wing.
(100 Hz) filter per SAE Recommended Practice J211 ‘Instrumentation

for Impact Test’, or a 100 Hz, third order, low pass Butterworth (-3 dB at
100 Hz) filter.
PU team IA design
In order to select the best IA design, Philadelphia team proposed three draft
designs of IA as shown in Figure 28 and have been manufactured for testing.
These are as follows:
. First design concept was filled with foam;

. Second design concept was made of steel alloy;
. Third design concept was made from drilling holes in sheet metal.
The second design concept (b) was selected by PU team, and the dimensions of
the selected attenuator are given in Figure 29. The specifications of the IA are listed
in Table 5.
Figure 26. Stages of PU racing car assembly.
Testing the IA
The testing procedure was carried out according to the quasi dynamic test
method. The procedure is to drop the IA with load of 300 kg attached to it
Ebaid et al. 87
Figure 27. Final PU racing car.
Figure 28. Three proposed designs of the impact attenuator.
from 2.5 m to hit the ground with the required velocity specified by the regu-
lations. Figure 30 shows the IA after hitting the ground and absorbing all the
required energy, which means the test was successful. The crash data values
are shown in Table 6.
IA stress and displacement analysis

Figure 31 shows the maximum stress happened at the end of the IA which
starts from 95 mm. At the end of the IA, the energy will be absorbed so that
the chassis will remain safe. Figure 32 shows the deflections on the top of IA,
and the maximum allowable deflection is 180 mm according to the regulations.
In our case the maximum deflection in our test was 90 mm which is less than
180 mm.
Figure 29. Detailed dimensions of the selected impact attenuator.
Table 5. Impact attenuator specifications.
Material used Steel alloy
Description of form/shape 200 mm 200 mm 100 mm

IA to anti-intrusion plate mounting L-shaped plate attached by AL Popnagel
method
Anti-intrusion plate to front bulkhead 4 mm self drill screws and fillet welding
mounting method with the bulkhead members
Peak deceleration 40 g0s 20.05 g’s
Average deceleration 20 g0s 19.03 g’s
Discussion, results, and testing

Testing processes
Static test. To make sure that the car is stable enough and no leaking from the
engine and fuel tank, it will be constrained on a plate which will be leaned up to
45 . If no leaking happens, everything would be perfect. PU team passed the static
tested process.
Ebaid et al. 89
Figure 30. Impact attenuator after crash test.
Table 6. Crush test values.
Parameter Crush test value
Energy absorbed (J) must be 7350 J 10,995 J

IA crushed displacement (mm) 187 mm
IA post crush displacement – demonstrating any return (mm) 2 mm returned
Anti-intrusion plate deformation (mm) 17 mm after return
Endurance test. The car has been driven for 22 km as required by FSAE regulations
without stop to make sure that no heating occurs in the engine or in the oil con-
tainer. The car was tested at Madaba Motorsport Circuit as shown in Figure 33
and passed as no major problems occurred during the test.
Steering test. The PU car has been taken to a balance machine to calibrate its
steering angles (Ackerman, kingpin, caster, and toe angle). The balancing process
is necessary to make the car better at turning corners.
Braking test. A 200 m road track has been chosen for launching the car for its top
speed and the test was done at PU premises. The PU car passed the test.
Electric test. All the electrical wirings and electrical components were checked and
tested using digital multimeter for any electric leakage in the chassis or car’s body.
Safety test. The IA which has been constrained in the front of the car is to absorb
the energy in case of impaction. The IA passed the test as shown previously.
Figure 31. Stress analysis for the attenuator.
Figure 32. Displacement analysis for the attenuator.

