Finalyearreport15 16

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/329196488
Study of vehicle dynamics of a formula student car
Technical Report · June 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34127.53920
CITATIONS READS
2 6,861
3 authors, including:
Ayush Mittal Mohd Faraz

RWTH Aachen University RWTH Aachen University
1 PUBLICATION 2 CITATIONS 5 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Mobility of charging stations to curb range anxiety of EV cars. View project
Vehicle Dynamics of Formula Student Car View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mohd Faraz on 26 November 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Study of vehicle dynamics of a formula student car
By
Ayush Mittal
Mohd. Faraz
Kashif
Under the supervision of
Dr. Yasser Rafat
(Assistant Professor)
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh
2015-16
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the project work entitled “Study of vehicle dynamics of a formula
student car”, submitted by Mohd Faraz, Ayush Mittal and Kashif in partial fulfilment of
the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Mechanical Engineering at Zakir Husain College
of Engineering and Technology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh is record of their own
work carried by them under my supervision and guidance. The matter embodied in this
project has not been submitted for the award of any other degree.
(Dr. Yasser Rafat)
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, ZHCET
Aligarh Muslim University
Aligarh
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work would not have been possible without the aid and encouragement from several
people. We feel extremely happy to acknowledge all those people who supported us
throughout our project journey. We are immensely indebted to Dr. Yasser Rafat for his
active support, guidance and motivation that helped us a lot in completing this project
successfully.
We extend our immense gratitude to Prof. Nafees Ahmed II, Associate Professor, Department of
Mechanical engineering, ZHCET for his motivation and encouragement. We would also like to
thank Ms. Saman Ahmad, Department of Mechanical Engineering, ZHCET for her support in the
time of need.
The completion of this project required high degree of coordination and help from the
members of entire Formula Student team. We are very thankful to our junior members
especially Asim Noor and Faizan Anwar and the peer members of the SAE collegiate club
for working in cooperation and assisting us wherever it was needed. Lastly, we would like
to express our profound gratitude to our parents and friends for their kind and moral
support that lead to the accomplishment of this work.
MOHD FARAZ AYUSH MITTAL KASHIF

