FormulaSAEFinalReport PDF

Formula SAE
Final Design Report
Advisor
Dr. Sam Drake
Team
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary .......................................................................................... 5
3 Design Requirements ...................................................................................... 12
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 12
3.2 Functional Requirements ........................................................................................ 12
3.2.1 Functional Requirements Formula SAE ......................................................... 12
3.2.2 Chassis ............................................................................................................ 12
3.2.3 Suspension ...................................................................................................... 12
3.2.4 Brakes ............................................................................................................. 13
3.2.5 Safety .............................................................................................................. 13
3.2.6 Opportunities................................................................................................... 13
3.2.7 Assumptions.................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Physical Requirements............................................................................................ 13
3.3.1 Physical Constraints......................................................................................... 13
3.3.2 Chassis ............................................................................................................ 13
3.3.3 Suspension ...................................................................................................... 14
3.3.4 Safety .............................................................................................................. 14
3.3.5 Opportunities.................................................................................................... 14
3.3.6 Assumptions..................................................................................................... 14
3.4 External Requirements............................................................................................ 15
3.4.1 Opportunities.................................................................................................... 15
3.4.2 Assumptions..................................................................................................... 15
3.4.3 Constraints ....................................................................................................... 15
4 Design Specifications ................................................................................ 17

4.1 Chassis .................................................................................................................... 17
4.1.1 Problem Statement ........................................................................................... 17
4.1.2 Requirements and Specifications..................................................................... 17
4.1.3 Concept Generation ......................................................................................... 17
4.1.4 Design Refinement........................................................................................... 20
4.2 Steering ................................................................................................................... 28
4.2.1 Problem Definition........................................................................................... 28
4.2.5 Final Selection ................................................................................................. 35
4.3 Suspension A-Arms and Suspension Brackets ....................................................... 37
4.3.1
Problem Definition.................................................................................... 37
4.3.2
Requirements and Specifications.............................................................. 37
4.3.3
Concept Generation .................................................................................. 37
4.3.5
Final Selection .......................................................................................... 39
4.4 Push Rod and Rocker Arm ..................................................................................... 40
4.4.1 Problem definition. .......................................................................................... 40
2

4.4.5 Final Selection ................................................................................................. 42
4.5 Impact Attenuator ................................................................................................... 44
4.5.5 Final Selection ................................................................................................. 45
4.6 Engine Selection ..................................................................................................... 50
4.6.1 Problem Definition.......................................................................................... 50
4.6.2 Requirements and Specifications.................................................................... 51
4.6.3 Concept Generation ........................................................................................ 52
4.6.4 Design Refinement.......................................................................................... 55
4.7.5 Final Selection ................................................................................................ 57
4.7 Intake Manifold....................................................................................................... 58
4.7.5 Final Selection ................................................................................................. 61
4.8 Rear Drive............................................................................................................... 62
4.8.5 Final Selection ................................................................................................. 66
4.9 Shift and Clutch Interface ....................................................................................... 68
4.9.1 Problem Statement ........................................................................................... 68
4.9.5 Final Selection ................................................................................................. 72
4.10 Shift Handle .......................................................................................................... 75
4.10.1 Problem Definition......................................................................................... 75
4.10.2 Requirements and Specifications................................................................... 75
4.10.3 Concept Generation ....................................................................................... 75
4.10.4 Design Refinement......................................................................................... 75
4.10.5 Final Selection ............................................................................................... 78
4.11 Controls................................................................................................................. 80
4.11.1 Problem Definition......................................................................................... 80
4.11.2 Requirements and Specifications................................................................... 80
4.11.3 Concept Generation ....................................................................................... 80
4.11.4 Design Refinements ....................................................................................... 82
4.11.5 Final Selection ............................................................................................... 82
5 Recommendations...................................................................................... 83
5.1 Start Early ............................................................................................................... 83
The biggest recommendation we have for this semester is to start early and
keep as organized as possible.6 Project Planning ........................................ 84
6.1 Gant Chart............................................................................................................... 84
7 Resources and Reference Materials........................................................... 85

7.1 References............................................................................................................... 85
7.2 Resources ................................................................................................................ 85
8 Appendix.................................................................................................... 86
Figure 1 Detail Drawing of Impact Attenuator............................................................. 86
Figure 2 Detail Drawing of Honeycomb for Impact Attenuator................................... 87
Figure 3 Detail Drawing of Clutch Pedal. .................................................................... 88
Figure 4 Detail Drawing of Shift Handle...................................................................... 89
Figure 5 Detail Drawing of Pushrod and Rocker Assembly......................................... 90
Josh Smith (Capt.)

Ben Opfermann
Eliot Moellmer
2007 FORMULA SAE TEAM MEMBERS

Kent Feda
Colby Englund
Brett George
Omar Saleb
Josh Nell
Guy Pannunzio
Tyler Child
Eric Youssefi
Lucas Sosa
Faculty Advisor: Dr. Samuel Drake
1 Executive Summary
The Formula SAE project started nearly 25 years ago as an informal mini Indy
competition between college design groups. Today over two hundred universities
participate in yearly competitions held in six different countries. The University of Utah
design team will be entering the Detroit, MI competition in May 2007. The premise of
the competition is that student teams have been hired to build a prototype car which will
be marketed to the weekend amateur autocross racer for under $25,000. Scoring will be
based on marketability to the target consumer group, racing performance, merits of the
design, cost, and ease of manufacturing and maintenance. This report will cover the
details and rationale for the teams design, the specifications of the prototype, and the
research done into the methods that are being employed to complete the design. Because
the car will be built for autocross racing the team chose weight, handling, and
acceleration as the most important design factors.
The first main design goal is to keep the car as light as possible. To accomplish
this, the team has decided to build the chassis and body out of carbon-fiber. Using carbon
fiber will permit the chassis to be structurally equivalent to a standard steel tube frame at
a fraction of the weight. The teams chosen design will look similar to monocoque
designs used by most universities including previous University of Utah team designs. A
monocoque design, comparable to a fuselage, integrates the body and chassis, and carries
the major part of the stresses in the outer skin. In contrast, the 2007 University of Utah
car will have a separate chassis with a detachable body panel.
The chassis will provide the main support structure and side impact protection
similar to a boat hull. The front and rear roll hoops, which are required to be made from
steel tube, will be integrated into the chassis and will also provide additional support for
the suspension and spring mounts. The body will protect the driver from external
exposure but will require much less material to fabricate than the chassis. It will also be
detachable to offer easy maintenance access to internal components. This two-piece
design will provide the required side impact and rollover protections and structural
support but will be much lighter than typical monocoque designs since less material will
be utilized. Less material will also mean less cost which, as previously mentioned, will be
an important part of the judging.
According to the competition rules, the engine is limited to a 610cc, four-stroke,
piston engine with a restrictor on the air intake to limit horsepower. The restrictor also
makes it more difficult to maintain a smooth airflow necessary for a consistent air-fuel
mixture at different engine speeds. The team has purchased a 599cc, four-cylinder
motorcycle engine and will be building a new throttle body and air intake to meet these
restrictions. This engine was selected because it is compact in size, light-weight and is
designed to provide a broad powerband. The race focuses on acceleration rather than top
speed, and this engine will provide the low-end torque necessary for both the autocross
courses and acceleration events. In addition, a four cylinder engine, compared to a one
cylinder engine with a similar displacement, can pull in air more smoothly through the
restrictor and will not require the addition of a supercharger. Keeping the engine
normally aspirated will reduce the complexity, weight and cost of the intake design.
The suspension, steering, and wheelbase designs will all be optimized for quick
and responsive handling through the winding autocross course. The team has chosen to
use an unequal length, non-parallel, A-arm suspension layout. This concept is the most
commonly utilized design in open wheel racing. The team decided that this layout would
provide the most adjustability in camber changes and roll centers which will be discussed
in further detail in the report.
Because of the collaborative effort required to complete this project, every team
member is expected to have a general understanding of the entire project as well
specialized knowledge of a specific portion of the project. Scoring of the competition will
not only be based on how well the drivers do in the various races. Members of the team
will also be required to defend the decision making process for each aspect of the car and
will have to present the marketing strategy to the competition judges. To accomplish our
overall goal of winning the competition our strategy is to build a racecar that is lightweight, quick, and responsive in the curves, while being low cost to manufacture and
maintain.
2 Context
2.1 Need Statement
Formula racing is not only a sport for professionals; it is an attraction to a variety of
people. Besides the professional market, there is market oriented toward the nonprofessional weekend autocross racer. The Formula SAE team will take the hypothetical
idea that a manufacturing firm has contracted the team to develop a concept racing car for
mass production. The team will take this market and will design a car that will fulfill the
needs of an amateur racer. Some of these needs include: low cost, high performance,
aesthetics, safety, and reliability.
But, this is not the only goal for this project; another motivation for successfully
completing the design is that the team will present the finalized car in an intercollegiate
competition to be held in April 2007 at Ford Proving Grounds in Dearborn, MI.
Therefore, the 2007 Formula SAE team will design a prototype car intended for the
weekend amateur racer that posses all the attributes necessary to succeed in the non
professional market and will base the construction according to the 2007 formula SAE
rules manual.
2.2 Problem Statement
Developing a racing car capable to compete in the market is not an easy task; the team
will have to face a series of problems and constraints that will challenge the successful
construction of the prototype. Since the intended market is the nonprofessional weekend
autocross racer it is required that the car has high performance acceleration, braking,
easy maintenance, and reliability, as well as being aesthetically pleasing and comfortable.
The vehicle must also be constructed according to the 2007 Formula SAE rules which
emphasize security. These rules can be found in the following website:
http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/rules/rules.pdf. In the end, the team
will take their prototype to Detroit in May 2007 to compete against other engineering
programs in all these aspects.
Besides the technical needs, one of the most important issues that constrain the
construction of the project is the budget. The total construction cost must be under
$25,000, but the real challenge is raising this money for the construction of the prototype.
2.3 Design Team
Student Design Team Members
The 2007 University of Utah Formula SAE Team is form by twelve students, as pictured
in Figure 1.
Figure 1: The 2007 Formula SAE Team of Utah

