Front and Rear Swing Arm Design of an Electric Racing

Motorcycle
João Diogo da Cal Ramos
joao.c.ramos@ist.utl.pt

Instituto Superior Técnico, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal

November 2016

Abstract

Motorcycle manufacturers worldwide grapple with the new design challenges posed by
electric motorcycles. The competition world is where the most cutting edge design
solutions are firstly tested. The present study examined the initial design and consequent
iterative process of improvement of both rear and frontal swing arms for an electric
motorcycle according to the rules of the MotoSudent competition. All parts were designed
to be fabricated in aluminium alloy 7075-T6 and CNC machining. The classic Cossalter
approach for stiffness measurement of swing arms was complemented with new studies
in extreme vertical loading (3580 N perpendicular to the wheel axle). FEA was used
through the iterative process of simulating different swing arm models under vertical,
torsional and lateral loads. Final models for rear and front swing arms comply with derived
safety coefficient factor of 𝑛𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗 = 1.82 and Cossalter’s stiffens intervals (𝐾𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 = 0.8-1.6
kN/mm and 𝐾𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 = 1-2 kNm/°). Final weight of achieved for rear and front swing arm,
4,86 kg and 2,84 kg, respectively. However, final complexity of parts proved to have to
many welds and internal details for CNC machining to be a viable option. As an outcome of
the new design proposals for the frontal swing arm, a new steering system was conceived.

Keywords: Racing, structural design, motorcycle, swing arm, electric vehicles, FEA, CAD, metal alloy
structure, CNC

1. Introduction control systems are now fitted where

Oil prices have been suffering major
fluctuations along the past decade, however, all
observations agree on an overall rise in prices.
Consequently, oils sub products suffer from the
same fate, being gasoline the main power
source for motorcycle engines worldwide.
Thus, electric motorcycles and scooters are
rising in popularity. Additionally, some of the
world’s largest automobile builders have been
progressively focusing efforts in improving
batteries technology and durability [1]. Allied
to an increasing environmental awareness, all
this factors are operating a shift in the
motorcycle international market.
Electric motorcycle design poses however a
different challenge to previous classic
conceptions. The main concern regarding the
use of these vehicles is still related to range, top
speed and cost. Sizable battery packs and
previously compact, stiff engines were used,
altering drastically the dynamics of the
motorcycle. Standard structural solutions as
frames and swing arms, after decades of little
alteration in concept are now facing a thorough
reassessment.
This list of demands gives way to a large list of
complex studies conducted through industrials
and academicals alike. High end performance
results of automotive research are usually
applied in first place on the race track. In this
field however, only recently Universities
worldwide started establishing close relations
with International Motorcycle Foundations
such as MEF, in order to create, for the first
time, a motorcycling student focused
competition called MotoStudent. Also, for the
first time, MotoStudent 2016 Edition will
provide the opportunity for university student
teams to compete with electrical motorcycle
prototypes.
In this topic, the present work is focus on the
initial planning and design necessary to
develop front and rear swing arms.
2. Background