Contents
Chapter 1 .................................................................................................................. 1
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Problem Definition ............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Objectives .............................................................................................................. 2
1.3 Overview of the Formula SAE competition ........................................................................ 5
1.3.1 Judging ......................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Vehicle Requirements ........................................................................................................ 6
1.5 Suspension Requirements .................................................................................................. 7
1.6 Steering Requirements ....................................................................................................... 8
1.7 Suspension and Steering System Definition ....................................................................... 9
Chapter 2 ................................................................................................................ 11
Literature Review .................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Chapter Overview ............................................................................................................. 11
2.2 Objective of the Suspension System ................................................................................ 11
2.3 Fundamental Concepts..................................................................................................... 11
2.3.1 Load Transfer ........................................................................................................... 11
2.3.2 Tire Behavior ............................................................................................................. 18
2.4 Objective of the Steering System ..................................................................................... 23
2.4.1 Geometry................................................................................................................... 23
2.4.2 Steering Behaviours................................................................................................... 26
Chapter3 ................................................................................................................. 28
Designing ................................................................................................................ 28
3.1 Design Methodology ........................................................................................................ 28
3.2 Tire selection .................................................................................................................... 29
3.3 Steady State Analysis of Bicycle Model ............................................................................ 31
3.3.1 Different phases of automobile while turning: ......................................................... 32
3.3.2 Neutral steer, Understeer and Oversteer in Steady State Cornering ....................... 32
3.3.3 Equations of motion: ................................................................................................. 35
3.3.4 Steady State responses: ............................................................................................ 39
3.4 Mass Point Simulation ...................................................................................................... 47
3.4.1 About the software (Optimum Lap®) ........................................................................ 47
3.4.2 Vehicle parametrization: ........................................................................................... 48
3.4.3 Discussion .................................................................................................................. 63
3.5 Spring Damper selection .................................................................................................. 63
3.6 Preliminary CAD of the Suspension Geometry................................................................. 74
3.6 Certain features of assembly:........................................................................................... 74
3.7 Rim Design ........................................................................................................................ 80
3.8 Bearing Selection .............................................................................................................. 84
3.8.1 Bearing selection, front upright: ............................................................................... 84
3.8.2 Bearing Selection rear upright: ................................................................................. 85
3.8.3 Decision matrix: ......................................................................................................... 85
3.8.4 Fits and Tolerances .................................................................................................... 86
3.9 Study of Suspension geometry on IPG Kinematics........................................................... 90
3.9 a) Front Suspension Geometry test.................................................................................. 90
3.9.1 Variation of Upper a- arm z coordinate: ................................................................... 91
3.9.2 Variation of lower a-arm z coordinate: ..................................................................... 96
3.9.3 Variation of Caster:.................................................................................................. 103
3.9.4 Variation of X-coordinate of Upper Knuckle Mount ............................................... 107
3.9.5 Variation of kingpin inclination ............................................................................... 108
3.9 b) Rear Suspension Geometry Test ................................................................................ 110
3.9.6 Variation of Z co-ordinate of lower wishbone on chassis ....................................... 111
3.9.7 Variation of Upper wishbone chassis mount height: .............................................. 115
Chapter 4 .............................................................................................................. 118
CAD of the components ........................................................................................ 118
4.1 Factors under consideration .......................................................................................... 118
4.2 CAD Drawings ................................................................................................................. 118
4.2.1 Front and Rear Hub: ................................................................................................ 118
4.2.2 Front Knuckle: ......................................................................................................... 120
4.2.3 Rear Knuckle: ........................................................................................................... 121
4.2.4 Rocker Front and rear: ............................................................................................ 123
4.2.5 A-arm end bracket and Knuckle bracket: ................................................................ 125
Chapter 5 .............................................................................................................. 131
FEA Analysis .......................................................................................................... 131
5.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................... 131
5.2 Analysis of Knuckle ......................................................................................................... 132
5.3 Analysis of Wheel Hub.................................................................................................... 140
Appendix: .............................................................................................................. 148
Manufactured Components .................................................................................. 148
List of Figures
Figure 1 Gantt chart for the project ........................................................................................................ 4
Figure 2 Part list for an FSAE suspension and steering system............................................................. 10
Figure 3 Determination of roll center and moment arm (Smith, 1978, p30) ....................................... 13
Figure 4 Relationship between roll axis, mass centroid axis and roll moments ................................... 14
Figure 5 Various load transfers in dynamic condition .......................................................................... 15
Figure 6 Bump and Droop behaviour of double wishbone set up. (Smith, 1978, p51) ...................... 17
Figure 7 Calculating jacking force for a double wishbone setup. ......................................................... 18
Figure 8 Distribution of forces and lateral velocity over the contact length (Milliken 1995, p23) ....... 19
Figure 9 Lateral force vs. slip angle for a racing tire (Milliken, 1995, p25) ........................................... 20
Figure 10 Aligning torque vs. slip angle for several loads ..................................................................... 21
Figure 11 Pneumatic and mechanical trail ............................................................................................ 22
Figure 12 Push and pull inboard suspension configurations (Staniforth, 1991, p62) ........................... 22
Figure 13 Camber angle and kingpin inclination. (Kalver, 2001) .......................................................... 23
Figure 14 Caster angle and offset (Kalver, 2001) .................................................................................. 24
Figure 15 Toe angle settings (Smith, 1978, p38)................................................................................... 25
Figure 16 Ackermann geometry ........................................................................................................... 26
Figure 17 Slip angle (Milliken and Milliken, 2002, p54) ........................................................................ 27
Figure 18 Oversteer and understeer effects on a vehicle. (Longhurst, 2011) ...................................... 27
Figure 19 Design Methodology ............................................................................................................. 28
Figure 20 Bicycle model, 2 DOF ............................................................................................................ 31
Figure 21 Influence of driver’s “attitude” while turning....................................................................... 32
Figure 22 Constant radius test of a neutral steer car ........................................................................... 33
Figure 23 Variation of slip angles with lateral forces in neutral steer .................................................. 33
Figure 24 Turning with lateral forces in understeer car ....................................................................... 34
Figure 25 Variation of slip angles with lateral acceleration in understeer car ..................................... 34
Figure 26 Turning with lateral forces in an oversteer car ..................................................................... 35
Figure 27 Velocities at the rear tires ..................................................................................................... 36
Figure 28 Variation of different responses with cornering stiffness under control ............................. 40
Figure 29 Variation of different responses with cornering stiffness under applied side force ............ 41
Figure 30 Variation of Curvature response with Cornering Stiffness ................................................... 42
Figure 31 Variation of different responses with Cornering stiffness .................................................... 42
Figure 32 Variation of different responses with Cornering stiffness .................................................... 44
Figure 33 Curvature response vs Mass (force) ..................................................................................... 45
Figure 34 Variation of various responses with Velocity and CG location ............................................. 46
Figure 35 Speed vs Lap time curve ....................................................................................................... 48
Figure 36 Engine torque and power vs engine speed ........................................................................... 50
Figure 37 Tractive force at wheel ......................................................................................................... 51
Figure 38 Vehicle speed vs engine speed ............................................................................................. 52
Figure 39 Traction model ...................................................................................................................... 53
Figure 40 Speed- elapsed distance curve.............................................................................................. 55
Figure 41 Longitudinal acceleration -elapsed distance curve ............................................................... 55
Figure 42 Lap time -vehicle mass curve ................................................................................................ 56
Figure 43 Longitudinal acceleration on FSAE Germany endurance track ............................................. 56
Figure 44 Lateral acceleration on FSAE Germany endurance track ...................................................... 57
Figure 45 Aerodynamic downforce-elapsed distance .......................................................................... 59
Figure 46 Lap time -downforce coefficient curve ................................................................................. 60
Figure 47 Aerodynamic downforce curve on FSAE Germany endurance track .................................... 60
Figure 48 Aerodynamic downforce-elapsed distance .......................................................................... 62
Figure 49 Lap time -drag coefficient curve ........................................................................................... 62
Figure 50 Aerodynamic drag force curve on Germany track ................................................................ 63
Figure 51 Flow chart for spring selection.............................................................................................. 65
Figure 52 The variation of roll gradient with the ride frequency (front) .............................................. 67
Figure 53 Roll gradient .......................................................................................................................... 68
Figure 54 Penske Racing Shock 7800 Series Part List............................................................................ 73
Figure 55 Preliminary CAD drawing of Suspension Geometry ............................................................. 76
Figure 56 Scrub effect ........................................................................................................................... 77
Figure 57 Slip angle vs aligning torque ................................................................................................. 78
Figure 58 Camber gain vs steer angle (right) ........................................................................................ 78
Figure 59 Camber gain vs steer angle (left) .......................................................................................... 79
Figure 60 Front suspension geometry on Optimum K .......................................................................... 79
Figure 61 Front suspension geometry on Optimum K .......................................................................... 80
Figure 62 Front view showing braking torque and side view showing lateral and normal force. ........ 80
Figure 63 Force resisted by bolt/stud ................................................................................................... 81
Figure 64 Rim dimensions ..................................................................................................................... 83
Figure 65 Fits for rolling bearing ........................................................................................................... 87
Figure 66 A geometrical view of a typical suspension points fed in IPG kinematics ............................ 90
Figure 67 Wheel travel, left vs Roll centre height in parallel kinematics ............................................. 91
Figure 68 Wheel travel, left vs Toe angle, left in parallel kinematics ................................................... 92
Figure 69 Wheel travel, left vs Camber angle, left in parallel kinematics ............................................ 92
Figure 70 Wheel travel, left vs Track change in parallel kinematics ..................................................... 93
Figure 71 Wheel travel, left vs Spring deflection, left in parallel kinematics ....................................... 93
Figure 72 Wheel travel, left vs Force (Z) on upper wishbone, left in parallel kinematics .................... 94
Figure 73 Wheel travel, left vs Roll centre height in reciprocal kinematics ......................................... 94
Figure 74 Wheel travel, left vs Roll centre (Y) in reciprocal kinematics ............................................... 95
Figure 75 Wheel travel, left vs Roll angle in reciprocal kinematics ...................................................... 95
Figure 76 Wheel travel, left vs Roll centre height in parallel kinematics ............................................. 97
Figure 77 Wheel travel, left vs Camber angle in parallel kinematics .................................................... 97
Figure 78 Wheel travel, left vs Track change in parallel kinematics ..................................................... 98
Figure 79 Wheel travel, left vs Spring deflection, left in parallel kinematics ....................................... 98
Figure 80 Wheel travel, left vs Force (z) on lower wishbone, right in parallel kinematics ................... 99
Figure 81 Wheel travel, left vs Roll centre height in reciprocal kinematics ......................................... 99
Figure 82 Wheel travel, left vs Toe angle, left in reciprocal kinematics ............................................. 100
Figure 83 Wheel travel, left vs Track change in reciprocal kinematics ............................................... 100