Ebaid et al. 91
Figure 33. Testing PU car at Madaba Circuit.
Conclusions
Philadelphia University FSAE racing car was designed, manufactured, and tested
according to FSAE regulations by PU to race in the FSAE competition at UK 2014.
The requirements and theoretical work have been determined, which include the chassis,
suspension, engine selection, brakes, aerodynamics, and assembly. The requirements of
the aforementioned parts have been analyzed using COMSOL Multiphysics software.
All the components for the car either was bought from the local market or manufactured
in the Mechanical Engineering Workshops-Philadelphia University. Only the power
train differential was bought from outside.
This project is considered as educational, practical, and training exercise on
mechanical engineering principles for the undergraduate and graduate students.
Also, it is a high performance engineering project for engineering students to
acquire design concepts in automotive, engineering skills, and the freedom to
express their creativity and imaginations.
The Philadelphia team has participated in FSAE competition (9–13 July 2014) in
UK at Silverstone circuit with 114 university teams worldwide. The team achieved
third place among new comers after Iceland and China. The selection process was
based on providing a reasonable business logic case.
Several magazines reported about the participation of Philadelphia team in the
competition such as race car engineering magazine, Motor sport newspaper, and
tech magazine. In addition to that, PU team was reported in Alrai local newspaper
and several local web sites.
Acknowledgements
The authors to thank Philadelphia University for its endless support for financial and tech-
nical support and to all the sponsors from the public and private sectors that supported the
team in the task of creating our current single-seater race car.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.
References
1. Formula SAE Rules, SAE International, 2014.
2. Arvanitpoulos-darginis K, Pouchias A, Zisis K, et al. Modelling and design optimization
of a formula student car. Thessaloniki, Greece: Aristotle Racing Team, Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki, 2011.
3. Sapuan SM, Ham KW, Ng C, et al. Design of composite racing car body for student
based competition. Sci Res Essay 2009; 4: 1151–1162.
4. Marquenie L. Modification of a formula student race car engine for addition of a continuously
variable transmission. Master Traineeship, Technical University of Eindhoven Department
of Mechanical Engineering: Section Automotive Engineering Science AES, 2008.
Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology.
5. Vass S. Redesign of the intake cams of a formula student racing car. Hungary: Budapest
University of Technology and Economics, FISITA 2010-SC-P-24, http://www.fisita.
com/education/congress/sc10/fisita2010scp24.pdf (2010, accessed 25 March 2015).
6. Hamiton E and Klang E. Design formula SAE brake systems. Paper No. 3. Raleigh, NC:
Motorsports College of Engineering North Carolina State University, 2008.
7. Suhaimi K. Design and fabrication of an upright with brake caliper mounting for formula varsity
race car. Melaka: Mechanical Engineering Department, University Teknikal Malaysia, 2011.
8. Singh RP. Structural performance analysis of formula SAE car. J Mekanikal 2010; 3:
46–61.
9. Kerkhoven JDG. Design of a formula student race car chassis. Master thesis,
Department Mechanical Engineering: Dynamics and Control Technology Group,
Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands, 2008.
10. Kemna AJ. Design of a tubular steel space frame for a Formula Student race car. CST
report. Department of Mechanical Engineering: Control Systems Technology,
Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology, 2011.
11. Gaffney EF and Salinas AR. Introduction to formula SAE suspension and frame
design. SAE paper 971584, 1997.
12. Theander A. Design of a suspension for a formula student race car. Master thesis,
Department of Aeronautical and Vehicle Engineering: Division of Vehicle Dynamics,
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2004.
13. Popa CE. Steering system and suspension design for 2005 formula SAE-a racer car.
Master thesis, Australia: University of Southern Queensland, 2005.
14. Lim B, Lim H, Mitchell J, et al. Formula SAE suspension system. Australia: University
of Adelaide, 2005.
15. Cobi A. Design of a carbon fiber suspension system for FSAE applications. USA:
Mechanical Engineering Department, Massachusetts Institute of technology, 2012.
Ebaid et al. 93
16. Totu V and Alexandru C. Kinematic optimization of the front suspension system for a
formula student car. Bull Transilvania Univ Brasov, Ser I Eng Sci 2012; 5: 71–76.
17. Belingardi G and Obradovic J. Design of the impact attenuator for a formula student
racing car: numerical simulation of the impact crash test. J Serb Soc Comput Mech 2010;
4: 52–62.
18. Boria S and Forasassi G. Numerical simulation of crash test for a formula SAE car. In:
Proc Int tech Conf Enhanced Saftey vehicles, University of PISA, paper number 09-0152,
2009, pp. 1–8. Washington, DC, USA: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.
19. Pumchaloen W, Chumueang R, Kialon A, et al. Assessment of student formula
driver’s safety through optimization of impact attenuator sizing. In: Seventh
International Conference on Automotive Engineering (ICAE-7), 28 March–1 April,
Bangkok, 2011.
20. Kumar D, Kumar S, Sigh G, et al. Drop test analysis of impact attenuator for formula
student SAE car. Int J Sci Res Publ 2012; 2: 312–315.
21. Schormans JM. The design of a formula student front impact attenuator. Netherlands:
Eindhoven University of Technology, 2010.
22. Wordley S and Saunders J. Aerodynamics for formula SAE: initial design and perform-
ance prediction. SAE paper 2006-01-08062006, 2006.
23. Siitonen H. Improving the aerodynamics of a cooling system of a formula car. Finland:
Mikkeli University of Applied Sciences (MAMK), Bachelors thesis, 2011.
24. Kennedy D, Woods G and Forrest D. Development of a new air intake and exhaust
system for a single seat race car. In: Proceedings of the Irish Transport Research Network
(ITRN), 2011, pp. 147–154. Cork, Ireland: Irish Transport Research Network.
25. Kegl B and Pehan S. The electronic control ignition and fuel injection system for for-
mula student racer engine. In: International design conference-design, 14–17 May 2002,
pp. 1051–1056. Cavtat-Dubrovnik, Croatia: University of Zagrab, faculty of
Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture/The design Society.