2.1. Material Selection Cossalter’s Method

The use of metal alloys for critical structural
parts has been a common practice in Pugsley Method [3] for safety factor definition,
motorcycle building since their first based on:
examples. In recent years, aluminium alloys
 Material quality.
have been taking the place of the previously
 Manufacturing process.
used steel carbon alloys.
 Precision of initial modelling.
Aluminium Steel AISI 4340 𝑛𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗 = 𝑛𝑠𝑥 × 𝑛𝑠𝑦 (1)
7075-T6
𝛔𝐲𝐲 𝟓𝟎𝟓𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝐍/𝐦𝟐 σyy 710000000N/m2 𝑛𝑠𝑥 , impact of material characteristics, loads and
= =
𝛒 𝟐𝟕𝟎𝟎𝐤𝐠/𝐦𝟑 ρ 7850kg/m3 stress analysis.
𝐍. 𝐦 N. m
= 𝟏𝟖𝟕𝟎𝟑𝟕. 𝟎 = 90445.9 𝑛𝑠𝑦 , failure impact.
𝐤𝐠 kg
Final score based on A, B, C and D table analysis
Preço: 7.5€/kg Preço: 1.88€/kg
[4].
A – Quality of materials, manufacturing,
Comparison between Aluminium 7075-T6 and
maintenance and inspection.
Steel AISI 4340
B – Control over applied load.
Outstanding dynamical behaviour is of high
C – Stress analysis precision, experimental data or
priority in such projects, thus the final weight of testing of similar parts.
the structure must be kept as low as possible. For D – Level of danger to people.
this reason, 7075-T6 is the chosen material for
all parts shown in this document, unless pointed E – Economic impact.
otherwise.
Property Values
Parameters A B C D E
Score vg g vg s vs
Elastic Modulus [N/mm2] 72000
vg – very good; g – good; f – satisfactory; p – poor
Poisson’s Ratio 0.33
vs – very severe; s – severe; ns – not severe
Shear Modulus [N/mm2] 26900
𝑛𝑠𝑥 = 1.3
Mass Density [kg/m3] 810 {𝑛 = 1.4
𝑠𝑦
Tensile Strength [N/mm2] 570
Yield Strength [N/mm2] 505 𝑛𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑗 = 1.82
General Properties of an Aluminium 7075-T6
2.3 Simplified Motorcycle model
When in motion, a motorcycle can be subject to
2.2. Criteria Selection a number loads/forces. As any other dynamic
For structural performance, Cossalter’s machine, these can be divided into two
approach [2] on lateral and torsional stiffness different groups: static and dynamic. Although
study of swing arms: static and dynamic loading have different
 Swing arm lateral stiffness 𝐾𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 = 0,8- structural effects, it is accepted that static
1,6 kN/mm. loading should define the initial steps of
 Swing arm torsional stiffness 𝐾𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 = structural project.
1-2 kNm/°.
 Approx.
hg = 607.5mm
𝒎
𝒂𝒍𝒇 = 𝟏𝟏, 𝟗𝟖
𝒔𝟐
𝒎
𝒂𝒔𝒓 = 𝟏𝟑, 𝟖𝟏 𝟐
𝒔
𝒎
𝒓𝒍𝒓 = 𝟗, 𝟖𝟏 𝟐
𝒔
𝒎
𝒓𝒔𝒇 = 𝟏𝟔, 𝟖𝟖 𝟐
𝒔

2.4 Squat and Dive

𝑀𝑔 = (𝑀𝑚𝑜𝑡𝑜 + 𝑀𝑟𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑟)𝑔 (2)
Every time brakes are applied or the throttle is
in opened position on any road wheeled
𝑎 = (1 − %𝑎𝑛𝑡) 𝐹𝑓 = %𝑎𝑛𝑡 ∗ 𝑀𝑔 (3) vehicle, it is possible to feel the tyre load
𝑏 = %𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝐹𝑡 = (1 − %𝑎𝑛𝑡)𝑀𝑔 (4) reducing at one end while increasing at the
other. Motorcycles experience this effect to a
much greater extent than most vehicles due to
Derived weight and distribution: their relatively high CG in relation to their
𝑀𝑔 = 1967,84 𝑁 short wheels.
𝑎 = 607,5 𝑚𝑚 Squat and dive, under high acceleration and
𝑏 = 742,5 𝑚𝑚
braking are the two major symptoms of load
𝐹𝑓 = 1082,31 𝑁
transfer that ultimately affect the motorcycle
{ 𝐹𝑡 = 885,53 𝑁
trim. To study these physical effects the
The definition of approximate weight following analogy was applied:
distribution through both wheels is important,
since, according to John Bradley [5], 𝑎, 𝑏 and
ℎ𝑔 can be used for calculation of four critical
limiting situations:
 Front wheel lifting due to forward
acceleration.
 Rear wheel spin due to forward
acceleration.
 Rear wheel lifting due to retardation.
 Front wheel slide due to retardation.
Conclusions were drawn from how much is ℎ𝑔
indeed interfering with the four limiting
situations. Balance of forces and moment on rear wheel and
Acceleration 𝑔(𝑊𝑏 − 𝑎) (5) swing arm [3]
𝑎𝑙𝑓 =
to lift front ℎ𝑔
𝑟
Acceleration 𝜇𝑔𝑎 (6) 𝑀𝑣 = 𝑁𝑡𝑟 𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜙 − 𝑇𝐿 [ 𝑐 sin 𝜙 + 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜙 − 𝜂)] (9)
𝑎𝑠𝑟 = 𝑅𝑟
to spin rear (𝑊𝑏 − 𝜇ℎ𝑔 )
With:
Retardation 𝑔𝑎 (7) 𝑁𝑡𝑟 , the moment generated by the load transfer
𝑟𝑙𝑟 =
to lift rear ℎ𝑔 that compresses the suspension;
Retardation 𝜇𝑔(𝑊𝑏 − 𝑎) (8) 𝑆, the moment generated by the driving force
𝑟𝑠𝑓 =
to slide front (𝑊𝑏 − 𝜇ℎ𝑔 ) that tends to extend the suspension;
𝑇, the moment generated by the chain force
It was concluded that rear and front wheel that compresses the suspension;
spinning are the less likely situations and a 𝑀𝑣 , the additional elastic moment generated by
lower hg is the preferable situation. the suspension that can be positive or negative.
After understanding balance of moments on
the rear swing arm system, it is possible to
calculate squat and dive properties of the
whole structure. To do so, it is necessary to
assume the coupling forces generated at the
front wheel.