Figure 84 Wheel travel, left vs Roll centre (Y) in reciprocal kinematics ............................................. 101
Figure 85 Steering angle, left vs KPI angle, left in steering kinematics............................................... 101
Figure 86 Steering angle, right vs Roll centre (Y) in steering kinematics ............................................ 102
Figure 87 Wheel travel, left vs Track change in parallel kinematics ................................................... 104
Figure 88 Steering angle, left vs Camber angle in steering kinematics .............................................. 104
Figure 89 Steering angle, left vs KPI angle, left in steering kinematics............................................... 105
Figure 90 Steering angle, right vs Roll centre (Y) in steering kinematics ............................................ 105
Figure 91 Steering angle, left vs Force (Y) on steering rod, left .......................................................... 106
Figure 92 Wheel travel, left vs Caster offset, left ............................................................................... 107
Figure 93 Wheel travel, left vs KPI angle, left in parallel kinematics .................................................. 108
Figure 94 Wheel travel, left vs Caster offset, left in parallel kinematics ............................................ 109
Figure 95 Wheel travel, left vs Roll centre height in reciprocal kinematics ....................................... 109
Figure 96 Steering angle, left vs Force (Y) on steering rod, left in steering kinematics ..................... 110
Figure 97 Wheel travel, left vs Roll centre height in parallel kinematics ........................................... 111
Figure 98 Wheel travel, left vs Toe angle, left in parallel kinematics ................................................. 112
Figure 99 Wheel travel, left vs Camber angle, left in parallel kinematics .......................................... 112
Figure 100 Wheel travel, left vs Track change in parallel kinematics ................................................. 113
Figure 101 Wheel travel, left vs Roll centre (Y) in reciprocal kinematics ........................................... 113
Figure 102 Wheel travel, left vs Roll angle in reciprocal kinematics .................................................. 114
Figure 103 Wheel travel, left vs Camber angle, left in parallel kinematics ........................................ 115
Figure 104 Wheel travel, left vs Track change in parallel kinematics ................................................. 115
Figure 105 Wheel travel, left vs Roll centre (Y) in reciprocal kinematics ........................................... 116
Figure 106 Wheel travel, left vs Toe angle, left in reciprocal kinematics ........................................... 116
Figure 107 Final configuration of the geometry as visualized in IPG Kinematics ............................... 117
Figure 108 Decision matrix for the selection of Material ................................................................... 117
Figure 109 Wheel hub and Spindle ..................................................................................................... 119
Figure 110 Wheel hub and Spindle assembly on NX Siemens ............................................................ 119
Figure 111 Front knuckle 3d CAD on NX Siemens® ............................................................................. 120
Figure 112 Front knuckle drawing ...................................................................................................... 121
Figure 113 Rear knuckle drawing ........................................................................................................ 122
Figure 114 Rear knuckle 3d CAD on NX Siemens ................................................................................ 122
Figure 115 Front rocker drawing ........................................................................................................ 123
Figure 116 Front rocker 3d CAD on NX Siemens® ............................................................................... 123
Figure 117 Rear rocker drawing .......................................................................................................... 124
Figure 118 Rear rocker 3d CAD on NX Siemens® ................................................................................ 124
Figure 119 A arm end bracket drawing ............................................................................................... 125
Figure 120 A arm end bracket 3d CAD on NX Siemens® ..................................................................... 125
Figure 121 A arm end bracket drawing ............................................................................................... 126
Figure 122 A arm end bracket 3d CAD on NX Siemens® ..................................................................... 126
Figure 123 Knuckle bracket drawing ................................................................................................... 127
Figure 124 Knuckle bracket 3d CAD on NX Siemens® ......................................................................... 127
Figure 125 Wheel speed sensor and Hub fastener drawing ............................................................... 128
Figure 126 Wheel speed sensor 3d CAD on NX Siemens® .................................................................. 128
Figure 127 Front and rear suspension and steering assembly on NX Siemens® ................................ 129
Figure 128 CAD assembly of the Car on NX Siemens® ........................................................................ 130
Figure 129 Front Knuckle Static-Stress FEA Analysis .......................................................................... 136
Figure 130 Front knuckle static- displacement ................................................................................... 136
Figure 131 Front Knuckle Static-Factor of Safety................................................................................ 137
Figure 132 Rear Knuckle Static-Rear Knuckle Static-Stress-Stress1 .................................................... 139
Figure 133 Rear Knuckle Static-Rear Knuckle Static-Displacement-Displacement1 ........................... 139
Figure 134 Rear Knuckle Static-Rear Knuckle Static-Factor of Safety-Factor of Safety1 .................... 140
Figure 135 Front Hub-Static-Stress FEA Analysis ................................................................................ 143
Figure 136 Front Hub-Static-Displacement Analysis ........................................................................... 143
Figure 137 Front Hub-Static-Factor of Safety ..................................................................................... 144
Figure 138 Front Hub-Static-Strain ..................................................................................................... 144
Figure 139 Rear Wheel Hub Tripod-Static 1-Stress-Stress1 ................................................................ 146
Figure 140 Rear Wheel Hub Tripod-Static 1-Displacement-Displacement1 ....................................... 146
Figure 141 Rear Wheel Hub Tripod-Static 1-Strain-Strain1 ................................................................ 147
Figure 142 Rear Wheel Hub Tripod-Static 1-Factor of Safety-Factor of Safety1 ................................ 147
Figure 143 Real Image of Front Upright .............................................................................................. 148
Figure 144 Real Image of Rear Upright ............................................................................................... 149
Figure 145 Real Image of Front Wheel Hub ........................................................................................ 150
Figure 146 Real Image of Rear Wheel Hub ......................................................................................... 150
Figure 147 Real Image of Front Wheel Cap ........................................................................................ 151
Figure 148 Real Image of Front Wheel Cap ........................................................................................ 151
Figure 149 Real Image of Penske Damper .......................................................................................... 152
Figure 150 Real Image of Suspension Spring ...................................................................................... 152
Figure 151 Real Image of Front Upright Bearing ................................................................................ 153
Figure 152 Real Image of Front Upright Bearing ................................................................................ 153
List of Tables
Table 1 Project Schedule ......................................................................................................................... 3
Table 2 Tire Selection ............................................................................................................................ 30
Table 3 Symbols and notions used........................................................................................................ 35
Table 4 The Derivatives (Simple two degree of freedom model) ......................................................... 38
Table 5 Model Parameters .................................................................................................................... 39
Table 6 Effect of CR on response of vehicle to control, applied Side force at C.G. .............................. 41
Table 7 Effect of Mass on response of vehicle to control, applied Side force at C.G. .......................... 44
Table 8 Effect of Velocity on response of vehicle to control, applied side force at C.G. ...................... 45
Table 9 Effect of C.G. location on response of vehicle to control, applied Side force at C.G. .............. 47
Table 10 Vehicle Configuration ............................................................................................................. 49
Table 11 Effect of mass on performance .............................................................................................. 54
Table 12 Effect of Downforce on Performance .................................................................................... 58
Table 13 Effect of Aerodynamic Drag on performance ........................................................................ 61
Table 14 Typical Roll Gradients ............................................................................................................. 65
Table 15 Table: Wheel travel for several classes of vehicles ................................................................ 66
Table 16 Specification of Car model ..................................................................................................... 66
Table 17 ZRF=-2 in and ZRF=-1 in ............................................................................................................. 70
Table 18 ZRR=-2 in .................................................................................................................................. 71
Table 19 ZRR= -1 in ................................................................................................................................. 71
Table 20 Motion Ratio .......................................................................................................................... 72
Table 21 Damper Selection Decision Matrix ......................................................................................... 73
Table 22 Table: Decision Matrix for Selecting the type of Suspension ................................................ 74
Table 23 Model parameters for bearing calculation ............................................................................ 84
Table 24 Decision Matrix for Bearing Selection .................................................................................... 85
Table 25 Condition of rotation of the bearing in the assembly ............................................................ 86
Table 26 Shaft tolerances for radial bearings with cylindrical bore ..................................................... 87
Table 27 Housing tolerances radial bearings ........................................................................................ 88
Table 28 Material Properties .............................................................................................................. 132
Table 29 Mesh information................................................................................................................. 132
Table 30 Mesh Information-Details .................................................................................................... 133
Table 31 Description of Applied Loads ............................................................................................... 133
Table 32 Rear Knuckle Loading Condition .......................................................................................... 137
Table 33 Mesh information................................................................................................................. 140
Table 34 Mesh information – Details .................................................................................................. 141
Table 35 Load Condition on Front Hub ............................................................................................. 142
Table 36 Load Condition Rear Hub ..................................................................................................... 145
Notations and Symbols
CG: Centre of gravity
a: CG location from front
b: CG location from rear
l: wheel base
r: radius of curvature
W: mass of the vehicle (with driver)
Wr : mass distribution on rear
Wf: mass distribution on front
Fy: lateral load shift
Fz: longitudinal load shift
C: resultant dynamic load
αf: slip angle for front tire
αr: slip angle for rear tire
Cf: cornering stiffness for front tire
Cr: cornering stiffness for rear tire
Nδ: control moment derivative
Yδ: control force derivative
Nr: yaw damping derivative
Yβ: damping-in-slide-slip derivative
Nβ: static directional stability derivative
Yr: lateral force/ yaw coupling derivative
0|Page
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Problem Definition
To get acquainted with the problem, it is important to know about the broad term “Vehicle dynamics”.
Vehicle Dynamics in general is the study of cause and effect of the wheeled vehicles in motion which
affect the control and stability of the vehicle either by natural response or through driver induced to
those forces.
There were lots of limitation and errors in design procedure of the 2014 vehicle which affected the
performance of the vehicle severely. Most of the serious issues with the vehicle aroused due to the
most important but least considered aspect of the project i.e., project planning. To handle a project as
large as Formula Student requires proper planning with set deadlines and team organization. Neglected
planning leads to chaos, coordination among team members, design failure and delay of the project
which left no space for proper testing of the vehicle which is essential in order to know the reality of
the vehicle. These combined affect ultimately degraded the value of the project. Further, knowledge
and research were lacking in proper direction to ensure the feasibility of the design methodology.
Realization of the design lacked resources which could not meet the design requirements.
From the above challenges, few major problems that affected the vehicle performance are the weight,
center of gravity location, Polar moment of Inertia, suspension geometry including wheel assembly,
steering geometry and the integrity of the structure.
The power to weight ratio of the vehicle was very low, the overdriving factor being gross weight of
the vehicle which lowers its acceleration capability. There was no research on tire behavior which is
essential part of the design process which was missing throughout the project and left major questions
unanswered. Suspension geometry were not gone through iteration design process which causes lack
in synchronization between chassis and suspension mounting points leading to the attachments at non-
nodal points of chassis. The suspension coil and dampers were not properly studied and lacked data
therefore did not fulfill the requirement of the vehicle as desired. To summarize, lack of study and
research together with lack of technical data and resources created chains of problem leading to
ineffective design.
1|Page
1.2 Project Objectives
This project aims to extract the problems with the 2014 vehicle and then with these finding matched
with appropriate research, propose a new design of the suspension and steering assembly of the vehicle
with the objective of getting improved performance within the time bound and available resources.
To meet with the broad aspect of the project objective, the project is sub divided in to basic objectives.
To overcome the limitations faced in previous vehicle following list of objectives has been prepared:
1. Prepare a timeline/Gantt chart for the project to get a clear picture of the project work
and maintain a healthy balance between project work and curriculum.
2. Study and research on the existing rules of Formula student combustion car.
3. Light weight, low center of gravity and low polar of moment of Inertia car for improved
performance without losing the integrity and strength of the structure. (see 1.3)
4. Employ the concept of ladder of abstraction in order to achieve the desired performance
(see 1.4)
5. Develop preliminary design of the suspension geometry using computational software
like NX CAD, optimum K, ANSYS workbench.
6. Manufacturing and procurement of the parts of the suspension to be installed in the
vehicle.
7. Test and tune the suspension assembly as per the requirement of the driver and the
performance.
8. To develop the steering geometry of the vehicle by critically analyzing the resources
available.
In order to achieve the desired performance Gantt chart must be strictly followed throughout the
project.
2|Page
Gantt Chart
Table 1 Project Schedule
Name Begin date End date Days
Design target 02-02-2015 17-07-2015 120
Procurement of materials 17-07-2015 01-01-2016 121
Selection of tyres and wheels 10-06-2015 25-08-2015 55
Mass point simulation 17-08-2015 15-09-2015 22
Estimated lump model of the Car 15-09-2015 23-09-2015 7
Steady state analysis 24-09-2015 20-10-2015 19
Design of knuckle &hub assembly(preliminary) 19-10-2015 19-11-2015 24
Design of suspension and analysis of geometry 03-11-2015 18-11-2015 12

