DESIGN OBJECTIVES

 To provide a tuneable suspension setup for nullifying fabrication errors of chassis

and adjusting static weight distributions.
 To provide better ride performance.
 To improve the roll stability.
Although direct actuation of suspension has lower weight and less failure components but
the team stuck to conventional push/pull rod suspension systems. The main reason behind
this decision was to nullify the errors caused in chassis due to improper fixtures. Also the
ride height and static weight distribution can be fine-tuned by minimum alterations in
push/pull rods.

The 2nd objective is met by choosing a ride frequency of the vehicle. A ride frequency of
2.417 Hz was chosen for the front (1). For the rear a 10% lower ride frequency was chosen
for a better transient response. The static weight (220 kg) distribution of the last car was
taken as 55:45 front to rear. Using all these data the front and rear ride rates were
computed. Combining these with the tire rates (220 N/mm @ 15psi) wheel rates were
computed.
For computing the spring rate, the maximum loading on each wheel was computed. This
was calculated by combining the load transfers at the time of cornering and braking for
front and cornering and acceleration for rear*. Now for these loads the shocks must not
bump out, and preserve some of its length for additional loading. For front 75% of the
stroke (55.88mm) is consumed for loads offered by cornering and braking (assumed
percentage), and for rear 66% of the stroke is consumed. These data give an estimate of
spring rates required at front and rear* to avoid bump out while in dynamic conditions.
To obtain the required wheel rate by calculated spring rates, the springs must be installed at
a correct motion ratio. While setting the spring geometry, the change of motion ratio w.r.t.
wheel displacement is kept as low as possible. Using formula (MR) 2 =kw/ks the front and
rear motion ratio 0.659 for the front and 0.542 for the rear.

For accomplishing the third objective an anti-roll bar is designed and installed in the car. The
main purpose of this anti-roll bar is to reduce the roll and increase oversteer characteristics
of the car. Oversteer characteristics of the last car were taken as benchmark values for this
car. Thee roll gradient values opted were 1.5 deg/g. This value when combined with roll
moment arm and weight gives the desired roll stiffness for attaining this roll gradient. The
next step was to reduce the roll stiffness provided by ties and springs. This gives overall roll
stiffness which should be compensated by ARB. To provide a slight oversteer characteristics,
the stiffness of ARB of whole vehicle was splitted in 45:55, front: rear.
FOUNDING DESIGN DECISIONS
Track Width and Wheel Base:
Taking into consideration the load transfer calculations, a target of 1240 mm and 1200 mm
was set for the front and rear track width respectively. The rear track is kept narrower due
to the fact that wider rear track is much more unpredictable for the driver as the driver can
see only front tires while seated, so a narrower rear track simply aids the driver while
negotiating a corner.
Bearing in mind the FORMULA BHARAT course, which consists of a number of corners some
of them being very tight and nasty with relatively few number to straights that too are short
straights. It was decided to keep the wheel base minimum and after considering the load
transfer calculations a target for wheelbase was set to be 1549.4 mm (without
compromising component packaging and accessibility).

Suspension Type:
The type of suspension system used in both front and the rear are unequal and non-parallel
double wishbone system, designed while taking care that linkages are only loaded in tension
and compression with minimum applied bending moments to the wishbones.

For spring and damper actuation mechanism although direct actuating mechanisms have
lesser weight, a lower number of members to fail, the team decided to stick with our
conventional push-road/pull-road mechanism. The reason behind that was because both
front and the rear ride heights could be adjusted at the same time independently of each
other which make it easier to optimize performance and nullify chassis errors (if any occurs
in manufacturing phase) to some extent. An outboard pull road and rocker mechanism was
used in front whereas in rear an inboard push road and rocker mechanism is used.

At the Front: Pull road suspension to lower the height of the centre of gravity and to reduce
the chances of buckling of rocker which ensures smooth and proper actuation of dampers
.Taking into account the driver’s safety and ergonomics out-board brakes are given so that
there is much space in the driver’s compartment also making sure that the parts of
suspension system may not enter the driver’s compartment in case of any accidents.

At the Rear: Inboard push road suspension system is elected in order to provide enough
space for the working and maintenance of drive train parts and wheel assembly.
As a whole assembly the whole configuration was chosen such that the node points of the
chassis could be located there where as minimizing the extra chassis members at the same
time for a lighter and better chassis.