Dual chain rear system

3. Implementation

3.1. Numerical analysis

Squat – Load transfer lines [3] Computational FEA is a commonly applied tool
in modern mechanical design. As a numerical
𝑁𝑡𝑟 𝐿𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜙 (10) method, it makes use of partial differential
ℜ=
𝑆[𝑅𝑟 + 𝐿𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜙)] equations to find approximate solutions, when
the correct, or closest possible, boundaries are
Three different scenarios were identifiable: applied. It is known that depending on type of
R = 1 While on thrust, there no additional finite element used, shape and dimension
moments operating on the swing arm (mesh) will directly affect precision and
– suspension spring is no longer consequently, final error of results. Two
stressed in reference to the static specific mesh types where studied:
condition scenario.
 Standard Mesh – finite elements are
R > 1 The moment generated by Fr causes
generated according to dimensions
spring compression.
specified by user
R < 1 The moment generated by Fr causes  Adaptive or curvature based Mesh –
spring extension. finite elements are generated mostly
according to user specified dimensions,
2.2. Transmission System however, in areas of increased geometrical
complexity, as tight corner and fillets, the
Battery and motor are two major structural software will adapt elements size to achieve
power parts of the vehicle, however, to increased stability of calculation.
complete the powertrain it is necessary to
analyse how this power should be transmitted A rear suspension rocker was designed and
from the engine to the rear wheel. used under normal loading conditions to assess
A dual system of chains was the option of numerical error of different meshing
choice for this project, instead of shaft, or approaches.
single chain, for the following reasons:
 Shaft systems are known to be reliable and
require low maintenance. However, these
prove to be complex to manufacture and
bulky in most cases due to the increased
dimensions of swing arm (the shaft system
needs to fit inside the arm structure). This
system is rarely seen in high end track
motorcycles.
 A single chain system is the most common
solution for track motorcycles. However,
these are prone to chatter effect [6] and can
interfere with rear suspension action under
certain conditions. Rear suspension rocker
 Vertical Hinged
Mesh 5 3,75 2,5 1,75 1 pivot
constraint
variation
(yy) on
(mm)
suspension
Standard mount
Mesh
Curvature
based mesh Simulations
comparison
Standard
Mesh (4 matrix
nodes) procedure
3580 N
Standard
Mesh (16 Free
nodes) suspension
mount
Comparison of different mesh types
(Convergence Method [8])
The adaptative, or curvature based mesh, was
found to be the best option, with an additional
computational time per simulation.
3.2. Test Procedures 100 N
The FEA procedures for swing arm study, as
stated previously, are based on the Cossalter’s
analogy of K stiffness factors. According to his
works, the swing arm pivot must be locked,
while the rear end of the swing arm is loaded.
Also, an alternative test procedure was
suggested by the author for extreme vertical
situations (front wheel lift) closer to reality.
Although Cossalter´s approach may provide a
simple test (comparable to the cantilever beam
– fixed base and loaded end) this may create 100 Nm
artificially stiff structures at the rear swing arm
pivot. 𝑘𝑁 𝑉𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 [𝑘𝑁]
𝐾𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 [ ]=
𝑚𝑚 𝑉𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 [𝑚𝑚]
Fixed pivot
Free 𝑘𝑁 𝐿𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 [𝑘𝑁]
suspension 𝑲𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 [ ]=
𝑚𝑚 𝐿𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 [𝑚𝑚]
mount
𝑘𝑁 𝑇𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 [𝑘𝑁𝑚]
𝑲𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 [ ]=
𝑚𝑚 𝐴𝑛𝑔𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟 𝑑𝑖𝑠𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 [°]
4. Results
All models studies started with a simpler, more
conservative base structure that was gradually
100 N improved recurring mostly to different
mechanical design solutions as truss struts and
mass reduction. Only the results for final
optimised models are shown on this
document.
4.1. Rear Swing arm
 Torsional Torque Torque
100%
Loading Test applied applied
80% K lateral counter
clockwise
60% K vertical clockwise