(preliminary)
Design of steering system 16-11-2015 27-11-2015 10
First iteration of preliminary design 30-11-2015 15-12-2015 12
Second iteration 15-12-2015 30-12-2015 12
Final design 01-01-2016 05-01-2016 3
Manufacturing of parts 04-01-2016 22-01-2016 15
Assembly of parts 20-01-2016 29-01-2016 8
Testing and tuning 04-02-2016 07-04-2016 46
3|Page
Figure 1 Gantt chart for the project
4|Page
1.3 Overview of the Formula SAE competition
The Formula SAE ® Series competitions challenge teams of university undergraduate and
graduate students to conceive, design, fabricate and compete with small, formula style, vehicles.
SAE International, 2010, p6
Expanding on this, the competition occurs annually on both a regional and international level; if
successful at the regional round teams are offered to represent their country in the international
competitions against universities from all around the world which have all followed the same rules in
creating their own formula SAE race cars.
Due to the limited number of restrictions on the overall vehicle design, teams have a large degree of
design flexibility and the opportunity to express their creativity and imaginations. However, all design
will typically be centered around a number of common goals. As the competition tracks are normally
very tight with few opportunities to achieve top speed, vehicles must have exceptional accelerating,
braking and handling performance.
Additionally, teams are expected to complete the design task from the perspective of a design firm that
is producing 1000 examples of the car for a non-professional, weekend, competition market.
Production costs per vehicle created must stay below US$50000, demanding the car be economic to
manufacture as well as assemble and consist of materials and parts that are readily available and
perform cost efficiently. Other factors that teams will potentially consider are also the aesthetics,
ergonomics and manufacturability.
1.3.1 Judging
Each team is scored under two categories; static events and dynamic events which are broken into the
following sub categories seen over the page.
Static Events and Maximum Scores
Technical Inspection No points

Where the car is inspected to check compliance with the FSAE rules. If any part of the car does not
comply or is deemed to be a concern, the team must correct the issue and have the car re- inspected
before any other events can proceed
Cost and Manufacturing 100 points