0306419015624984

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

0306419015624984

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Original Article

International Journal of Mechanical

car: An educational DOI: 10.1177/0306419015624984

Philadelphia University-Jordan, Amman, Jordan

Formula student racing car

FSAE overview and competition

Table 1. Car specifications related to FSAE 2014 regulations.

Car component Features

Engine Maximum capacity 610 cc

Design and manufacturing processes

Suspension system design and fabrication

Figure 4. Philadelphia Formula Student proposed suspension system with uprights.

Figure 5. CAD model of the upright suspension system attached to wheels.

Figure 6. Suspension system with mounting brackets.

Figure 7. Force analysis for the brackets and the wheel.

Brake system design and selection

Figure 9. PU formula student proposed brake system.

Table 2. Disk brake parameters.

Brake data Vehicle data

Braking from 10–80 km/h Wheel base 156.5 cm

Figure 10. Brake pad used by PU team.

Figure 11. Haojin brake caliper used by PU team.

hydraulic advantage ratios can be achieved to provide suﬃcient stopping power,

Engine and powertrain selection and design

Table 3. Engine specifications.

Engine parameter Specifications

Manufacturer Yamaha, 2011

The restrictor must be located to facilitate measurement during the inspection

Figure 12. Proposed engine YAMAHA FZ6R, 2011.

electric-control servo motor-driven variable intake funnel system is a world’s ﬁrst on

Figure 13. Engine with exhaust manifold and exhaust pipes.

Figure 14. High temperature spots in the exhaust manifold.

Figure 15. CAD model of the differential.

Figure 18. Car configuration requirements according to FSAE regulations.

Stage two: Body work and aerodynamics analysis

vehicle, 70% of friction is drag, so aerodynamics deserves spending a lot of time to

Figure 21. Rear wing cross section.

Car body manufacturing

Stage three: Assembly process

Impact attenuator (IA)

. Installed forward of the front bulkhead.

Table 4. Aerodynamics values.

Down force 572 N

The attachment of the IA must be constructed to provide an adequate load path

IA test strategy according to FSAE

(100 Hz) ﬁlter per SAE Recommended Practice J211 ‘Instrumentation

. First design concept was ﬁlled with foam;

Figure 26. Stages of PU racing car assembly.

Figure 27. Final PU racing car.

Figure 28. Three proposed designs of the impact attenuator.

IA stress and displacement analysis

Figure 29. Detailed dimensions of the selected impact attenuator.

Table 5. Impact attenuator specifications.

Material used Steel alloy

Description of form/shape 200 mm 200 mm 100 mm

Discussion, results, and testing

Figure 30. Impact attenuator after crash test.

Table 6. Crush test values.

Parameter Crush test value

Energy absorbed (J) must be  7350 J 10,995 J

Figure 31. Stress analysis for the attenuator.

Figure 32. Displacement analysis for the attenuator.

Figure 33. Testing PU car at Madaba Circuit.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Energy absorbed (J) must be 7350 J 10,995 J