Top Row (From Left): Eric Youssefi, Omar Saleb, Lucas Sosa, Guy Pannuzio,
Ben Opfermann, Tyler Child, Josh Smith, Colby Englund, Josh Nell
Bottom Row (From Left): Elliot Moellmer, Brett George, Kent Feda
Below is a description of each team members responsibilities and contact information.
Josh Smith - Team Leader
uofufsae@gmail.com
Josh has assumed the role of team leader. He is responsible for coordinating and
overseeing all the team efforts. This is Josh's third year in the Formula SAE team,
which gives him valuable experience in leadership, racecar dynamics, driving,
suspension, and composites.
Eric Youssefi - Safety and Ergonomics / Fund Raising
eyik66@hotmail.com
Eric will focus his efforts in designing the crash structure of the car, as well as
raising money through sponsors and team activities. He brings creative problem
solving skills to the team.
Omar Saleb - Safety and Ergonomics
omsla82@yahoo.com
Omar will be designing the front impact attenuator and the location of the driver
interface. He brings knowledge of design and manufacturing to the team and also
has a great personal interest in race cars.
Lucas Sosa - Safety and Ergonomics

lucasmonumental@hotmail.com
Lucas is leading efforts in modeling and manufacturing the energy absorbing
structure as well as the front bulkhead and the car seat. He has a valuable
background in safety, which will be useful in the overall design of the car.
Guy Pannuzio Chassis and Suspension
rythmguy@yahoo.com
Guy will be designing and manufacturing the cassis and suspension. He worked
for six years repairing automobiles, and one year as a design engineer. He is
skilled in welding, solid modeling, and finite element analysis.
Ben Opfermann Engine and Drive-train
b.opfermann@utah.edu
Ben will focus on ensuring that the engine runs properly and with maximum
performance. Ben brings skills in engine tuning and transmissions work to the
team.
Tyler Child Chassis and Suspension
stuss76@msn.com
Tyler will be designing the chassis and suspension of the car. He has been
working as a design engineer and brings a background and working knowledge of
making prototypes, machine work, and CAD design to the team.
Colby Englund Engine and Drive-train
csenglun@hotmail.com
Colby will be working on the engine, and drive-train. He worked as a design
engineer, and he brings solid modeling, as well as manufacturing skills to the
team.
Josh Nell - Engine and Drive-train / Electrical
nellme72@thebluezone.net
Josh will be working on the engine, drive train, and the electrical part of the car.
He is skilled in 3D modeling, computer programming, computer control, and
engines repair.
Eliot Moellmer Engine and Drive-train
emoellmer@comcast.net
Eliot will focus his efforts working on the engine, and designing the drive-train.
He has work experience with Chevrolet engines, muscle cars, manual and
automatic transmissions, and drive-trains.
Brett George Chassis and Suspension / Electrical

kman3001@aol.com
Brett will be designing the chassis, suspension, and the electrical part of the car.
He brings three years of experience in auto mechanics to the team and is also
highly skilled in electrical wiring and MIG and TIG welding.
Kent Feda Fund Raising / Electrical
kent.feda@utah.edu
Kent will have the difficult task to raise many for the expenses of our project.
Also, he will be designing the electrical part of the car. Kent brings good
communication, organization, and management skills to the team.
Dr. Samuel Drake Research Associate Professor / Faculty Adviser
drake@cs.utah.edu
Teaching Team
William Provancher - Asst. Professor
wil@mech.utah.edu
Nick Sylvester - Teaching Assistant
nick.powderhound@gmail.com
Sam Segal - Teaching Assistant
sam.segal@mech.utah.edu
Marlin Taylor - Written Communications Teaching Assistant
marlin.taylor@utah.edu
Andy Dohanos - Oral Communications Teaching Assistant
dohanos@utah.edu
Corporate Liaisons and Sponsors
Formula SAE team receives support from the following sponsors:
Tom Feda: in-kind donations for food handler's permits and IRS form 1023
Brett George: in-kind donation of engine
Solidworks: in-kind donations of 12 student versions
Huntsman Advanced Materials: miscellaneous support
Lotus: Software
Industritek (Rick McMillen): miscellaneous support
10
The team is pending support from the following sponsors:

Larry H. Miller Motorsports Park
Honda Suzuki of Salt Lake
Speed Street
Bolt and Nut Supply
McLean Quality Composites
2.4 Team Circumstances
The Formula SAE project is a competition among teams from different universities. This
competition challenges students to design and build a formula style car. This project
gives members the opportunity to apply and demonstrate their creativity and engineering
skills. The team consists of twelve talented students that are committed to designing,
building and testing the car in an eight month period, while remaining within the
designated budget. The team is highly motivated to win the competition and possesses
the skills and knowledge necessary to meet the challenges this project involves. Each
member has committed to work in his area of expertise and to perform his tasks in a
timely manner. The areas of expertise were divided in five categories with include:
engine and drive train, chassis and suspension, safety and ergonomics, electrical, and
fund raising. Every subgroup will present the whole design, including modeling,
fabrication, and assembly, along with their confidence, in a successfully built race car by
the end of February 2007.
11
3 Design Requirements
3.1 Introduction
Students are employed to design, fabricate and demonstrate a prototype car for evaluation of a
production item. The intended market for the car is the weekend autocross racer that is interested
in competing at a higher level. The design will be compared and judged with other competing
designs to determine the best overall car for production.
3.2 Functional Requirements

The functional requirements define how the car will perform. There are many different aspects of
the car that define the functional requirements and will be broken up into different sections to
cover each aspect.
3.2.1 Functional Requirements Formula SAE
Allow space for 95th percentile of Americans to fit in vehicle
Have the ability to corner smoothly with large lateral gs
Have braking ability to stop all four wheels at same time
Must be able to protect occupant in event of a high speed impact
Ability to accelerate very smoothly and fast
3.2.2 Chassis
Requirements of the chassis are as follows:
Rigid
Must contain a roll hoop for both the front and rear of vehicle
Contain a front impact structure
The most important aspect of the chassis is the torsional rigidity of the car for cornering
stability. The suspension must attach to portions of the chassis that will allow the transfer
of forces to be absorbed by the stiffness in the chassis. It must be large enough to allow
each of the team members access into and out of the drivers compartment while
maintaining low weight.
3.2.3 Suspension
Suspension requirements define how well the car is going to handle in corners as well as
braking and acceleration. The suspension must support the chassis such that at no time
during a race, no part of the car will come into contact with the ground except the tires. It
12
must have adjustability in order to allow tuning for different conditions of different
courses.
3.2.4 Brakes
The braking system must be employed such that the system acts on all four wheels and is
controlled by a single control.
On a dynamic braking test, the system must be able to
lock all four wheels simultaneously while stopping the vehicle in a straight line.
3.2.5 Safety
Rider safety is the most important aspect of the design of the entire car. Safety measures
such as side impact retainers and a front crash structure will be employed to maintain
safety. Roll hoops will also be installed in the front middle and rear end of the car to
protect the driver in the event of a rollover.
3.2.6 Opportunities
The size of the car will be such that any weekend auto crosser can transport it from event to event
with as little amount of effort as possible. The car will have the performance to guarantee a
competitive run every time it goes out on the track. The seating of the car will be able to accept
nearly all people in the 95th percentile of Americans.
3.2.7 Assumptions
We are assuming that the weekend auto crosser will be using the car for a minimum of 26 weeks
out of the year for at least two days of the weekend for those 26 weeks. With such a demanding
schedule the car should be very reliable with parts that can be easily acquired from most any parts
store.
3.3 Physical Requirements
The physical requirements describe hot the FSAE vehicle will perform its specified function. All
of the physical requirements have been predetermined by the FSAE rule book.
3.3.1 Physical Constraints
The physical constraints are aspects listed in the Formula SAE handbook as to maintain a
car that will not be built outside the rules of competition. These restraints are listed
below.
3.3.2 Chassis
13
The physical requirements of the chassis are based on the Formula SAE rules. The
following table lists the requirements for different materials used.
Material & Application Minimum Wall Thickness
Steel Tubing
2.0 mm (.079inch)
Aluminum
3.0 mm (.118inch)
Composites
Equivalency Calculations
The chassis can be built of any of the listed materials individually or of a hybrid
construction of a combination of them all. In the composites sections proof of structural
integrity must be supplied to conform to the safety specification of the steel or aluminum.
3.3.3 Suspension
The car must be equipped with fully operational suspension system with shock absorbers,
front and rear, with a useable travel of 50.8mm (2 inches), 25.4 mm (1 inch) bound and
25.4mm (1 inch) rebound.
3.3.4 Safety
The front and main roll hoops must be constructed of a single piece of uncut closed
section of steel tubing specified in table 1. The side impact structures must have an outer
diameter of no less than 25.4 mm (1 inch) and must be located a minimum of 300350mm (11.8 13.8) from the ground line. The front impact attenuator must be at least
150 mm (5.9 in) long and must not allow more than 20 gs of deceleration felt by the
driver at a speed of 7 m/s (23 ft/s) in the event of a frontal impact.
3.3.5 Opportunities
The new FSAE car will appear different then the previous years vehicle. Many of the systems are
being redesigned in order to meet all of the physical requirements set by the FSAE rulebook. The
systems are also being redesigned in order to achieve a much quicker acceleration, and much
better handling then the previous years vehicle.
3.3.6 Assumptions
14
We are limited in the amount of acceleration that we can achieve by the size restriction placed on
engine displacement. We are also working under the assumption that any engine used will be in
existence, and the team will not design/manufacture its own engine. The suspension system will
be designed under the assumption that the difference in temperatures between summer and winter
will not greatly affect the damping factor of the shock absorbers. Also, it is assumed that the
vehicle will be driven on a smooth, level, hard surface, and will be designed accordingly.
3.4 External Requirements
The external requirements will describe the typical user of the FSAE vehicle, as well as the types
of situations the vehicle may be used.
3.4.1 Opportunities
Due to the limited space of the FSAE vehicle, the number of passengers will be limited to a single
driver. The internal compartment of the vehicle will enclose enough space such that a single
driver will have adequate room. The FSAE vehicles performance requirements require that the
chassis lays close to the ground which limits the driving terrain to smooth level surfaces.
3.4.2 Assumptions
It is estimated that the internal compartment will be large enough to accommodate up to a 95
percentile American male with respect to height. It is assumed that this driver will have physical
features that are not abnormal (e.g. abnormally disproportionately sized legs). It is assumed that
by lowering the ride height of the vehicle, the performance will not be negatively impacted, due
to the requirement that the vehicle must be driven on a smooth level surface.
3.4.3 Constraints
The average driver will not be subjected to severe discomfort
15
The average drivers comfort should be accommodated according to modern ergonomic

