Final Presentation to Engineering Panel

Seth Beckley, Kevin Gygrynuk, Josh Hilferty, Mike Teri

FSAE
 “The Formula SAE ® Series competitions challenge
teams of university undergraduate and graduate
students to conceive, design, fabricate and compete
with small, formula style, autocross racing cars…
…Over the course of three days, the cars are judged in a
series of static and dynamic events including:
technical inspection, cost, presentation, and
engineering design, solo performance trials, and high
performance track endurance.”1

1 http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/west/eventguide.pdf
Sponsor
 Mike Hawley
 Employed by W. L. Gore
 Former UD FSAE member, designed the suspension
system for two consecutive years
 Resource of much valuable information on suspension
Suspension: How it Works
 Key Parts:
upright upper a-arm

Spindle/
rotor red = points fixed
to chassis

lower a-arm
Key Parts Continued
rocker
shock
(bell crank)

red = points fixed

to chassis

pushrod
Key Parts: Sway Bars and Tie Rod

sway bar arm

and linkage to
rocker

Sway Bar

tie rod to
Steering rack
Suspension: How it Works
Key Terms:
 Camber: The angle of the wheel with respect to vertical.
 Kingpin Angle: The angle measured between the steering axis and vertical.
 Scrub Radius: The distance between the steering axis and the wheel’s contact patch.

Image taken from: www.mgf.ultimatemg.com/

Suspension: How it works
 Roll Center:
 Defined by intersection of lines between the tire contact
patch and instant centers of wheel travel.
 Defines the instantaneous point about which the
chassis rolls
Suspension: How it Works
Key Terms:
 Anti-Dive: A suspension geometry setup that resists the diving action of the nose of the
car from diving during braking
 Anti-Squat: A suspension geometry setup that resists the diving action of the tail of the
car from diving during acceleration
Center of Gravity

A-arms
Image taken from Competition Car Suspension, Allan Staniforth

 The closer the convergence points are to the height of the center of gravity, the more anti-
dive or anti-squat characteristic is present
Project Scope
 Determination of most efficient suspension configuration and
geometry
 Determination of spring and damper requirements
 Determination of anti-dive/anti-squat requirements
 Determination of optimal values for camber, caster, and kingpin angles
as well as scrub radius
 Determination of attachment points at wheel, brake, steering rack,
axle, and chassis interfaces
 Design based off of existing wheels and tires
 Design synthesis and real-time simulation of complete and functional
suspension system
 Output a working, useable suspension system for the 2010-2011 UD
FSAE car
 Maintain a high level of easy adjustability for further tuning of the
suspension system
FSAE Rules Applicable to
Suspension
 Minimum wheelbase of 60”
 If front and rear track are of different lengths, smaller
track must be at least 75% of larger track
 Minimum of 2” useable wheel travel
 Minimum of 1” jounce
 Minimum of 1” rebound
Additional Constraints
 Budget of $1000

 Constraints imposed by other teams

 Drivetrain – axles and rear hubs
 Driver controls - steering rack location
 Chassis – construction of chassis
 Cooperative – brake rotor and caliper selection
Metrics and Target Values
 Wheelbase: 61”
 Front Track: 50”
 Rear Track: 2” less than front
 Adjustable Anti-Dive and Anti-Dive: 1” vertically on specific pickup points
 Roll Center: Stable, < 1” vertical movement over 1.5” deflection in roll, < 1’
horizontal movement
 Scrub Radius: < 1”
 Camber: -2⁰ static camber, maintained over ¾” deflection in roll
 Kingpin Angle: 0-5⁰
 Caster Angle: 0-5⁰
 # Tools to Adjust and Tune Suspension: 3 tools
 Adjustments easy to access: Yes
 Camber and toe adjustment without disconnection of parts: Yes
 Material Strength: Factor of safety for range of normal operation: > 2
 Material Machinability: Maximize
 Material Weight: Minimize
Suspension Style Choice
 Unequal A-arms
 Most commonly used for racing suspension, almost
exclusively used in FSAE
 Style most suited for stiff racing independent
suspension
 Reliable, with predictable and calculable motions and
forces throughout travel.
A-arm Length Adjustability
 Threaded Chassis Mount

spherical rod end mounts to chassis

Locknut

Threaded A-arm
To adjust, bolt is removed,
Locknut loosened, and
rod end turned

 Typical and reliable method, maximize strength and rigidity

Camber Adjustability
 Shims at upright
 Particular shim thicknesses
can be correlated to
specific camber changes shim

 Easily adjustable: loosen bolts

and drop shim into place

upright a-arm clevis

Reliable and successful concept,

Anti-Squat and Anti-Dive Adjustability
 Anti-Squat and Anti-Dive Adjustability

bushing

bushing

 Adjustment is achieved by switching out different sets of bushings.