Dampers:
Upgrading from last year Customized Shock Absorber this year we have used DNM DV-22AR
Burner RCP Shock Absorber. The decision was based on the wide range of tuning offered by
the new shocks and the comparatively light weight of new shocks. Based on the dimension
of shocks it was also possible to obtain a lower coil diameter is used for fabrication of spring
which further reduced the unsprung mass of vehicle. The basic tuning offered by the shocks
are Compression Damping, Rebound Damping and Preload on spring. These elements
helped in the fine tuning of the vehicle.

Anti-Roll Bars:
Once we had the basic parameters of the design then the calculation and analysis of ride
and roll of the vehicle were performed by taking the reference of “Chapter-16, Ride and Roll
Rates from Race Car Vehicle Dynamics by Milliken and Milliken”.
This value (501.589 N-m/deg) is the measure of roll stiffness required to be compensated to
provide desired roll gradient.

The team now had two options:

1) Increase the stiffness provided by the springs alone (which would increase the overall ride
stiffness of the vehicle to a considerable extent).
2) Install ARBs at both ends (which would result in an increase of gross weight somewhat).
We decided to go with installation of Anti Roll Bars at both ends. In the presented
vehicle a U-Bar Anti Roll Bar is installed at each end (front and rear) to give an additional roll
stiffness of 501.589 Nm/deg to the vehicle to improve the roll without compensating the
overall ride.

Anti-Dive and Anti-Squat

So far the team has not felt the need of anti-dive and anti-squat
characteristics so both of these are kept 0%.
Here:
KR – Ride Rate;
Camber KW – Wheel Rate;
So as to keep the static camber 0o, as it helps in having KT – Tire Rate;
Ks - Spring Rate,
maximum grip in a straight line. But the downside, of this setup
f - Ride Frequency;
is that the inner wheels have a positive camber while rolling. msm - Sprung mass on the
Although as the outer wheels are more loaded while negotiating individual wheel;
a turn, this camber gain effect is at inner wheels have minimum MR - Motion Ratio
effect on performance. (wheel travel to spring
travel);
mfo – Sprung mass on
front outer wheel while
Calculations: simultaneous cornering
and braking;
Ride Analysis mro - Sprung mass on
front outer wheel while
Equation for calculating ride rate Kr = 4π2 fr2 msm simultaneous cornering
and acceleration.
Front Ride Analysis
msm = 62.5 kg
ff = 2.417 Hz
KRf = 4π2 (2.417Hz) 2 (62.5 kg) = 14.414 N/mm
Kt= 220 N/mm (at 15 psi)
KWf = (KRf*Kt)/ (Kt-KRf) = 15.42 N/mm

During cornering and braking the gradual loading on front outer wheel is:
(mfo) = 151.41 kg

{0.75*2.2” is the percentage of shock travel used for this loading}

KSf = (Maximum Loading)/Displacement
KSf = (151.41*9.81)/ (0.75*2.2*25.4) = 35.441 N/mm
MRf = √ (Kwf/Ksf) = 0.6596

Rear Ride Analysis

msm = 47.5 kg
fr = 2.175 Hz

(10% less than front for better transient response)

KRr = 4π2 (2.175Hz) 2(47.5 kg) = 8870.98 N/m= 8.871 N/mm *

Here: H – CG height,
Kt= 220 N/mm (at 15 psi)
h – Roll Axis Distance from
KWr = (KRr*Kt)/ (Kt-KRr) = 9.243 N/mm
Ground,
ɸ/Ay– Desired Roll
During cornering and acceleration the gradual loading on front
Gradient,
outer wheel is:
KɸDes - Desired Roll
Stiffness, KɸT – Roll Stiffness
(mro) = 118.02 kg
provided by Tires,
Kɸw – Roll Stiffness
{0.66*2.2” is the percentage of shock travel used for this loading}
provided by Springs at
given Installation Ratio,
KSr = (Maximum Loading)/Displacement KɸA – Roll Stiffness
KSr = (118.02*9.81)/ (0.66*2.2*25.4) = 3139.238 N/mm = 31.392 Provided by Anti Roll Bar at
N/mm given Motion ratio
MRr = √ (KWr/KSr) = 0.5426

Roll Analysis

H = 300mm
h = 70mm
ɸ/Ay= 1.5 deg/g
KɸDes = W*(H-h)/ (ɸ/Ay) = 451.26 Nm/deg
KɸT = KT*π*t2/ (2*180) = 2904.56 Nm/deg
Kw = (KWf*KWr)/ (KWf+KWr) = 577.884 N/m
KɸW = Kw*π*t2/ (2*180) = 76.295 N/m
 KɸA = KɸDes*KɸT/ (KɸT-KɸDes)-(KɸW) = 577.884-76.295= 501.589 Nm/deg
This roll stiffness is spiltted 45:55 front to rear. Front and rear roll stiffness is given by:
Kɸf = [KRf*tf2*π/ (2*180)] + 0.45*KɸA =419.11 N-m/deg
Kɸr = [KRr*tr2*π/ (2*180)] + 0.55*KɸA =387.34 N-m/deg