40% K torsional Torque 100 Nm 100 Nm

20% Mass Vertical 1,46*10- 1,46*10-
displacement 1mm 1mm
0%
of B

Relative difference of properties between first Vertical 1,70*10-1 1,69*10-1

and last iteration displacement mm mm
of B’
𝑲𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 1,27 1,27
kNm/° kNm/°

Torsional Stiffness Results (Model 2.2)

Vertical Loading Force applied on C

Test
Force 100 N
Vertical 5,65*10-2 mm
displacement of
A
𝑲𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 1,77 kN/mm

d pivot
Von Mises Stress Distribution – Vertical Force Vertical Stiffness Results (Model 2.2)
3580 N (Model 2.2)

Displacement due to
vertical loading 3580 N
(undeformed shape)
(Model 2.2)

Lateral Loading Force Force

Test applied on applied on
right arm left arm
Force 100 N 100 N
Lateral 3,74*10-2 3,80*10-2
displacement of mm mm
A
𝑲𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 2,67 2,64 kN/mm
kN/mm

Lateral Stiffness Results (Model 2.2)

4.2. Front Swing arm Torsional Torque Torque
Loading Test applied applied
counter Clockwise
clockwise
Torque 100 Nm 100 Nm
Vertical 1,67*10-1mm 1,72*10-1mm
displacement
of B
Vertical 1,72*10-1 mm 1,67*10-1 mm
displacement
of B’
𝑲𝒕𝒐𝒓𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒍 1,18 kNm/° 1,18 kNm/°

Torsional Results (Model 3.1)

Von Mises Stress Distribution – Vertical Force Vertical Loading Test Force applied on C
3580 N (Model 3.1) – Dual Suspension Force 100 N
Vertical displacement 7,18*10-2 mm
of A
𝑲𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒊𝒄𝒂𝒍 49,85 kN/mm

5. Manufacturing

One of the requirements established prior to

the design of these parts was that they would
need to be manufacture using CNC machining.
CNC stands for Computerized Numerical
Control and is an ever more common
machining process used on a wide range of
materials (metal alloys, plastic, wood, etc).
Displacement due to vertical loading 3580 N
Modern CNC systems contemplate to concept
(undeformed shape) (Model 2.2)
of end-to-end component design, which means
the use of CAD (Computer Aided Design) and
Lateral Force applied Force applied CAM (Computer Aided Manufacturing).
Loading Test on right arm on left arm Both swing arm models were divided taking
Force 100 N 100 N into account the final machining and weld
Lateral 8,96*10-2 mm 8,87*10-2 process requirements.
displacement mm
of A
𝑲𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒍 1,12 kN/mm 1,13 kN/mm

Lateral Results (Model 3.1)

Rear Swing arm divided in 11 parts

 Several edge welds will be required to
assemble and connect all parts after
machining. Two main types:
 Groove welds - weld applied in a performed
opening or groove between two metal parts
 Fillet welds - triangular weld that joins two
metal parts at a 90o angle.