principles. The driver should not be confined to operating the vehicle in severely
uncomfortable or awkward positions.
Safety will not be severely compromised for performance gains
Any objective that will enhance performance should not jeopardize the safety of the
vehicles user.
Performance tasks should not reduce the minimum amount of required space
Objectives implemented to enhance performance should not reduce the amount of
interior space in the vehicle beyond its set minimum needed to accommodate a 95
percentile male.
16
4 Design Specifications
4.1 Chassis
4.1.1 Problem Statement
There are many goals when designing a racecar chassis but with any set of goals they are
generally contradicting. Ideally the chassis would exhibit these characteristics:
1. Offer driver protection in the case of an accident
2. Rigid
3. Lightweight
4. Inexpensive
5. Allows easy access to internally mounted components
6. Easy to manufacture
Goals such as lightweight and inexpensive and, Rigid and lightweight are in direct
competition with each other. To resolve some of these conflicting goals the 2007-08
University of Utah Formula SAE team has developed some rather radical solutions which
will be discussed in this report.
4.1.2 Requirements and Specifications
There are many requirements that the chassis must be able to meet in order to be deemed
suitable for a racecar. There are the obvious requirement that is must be lightweight just
as every component on a racecar must. Another major requirement is for the chassis to
be rigid. Having the chassis rigid allows the suspension to do its job more effectively.
The more compliant the chassis is the harder it is to predict the dynamics of the racecar.
It also needs to be easily manufactured in quantities of approximately four per day. This
car is designed to be for the armature, weekend autocross racer which in-of-its self has
some very demanding requirements. The car must be inexpensive yet have very high
performance capabilities. The target buyer also will most likely be doing all of the
maintenance by themselves. This means that the car must be easy to maintain and the
chassis must allow easy access to the cars internally mounted components. The chassis
must also allow adequate space for all of the components of the car. This requirement
seems obvious but, it is one of the most commonly overlooked requirements in the
Formula SAE program
There are also some external requirements that are set by the sanctioning body SAE. For
the chassis these requirements are mainly to ensure the driver and course worker safety.
For a detailed list of theses requirements please refer to the 2007 Formula SAE Rules,
specifically sections 3.1 through 3.5.
4.1.3
Concept Generation
17
When looking at the chassis of a racecar there are a few proven choices for both material
and also construction design. For material there is steel, aluminum, titanium, magnesium
and carbon fiber. For construction type there is space frame and monocoque.
Each of there materials and construction types have their benefits. Steel and aluminum
are relatively inexpensive but when compared to some of the more advanced materials
such as titanium and magnesium they are heavier. Titanium can be welded but requires a
skilled welder and also an inert environment to weld in. Magnesium is largely limited to
machining and casting applications.
There are primarily two ways to manufacture a racecar chassis. The most common
method is space frame or tube frame construction. This method uses tubes which are
welded together to create a frame. These frames are usually highly triangulated and use
varying size tubing for the local requirements of the chassis. These frames can be made
extremely light weight but they often sacrifice serviceability and driver comfort. The
advantages of this type of construction are: inexpensive, easily designed and easily
manufactured. Space frame construction requires a separate body to be produced and
fitted which increases part count, complexity and weight.
Monocoque construction is the second primary construction type. This type is
constructed in one of two ways. The first more historic way is using sheet metal that is
cut and bent into the desired shape then riveted, bonded and/or welded together. This
allows rather inexpensive materials to be used but requires very skilled metal workers to
manufacture. The second more modern way is to produce a mold of the desired shape of
the chassis. Then layer carbon, core material, and more carbon into the mold. This
produces a sandwich composite which has very desirable properties such as high
strength, low weight and also the ability to create complex shapes fairly easily. One
advantage to either monocoque method is it doesnt require a separate body to be fitted
because the chassis its self can be shaped in such a way that it takes the job of the body as
well as the chassis. This reduces part count, mounting complexity and weight. The
primary problem with this construction type is it is generally very difficult to service the
cars internally mounted components because there is no direct access to them.
After looking at the two traditional construction types there was always a compromise
when selecting one or the other. Some initial goals that needed to be met where:
1. It must be easy to manufacture
2. It must be light weight
3. It must be easy to work on
4. It must be inexpensive
5. It must be stiff
Composite monocoque chassis are primarily hard to construct because the manufacturing
process requires that the chassis be constructed in a split mold or the chassis must be
made in separate parts that are bonded together after they are each constructed. Both of
these methods require a tremendous amount of effort. The completely enclosed chassis
make the completed car very hard to work on, requiring you work through small
18
openings or creative body placement to access components such as the brake, steering
system or dash electrical components. Carbon fiber is also very expensive so if it is used
as a manufacturing material it must be used effectively and sparingly. So after looking at
these limitations of the materials and construction styles an alternative needed to be
created.
The following are some concept sketches that show the basic layout of several different
chassis designs.
Sketch by: Josh Smith

This design has some advantages in that it would be very accessible because of the open
top design. However, the rear sub frame that attaches the engine to the chassis would
need to be quite extensive to accommodate the rear suspension system. This half
chassis design makes it possible to create the entire chassis with out the use of either
split molds or multi part construction. This reduces the time and cost of producing a
carbon fiber chassis. Another benefit to this design is that there is very little carbon fiber
used in comparison to a full monocoque chassis, further reducing the manufacturing
costs.
19

This design is unique because it has no sub frame to support the engine and rear
suspension. The monocoque chassis extends to the rear of the car and thus the engine
and rear suspension can both be mounted directly to the monocoque chassis.
These two concepts can be contrasted with a traditional monocoque chassis with a rear
sub frame shown below.
4.1.4
Design Refinement
The chassis and body are one of the most complex components to model on the car.
Because of this all of the concepts could not be modeled as it would be too time
20
consuming. Instead a surface model of the general shape was created and some
measurements were taken from it. The measurements of interest are the surface area of
the chassis, because the surface area is directly related to the amount of carbon that will
be needed. Below are the measured surface areas for the different chassis configurations:
Traditional Monocoque with Sub-Frame: 3.08 m^2

Hybrid Chassis with Sub-Frame: 1.95 m^2
Hybrid Chassis: 3.16 m^2
So it can be seen that the hybrid chassis only requires 2.5% more carbon to produce then
the traditional monocoque chassis with a sub frame. This is impressive considering that
the hybrid chassis extends from the front to the very rear of the car. There is a great
benefit here in that every major component of the car will be bolted directly to a single
structure, the carbon hybrid chassis. This reduces the associated hardware from
mounting to sub frames and also reduces the part count of the car.
After deciding on the course of action the basic form of the chassis and body where
developed.
Model created by: Josh Smith
21
Final Selection
By utilizing the hybrid chassis it will be possible to create a chassis that has comparable
stiffness to a full carbon chassis with several added benefits. The hybrid chassis will not
require the complex split molds or multi-body construction of traditional composite
chassis, which reduces the time and cost of production. The hybrid chassis will also be
much easier to service as all of the components of the car will be easily accessible from
the top of the chassis. Utilizing a full length composite chassis also eliminates the rear
sub-frame and associated mounting hardware, thus reducing the complexity, weight, and
part count of the car.
So by sacrificing some stiffness compared to a traditional monocoque chassis it is
possible to elevate the following problems associated with a traditional monocoque
chassis:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Expensive Tooling
Complex Tooling
Serviceability Issues
Manufacturing Time
Cost
After the general form was created it was then sectioned and the individual parts of the
chassis were made. The picture below shows the nose, body and chassis.
22
23

After the nose, body and chassis were created they were all assembled to observe all of
the interactions between the various components such as the driver, steering wheel,
display, engine, front and main roll hoops and front suspension brace. Shown below are
all of the above mentioned components.
24