SPECIFICATIONS OF SUSPENSION SYSTEM:

Parameters Front Rear
Type of suspension actuation Outboard, Pull Rod actuated Inboard, Push Rod actuated
Shock Absorber model DNM, RCP Burner (2.2” Stroke) DNM, RCP Burner (2.2” Stroke)
Spring Stiffness 35 N/mm 43 N/mm
Static Motion Ratio (Spring: 0.6596:1 0.5426:1
Wheel)
Ride Frequency 2.417 Hz 2.175 Hz
Ride Height Adjustment Pull rod length modification via Push rod length modification via
rod ends rod ends
Roll Gradient 1.5°/g
Caster 3.50 deg 12.0 deg
Kingpin Angle 6.42 deg 6.5 deg
Scrub Radius 28.68 mm 17.52 mm
Mechanical Trail 20.85 mm 74.48 mm
Static Camber 0.0 deg 0.0 deg
Roll Centre Height 34.33 mm 114.17 mm
Static Toe 0.0 deg 0.0 deg
Wheelbase 1549.4 mm
Track Width 1240 mm 1220 mm
CG Height 330 mm

KEYPOINT & FAILURE OF PREVIOUS YEAR

Key points

 Outboard Pushrod suspension system at front and inboard pushrod suspension

system at rear
 Customised Shocks
 Unequal, Non-Parallel Double wishbone setup
 More unsprung weight
Failure

 Failure of rear upright due to poor material selection (Al 6061)

 Stiffer suspension for better roll stability resulting in harsh ride

KEYPOINT & ANALYSIS OF THIS YEAR’S DESIGN

 Outboard pullrod suspension system at front and inboard pushrod suspension
system at rear
  Tunable Shocks
 Unequal, Non-Parallel Double wishbone setup
 Less unsprung weight (smaller pipe dia and optimised rockers)
Analysis
Lotus Suspension Analysis:

Figure 1 Front Pull rod Suspension

Figure 2 Rear Push rod Suspension

 Figure 3 Side View

Wishbone Analysis:
The Wishbone was analyzed by 1D meshing on Altair Hyperworks 14.0 for combined case of
bump, baking and cornering.
Rear

Figure 4 Displacement Plot for Rear Lower Wishbone Figure 5 Displacement Plot for Rear Upper Wishbone

Front

Figure 6 Displacement Plot for Front Lower Wishbone Figure 7 Displacement Plot for Front Upper Wishbone
 Figure 8 Displacement Plot

Figure 9 Stress Plot

Figure 10 Displacement Plot Figure 11 Stress Plot

Analysis of upright in static condition

Front:
 Figure 12 Stress Plot Figure 13 Displacement Plot

Rear:

Figure 14 Stress Plot Figure 15 Displacement Plot

Camber change during Roll and Bump

Toe change with Roll and Bump

FABRICATION METHOD
Wishbones: The material of wishbones is AISI 1020. The selection was based on better
weldability and better strength to weight ratio.

On the upright side a spherical bearing is used instead of a heim joint for sustaining bending
loads appropriately. On the chassis sides a nut has been welded for securing the rod end
connection.
Rockers: Rockers are machined via laser cutting. As in the previous year the rockers were
self-manufactured and this resulted in improper fabrication. So, in order to eliminate that
error, this machining process was used.
Uprights: The uprights and clevis are made via CNC Machining. This was adopted because of
the better surface finish and hence better strength offered by machining than casting. Also
it is more economic and accurate than casting.
TESTING DATA AND FAILURE:
Through vigorous testing the only failure which was figured out was bumping out of rear
shocks. So the no. of coils were reduced and new spring stiffness were 47 N/mm. This also
pointed out the fact that maximum loads on any wheel could go up to the intensity of an
impact load offered by bump or droop.
So the new wheel rates and ride rates were given by

KWr = 13.84 N/mm

KRr = 13.02 N/mm
Due to this increment in spring stiffness the rear roll rates are
Kɸr = [KRr*tr2*π/ (2*180)] + 0.55*KɸA = 439.50Nm/deg

CONCLUSION
The overall design has improved up to a new extent with the application of roll stability in
the car. The main objective of next year’s project will be to implement DAC in the vehicle
and test and validate most of the results stated on the design paper.