Rear Swing arm divided in 9 parts

CNC endmills will perform better under rigid
conditions. Deep pockets that require small
diameter long endmills are the worst case
scenario. According to Joe Osborn, in Tips on
Designing Cost Effective Machined Parts [8],
endmills should the best performance up to 4 Given the geometry of both swing arms, edge
times its diameter, but can cut as deep as 10- welds on different locations will be necessarily
15 times their diameter, with progressive cost exposed to different local loads. For the
of material and machining time. A study was purpose of this project, it is important to know
conducted on widening options for interior minimum weld size necessary to overcome
structural pockets. those loads. SolidWorks permits weld
estimation simulations, however these are
Interior Maximum Endmill Mass computationally heavy. To simplify this
corner Endmill overall after analysis, both swing arms were considered
minimum diameter length machini
approximately symmetric. This assumption
radius (mm) *1 (mm) *1 ng (kg)
(mm) permits the test of only half of the swing arms
per turn, given that the right fixtures are
2 3 38 1,954 applied. Also, weld edge simulation only
2,5 4 50 1,978 permit the connection between shell-solid, or
shell-shell elements FE
3 5 50 2,007
Solid Element
3,5 6 50 2,041 (Complex Model) Hinged
4 7 63 2,083 pivot

7%
6% Vertical
5% constraint
4% (yy) on
3% suspension Shell Elements
2% mount (Simpler Model)
1%
0% A vertical force of 1790 N (half of total extreme
2 2,5 3 3,5 4 4,5 vertical scenario).
Interior Corner radius (mm)

*1 – Endmill Standard dimensions provided by

DeAmond Tool
Increase in weight percentage VS increase
in interior corner radius (part r1)
 6. Conclusions

It was pretended with this project to develop a

study on the structural design of the swing
arms of a racing electric motorcycle in
accordance with the rules set by MotoStudent
Competition. Several FEA, as well as
theoretical analytical approaches were
implemented with different degrees of success.
Two specific scenarios were considered for the
design of the rear swing arm, D1 (high engine
assembly) and D2 (low engine assembly). Both
solutions were explored through models 1.1
and 1.2. On both models it was verified that a
truss type design is the most efficient way to
reduce total mass, while keeping satisfactory
mechanical properties (a reduction of up to
66,1% was achieved between first and last
iterations). A final version, derived from the D1
scenario was chosen due to its superior load
transfer capabilities, with a final safety factor
of 3,82.
Two scenarios where considered, single and
dual front suspension, with the las being the
Von Mises Stress propagation in simplified chosen one due to being thanks to outstanding
model vertical stiffness (approximately 6,1 times
superior to the single suspension model).
Type Max CNC manufacturing was the machining process
Weld size 3,738 predefined for this project. It was concluded
(mm) that this is a very flexible process, permitting a
great variety of interior details. However, due
Weld throat 3,738 to the dimension and complexity of the final
size (mm) models, it became clear that the tooling, man
Joint normal hour and welding necessary to achieve them
Force would greatly undermine the cost efficiency of
3,689
(N/m)*105 this project. Furthermore, some questions
remain related to the proper simulation and
Shear weld
dimension of weld edges in structures this
axis Force
2,263 complex.
(N/m)*105
Shear-
Surface
0
normal
Force (N/m)
Bending
Moment
298,380
(Nm/m)

SolidWorks Max weld sizing

prediction under vertical loading
of 1790 N
Acknowledgements To my family. My father and my mother. This is
as much my success as it is yours.
The author would like to express his most
sincere gratitude to his supervisor, Prof. Luis To all my professors, family and friends, thank
Sousa. This was not the shortest of rides, but you.
his knowledge, patience and friendship were
always there when needed. It was an honour
and a privileged to work with him.
To all TLMoto team members. It was a pleasure
to learn and work so much with great future
engineers on this passionate topic.

References

[1] Robinson, A. and Janek, J. (2014). Solid-state batteries enter EV fray. MRS Bull.,
39(12), pp.1046-1047.
[2] Cossalter, V. (2006). Motorcycle dynamics. Chapter 6: Motorcycle Trim, Germany,
Amazon Distribution.
[3] Schmidt, S. R., B. J. Hamrock and B. O. Jacobson (2013). Fundamentals of Machine
Elements, McGraw-Hill.
[4] Rechena, D. (2014), Motorcycle Chassis Analysis, Mechanical Engineering, Lisboa,
Instituto Superior Técnico.
[5] Bradley, J. (1996), “The Racing Motorcycle: A technical guide for constructors”,
Section 3: General Layout, Volume 1, The Ebor Press, York, England
[6] Foale, T. (2002). “Motorcycle Handling and Chassis Design”, Chapter 10: Structural
Considerations, Tony Foale Designs.