This event consists of three requirements; a cost report detailing the cost of every part on the race
car, a discussion session with the competition cost judges where the cost of the car as well as the
team’s ability to prepare accurate engineering and manufacturing cost estimate, and lastly, a real
case scenario in which students are asked to respond to a challenge related to cost of manufacturing
of their vehicle
5|Page
Presentation 75 points
Teams are asked to complete a presentation aimed at convincing the executives of a corporation that
their car is best suited to the application of the amateur, weekend competition market and that it can
be profitably manufactured and marketed
Design 150 points

Engineering effort and how the engineering meets the intent of the market is judged through medium
of a design report and design spec sheet that must be submitted prior to the actual competition date.
_ ______________________________
Total 325 points
Dynamic Events and Maximum Scores
Acceleration 75 points
Where the car’s acceleration is tested with a 75m timed sprint where there is to be no ‘burnouts’ at
any time
Skid Pad 50 points

The skid pad test aims to gauge the car’s cornering ability on a flat surface while making a constant
radius turn
Autocross 150 points

Tests the car’s maneuverability and handling on a tight course without the hindrance of competing
cars
Fuel Economy 100 points

Endurance 300 points
The endurance event requires the car be driven for approximately 22km with no modification or repair
and aims to test the durability and reliability. The event operates in conjunction with the fuel economy
testing
_ ______________________________
Total 675 points
Grand total 1000 points
1.4 Vehicle Requirements
General Requirements
The race car must be open-wheeled and open cockpit with four wheels that are not in a straight line.
Additionally, there are to be no openings through the bodywork into the driver compartment (other
than the cockpit opening, the car must have a minimum wheel base of 1525 mm, a difference in tracks
in either the front or back of no less than 75% of the larger track, and lastly, all items to be inspected
by the technical inspectors must be clearly visible without the use of instruments
6|Page
Engine and Drivetrain Requirements
A piston engine using a four stroke primary heat cycle with displacement not exceeding 610cc is
required. The engines are able to be modified within the restrictions of the rules with turbochargers
and supercharges approved for use. A major consideration though, is the 20mm (for petrol fueled cars)
or 19mm (E-85 fueled cars) restrictor that must be placed in the intake system between the throttle and
the engine which all air has to flow through. Teams are allowed to couple their engine setup to any
transmission and drivetrain.
1.5 Suspension Requirements

As quoted from the 2015 FSAE rule book:
B6.1.1 The car must be equipped with a fully operational suspension system with shock absorbers,
front and rear, with usable wheel travel of at least 50.8 mm (2 inches), 25.4 mm (1 inch) jounce and
25.4 mm (1 inch) rebound, with driver seated. The judges reserve the right to disqualify cars which do
not represent a serious attempt at an operational suspension system or which demonstrate handling
inappropriate for an autocross circuit.
B5.8.1 To keep the driver’s legs away from moving or sharp components, all moving suspension and
steering components, and other sharp edges inside the cockpit between the front roll hoop and a vertical
plane 100 mm (4 inches) rearward of the pedals, must be shielded with a shield made of a solid
material. Moving components include, but are not limited to springs, shock absorbers, rocker arms,
antiroll/sway bars, steering racks and steering column CV joints.
B5.8.2 Covers over suspension and steering components must be removable to allow inspection of the
mounting points.
B6.1.1 The car must be equipped with a fully operational suspension system with shock absorbers,
front and rear, with usable wheel travel of at least 50.8 mm (2 inches), 25.4 mm (1 inch) jounce and
25.4 mm (1 inch) rebound, with driver seated. The judges reserve the right to disqualify cars which do
not represent a serious attempt at an operational suspension system or which demonstrate handling
inappropriate for an autocross circuit.
B6.1.2 All suspension mounting points must be visible at Technical Inspection, either by direct view
or by removing any covers.
7|Page
B6.2 Ground Clearance
There is no minimum ground clearance requirement. However, teams are reminded that under Rule
D1.1.2 any vehicle condition which could, among other things, “… compromise the track surface” is
a valid reason for exclusion from an event. Any vehicle contact that creates a hazardous condition or
which could damage either the track surface or the timing system is cause for declaring a vehicle DQ.
1.6 Steering Requirements

As quoted from the 2015 FSAE rule book:
B6.5.1 The steering wheel must be mechanically connected to the wheels, i.e. “steer-by-wire” is
prohibited.
B6.5.2 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.
B6.5.3 Allowable steering system free play is limited to seven degrees (7°) total measured at the
steering wheel.
B6.5.4 The steering wheel must be attached to the column with a quick disconnect. The driver must
be able to operate the quick disconnect while in the normal driving position with gloves on.
B6.5.5 The steering wheel must have a continuous perimeter that is near circular or near oval,
i.e. the outer perimeter profile can have some straight sections, but no concave sections. “H”, “Figure
8”, or cutout wheels are not allowed.
B6.5.6 In any angular position, the top of the steering wheel must be no higher than the top- most
surface of the Front Hoop.
8|Page
1.7 Suspension and Steering System Definition
The following figure provides assemblies of the front and rear suspension and steering systems for an
FSAE race car. The key components of these systems are numbered and listed below. Throughout the
report these components will be referred to and thus an early introduction into their appearances and
applications will allow the reader to gain a much better understanding of the author’s work. With
reference to the figure over the page:
1. Coil over shock absorber

2. Tire
3. Wheel
4. Steering arm
5. Tie rod
6. Rack and pinion
7. Rocker (or bell crank)
8. Push rod
9. Suspension arm (or suspension linkage/ wishbone/A-arms)
10. Upright/Knuckle
11. Toe link
9|Page
Front
Rear
10
11
Figure 2 Part list for an FSAE suspension and steering system
10 | P a g e
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Chapter Overview
The prime motive to do literature survey is to get an overview of the basic definition of the
terminologies used in motor sports car, analyze the effect of various parameters that affect the race car
performance and to get acquainted with the critical knowledge required in the process of designing the
suspension and steering assembly of a formula student car. This chapter deals with the study of tire
behavior, effect of weight, track width, wheelbase, snowball effect, jacking force, roll moment, ride
frequency, ride rate, roll rate, wheel rate, motion ratio etc.
2.2 Objective of the Suspension System
The function of a suspension system for a road vehicle is quite simple. That is to reduce the shock and
vibration experienced by occupants or cargo due to irregularities on the driving surface and to ensure
all wheels maintain contact with the driving surface to promote stability and control of the vehicle
(Bastow Et al, 2004, p3). From a more racing sort of view, Puhn (1976, p27) states that the suspension
links the wheels of car to the chassis and aims to give the car the best possible handling qualities.
Further explaining this phenomenon, Crahan (2004, p169) mentions that the tires of a car that is being
driven will experience a large degree of deformation by external and internal loads, and that the
suspensions system is responsible for compensating for these deformations and loads in order to
maximize tire adhesion which is expected to provide improved handling performance.
2.3 Fundamental Concepts
2.3.1 Load Transfer