Here it shows the completed assembly.
25
26
27
4.2 Steering
4.2.1 Problem Definition
In order for the 2007 University of Utah Formula SAE vehicle to be competitive in this
years competition, the car must be able to handle very well. A large portion of the
handling of the vehicle comes from the steering system. This steering system must
conform to SAE rules and regulations, be safe, easy to use, lightweight, and most of all,
allow the vehicle to maneuver through the course as quickly as possible.
There are a number of rules set forth by SAE directly affecting the steering system. These
rules appear below.
The steering system must affect at least two wheels.
The steering system must have positive steering stops that prevent the steering
Linkages from locking up (the inversion of a four-bar linkage at one of the pivots).
The stops may be placed on the uprights or on the rack and must prevent the tires
from contacting suspension, body, or frame members during the track events.
Allowable steering system free play is limited to 7 degrees total measured at the
steering wheel.
Rear wheel steering is permitted only if mechanical stops limit the turn angle of the
rear wheels to 3 degrees from the straight ahead position.
The steering wheel must be mechanically connected to the front wheels, i.e. steerby-wire of the front wheels is prohibited.
Following these rules is the first and most important requirement, as breaking any of these
rules will result in disqualification from the competition.
Suspension and Steering Geometry
In order for this years vehicle to handle as well as possible, many issues involving
suspension and steering geometry must be taken into consideration. Bump steer,
Ackermann, and Toe are the three most important issues to design around when
designing a steering system.
Toe
Toe is perhaps the most important variable when designing a steering system for a race
car. Toe is defined as the angle between the forward direction of the vehicle, and the
direction of the tire when looking from a top view. Toe in is when the tires point in
toward the center of the vehicles centerline, while toe out is when the tires point out
away from the vehicles centerline. The diagram below shows an example of both toe in
(red) and toe out (green).
28
http://www.simpsonmotorsport.co.uk/uploads/files/SuspensionSetup.pdf
Bump Steer
Bump steer is directly related to the placement of steering components such as the rack
and pinion and outer steering rod ends relative to the upper and lower control arms. The
figure below is a diagram showing proper placement of components.
http://www.thedirtforum.com/bumpsteer.htm
As the diagram shows, Line 3 and Line 4 are imaginary lines created by the upper and
lower control arms. The place where these lines intersect is called the instant center. In
order to eliminate bump steer, the imaginary line created by the steering rod must also
intersect this line. This allows all of the suspension points to rotate about a fixed radius,
keeping the wheels from toeing in or out depending on suspension travel.
Ackermann Steering
Ackermann steering is a very important aspect of steering system design. Ackermann is
when one tire is allowed to turn more than the other. The reason Ackermann is needed is
because when a vehicle is executing a tight turn, both tires need to rotate about different
radii, and if nothing is done about this, one of the tires will scrub, causing unpredictable
handling. In order to compensate for this one tire(usually the inside tire) turns at an angle
29
greater than the outside tire, since the inside tire must turn a tighter radius than the
outside tire. The diagram below shows an example of ackermann steering.
http://www.auto-ware.com/setup/ack_rac.htm
4.2.3 Concept Generation

Overview
During the initial brainstorming process, many different ideas were generated relating to
the steering system. While most previous Formula SAE teams have all used the same
type of setup, (i.e.: steering wheel input, rack and pinion to tie rod output) we decided to
explore different possibilities for driver input as well as the steering system output.
Concept 1:
Sketch by Brett George

Concept 1 exhibits the most common steering design for Formula SAE vehicles. A rack
and pinion setup is shown as the steering system output while a steering wheel is used for
the driver input. This design allows for easy and clean packaging of steering components,
as well as a sense of familiarity for the driver, since they have experience with using a
steering wheel; probably on a daily basis.
Concept 2
30

Concept 2 shows a slight variation on concept 1. The steering system output is the same,
however a set of handlebars are used instead of a steering wheel. While this idea may
have some advantages, this is not a very practical design.
Concept 3

Concept 3 utilizes a steering wheel setup with a steering box output. While a steering box
is smaller and lighter weight, it is not as easily packagable as a steering rack would be,
since a pitman arm must be used to actuate the steering linkage.
Concept 4
31

Concept 4 uses a steering box setup with a handlebar input. This design is probably the
least practical of the designs. As mentioned above, the handlebars are not pracitcal due to
their size and required placement. The steering box is also not practical for reasons
discussed in the concept 3 explanation.
4.2.4 Design Refinement

Overview
During the design process of the steering system for the 2007 Formula SAE vehicle, a
number of concepts were generated. While the brainstorming process was helpful in
stirring up new ideas for the steering system, the experiences of previous Formula SAE
teams have shown that a rack and pinion type steering setup is the best choice for this
type of vehicle. For this reason, this section will focus mainly on two issues. The first
issue is the placement of the steering rack. The second issue is the material used to
manufacture the steering components, which include the rack and pinion, steering
linkage, universal joints, and rod ends.
Rack Placement
High Mounted Rack
32

Advantages
Mounting the steering rack high in the chassis allows for easy installation,
maintenance and adjustment.
Mounting the steering rack high in the chassis makes eliminating bump steer easy,
due to the fact that both the rack and the tie rod can be aligned with the upper
control arm.
Mounting the steering rack high in the chassis allows the steering rod from the
steering wheel to be straight, eliminating the need for a universal joint
Disadvantages
Mounting the steering rack high in the chassis can cause problems for the driver
entering and exiting the vehicle, as the rack will extend the width of the chassis
and present an opportunity for the driver to get their feet caught on the rack
during a quick exit from the vehicle.
Mounting the steering rack high in the chassis will effectively raise the vehicles
total center of gravity. The lower some of the heavy components can be mounted
the better.
Mid Mounted Rack
33
Advantages
None
Disadvantages
Mounting the rack midway up the chassis will interfere with the drivers ability to
enter and exit the vehicle in a timely manner
Mounting the rack midway up the chassis will make eliminating bump steer
difficult, since the angle that the steering tie rod must make is somewhere
between the angle of the upper and lower control arms. While this could be done,
it would be difficult to perfect
Mounting the rack midway up the chassis would be unsafe for the driver in the
event of a collision. Since the rack is mounted in the same area as the drivers
legs, an injury could easily occur from the drivers legs contacting the steering
rack.
Low Mounted Rack

Advantages
Mounting the rack low in the chassis eliminates the possibility for obstruction of
the drivers quick exit from the vehicle in the event of an emergency.
Mounting the rack low in the chassis allows for easy elimination of bump steer,
since the steering tie rod may be aligned with the lower control arm
Mounting the rack low in the chassis lowers the center of gravity of the vehicle
Disadvantages
Mounting the rack low in the chassis requires the steering rod from the steering
wheel to travel through an angle such that a universal joint is needed
Material Selection
Overview
Two materials were considered to make the steering components out of. These two
materials are 4130 Carbon Alloy Steel tubing and 6061-T6 Aluminum tubing. There are
definite advantages and disadvantages associated with each. Examples are shown below.
4130 Carbon Alloy Steel
Advantages
Easy to weld, even for the amateur welder

34
Readily available at a number of places, local and online

Able to carry high tension and compression stresses
Able to be purchased in large quantities rather inexpensively
Disadvantages
Heavy when compared to Aluminum
6061-T6 Aluminum
Advantages
Very lightweight compared to steel

Readily available
Able to carry sufficient tension and compression stresses
Able to be purchased rather inexpensively
Disadvantages
Very difficult to weld for the amateur welder

Not as strong as steel
4.2.5 Final Selection

The first step in making the final selection for the 2007 Formula SAE vehicle steering
system was to eliminate some of the designs that will not work. This has been done in the
previous sections. Once eliminated down to a reasonable number of designs, a Design
Selection Matrix can be constructed. This matrix can be viewed below. As this worksheet
shows, Welded steel tubing is the best material to use for the steering linkage. This
matrix also shows that a low-mounted rack is best for our application. This design will
allow for the best possible combination of packaging, strength, safety, dependability, ease
of use, and ease of manufacturing. This design also allows for the high performance
handling characteristics that this vehicle will require, due to the convenient placement of
the steering rack.
35
36
Welded
Steel
Top
Mounted
Rack
Bottom
Mounted
Rack
Mid
Mounted
Rack
3
9
3
1
1
3
28
Relative
Rank
3
9
9
72
Raw
score
1
9
3
9
9
90
3
3
3
3
3
141
Welded
Aluminum
3
9
1
3
3
9
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Engineering Metrics
Weight
Safety
Packaging
Ease of Manufacturing
Cost
Reliability
Weights
Design
Trades
4.3 Suspension A-Arms and Suspension Brackets

4.3.1
Problem Definition
In order to navigate the autocross course quickly, the 2007 Formula SAE car needs to
have a well designed and adjustable suspension system. A key component of the
suspension design is the interface between the chassis and the suspension system. The
development of the suspension arms and suspension mounting brackets form an
important part of this system.
4.3.2
Requirements and Specifications
Brackets
2007 Formula SAE rules state that any threaded fastener used must meet or exceed SAE
grade 5, Metric Grade M 8.8, and/or AN/MS specifications. All fasteners must be secured
from unintentional loosening by the use of positive locking mechanisms. Because the
suspension brackets will be fastened to the chassis as well as the suspension arms, these
requirements will dictate the design of the bracket. There are no specific rules for the
suspension bracket itself.
Unnecessary weight in racing can cost a car precious seconds around the race track.
Selected materials selection is critical in keeping the weight as small as possible.
Materials will need to be lightweight and withstand the rigors of racing. The brackets
alone will need to withstand up to 2 Gs of lateral force. Adjustability of the brackets is a
concern. All components of a well-designed suspension system have some degree of
adjustability.
Suspension Arms
2007 Formula SAE rules state that spherical rod ends must be in double shear or
captured by having a screw/bolt head or washer with an O.D. that is larger than
spherical bearing housing I.D. Adjustable rod ends must be constrained with a jam nut to
prevent loosening.
On each end of the suspension arm is a rod end. The length of these rod arms will need to
be adjustable so that suspension characteristics are controllable. Inside each of the rod
ends is a spherical bearing. This bearing allows the suspension arm to pivot up and down
while attached to the suspension bracket. The height above and below the rod ends will
need to be adjustable.
4.3.3
Concept Generation
37
Brackets and suspension arms were benchmarked from a variety of different sources.
Formula 1, single seat racers, and other Formula SAE race cars were all inspected for
different ideas. Mind map brainstorming generated new design concepts and attempted to
improve on previous designs. Several rough sketches were made of possible concepts.
After benchmarking and brainstorming, two potential design ideas were selected and
further developed for the suspension brackets. Solid models of these designs were
created. The middle-out bracket concept can be seen in figure 1. Figure 2 shows an
adaptation on last years bracket. However, the support arms of the bracket of the new
design are horizontal, instead of the previous vertical design. The suspension arm cannot
rotate in the rod end when the supports are vertical. Last years suspension a-arms were
modified to have a more swept profile.
Figure 1. Bracket 1 (Tyler Child)
Figure 2. Bracket 2 (Tyler Child)
Figure 3. Suspension arm (Tyler Child)
Material selection for the bracket was narrowed down to aluminum 6061. This alloy is
lightweight, strong, and easy to machine. Last years team left some blocks of this alloy
for our team to use so this helps to eliminate further costs. The suspension arms were
built from steel tubing. Steel was selected due to its high strength, ease in welding, and
availability.
38
4.3.5
Final Selection
The potential design ideas were placed in a selection matrix. These ideas were weighted
and scored against certain metrics. There were four different designs; the middle out
bracket, the vertical support, horizontal support, and a circular base bracket. These
designs were compared in a QFD. The metrics of high importance were adjustability and
safety. Safety of the driver comes first. The car must pass several safety inspections
before being allowed to compete. As previously discussed, all components need to be
adjustable. The middle-out bracket, shown in figure 1, scored the highest and was
selected for the final design. After further refining, the middle-out bracket was
completely modeled. The complete assembly, seen in figure 4, shows the mating of the
bracket and suspension arm.
Figure 4. Suspension assembly (Tyler Child)
39
4.4 Push Rod and Rocker Arm