 Bushings are cheap and easy to manufacture.
 Kinematic Design  Extensive use was made of
Excel spreadsheets and
dynamic CAD models to
Body Roll Simulation simulate suspension and
30 achieve desired performance
25 characteristics.
20  Two Dimensional Simulation
15 of Suspension in Roll
10
Neutral
Y (in)

5
1.5" Deflection Right Roll
0 1.5" Deflection Left Roll
-30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-5

-10

-15

-20
X (in)
Lower A-arms
 Dimensions determined by kinematic and force
analyses.
 Design based on
vehicle dynamics
theory and research
of previously
successful designs.
Upper A-arms
 Dimensions determined by kinematic and force
analyses.
 Design based on
vehicle dynamics
theory and research
of previously
successful designs.
Push Rod Design
 Transfers bump force to shocks
 Supports weight of car in neutral stance
Rocker Design
 Determines ratio of pushrod motion to spring
compression.
 Linkage point for sway bar
Sway Bar Design
 Individual project
assigned to
Seth Beckley
 Typical FSAE design
style
 Stiffness adjustability
achieved by changing
lever arm length
Force Analysis
 The force analysis on the final design centered around
maximum cornering and braking forces estimated
during competition.
 The team decided upon a goal of structural integrity
through a 5g vertical impact.
 The estimated braking and turning values were
conservative, and surpassed the benchmarked 1.4 g
expected in competition.
 The rockers were designed to optimize the travel of the
shock absorbers.
Force Analysis
 Factor of Safety
 The factor of safety for the suspension components under
normal turning and breaking is over 5.
 Failure of Components
 The rod ends are the weakest members of the suspension
structure, and have an estimated failure rating of 4500 lbf.
 Rod ends are expensive and not as easy to replace as other
hardware so the mounting bolts have been undersized to
provide a factor of safety less than the components
themselves.
 Finite Element Analysis
 A finite element analysis was conducted using solid modeling
tools as well as manual calculations to ensure each
component’s performance
Ride and Roll Rates
 Using vehicle dynamics theory, shock travel limits, and
bump and cornering conditions, desired ride and roll rates
were determined:

 Ride Rate:
 Front: 148.4 lb/in
 Rear: 146 lb/in
 Roll Rate:
 Front: 18750 lb•ft/rad total, 15483 lb•ft/rad contributed by
springs, 3267 lb•ft/rad contributed by sway bars
 Rear: 20875 lb•ft/rad total, 14016 lb•ft/rad contributed by
springs, 6859 lb•ft/rad contributed by sway bars
Spring Stiffness and Damping
 Spring Stiffness was determined by desired ride and
roll rate, and the ratio between pushrod movement
and spring compression.
 Damping can be guessed at, but not dialed in until car
is driven and tested.
 From spring stiffness calculations, the target
suspension frequency was estimated to be 3 – 3.5 Hz
which can be achieved through shock adjustability.
Final Product
 To determine the achievement of the geometric target
values the suspension was assembled onto the partially
completed frame and measured.
 Assembly will continue throughout the final week of
Phase 4.
 The final assembly of the suspension will then be
presented to the sponsor on December 17th 2010.
Performance Evaluation/Validation
 Chromoly tubing and welded connections will be tested to
failure and compared to force analysis during the final
week of the Fall 2010 semester.
 The car will not be completed until the very end of senior
design, and thus testing of the effectiveness of the system
will have to be postponed until winter session.
 A test plan has been developed to analyze the performance
under driving conditions.
 Once the car is built, the UD FSAE club will take over
testing and tuning of the suspension using methods
outlined by Team Suspension
Performance Evaluation Measures
 Camber Effectiveness: Tire temperature analysis
after test runs
 Load Transfer: G force measurements from onboard
data acquisition
 Jounce, Body Roll & Anti Squat/Anti-Dive: onboard
measurement and tuning
 All evaluated performance measurements can be
adjusted through adjustability in the suspension and
will be tuned to optimal properties.
Camber Effectiveness
 The efficiency of the camber, ride, and roll rates can be
measured by analyzing tire temperature distribution
after 5-10 laps around the track.
 Each tire’s temperature will be measured at three
locations on the tire
 1” from the outside shoulder
 1” from the inside shoulder
 Center of the tire
 Possible results of the tests and their solutions have
been outlined in the test plans given to the UD FSAE
club.
Load Transfer
 G-force analysis will be completed through the car’s
onboard computer.
 Acceleration measurements will be recorded at every
point along the line the car travels around the track.
 The data extracted from the computer will enable the
team to calculate resultant G-forces.
Jounce, Body Roll & Anti Squat/Anti-Dive
 These performance targets will be evaluated by
directly measuring them as the car is put through
testing on the track.
 Under maximum braking, accelerating, and cornering
conditions, these properties will be measured.
 From this analysis the car will be finely tuned to
achieve the set target values.
Budget
 Materials Cost = $322
 Aluminum, Steel, Chromoly Tubing
 Parts Cost = $550
 Bearings, Rod Ends, Spherical Joints, hardware
 Miscellaneous Costs = $100
 Manufacturing Cost = ~$0.00
 All fabricating was done by team in FSAE shop and
student shop at no charge
 Total Cost = $972
Project Management
 The design of each component in the suspension
assembly have been completed and optimized.
 All geometrical target values have been met.
 The suspension will be tuned after testing is
completed in order to satisfy performance metrics.
 Budget has been reduced and falls within the
constraint.
 Team is on schedule to finish project and present
results to the sponsor on December 17th 2010.
Questions?