Unsprung Weight
The unsprung weight of a vehicle is the fraction of the total weight that is not supported by the
suspension springs and will usually consist of the wheels, tires, hubs, hub carriers, brakes (if mounted
outside the car’s chassis), and lastly, roughly 50% of the weight due to drive shafts, springs and shocks
as well as the suspension links. (Smith, 1978, p29)
11 | P a g e
Sprung Weight
This is basically the opposite of the aforementioned definition above. Again taking information from
Carroll Smith’s book entitled ‘Tune to Win’ (1979, p29) it is stated that the sprung weight is the portion
of total car weight which is supported by the suspension springs. This weight is much larger than the
unsprung weight as it consists of weight from the majority of car components which would include
the chassis, engine, driver, fuel, gearbox and other components housed in the chassis.
Centre of Gravity (CG)
The definition of center of gravity for a car is no different than that of a simple object such as a cube.
Essentially, it is a 3 dimensional balance point where if the car was suspended by, it would be able to
balance with no rotational movement. Recognizing this concept, it is clear that the center of gravity of
the car will be located at where mass is most highly concentrated which for a race car is typically
around the engine and associated drive components. It is also expected that all accelerative forces
experienced by a vehicle will act through its center of gravity. It is recommended that the center of
gravity for a vehicle be kept as low as possible to reduce the moment generated as the vehicle
experiences lateral acceleration. (Smith, 1978, p29)
Polar Moment of Inertia
The polar moment of inertia is based from Newton’s own laws of inertia and refers to the ease with
which an object can be rotated about an axis. High concentrations of mass far from this axis will inhibit
the rotation about the given axis where as if most mass is located at the axis location rotation will be
easier (Crummy, 2011). Applying this concept to a car, the rotation axis is through the vehicle’s center
of gravity, acting perpendicular to the ground plane and any mass concentrations distant from this axis
in the plan view will affect the car’s steering and cornering response. (Smith, 1978, p31)
Mass Centroid Axis
The mass centroid axis is found by dividing the car into a number of segments along its length and
then calculating the center of gravity for each of these segments before finally linking all these center
of gravity points with a line. This is obviously very hard to calculate and so generally a straight line
approximation that gives an appropriate distribution of the car’s mass in the vertical plane is applied.
(Smith, 1978, p29)
12 | P a g e
Roll Centre
When a car experiences centrifugal cornering forces the sprung mass between both the front and rear
axles will tend to rotate around a center which is also located in a transverse plane to the axles. These
points are called the roll centers and are the locations at which lateral forces generated by the tires on
the road will act upon the chassis. It should also be noted that the roll center of the front and rear of
the car are usually at different locations on the transverse planes defined by the car’s axles. Figure 2.1
over the page details the process of finding the roll center for the widely used four bar independent
suspension system.
First, lines corresponding with the angle of the upper and lower linkages are extended until they meet
at a point which is called the instantaneous center. From this instantaneous center a straight line is then
drawn back to a point defined by the middle of the tire’s contact patch. Where this line meets the
centerline of the vehicle is the roll center. This is a simplified case though, with the roll center will
only moving up and down as the wheels move up and down where in reality it is found that the roll
center actually moves quite a lot and not just in the vertical axis. (Smith, 1978, p29)
Figure 3 Determination of roll center and moment arm (Smith, 1978, p30)
Roll Axis
The roll axis is the line that would connect the roll center at the front axle to roll center at the rear
axle. Building on the fact that front and rear roll centers will not always be at the same point at the
front or rear of the vehicle, the roll axis will usually not be parallel to the ground plane. (Smith, 1978,
p29)
13 | P a g e
Roll Moment
Also visualized on figure 2.1, the roll moment is the distance between the center of gravity at the
transverse plane defined by the axle, and the roll center. In order to calculate the roll moment for the
vehicle as a whole and not just either axle location, it is required to find the transverse plane that the
overall center of gravity of the car is located in and then at this cross section, determine the distance
between the mass centroid axis and the roll axis. The relation of all these parameters can be observed
over the page on figure 2.2 (Smith, 1978, p30)
Figure 4 Relationship between roll axis, mass centroid axis and roll moments
Dynamic Load Transfer
According the Carroll Smith (1978, p31), dynamic load transfer is “the load transferred from one
wheel to another due to the moments about the vehicle’s center of gravity or its roll centers as the
vehicle is accelerated in one sense or another.”
Longitudinal Load Transfer
Longitudinal load transfer is the result of the cars mass accelerating from the front of the vehicle to
the back or the back to the front under accelerating or braking respectively. It is important to mention
14 | P a g e
that “The total weight of the vehicle does not change; load is merely transferred from the wheels at
one end of the car to the wheels at the other end” (Smith, 1978, p29). The amount of load transfer that
occurs is governed by the following expression which is also detailed by Carroll Smith:
𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 ∗ 𝐶 𝐺 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝐿𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟 = 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(𝑔) ∗
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑏𝑎𝑠𝑒
Note: Weight is defined as the weight that rests on the wheel set that is being analyzed i.e. front or
back and wheelbase is the distance between the center contact patch of the front tires to the center of
contact patch of the rear tires.
Figure 5 Various load transfers in dynamic condition
15 | P a g e
Lateral Load Transfer
In essence the lateral load transfer experienced by a vehicle is the same principle as the longitudinal
transfer only just rotated 90 degrees such that load is either transferred from the right to the left under
a left hand corner and from the left to the right in a right hand corner. Similarly, this load transfer can
be calculated using the following formula defined by Carroll Smith (1978, p36)
𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 ∗ 𝐶 𝐺 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝐿𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑡𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑠𝑓𝑒𝑟 = 𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛(𝑔) ∗
𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑤𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ
Note: Weight is defined as the weight that rests on the wheel set that is being analyzed i.e. front or
back and track width is the distance between the center of the contact patch of the right and left tires.
Dive and Squat:
Dive and squat are fundamentally the same concept except reversed. Dive is where the front end of
the dips down under braking due to the longitudinal weight transfer from the back of the car to the
front acting on the front springs. Squat is where the back springs are compressed due to longitudinal
weight transfer from the front of the car to the back which in effect causes the end of the vehicle to
depress towards the ground pla
16 | P a g e
Bump and Droop
Bump and droop are positions of independent suspension under certain scenarios. Bump occurs when
the wheels hit a bump on the track surface whereas droop occurs when the wheels drop into a
depression in the track surface. Bump and droop movements also associate with the suspension travel
terms, rebound and jounce where jounce describes the upwards movement of the wheel or movement
in bump while rebound describes the downwards travel of the wheel or droop movement. These
principles are best seen on the figure below with the bump condition on the left and the droop on the
right.
Figure 6 Bump and Droop behaviour of double wishbone set up. (Smith, 1978, p51)
Jacking:
Any vehicle possessing independent suspension with its roll centre above the ground plane will exhibit
some extent of jacking and is where the car will appear to lift itself up while cornering. This effect
may be visualized on the following figure and occurs when the reaction force acting on the tire acts
through the roll center to balance the centrifugal force generated as the car is turning. This effect is
highly undesired as it raises the center of gravity and places the suspension linkage in the droop
position which results in poor tire camber, in effect, hindering the tire’s adhesion to the track surface.
This phenomenon is experienced a lot more significantly in vehicles possessing a high roll center and
narrow track width.
17 | P a g e
Figure 7 Calculating jacking force for a double wishbone setup.
2.3.2 Tire Behavior
The forces for accelerating the race car in the plane of race track originate principally at the tires.
Understanding of tire behavior is one key to the achievement of the largest "g-g" diagram. Furthermore,
tires are the primary source of the forces and torques which provide the control and stability (or
"handling") of the vehicles. This section is a review of tire mechanics-the behavior of tires in producing
forces and torques.
The forces and torques (or moments) developed by the pneumatic tire affect the vehicle in a variety of
ways. Obviously, the tires support the vehicle weight, and any other ver-tical forces developed such as
aerodynamic or the result of road banking. The interac-tions between the tires and the road supply the
tractive, braking and cornering forces for maneuvering (as plotted on the "g-g" diagram). The tires also
supply the forces used for controlling and stabilizing the vehicle and for resisting external disturbances
from road and wind. For these beneficial effects the tire demands a price in rolling resistance and
induced forces in the drag direction. The tire generates steering torques which give rise to centering
effects in the steering system and related torques felt at the steering wheel by the driver. These effects
are all in addition to enveloping the small scale roughness of the road and providing the basic "grip" to
the road which makes all these other effects possible.
The tire-is too complex to tackle as a whole; one must isolate and explain its characteristics separately.
Tire provides the necessary lateral force which is of primary interest in cornering and then move to the
generation of aligning torque (or pneumatic trail) and tractive braking force. Next is a discussion of the
effects of camber. Tires are sensitive to pressure, temperature, and speed, which are discussed next.
Finally, the above is gathered together in the concept of the tire friction circle (or ellipse) which is
related to the whole vehicle "g-g" diagram.
Slip Angle
The slip angle of a pneumatic tire is defined as "the angular displacement between the plane of rotation
of the wheel (the direction in which the rim is pointing) and the path that the rolling tire will follow on
18 | P a g e
the road surface." This path is made up of the successive footprints of the contact patch laid down as
the tire rolls. In order for the vehicle to change direction, regardless of road speed or the radius of
curvature, each of the vehicle's tires must assume some value of slip angle.
The existence of the slip angle phenomenon is due to the fact that the pneumatic tire is elastic in twist-
i.e. when the tire is turned, that portion of the tread which is in contact with the road surface will resist
the turning moment due to elastic friction between the rubber and the road. The tread in the vicinity of
the contact patch, since it is elastic, will distort and therefore will not turn as far as the rim does. This
being the case, the contact patch-and therefore the tire's rolling path over the road surface-will lag
behind the plane of rotation of the wheel by some value of angular displacement. Since the tire is rolling,
the contact patch is constantly renewed-if we visualize a single particle of tread rubber as the tire rolls
it spends most of its time not in contact with the road. When the particle in question does roll into
contact with the road it progresses from the leading edge of the con-tact patch, through the center, to
the trailing edge. The ac-tual elastic deformation takes place during the time that the rubber is in contact
with the road. However, since each molecule is attached to the rest of the tread, the displace-ment
actually starts before the tire to road intersection as the portion of the tread not yet in contact is pulled
sideways by the portion undergoing deformation. This is a gradual process. When the molecule rotates
past the contact patch the rubber "unstretches" and returns to its normal position. Rubber being rubber,
this trailing deformation or energy release is much more rapid than the leading deformation.
Figure 8 Distribution of forces and lateral velocity over the contact length (Milliken 1995,
p23)
19 | P a g e
Figure 9 Lateral force vs. slip angle for a racing tire (Milliken, 1995, p25)
Tire load sensitivity
At and beyond the peak most of the print is sliding and the lateral force is the result of friction between
the tire and the road surface. Actually, the peak lateral force coefficient (or lateral friction coefficient)
normally higher for the lighter loads or, conversely, falls off as the load increases. This effect is called
the tire load sensitivity. Both the magnitude of the lateral friction coefficient and its variation with load
(load sensitivity) are important in racing.
Aligning Torque and Pneumatic Trail
Aligning torque (or moment), 𝑀𝑧 in SAE J670, describes a tire's tendency to steer about a vertical axis
through the "center" of the print (the origin of the tire axis system). At low and medium slip angles the
tire tends to align its heading with its path. This is a stabilizing effect analogous to a weather vane
aligning with the wind direction. In other words, tires like to point the way they are going. For the
present discussion the wheel is assumed to have zero camber (upright wheel).
The aligning torque comes from the shape of the print, as described in a previous section. Figure 2.7
shows that the shape of the distortion in the print is roughly triangular and is not symmetric about the
fore-aft center of the print. The elastic distortion in the print increases from front to back and this gives
20 | P a g e
an uneven distribution of lateral force along the length of the print. This uneven distribution gives rise
to aligning torque.
Pneumatic trail is a different way of looking at this asymmetry in the print, shown in Figure 2.8. The
pneumatic trail is the distance from the fore-aft center of the print to the center of action of the lateral
force. The tire aligning torque is the lateral force times the pneumatic trail, or, pneumatic trail equals
aligning torque divided by the lateral force. Trail, in its simplest sense, is illustrated by a swiveling
caster. The tire print trails behind its steering pivot. Automotive steering systems are designed the same
way, the caster angle gives a mechanical trail, as shown in Figure 2.8. Another way to obtain mechanical
trail is to move the kingpin forward of the wheel center; this kingpin offset is shown in Figure 2.8. In
practice, both methods are used to obtain mechanical trail. If all the tire lateral force at the print was
concentrated directly below the axle, the steering torque would be given by the mechanical trail times
the lateral force. The pneumatic trail is always present, it changes with the tire operating conditions.
The sum of the mechanical trail plus the pneumatic trial times the lateral force gives the steer torque
about the kingpin.
Figure 10 Aligning torque vs. slip angle for several loads
21 | P a g e
Figure 11 Pneumatic and mechanical trail
Suspension geometry:
Push and Pull:
Currently there are two main approaches to designing the inboard suspension system which are the
push and pull variations. These may be viewed on the following figure and as seen, will operate using
the same fundamental principles whereby up and down wheel movement is transmitted to the shock
absorber by means of a rocker arm. What type of mechanism is used will depend on the layout of the
vehicle and the desired loading paths for the suspension design; one method may integrate better
much better than the other. It is therefore not uncommon to see a vehicle utilizing a push system at
one end of the car and a pull at the other. (Staniforth, 1991, p80)
Push Pull
Figure 12 Push and pull inboard suspension configurations (Staniforth, 1991, p62)
22 | P a g e
As can be seen above, the push set up pushes on the rocker to actuate the shock absorber whereas
the pull method pulls on the rock
2.4 Objective of the Steering System
According to Bastow Et al (2004, p83), “The function of the steering system is clearly to afford the
driver directional control of the vehicle, and to provide this control with sufficient accuracy to choose
the best course around corners, to avoid other vehicles and stationary obstructions, and to maneuver
the car efficiently at low speed…” This view is also supported by the author and is believed applicable
to domestic and commercial vehicles as well as racing cars.
2.4.1 Geometry
Camber Angle
As shown on the following figure, the camber angle is the angle that the inclination of the vehicle’s
tyres makes with the vertical axis. In this case the camber is negative as the top of the tyre leans in
towards the centre of the car. A positive camber is the opposite of this. According to Bastow Et al
(2004, p10), increasing positive camber will enlarge the slip angle for a specific cornering force,
decrease the largest possible cornering force possible by the vehicle but will also slow down the onset
of ‘breakaway’ which is assumed to mean the car starting to slide. On the other hand, by increasing
negative camber the opposite will occur with a higher cornering force and less time for the car to break
away. It should also be mentioned though that generally vehicles will be designed with a relatively
small camber angle statically applied.
Camber
King pin angle
inclinatio
n
Figure 13 Camber angle and kingpin inclination. (Kalver, 2001)
23 | P a g e
Kingpin Inclination
The kingpin inclination of a vehicle may also be seen on figure 2.13. Taking guidance from Bastow
Et al (2004, p10) again, it is stated that the “kingpin inclination (often shortened to KPI) is the angle,
viewed in end elevation, between the vertical and the steering (kingpin) axis.” In figure 2.13 a positive
kingpin inclination is shown because convention is opposite to the camber angle; positive kingpin is
when the kingpin axis angles in towards the centre of the vehicle whereas negative inclination is the
opposite. Another key parameter that is linked to kingpin inclination is kingpin offset or scrub radius.
It is the lateral measurement between the meeting point of the centre of the tyre’s contact patch and
the kingpin axis, with the ground plane. Convention is that positive offset will be when the kingpin
offset is outboard of the kingpin axis.
Caster Angle
Caster
angle
Caster
offset
Figure 14 Caster angle and offset (Kalver, 2001)
Caster angle also relates to the kingpin or steering axis although describes the angle of it when
viewing the vehicle from side on. As seen above, it is the angle that the kingpin axis makes
with the vertical. It is positive when the kingpin axis meets the ground ahead of the vertical
axis drawn through the wheel centre so in figure 2.14 back over the page, if the car is assumed
to be facing right, the caster angle is therefore negative. In a vehicle with negative caster angle,
the steering wheels will tend to self-align as the vehicle moves forward. Another term that is
often associated with the caster angle is the caster offset or mechanical trail which is also seen
on figure 2.14. (Bastow Et al, 2004, p11)
24 | P a g e
Toe Angle
Toe angle is the angle that a wheel makes with a line drawn parallel to the length of the car,
when viewed from above. This concept is seen below on figure 2.15. When the front wheels
point away from each other, the condition is called toe out whereas when the front wheels point
inwards, the vehicle is said to have toe in. Generally, designers will opt for toe in for the reason
being that when the vehicle experiences an upsetting force such as a bump or a wind gust, the
toe in will promote stability as the front wheels naturally want to steer into a location central
to the car’s body. Toe out on the other hand will produce some very unstable behaviour under
these conditions when the slip angle of the more heavily laden wheel increases. In general, toe
in will provide greater straight line stability whereas a controlled amount of toe out can improve
the car’s turn in ability to a corner. (Smith, 1978, p38)
Figure 15 Toe angle settings (Smith, 1978, p38)
Ackermann Geometry
The Ackermann steering geometry takes its name from a London agent that patented the design
in 1816. The geometry allows the outer front wheel to cover a larger radius than the inside
wheel. As a result, both wheels will follow individual radii without skidding or scrubbing as
the vehicle corners. This effect may be over the page on figure 2.16 (a). In order to achieve
this geometry, the steering arms on the front wheels must angle inward and meet at the centre
of the rear axle (figure 2.16 (b)).
These days only a select number of vehicles will employ full Ackermann geometry. This is
because as cornering speed increases, the wheels of a car will adopt slip angles and effects of the
Ackermann geometry will become obsolete. For these reasons only slower vehicles that require
restricted turning circles will be the ones to use this full geometry whereas the majority of all
modern vehicles will only utilize a small amount of Ackermann compensation.
25 | P a g e
(a)
(b)
Figure 16 Ackermann geometry
2.4.2 Steering Behaviours
Bump Steer
Bump steer is the phenomenon that occurs when the front wheels of a vehicle vary their toe
angle’s as the suspension moves up and down, potentially causing the car to dart around even
under no steering input resulting in highly unwanted driver uncertainty and poor handling feel
(Staniforth, 1999, p190). According to Smith (1978, p62), when designing around bump steer,
large amounts of toe out occurring due to the suspension movement should be avoided at all costs.
He also mentions though, that bump steer can be used to the designers benefit by altering the
response of the vehicle while cornering.
Roll Steer
Roll steer is also another steering effect that is generated through movement of the suspension
system. It is believed that this concept is best clarified by Smith (1978, p63) where he mentions
roll steer is “…the self-steering action of any automobile in response to lateral acceleration and
consists of slip angle changes due to camber change, toe change and the inertias of the sprung
mass”. This effect will be present in all double wishbone set ups although can be limited by
reducing the gross weight of the car, center of gravity height, eliminating deflection in the
suspension and associated chassis mounting components, and lastly, by adjusting bump steer.
26 | P a g e
Slip Angle
Slip angle is the angle made by the direction of the tire contact patch with the direction of overall
velocity of vehicle. This principle is best demonstrated by observing figure 2.17 below which also
highlights the lateral forces imposed on the wheel as it corners.
Slip
angle
Direction of
overall
vehicle velocity
Lateral
force
Direction of on wheel
tyre contact patch
Figure 17 Slip angle (Milliken and Milliken, 2002, p54)
Oversteer, Understeer and Neutral Steer
Oversteer Understeer
Figure 18 Oversteer and understeer effects on a vehicle. (Longhurst, 2011)
Olley (1947) describes oversteer as the occurrence when the front wheel slip angles are smaller than
the rear ones and for understeer, when the front wheel slip angles were larger than the rear. Building
on this, Longhurst (2011) mentions that oversteer is where the car loses grip at the rear wheels causing
the car to turn more than expected by the driver whereas understeer induces the opposite of this
behaviour. These concepts can be pictured above on figure 2.18. It should also be mentioned that when
the slip angles for the front and rear wheels are equal, then the vehicle is said to be neutral steering.
27 | P a g e
Chapter3
Designing
3.1 Design Methodology
Analyze the Define design