4.4.1 Problem definition.
In a formula racing car traction is essential to for the cars performance throughout all
maneuvers. In order to have optimal traction all four tires must maintain as much contact
with the ground as possible through bumps and turns. In order to achieve these results the
suspension must absorb the changes in height that the tires see. The final design along
with how this design was chosen is outlined below.
4.4.2 Requirements and Specifications.
Requirements for this system are for the movement of the wheel to be translated to shock
efficiently. The pushrod needs to be able to hold the tensile and compressive forces from
the wheel upright to the Rocker Arm. The Rocker arm needs to hold the same loads and
also provide a progressive transfer curve to the shock by decreasing the moment arm
through the motion.
Push Rod
For the push rod the requirements are that it has to be able to withstand the max loads that
it could see in operation with a factor of safety of at least 2. The loads that it will see are
the static weight of the vehicle divided by four along with impact loadings from bump.
From the calculations mentioned previously the load to which it must withstand is
approximately 2500 newtons.
Rocker Arm
The Rocker arm is required to create a ratio of linear movement from the push rod to the
shock. Because the total travel of the tire will be 75 mm and the shock travel is only 30
mm the rocker input needs to be longer than the output side. Because the exact location
and mounting of the push rod are not yet determined this ration was undetermined;
however, I created an equation that would find the ratio by simply inputting the angle of
pushrod to the horizontal ground plane at the ratio is then found can be input to solid
model. It must also carry the same load as mentioned above.
Concept generation was performed by benchmarking standard automotive designs as well
as looking at previous designs from years past. There are as many different designs on the
market as there are applications for them. In choosing designs to be compared the most
diverse where chosen first to make sure that wide spectrum of possibilities were covered.
Benchmarking
40
In order to get a good idea of a design many different designs were examined from
several sources such as: general automotive designs, last years Formula SAE car, other
universities formula cars.
Shock w/ no pushrod
Picture: Guy Pannunzio

A standard rocker
41

L rocker
42
L-bar
Shock only
Torsion bar
3
9
6
5
4
4
3
Straight bar
Metrics
Manufacturing
Performance
Weight
Size
Rate
Aesthetics
Cost
Raw Score
Weights
Design refinement was done by creating a design matrix. The design matrix was created
with seven critical metrics, from weight to aesthetics. These metrics were then weighted
and scored for each of the preliminary design found by concept generation. The design
with the highest score was the winner and final design.
12
18
12
5
8
4
6
65
9
27
18
15
12
12
6
99
12
9
24
20
4
4
12
85
3
9
6
5
4
8
6
41
Final design was a Pushrod/Rocker arm combination which will be used to actuate the
shock by transferring the bump energy from the wheel.
43
4.5 Impact Attenuator

The Impact Attenuator is an energy absorber device. Its purpose is to absorb as much
energy as possible in case of collision. It provides a load path for transverse and vertical
loads in the event of off-centered and off-axis impacts.
The design of this device requires consideration of the followings engineering metrics:
1. Low weight
2. Small size
3. Fire resistant
4. Cost
5. Energy absorption capability
The Formula SAE 2007 Rules handbook has the requirements and specifications of the
Impact Attenuator, and these can be summarized as:
1. It must be attached securely to the front bulkhead of the car
2. It must be able to absorb an impact of a 300 kg mass at 7 m/s with a deceleration
less than 20 G
3. It must have a minimum size of 100 mm high, 200 mm wide, and 150 mm long
To explore different possible design concepts of the Impact Attenuator a mind-map
brainstorm was made as seen in Figure 1. Four main materials were explored for making
the Impact Attenuator: foam, honeycomb, impact panel, and a composite.
Figure 1: mind-map brainstorm of four different materials

44

To select the best design of the Impact Attenuator, a selection matrix was made. This
selection method is a tool for objectively comparing different designs. As observed in
Figure 2, the selection matrix has eight categories in which the four designs will be
judged. The most important category is the safety of the driver, and for this reason
energy absorbing was given the highest weight in the selection matrix. The transverse
and vertical loads and fire resistance categories were selected next in regards to the
overall safety in operating the car. Next, because this is a race competition, the weight
and size of the impact attenuator are a concern. Finally, the least important concepts are
cost, corrosion resistant, and assembly time as the competition does not reward many
points for these areas.
HoneyComb
Foam
Absorbing
Panels
Composite
9
9
9
3
3
1
9
3
1
9
3
3
1
1
1
9
3
3
3
9
9
9
9
1
3
3
9
9
3
1
9
3
66
138
94
Weights
3
3
3
180
Designs
Engineering Metrics
1 Weight
2 Size
3 Fire Resistant
Assembly &
4 Manufacturing time
5 Cost
6 Corrosion Resistant
7 Energy Absorption
Transverse and Vertical
8 Loads
3
Raw
score
Relative
Rank
Figure 2: selection matrix

The final design of the impact attenuator is the honeycomb model. This decision was
achieved after revising the selection matrix, and noticing that the honeycomb model got
the heights score.
The best two designs, the honeycomb and the absorbing panels, were evaluated in more
detail before making the final decision. All of the engineering metrics listed in the
problem statement were evaluated, and based on the results the honeycomb was selected
for the final design for the Impact Attenuator
45
Size Calculations:
The following symbols will be used for the size calculations:
m=mass
w=weight
G=deceleration
g=gravity
v=velocity
KE=kinetic energy
A=area
T=honeycomb length
W=honeycomb width
H=honeycomb high
s=stopping distance
f=honeycomb crush strength
The collision situation between a mass and the Impact Attenuator is described in Figure
3. The honeycomb material is CRIII, the cell size is 3/16, the alloy is 5056, the foil
thickness is 0.001, and the density is 3.1.
Figure 3: mass and Impact Attenuator

Given:
m=300 kg
f=1.172x10^3 Pa
G=15
v=7 m/s
w=200 mm
First, the stopping distance is calculated and then the honeycomb length:
46
G=
v2
=>
2 gs
v2
72
=
= 0.1666m
2 gG 2 * 9.8 *15
s = 70%T =>
s
T=
= 0.240m
0.7
s=
Next, the kinetic energy is obtained, which will allow calculating the area and finally the
honeycomb high:
mv 2 300 * 7 2
=
= 7350 Nm
2
2
KE = fAs =>
KE
7350
A=
=
= 0.0376m 2
3
fs 1172 *10 * 0.1666
A = wH =>
A 0.0376
H= =
= 0.190m
w
0.2
KE =
Mass calculation:
mass=rho*A*T=50*0.0376*0.24=0.456kg
The final characteristics of the design are:
1. Size: 0.240.200.19cm
2. Mass=0.456kg
3. Deceleration=15g
The final design is shown in Attachment 1, Figure 4 and Figure 5.
47
Attachment 1
Figure 4: fiber carbon outer-shell
48
Figure 5: honeycomb
49
4.6 Engine Selection

This report focuses on the aspects of choosing a proper engine for the 2006 University of
Utahs Formula SAE competition car. It will include comparisons of various different
engines that were considered as well as the design selection for choosing the best possible
engine for this years car.
Summary
At the beginning of the semester it was decided that a new engine for this years car was
needed to keep up with newer technologies and be competitive. For this year we have
selected the engine from a Honda CBR 600 RR which complies with the size restrictions
applied in the formula SAE rule book. A picture of the actual engine that will be used in
this years car can be seen in Figure 1. Since this is a new engine all the modeling has to
be redone from last year for mounting points and size so chassis design team will know
how large to build the engine compartment to fit the new engine. Also a new drive train
assembly needed to be designed to fit on this engine meaning the alignment of the
mounting holes needed to be reconfigured on the side plate of this new engine.
Figure 1: Honda RR
Figure 2: Honda F3
From a comparison of the two engines it is noticeable the more compact nature of the RR
compared to the F3 engine. Features of the RR include a larger angle on the cylinder
head which allows the exhaust manifold to drop vertically down, creating more space and
a more compact design. Another key feature of the RR that is much better than the F3 is
that it is standard fuel injection, making tenability much easier.
Key features of this engine over the Honda F3 that was used last year is power increase,
weight savings, and more compact design.
1. Power increase = 15 hp
50
2. Total weight savings = 5.3 lbs