Select tyres Select wheels
rules targets
Determine the
Determine the Selection of
vehicle
CAD Design suspension upright
trackwidth and
geometry bearings
wheelbase
Selection of Testing &

FEA Analysis Assembly
material Tuning
Figure 19 Design Methodology
Design target
From the Last car ZFR 2.0, a significant improvement has been made in the design and manufacturing
of ZFR 3.0. A well-defined design objective was prepared which is as follows:
 Reduce the weight of the car from 294 Kg to 160 Kg to enhance the longitudinal acceleration
from 3.3 to 5.2 m/s2.
 Reduce the polar moment of inertia by at least 30% to enhance yawing response of the vehicle.
 Reduce the C.G. height of the vehicle and bring it at the most, 8 inches from ground to improve
cornering performance.
In the process of achieving these objectives, no compromises are made in the strength, integrity and
ergonomics of the structure.
The main features which are adopted while designing the suspension and wheel assembly are:
 Functionality
 Strength
28 | P a g e
 Accessibility
 Minimum Compliances
3.2 Tire selection

After evaluating the dynamic equation, the translational and rotational inertia effects of wheel can be
expressed as an equivalent non-rotating mass, therefore it can be proved that the equivalent mass of a
dynamic tire is twice its static mass. In figures, this means if 0.5kg is shaved off each wheel, it would
feel 1kg lighter in dynamic conditions. Multiplying this by 4, one can see the huge “gain in weight”
reduction that can be made in dynamic conditions.
The knock on benefits of reducing the inertia is that it improves the performance drastically, as more
power is available to accelerate the car, provided we are not traction limited, in which case the
performance gain will still be made just at higher speeds. Another benefit (although relatively small in
comparison) is the benefit under braking as less rotational inertia reduces braking load and therefore
less heat is generated.
Although the data shows that 10 inch wheels are worse in terms of peak lateral force and tire
temperature, but the gain in having less unsprung mass is worth the change. There also lies packaging
issues but that is sorted out by good planning and CAD design of every parts.
After we make it clear to use 10 inch tires, now we look on some of the parameters in selection of tires.
Aspect Ratio:
Lowering the aspect ratio-

 Increases the radial stiffness
 Improves the lateral stiffness which further improves cornering performance.
 Increases circumferential stiffness which further improves the handling during acceleration &
deceleration which particularly in combination with cornering.
 CONS: With low aspect ratio, forces due irregularities in surface are transmitted directly from tire
to suspension. This effect can be “neglected” because of the smooth track.
Hydroplaning Resistance:
As aspect ratio is lowered, the width of tire is increased which reduces the average pressure of contact
patch. So, low aspect ratio tire is not suitable for high hydroplaning resistance.
As a result, the aspect ratio of wet tires is chosen to be high than that of the slicks.
Rolling Resistance:
Low aspect ratio tires increase the radial stiffness and directional stability & hence reduce deflection of
tire, thereby decreasing rolling resistance. Apart from this, rolling resistance aids in braking & at the
same time opposes traction.
As a result, the aspect ratio for front tires is selected relatively more than that of the rear tires.
29 | P a g e
Tread Wear:
As aspect ratio is low, there will be less average pressure on the contact patch and hence there will be
less tread wear. Hence, this is one if the pros of low aspect ratio among the others discussed.
Width of Tire:
We can obtain better responses and behaviour from tire when it is wider due to increase in the contact
patch, without affecting the maximum lateral force too much. Increase in the width of tire also enables
high speed in corners and reduces the aspect ratio simultaneously for a given section width of a tire, but
at the same time it causes more drag and rolling resistance as well.
So, this is one of the most important criteria in the selection of tires.
Tire Outer Diameter:
If the diameter of rear tire is more than that of the front tire, then it eases in steering and provides more
traction during cornering.
As a result, the outer diameter of the rear tire is selected relatively more than that of the front.
Ease of Accessibility/Procurement:
From all the parameters listed above, this is one of the crucial parameters which incorporates the
availability of desired product and its cost effectiveness among other key items, and affects the selection
criteria to some extent.
With lack of extensive tyre data about its behavior as discussed earlier, probably the best selection of
tyres were not made. Though quantitative comparison based on tyre behavior is not made, but the
factors considered above lead to a better selection of tyres.
Based on the above consideration, a decision matrix is prepared for selection of tyres.
Table 2 Tire Selection

TIRES DECISION MATRIX
Scale out of 10
Part Outer Weight Rotational Section Aspect Ratio Hydroplaning
Size Cost Compound Total Score
Number Diamete (lbs) Inertia Width (%) Resistance
Priorities 80% 80% 60% 70% 60% 80%
41100 18.0*6-10 18.00 9.50 9.0 8.5 47.06 8.0 8.40 LC0 29.79
43101 18.0*6-10 18.10 9.00 8.5 8.1 50.00 8.5 9.30 R25B 31.75
43105 18.0*7.5-10 18.30 8.50 8.3 9.5 43.68 7.5 8.90 R25B 31.15
43110 19.5*6.5-10 19.40 8.50 7.0 8.2 57.32 9.0 9.50 R25B 30.62
Slicks
43120 19.5*7.5-10 19.50 8.50 6.5 9.5 50.00 8.5 9.00 R25B 30.35
43127 20.5*6.0-13 21.00 8.00 5.5 7.3 54.79 8.8 7.00 R25B 26.38
43163 20.5*7.0-13 21.00 8.00 5.0 8.0 50.00 8.5 7.00 R25B 26.25
43168 20.5*7.0-13 20.60 7.50 4.5 9.4 40.43 7 6.50 R25B 25.06
30 | P a g e
3.3 Steady State Analysis of Bicycle Model
Moving forward with the concept of ladder of abstraction, steady state analysis on a bicycle model
has been performed. In order to understand the effect of understeer and oversteer on control and
handling of a vehicle, several approaches were made in the past out of which steady state analysis
approach has been adopted because of its simplicity and reasonable accuracy. Vehicle is in itself
incapable of driving. It is the job of its driver to provide “intelligence” to the car. Thus the relationship
between vehicle and driver is complex. One of the prime requirements of a race car driver is to control
and handle the vehicle always near the desired g-g boundary. As the driver is influenced by several
factors such as mental motivation, surroundings, response of the vehicle to the input etc., it becomes
a difficult task to incorporate driver in the study. Thus, only the study of vehicle system is possible.
The only way to experience the ultimate reality of a vehicle’s control and stability is by driving it.
Anything which is in writing or talking is a part of reality and is termed as abstraction and the concept
helpful in achieving the desired goal is the concept of ladder of abstraction. The complete reality is
the way the driver experiences while driving the car. As we move down the ladder, we move away
from this reality. We make assumptions as to how car works in reality. Throughout this project, this
concept has been applied; beginning with the most simplified form and then moving up the ladder.
Before carrying on with the analysis, it is necessary to discuss the features of a bicycle model (two
degrees of freedom) which are as follows:
 No lateral load transfer i.e. single track

 No longitudinal load transfer
 No rolling or pitching motion
 Linear range tires
 Constant forward velocity
 No aerodynamics effect
 Position control
 No chassis or suspension compliance effects
Figure 20 Bicycle model, 2 DOF

While cornering, tyres operate in linear, transitional and breakaway region (lateral force vs. slip angle).
It is assumed here that tyres operate in linear range so that during the analysis cornering stiffness of
the tyres remains same. Further, by position control, it means that the displacement kinematics are
involved irrespective of the control forces.
31 | P a g e
With this simple model, the effect of various basic parameters like cornering stiffness of front and rear
tyres, mass of vehicle, position of C.G. and speed of vehicle on the yawing and side slipping motion
and other response to different conditions like control, applied side force and applied moment can be
easily investigated.
The two degrees of freedom are lateral velocity ‘v’ and yawing velocity ‘r’. Input is in the form of wheel
steer angle delta, which is in driver’s control.
This study will help in generating an overall concept of the vehicle in terms of control and stability.
3.3.1 Different phases of automobile while turning:
When a vehicle takes a turn, it normally goes through three different phase.
1. Transient turn entry: If a car makes a turn from straight road, then both the lateral and yawing
velocity of the car start building from zero. This is transient turn entry where both ‘v’ and ‘r’
are changing with time.
2. Steady State cornering: In this phase, the vehicle is moving on a constant radius path such that
both lateral velocity and yawing velocity remains constant.
3. Transient turn exit: While leaving the corner to a straight line, vehicle’s ‘v’ and ‘r’ change with
time.
Depending upon the turn and “attitude” of the driver, the mode which will prevail longer is decided.
Figure 21 Influence of driver’s “attitude” while turning.
3.3.2 Neutral steer, Understeer and Oversteer in Steady State Cornering

In steady state cornering, both ‘v’ and ‘r’ are constants. Thus, applying force and moment balance to
the bicycle model for equilibrium;
32 | P a g e
Force equilibrium:
Centrifugal force generated due to turning is balanced by lateral resistive force offered by tires
Thus 𝐶𝐹 = 𝑌𝐹 + 𝑌𝑅 = 𝐶𝐹 𝛼𝐹 + 𝐶𝑅 𝛼𝑅
Moment Equilibrium: 𝐶𝐹 𝛼𝐹 ∗ 𝑎 = 𝐶𝑅 𝛼𝑅 ∗ 𝑏
For a neutral steer car side slip angles generated by front tires and rear tires are same thus the car
moves to the path as established by the Ackermann steer angle. In other words, one can say that the
rate of slip angle generation with lateral acceleration of both Front and rear tires is same. Hence the
steer angle required at different lateral accelerations for a neutral steer car is constant.
Figure 22 Constant radius test of a neutral steer car
Figure 23 Variation of slip angles with lateral forces in neutral steer
The figure shows a test data of an almost a neutral steer car. There is a slight variation of about 5
degrees in steering wheel angle which when transferred to wheel is less as the steer ratio of the car is
14. Thus the variation in steer angle is 0.35o.
An understeer car as the name suggests, requires a greater steer angle than a neutral steer car for the
same turn radius. For the same steer angle, an understeer car will follow a greater turn radius. The
basic reason for an understeer car is that the slip angle generated by front tires to negotiate a corner
is more than rear tires, thus the rear tire limits the yawing moment and the steer angle required
becomes more than the Ackermann angle to overcome the turn. If both front and rear tyres are
assumed to be in the same condition i.e., cornering stiffness is same then a forward C.G. car having
more load on the front tyres will generate more slip angle on front tyres, thus behaving like an
33 | P a g e
understeer car. The rate of front slip angle with lateral acceleration is more than the rear tires as seen
clearly in the figure below.
Figure 24 Turning with lateral forces in understeer car
Figure 25 Variation of slip angles with lateral acceleration in understeer car