3. Length minimization = 3.5 inches
Engine
According to the Formula SAE rule book the engine for the car cannot exceed 610 cc per
cycle. Meaning two revolutions of the crankshaft cannot draw more than 610 cc worth of
air into the engine, otherwise a team will be disqualified. The engine however can be
modified within the restrictions of the rules. Also if a team were to use more than one
engine the total still could not exceed more than 610 cc and the air for both engines
would have to pass through a single air intake restrictor.
Engine Inspection
Organizers will measure or teardown a substantial number of engines to confirm
conformance to the rules. An initial measurement will be made externally with an
accuracy of 1 percent. A measuring tool may also be used which has dimensions of 15
inches long by 1.2 inches in diameter. Should this inspection show nonconformity to the
rules for engine size the team will be disqualified immediately.
System Sealing
The engine and transmission must be sealed to prevent leakage. Any crankcase or engine
lubrication vent lines routed to the intake system must be connected upstream of the
intake system restrictor.
Separate catch cans must be employed to retain fluids from any vents for the coolant
system or the crankcase or the engine lubrication system. All the catch cans must have a
volume of at least 10 percent of the fluid being contained.
Cooling Limitations
Water-cooled engines must only use plain water, or water with cooling system rust and
corrosion inhibitor at no more than .015 liters per liter of plain water. Glycol-based
antifreeze or water pump lubricants of any kind are prohibited.
Fuels
During any part of the events the engine must be operated with the fuel provided by the
organizer at the event. Fuels will include 94 and 100 octane unleaded gasoline and E-85
which is an ethanol fuel.
51
Fuel Temperature Changes Prohibited

Fuel Additives Prohibited
Air Intake and Fuel System Location Requirements
All parts of the fuel storage and supply for the engine, and all parts of the intake system
for the engine must lie within the surface defined by the top of the roll bar and the outside
edge of the four tires. An example of the envelope can be viewed in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Air Intake Envelope

During the brainstorming process a mind map was used to open up ideas for all the
different types of engines that could be used for this project. Although there is not a lot
of concept generation involved in selecting an engine there are many aspects related to
how the engine performs that are concepts, such as the drive train and the intake system,
all from which has to be custom built for this engine. Concept sketches were made to
better understand what types of engine designs would work for this years car and can be
seen in Figures 4-7.
52
Concept 1
The BMW boxer engine makes a very good platform from which to build a car out of, but
the major problem that you encounter with this type of setup is the engine mounting.
With this style of engine it makes mounting a transmission very difficult also because of
the way the crankshaft exits out of the engine.
Figure 4: BMW Engine
Concept 2
The Harley Davidson engine would be a fun engine to use but the vibrations from the
engine itself would cause extreme forces on the chassis and possibly cause handling
issues.
Figure 5: Harley Engine
53
Concept 3
A single cylinder engine with a pretty good displacement would give good off the line
torque, but the major problem that you run into using this engine is it is not a four stroke
meaning the fuel economy and noise is going to be a rather large issue.
Figure 6: Honda Engine
Concept 4
The Honda CBR 600 RR is an ideal motor for a mini formula car because it creates
enormous power for its weight and size. The transmission output shaft also comes out
the side of the block making setups for the drive train rather simple.
Figure 7: Honda CBR Engine
54
In the design selection process for the engine of this years car I used a screening matrix
to easily compare important selection data. A screening matrix is a very useful tool for
engineers because it gives the ability to down select a design using a number system,
weighing good and bad points about the part selection.
From the screening matrix below you can notice numbers are put next to the metrics
giving an importance in weight. As numbers in the columns are listed below the engines
being considered they are multiplied by the weights listed in that row, then everything is
summed up and listed in a numbered order which design or engine in this case would be
the best selection for the project.
Screening Matrix
Concept Screening Matrix
3
9
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
3
1
9
9
9
3
9
3
3
1
1
9
3
3
1
3
9
3
132
68
226
144
BMW Boxter
Yamaha YZF
600
1
9
3
3
3
3
3
1
Figure 8: Screening Matrix
55
Harley VTwin
Honda CBR
600RR
Honda CBR
F4i
Relative
Rank
3
9
3
9
1
3
3
9
142
3
9
1
3
9
3
3
1
Raw
score
Honda CBR
F3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Engineering Metrics
Compact
Reliability
Mass
Parts Availability
Fuel Injected
Power
Fuel Economy
Cost
156
Weights
Concepts
Design 1
The Honda F3 engine puts out reasonable power for its weight, but one of the major draw
backs to the engine itself is that it does not come fuel injected. With last years car they
converted everything to fuel injection meaning all the engine sensors had to be integrated
somehow in order to use the Motec engine management. Some good aspects about the
F3 are existing knowledge and parts availability, since the F3 has been around for many
years prior to the RR almost any junkyard will have the F3 or parts for it. The F3 is also
more cost effective than the RR, but much more difficult to tune.
Figure 9: Honda CBR F3
Design 2
From the concept screening matrix the Honda CBR RR engine stands above the rest in
the most important categories mainly in reliability and size. Although the power rating is
not the highest, being that it is very light weight the power to weight ratio brings it to the
top of the list anyway. The RR is one of the more expensive engines to use in both the
initial cost and in parts, but for this project that is a good portion of what we are allotting
our funds to. The RR is also entirely aluminum with nickel coated cylinder walls making
it very light weight. Also the dimensions from the forward most point to the rear most
point is 3.5 inches shorter than that of the F3 and considerably shorter than the other
engines considered.
Figure 10: Honda CBR RR
56
Using again a final design screening matrix the Honda CBR RR was chosen for the
engine to use in the 200607 Formula SAE car. A finalized drawing of the engine is
shown below along with dimensions and tolerances.
Figure 11: Honda CBR RR engine drawing
57
4.7 Intake Manifold

The 2006 University of Utah Formula SAE team has been challenged to build an
autocross race car that the weekend autocross racer can afford. To race this car in
California at the FSAE West race the intake air for the engine must pass through a 20mm
in diameter restrictor that is built into the intake manifold. The engine that we have
chosen to use is a CBR 600 RR bullet bike engine. Because this engine is fuel injected
the intake manifold needs to hold the fuel injectors and fuel rail. The OEM throttle body
for this engine has four throttling butterfly valves, one per cylinder. Since all the air must
pass through the same restrictor a new throttle body will be manufactured with only one
throttling butterfly valve. The intake manifold must fit within the profile created by the
main roll hoop and the wheels of the car.
From the problem definition section the requirements and specifications of the intake
manifold are as follows:
Evenly distribute air to each cylinder

Incorporate the 20mm restrictor
Allow the maximum airflow pass the restrictor
Incorporate mounting for the fuel injectors
Lightweight
Compact
Easy to install
Intake Manifold Overview

Intake manifolds usually consist of a one or more throttle bodies controlling air flow to
the engine. The airflow then enters the plenum which is like a reservoir of air. When the
valve of any cylinder opens the air from the plenum quickly travels down the intake
runner to that cylinder. Because the air pulses into each cylinder instead of flowing
steadily over time it is necessary to have the storage of air in the plenum. Without an air
storage each cylinder would have to pull the air charge through the restrictor. The
maximum velocity of air through a venture is the speed of sound regardless of the
pressure difference across it. The plenum allows the airflow through the restrictor to be
smooth rather than pulse allowing for a greater average air flow than without a plenum.
The intake runners in conjunction with the plenum forms a Helmholtz Resonator. A
Helmholtz Resonator consists of a cavity (plenum) with a volume V, and an opening
(intake runner) of cross sectional area A with length L. Basically a Helmholtz resonator
is like a coke bottle, the sound that it makes when you blow across it has a distinct
frequency. The sound is caused by the air moving back and forth trough the inlet of the
coke bottle. If the timing of the pressure wave of air is synchronized with the intake valve
58
opening in the intake manifold. The air will be forced into the cylinder rather than drawn
in by the piston causing an increase in power output of the engine. The frequency of a
Helmholtz resonator is.
fH =
v
2
A
VL
(1)
Where v is the speed of sound in air, A is the cross sectional area of the intake runner, L
is the length of the intake runner, and V is the volume of the plenum. Often for intake
manifolds the speed of sound in air v is multiplied by a constant that is less than 1 to
compensate for viscous effects in the runners.
Maximum mass air flow through the restrictor
The maximum mass air flow through the restrictor can be calculated from equation 2
where A is the area of the restrictor, P0 is the atmospheric pressure, k is the specific heat
ratio of air, T0 is the ambient temperature of the air and R is the gas constant for air.
m& max = AP0
k 2
RT0 k + 1
( k +1) /( 2 ( k 1))
(2)
From equation 2 the maximum air flow through the restrictor is 0.074 kg/s. This mass
airflow rate corresponds to a pressure difference across the restrictor of 49.7% of
atmospheric pressure. Basically there will be 7.4psi vacuum in the intake manifold with
an atmospheric pressure of 14.7psi. At this intake vacuum level the engine will stop
producing power and this will occur at about 14,800 rpm. Because of this we will govern
the engine at about 10,500 rpm because above this we will only produce a small amount
of power.
Intake runner length and plenum volume
Using equation 1 and choosing the desired rpm to tune the pulse of the intake manifold
we get one equation with three unknowns, A, L, V. A good assumption to make is that
the cross sectional area of the runners should be the same as the factory intake manifold,
leaving only two unknowns. As previously stated the volume of the plenum (V) acts as a
reservoir of air, the larger the volume the smoother the airflow past the restrictor.
However the length of the intake runner determines the mass of air resonating which in
turn determine how much effect the pulse tuning will have on the power output. We
could approximate the optimum V and L by using LTI system model techniques but for
now we just need to understand the dynamics of the intake manifold for the design
refinement.
Either concept 2 or 3 would be the best choice or maybe even a combination between the
two. Based on this we will redesign an intake manifold to give us the best performance.
59
After benchmarking different designs for intake manifolds both on production cars and
other FSAE cars, different intake manifold designs were considered and only three
different designs met the requirements.
1. Concept 1 (small plenum)
a. Plenum is small and molds into the intake runners
b. Intake air has a smooth transition into the intake runners
c. Intake runners may be unequal length
2. Concept 2
a. Plenum is simple and easy to manufacture
b. Intake runners may be unequal length
c. Possibility of adjustment in plenum volume
3. Concept 3
a. Plenum can be any shape and size but cannot be adjusted
b. Even air flow to intake runners
c. Intake runners could be changed out
d. Intake runners are equal length
60
From the previously stated information the intake manifold should have a tuned plenum
and runner length. This excludes concept 1 which does not account for a plenum and has
different length runners. Concept 2 would work very well for tuning the plenum volume
but the runners couldnt be easily tunable since they will probably be made from fiber
glass or carbon fiber. Concept 3 would work for tuning the runner lengths and with a
slight modification could possibly be used for changing the plenum volume.
The final selection was based on Concept 2 and 3 only with some modifications to unbolt
the plenum from the intake runners for changing length and unbolting the restrictor for
access to the plenum for changing the volume. Also these changes are necessary for
getting the buck out of the part during assembly.
61
4.8 Rear Drive

Due to the considerable changes being made to the 2007 Formula SAE chassis, a
redesign of the rear gear-drive assembly was in order. For the past several years, the U of
U Formula SAE teams have used the same side plates and steel tube frame assembly to
house the engine and final drive. However, this year the 2007 Formula team has decided
to employ a carbon fiber chassis which extends all the way to the rear of the vehicle.
Therefore, the engine and rear drive assembly will need to mount directly to the carbon
fiber, and a change in how the rear drive assembly is designed is required.
The 2006 Formula SAE vehicle utilized two side-plates which mounted the engine and
the rear drive assembly together, and connected them to the steel-tube chassis. For the
2007 car, we decided to incorporate a carbon fiber chassis which completely enclosed the
engine compartment, rendering the previous side-plate design obsolete. Basically, the
rear drive housing needs to enclose the rear drive proper, which consists of the gear
drive system (which is connected to the output shaft of the motor), and the limited slip
differential (which is connected to the axles).
Original Design
This sketch shows how the rear drive assembly was set up on the 2006 vehicle. The side
plates were attached on one side of the gear housing, and the far side of the axle housing.
In this design, the entire axle was completely enclosed within the housing. Even when
utilizing the side plates, this isnt the most efficient design due to the extra material used
to cover the extended axle. When it comes to racecar design, the key is keeping it
LIGHT. Also, due to the many mating surfaces fluid leaks were an ongoing problem with
this design.
62
Sketch by E. Moellmer
Due to the fact that all of the systems on a Formula SAE racer are closely interrelated, a
very close relationship must be observed between each of the different design teams.
Because of this, the chassis and suspension team cooperated significantly during the
initial concept generation phase. The major issues which needed to be addressed were the
lack of an easy mounting point (i.e. the side-plates) and the excessive amount of material
which went into the 2006 rear drive.
Mind Mapping
One of the early brainstorming techniques used to generate ideas was mind-maps. This
tool facilitates a free-association of ideas, and is easy to read long after the exercise was
completed.
63
Sketch by E. Moellmer
Decision Matrix
Out of the many different ideas brainstormed by the group, the best were kept for further
refinement. One of the key ways the 2007 Formula SAE team decided on which ideas to
keep, was the use of QFD decision matrices.
Decision Matrix by E. Moellmer
64
This decision matrix was used to narrow the most popular competing designs down to
just a couple (with the 2006 design as a reference). The Design Refinement section will
address how these remaining concepts were handled.
It is at this point in the design process that the critical thinking really begins. Whereas
before, the emphasis was on lots of varied ideas, now the focus shifts to ensuring that the
few ideas youre left with are sound. Using the methods outlined in the Concept
Generation section, the candidate design ideas were whittled down to only two.
Final Competing Designs
Attached Differential Design
Sketch and Drawing by E. Moellmer
These photos show the gear drive housing attached to the housing for the differential. The
advantages and disadvantages with respect to the Separate Differential design are listed
below.
Advantages
Lightweight design
Fewer leak-prone surfaces
More compact mounting
Disadvantages
Fewer mounting options (geometry cant be changed)
Un-even length axles, so the axle angle must be considered
Separate Differential Design
65
Sketch and Drawing by E. Moellmer
From this sketch one can see how the housing for the differential is mounted separately
from the gear box. This design has its own advantages and disadvantages, which needed
to be weighed against those of the other competing design.
Advantages
Modular mounting options (since geometry can change somewhat)
Could keep both rear axles the same length
Disadvantages
Prone to leaks (due to more mating surfaces)
Heavier design (more parts, and extra axle shaft)
More difficult to machine
The final step in the design process is to take the best of the many designs generated, and
decide upon the most efficient one. In the case of the rear drive housing design, the final
selection was made using a QFD decision matrix.
66
Decision Matrix by E. Moellmer
This QFD decision matrix was the one used to make the final decision on which of the
last two designs to use. It is clear from this final decision matrix that the attached
differential or short axle housing is the superior design.
The final assembly drawing (see Attachment **) represents the accumulation of all the
previous design work. Due to the specialized nature of the rear drive assembly, the only
commercially available parts used in its construction are the fasteners. Of course, when
the sizes of the drive shafts are finalized, the 2007 Formula team will also incorporate
commercial bearings and seals.
Every design process is a compromise between many competing requirements. This
housing is lighter than previous years designs, as well as being easier to manufacture.
Also, with fewer mating surfaces, the fluid leaks which plagued last years team shouldnt
be a problem this year. The different design techniques illustrated in this report were used
to help find the ideal balance between these requirements. Ideally, by utilizing these
techniques, the most efficient design for any project can be achieved.
67
4.9 Shift and Clutch Interface

This section describes the design of the shifter and clutch interface for the race car.
Topics covered will be the problem statement, concept generation, design refinement, and
final selection of the design.
4.9.1 Problem Statement
Important properties considered were weight, durability, compatibility with common

parts, compatible with race car configuration, ease of manufacture, ease of use, and ease
of maintenance. A solution that meets these requirements will be required to perform
well at 2007 Formula SAE West.
The solution must meet Formula SAE regulations which will be discussed further in this
section. Team decisions regarding the clutch and transmission will also be discussed.
First and foremost, the solution to this design problem must comply with the Formula
SAE rules. Fortunately, the rules do have much to say about the transmission, clutch, or
shift interface (as compared to such components as the roll hoops, fuel system, or
chassis). In regards to the transmission and drivetrain, the rules specify that any type
may be used. Conveniently, the rules do specify that fasteners must meet/exceed Metric
Grade M 8.8, SAE Grade 5, and/or AN/MS specifications. Therefore, common parts
must be used which is in line with the problem statement.
This years team has decided to use a back-torque limiting (slipper) clutch. This clutch
will require the driver to shift typically only when starting and stopping the race car.
This will allow the driver upshift and downshift practically whenever he/she wants.
Therefore, a shift/clutch mechanism that allows and is optimal for this use must be found
or developed.
This section will contain the viable brainstormed concepts from last year's solution,
regular street car solutions, and competitive F-1 race car solutions.
A brainstorming session was held to generate concepts. The shift/clutch interfaces used
in last years car, typical street cars, and actual F-1 cars were examined closely and
discussed. The most viable concepts generated were the following:
Clutch
o Foot pedal on the floor: As per standard shift street cars and trucks.
o Hand pull on the steering wheel: Clutch hand pull located behind and on
top of the steering wheel, attached to the steering column.
o Integrated into the shifter as a lever: 2005-2006 FSAE integrated the
clutch and the shifter into a single mechanism. The shifter was a simple
lever on the right side of the cockpit. The clutch was a hand-pull located
at the end of the shifter lever. The driver would disengage the clutch by
squeezing the hand-pull. Holding the hand-pull, the driver would then
68
push or pull the lever into the desired gear. Finally, the driver would
release the hand-pull to engage the clutch.
Shift options
o Hand lever next to the driver: The lever would be located on the right or
left of the cockpit. The driver would push or pull the lever into the desired
gear.
o Hand toggle on the steering wheel: The shifter would be a toggle plate
located underneath the steering wheel, attached to the steering column. A
push/pull cable would run between the shifter and the gearbox. The driver
would push the shifter up on the left to shift up one gear, and up on the
right to shift down one gear. The shifter would be wide and rounded
enough to allow the driver to shift without moving his/her hands from the
steering wheel at all steering wheel positions.
o Integrated into the shifter as a lever (see above).
This section will discuss disadvantages and advantages of the various solutions which
lead to further decisions via a design selection matrix. A visual history of the refined
concepts will be shown in hand and Solid Works drawings.
Since 2006-2007 FSAE will use a BTL (back-torque limiting) clutch, requiring the driver
to clutch on start and stop only, the integrated clutch/shifter option, which requires the
driver to disengage and engage the clutch between every shift, does not make sense. The
most important aspect of the shifter and clutch in a race car is how fast and easy it is to
use. This gives the clutch hand pull and shifter hand toggle on the steering wheel designs
an edge on all other designs. With these functions on the steering wheel the driver does
not need to take his/her foot off the brake or the accelerator, or his/her hands from the
steering wheel. This will give the team an advantage during the autocross and endurance
events. Using this knowledge, the student made a [[ Attach:kentmatrix.pdf | design
selection matrix]] to determine what solution to develop. According to the matrix, the
hand toggle shifter and the hand pull clutch, both on the steering wheel are the best
designs.
Refinement of the Paddle Shifter
The first concept developed was the following:
Early Paddle Shifter Concept
69
Courtesy Kent Feda
Since the design above does not conserve weight, is not simple to manufacture, and
would not be easy to access at any orientation of the steering wheel, it was modified to
the following:
Paddle Shifter, 2nd Iteration
Courtesy Kent Feda
The above design would be easier to access when the steering wheel is turned and
conserves weight. However, the method of rotation (a simple hinge) does not suit the
application. The final design iteration is below:
Shifter Paddle, Final Iteration
70
Courtesy Kent Feda
The paddle would be manufactured by simple stamping and bending operations. It would
rotate on a shoulder bolt available from mcmaster.com.
Refinement of the Clutch pull
The clutch pull is a much simpler mechanism than the paddle shifter, therefore it went
through fewer iterations. The first design incorporated a collar which would be attached
to the steering shaft, as below.
Early Clutch Pull Concept
Courtesy Kent Feda
However, the student decided it would be beneficial to design a mount that incorporates
both shift and clutch mechanisms. This would mean weight would be conserved since
fewer components would be added to the car. The final iteration of the clutch pull is
below.
71
Clutch Pull, Final Iteration
Courtesy Kent Feda
From there, the student needed to design the mounting components and select the nuts
and bolts necessary to mount the clutch/shift interface onto the race car.
This section will show which decisions were made, and several views of the final
assembly.
The last section described the final shift/clutch interface. The only remaining task was to
mount the interface to the steering shaft. The student picked bolts and nuts from
mcmaster.com and designed a single collar that would attach both shift and clutch
interfaces and the necessary connecting components. The exploded view of the final
design selection is below.
72
Final Design, Exploded
Courtesy Kent Feda
A collapsed view of the final design selection is below.
Final Design, Collapsed
73
Courtesy Kent Feda
A drawing of the final design is below.

Final Design, Drawing
Courtesy Kent Feda
74
4.10 Shift Handle

The shift handle is basically a knob with an arm that is used to up and down shift the
speed in the transmission. Since for the formula SAE car we are using a Honda 600RR
engine, the transmission is sequential and semi-automatic, therefore the shifts are up and
down same as the motorcycle. This simplifies the functioning of the shift handle and
allows a quicker reaction to the driver.
The shift handle mechanism has to be quick, accurate, easy to use and most importantly it
has to be fatigue and wear resistant, since it is not going to be treated friendly and wont
be replace throughout the competition. The final design must perform and last in optimal
condition during the whole race time. The shift handle has to be created in a way that will
satisfy all drivers needs, since there are several drivers in the team with different size
requirements.
Brainstorming different design and benchmarking from different types of shift handles
used in racing competitions helped to come up with a list of 6 preliminary designs. All
preliminary designs have unique features and perform in a different way, therefore it is
important to analyze and take the best characteristic of each of them to create a hybrid
design that contains the most critical functions for the shift handle.
Sketch 1: Shift Handle Brainstormed Ideas

75
The best two designs where selected with the help of a design matrix. After assigning
punctuation to all six designs, the design matrix shows that the aluminum design and
the round top design are the two most adequate designs to continue for the shift handle
to be used in the competition of formula SAE.
The Criteria used to down select among 6 different shift handle designs, was to give more
importance, weight, to the critical and most important metrics for the design. Since the
shift handle must resist the bad treatment of a race and it has to be in optimal conditions
during the whole race time, the two most important metrics are safety and durability.
After assigning punctuation to all six designs, the design matrix shows that the aluminum
design and the round ball designs are the two most adequate designs for the shift handle
to be used in the competition of formula SAE.
Table 1: Design Matrix for Design Refinement
76
Picture 1: Round Ball Design
Picture 2: Aluminum Design
77
With the implementation of a design matrix, weighting the most important characteristics
a final design has been chosen. Considering the critical functions of each individual
design, the best design is the round top aluminum design. In table 2 there is the matrix
that shows the design scores and the criteria used to select the final design.
The criteria used to down select to the best design among the 6 different shift handle
designs created in lab 3, was to give more importance to those metrics that represent a
critical function of the part. Since the shift handle must the bad treatment of a race and
has to be in optimal conditions during the whole time, the most important metrics are
safety and durability. After giving and appropriate score to all six designs, the design
matrix below shows that the Round Top Design is the best choice, see picture 2 and
Drawing 1 in the attachments page.
Table 2: Design Matrix for Final Selection
78
ATTACHMENTS
Drawing 1: Final Shift Handle Design
79
4.11 Controls
In order for the 2007 FSAE vehicle to be competitive, many innovative sub-systems must
be integrated into the vehicle to maximize its performance. Many of these performance
enhancing subsystems are based on electronic sensing. One possible performance
enhancing sub-systems is a gear-train management system that in the event of an up-shift,
will automatically reduce the engine output (via skipping cylinders in the firing
sequence), so that the driver does not have to move the accelerator pedal. This system
will help eliminate human error during up-shifting, and will subsequently improve the
performance of the vehicle. A gear change ignition cut system was developed for the
2007 FSAE team, and its development process is described in this report.
The primary requirement for this system is that it must effectively inform the motec m48
ECU of an up shift in a precise manner. It must do this quickly (ideally before the shifter
has even moved), to ensure optimal performance. The system must also be reliable; any
failure of the system (e.g. false signals) can severely limit the performance of the vehicle
and result in significant point reductions during competition and possible safety hazards.
Because weight is always a concern for the vehicle, it was required that the design be
relatively lightweight. Also, cost and practicality were considerations; it was required that
the total cost remained relatively low, and that the most pragmatic designs were
implemented.
Specifications:
* Reaction time <.5 seconds
* Cost < 75.00 $ U.S
* Weight < .5 Kg
The first step was to study the predetermined shifter design. This led to an understanding
of the mechanical and physical properties of the shifter (e.g., how it is attached to the
vehicle, and its area moment of inertia, respectively) which revealed limitations regarding
the possibilities of mounting certain types of sensors. Once these limitations were
observed, numerous solutions were explored via brainstorming (See Attachment#) and
subsequent concept generation. The resulting designs from the concept generation are
presented below:
80
Figure @@-Displays the designs resulting from the concept generation phase
81
4.11.4 Design Refinements

The designs resulting from the concept generation were individually considered by the
FSAE team and the leading designs were selected for further evaluation. These remaining
designs were then analyzed in order to determine the total cost and the transient responses
of the systems when given step inputs. Once these critical properties of the designs had
been quantified (See Attachment #), they were compared objectively using a design
selection matrix. The leading design was then finalized for implementation. A copy of the
design selection matrix can bee seen on Attachment #.

After a thorough design selection process, the following design was chosen for
implementation:
Figure 1-Displays the final circuit design for the gear shift ignition cut system
This system was determined to meet all of the specified requirements in an effective
manner.
82
5 Recommendations
5.1 Start Early
The biggest recommendation we have for this semester is to start early and keep as
organized as possible.
83
6 Project Planning
6.1 Gant Chart
84
7 Resources and Reference Materials

7.1 References
Machinery's Handbook, 27th Edition, Franklin D. Jones, Holbrook L. Horton, Henry H. Ryffel,
Finite Element Method 3rd Edition, Daryl L. Logon, 2002
Mechanics of Materials 6th Edition, Russell C. Hibler, Prentice Hall 2004
Erik Oberg, 2004
7.2 Resources
Dr. Samuel Drake & Advanced Manufacturing Lab
McLean Advanced Composites
ATK
IndustiTech
85
8 Appendix
Attachment 1 Detail Drawings
Figure 1 Detail Drawing of Impact Attenuator.
86
Attachment 1 cont.
Figure 2 Detail Drawing of Honeycomb for Impact Attenuator.
87
Attachment 1 cont.
Figure 3 Detail Drawing of Clutch Pedal.
88
Attachment 1 cont.
Figure 4 Detail Drawing of Shift Handle.
89
Attachment 1 cont.
Figure 5 Detail Drawing of Pushrod and Rocker Assembly.
90
Attachment 1
91
Attachment 2
92
Attachment 3
This displays the results of the cost analyis
This displays the transient response of the strain gauge system
93
Transient response of a contact switch system

1.5
Output (V)
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Time (s)
0.6
0.7
0.8
This displays the results of the switch system
94
0.9
95

FormulaSAEFinalReport PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

FormulaSAEFinalReport PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Formula SAE

Final Design Report

4 Design Specifications ................................................................................ 17

4.4.4 Design Refinement........................................................................................... 42

7 Resources and Reference Materials........................................................... 85

Josh Smith (Capt.)

2007 FORMULA SAE TEAM MEMBERS

Figure 1: The 2007 Formula SAE Team of Utah

Lucas Sosa - Safety and Ergonomics

Brett George Chassis and Suspension / Electrical

The team is pending support from the following sponsors:

3.2 Functional Requirements

Allow space for 95th percentile of Americans to fit in vehicle

Have the ability to corner smoothly with large lateral gs

Have braking ability to stop all four wheels at same time

Must be able to protect occupant in event of a high speed impact

Ability to accelerate very smoothly and fast

Contain a front impact structure

On a dynamic braking test, the system must be able to

The average driver will not be subjected to severe discomfort

The average drivers comfort should be accommodated according to modern ergonomic

Sketch by: Josh Smith

Sketch by: Josh Smith

Sketch by: Josh Smith

Traditional Monocoque with Sub-Frame: 3.08 m^2

Model created by: Josh Smith

Model created by: Josh Smith

Model created by: Josh Smith

Model created by: Josh Smith

Model created by: Josh Smith

Model created by: Josh Smith

4.2.3 Concept Generation

Sketch by Brett George

Sketch by Brett George

Sketch by Brett George

Sketch by Brett George

4.2.4 Design Refinement

Sketch by Brett George

Mid Mounted Rack

Sketch by Brett George

Low Mounted Rack

Easy to weld, even for the amateur welder

Readily available at a number of places, local and online

Heavy when compared to Aluminum

Very lightweight compared to steel

Very difficult to weld for the amateur welder

4.2.5 Final Selection

4.3 Suspension A-Arms and Suspension Brackets

Requirements and Specifications

Figure 1. Bracket 1 (Tyler Child)

Figure 2. Bracket 2 (Tyler Child)

Figure 3. Suspension arm (Tyler Child)

Figure 4. Suspension assembly (Tyler Child)

4.4 Push Rod and Rocker Arm

Picture: Guy Pannunzio

Picture: Guy Pannunzio

Picture: Guy Pannunzio

4.4.4 Design Refinement

4.4.5 Final Selection

4.5 Impact Attenuator

Figure 1: mind-map brainstorm of four different materials

4.5.4 Design Refinement

Figure 2: selection matrix