On a similar note, an oversteer car generates more slip angle on the rear tyres than front to negotiate
a turn. Thus the rate of slip angle generation with lateral accelaration for rear tire is more than that of
front tire. A rear C.G. car is an oversteer car.
34 | P a g e
Figure 26 Turning with lateral forces in an oversteer car
3.3.3 Equations of motion:
Table 3 Symbols and notions used
Term Symbol Unit Sign

CG location 𝑎, 𝑏 m Always +
Wheelbase 𝑙 m Always +
Mass of vehicle (W/g) 𝑚 kg Always +
Weight of vehicle 𝑊 N Always +
Gravitational acceleration 𝑔 m/s2 Always +
Yawing moment of inertia 𝐼𝑧 Kg-m2 Always +
Radius of gyration in yaw 𝑘 m
Yawing moment 𝑁 N-m -Always
for clockwise
+
Lateral force 𝑌, 𝑌𝑅 , 𝑌𝐹 N + to right
Lateral acceleration 𝑎𝑦 m/s2 + for RH turn
Lateral acceleration (ay /g) 𝐴𝑌 g + for RH turn
Path radius 𝑅 m + for RH turn
Path curvature 1/𝑅 m-1 + for RH turn
Vehicle velocity 𝑉 m/s + for forward
Yawing velocity 𝑟 rad/s + for clockwise
Lateral velocity 𝑣, 𝑣𝑅 , 𝑣𝐹 m/s + to right
Longitudinal velocity 𝑢 m/s + for forward
35 | P a g e
Steer angle front wheels 𝛿 radian + for clockwise
Slip angles 𝛼𝐹 , 𝛼𝑅 radian + for slip to right
Vehicle slip angle at CG 𝛽 radian + for slip to right
Cornering stiffness (two tires) 𝐶𝐹 , 𝐶𝑅 N/ radian Always -
Total cornering stiffness (𝐶𝐹 + 𝐶𝑅 ) 𝐶 N/ radian Always -
Ackermann Angle 𝑙/𝑅 radian + for RH turn
Stability factor 𝐾 1/(m/s)2 + for US
Centrifugal force 𝐶𝐹 N - for RH turn
Overall steering ratio 𝐺 deg./deg. Always +
Bicycle model is a 2 DOF model with r and v as independent motion variables. Applying the basic
Newton’s equations of motion,
𝑑𝑟
𝑁 = 𝐼𝑧 ; 𝑌 = 𝑚𝑎𝑦 ;
𝑑𝑡
Figure 27 Velocities at the rear tires
Lateral acceleration, 𝑎𝑦 = 𝑉𝑟 + 𝑣̇
= 𝑉𝑟 + 𝑉𝛽̇ (𝑉 = 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡)
= 𝑽(𝒓 + 𝜷̇ )
For steady state turn, r=V/R and body slip angle 𝛽 remains constant i.e. 𝛽̇ is zero.
Fig above shows the motion of rear tyres. Suppose the car experiences a lateral velocity u and yawing
velocity r. If the distance of rear tire from C.G. is b then the rear tyre experiences a lateral velocity of
-br. Thus the rear slip angle is:
36 | P a g e
𝑣 − 𝑏𝑟 𝑣 𝑏𝑟
𝛼𝑅 = = −
𝑉 𝑉 𝑉
𝒃𝒓
𝜶𝑹 = 𝜷 −
𝑽
For front tires, the slip angle so generated is:

𝑣 + 𝑎𝑟 𝑣 𝑎𝑟
𝛼𝐹 = −𝛿 = + −𝛿
𝑉 𝑉 𝑉
𝒂𝒓
𝜶𝑭 = 𝜷 + −𝜹
𝑽
Lateral force resisted by front and rear tires within linear range are:
𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑟
𝑌𝐹 = 𝐶𝐹 (𝛽 + − 𝛿) = 𝐶𝐹 𝛽 + 𝐶𝐹 ( ) − 𝐶𝐹 𝛿
𝑉 𝑉
𝒃𝒓 𝒃𝒓
𝒀𝑹 = 𝑪𝑹 (𝜷 − ) = 𝑪𝑹 𝜷 − 𝑪𝑹 ( )
𝑽 𝑽
Thus total lateral force Y is:

𝑎𝑟 𝑏𝑟
𝑌 = 𝑌𝐹 + 𝑌𝑅 = 𝐶𝐹 𝛽 + 𝐶𝐹 ( ) − 𝐶𝐹 𝛿 + 𝐶𝑅 𝛽 − 𝐶𝑅 ( )
𝑉 𝑉
𝟏
𝒀 = (𝑪𝑭 + 𝑪𝑹 )𝜷 + (𝒂𝑪𝑭 − 𝒃𝑪𝑹 )𝒓 − 𝑪𝑭 𝜹 Equation 1
𝑽
The total yawing moment about z axis through C.G. is:
𝑁 = 𝑁𝐹 + 𝑁𝑅 = 𝑌𝐹 𝑎 − 𝑌𝑅 𝑏
𝑎2 𝑟 𝑏2 𝑟
= 𝐶𝐹 𝑎𝛽 + 𝐶𝐹 ( ) − 𝐶𝐹 𝑎𝛿 − 𝐶𝑅 𝑏𝛽 + 𝐶𝑅 ( )
𝑉 𝑉
1
𝑁 = (𝑎𝐶𝐹 − 𝑏𝐶𝑅 )𝛽 + (𝑎2 𝐶𝐹 + 𝑏 2 𝐶𝑅 )𝑟 − 𝑎𝐶𝐹 𝛿 Equation 2
𝑉
Y and N can be expressed mathematically as

𝜕𝑌 𝜕𝑌 𝜕𝑌
𝑌 = 𝑓(𝛽, 𝑟, 𝛿) = ( ) 𝛽 + ( ) 𝑟 + ( ) 𝛿
𝜕𝛽 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝛿
𝑌 = 𝑌𝛽 𝛽 + 𝑌𝑟 𝑟 + 𝑌𝛿 𝛿 Equation 3
𝜕𝑁 𝜕𝑁 𝜕𝑁
𝑁 = 𝑓(𝛽, 𝑟, 𝛿) = ( ) 𝛽 + ( ) 𝑟 + ( ) 𝛿
𝜕𝛽 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝛿
𝑁 = 𝑁𝛽 𝛽 + 𝑁𝑟 𝑟 + 𝑁𝛿 𝛿 Equation 4
37 | P a g e
Table 4 The Derivatives (Simple two degree of freedom model)
Derivatives Name Nature
𝑁𝛿 Control Moment Derivative Control

𝑌𝛿 Control Force Derivative
𝑁𝑟 Yaw damping Derivative Damping
𝑌𝑟 Damping-in-Sideslip Derivative
𝑁𝛽 Static Directional Stability Derivative Damping
𝑌𝛽 Lateral Force/Yaw Coupling Derivative
By comparing the equations 1,2,3 and 4, the stability derivatives can be calculated for this simple
vehicle in terms of front and rear tire cornering stiffness, the longitudinal location of the CG (a and b)
and the velocity, V, as follows:
𝑌𝛽 = 𝐶𝐹 + 𝐶𝑅
1
𝑌𝑟 = ( )(𝑎𝐶𝐹 − 𝑏𝐶𝑅 )
𝑉
𝑌𝛿 = −𝐶𝐹
𝑁𝛽 = 𝑎𝐶𝐹 − 𝑏𝐶𝑅
1
𝑁𝑟 = ( ) (𝑎2 𝐶𝐹 + 𝑏 2 𝐶𝑅 )
𝑉
𝑁𝛿 = −𝑎𝐶𝐹
Curvature response defined as:

1/𝑅 𝑌𝛽 𝑁𝛿 − 𝑁𝛽 𝑌𝛿
=
𝛿 𝑁𝛽 (𝑉𝑌𝑟 − 𝑚𝑉 2 ) − 𝑉𝑌𝛽 𝑁𝑟
𝑌𝛽 𝑁𝛿 − 𝑁𝛽 𝑌𝛿
𝑉(𝑁𝛽 𝑌𝑟 − 𝑁𝛽 𝑚𝑉 − 𝑌𝛽 𝑁𝑟 )
Yawing velocity response defined as:

𝑟 1/𝑅 𝑌𝛽 𝑁𝛿 − 𝑁𝛽 𝑌𝛿
=𝑉 =
𝛿 𝛿 𝑄
Lateral acceleration response is given as:
𝑉 2 /𝑅 𝑉(𝑌𝛽 𝑁𝛿 −𝑁𝛽 𝑌𝛿)
=
𝛿 𝑄
38 | P a g e
Finally, the side slip response is given as:
𝛽 𝑌𝛿 𝑁𝑟 − 𝑁𝛿 (𝑌𝑟− 𝑚𝑉)
=
𝛿 𝑄
At initial stages of design, it is necessary to look into the effect of basic parameters like mass of vehicle,
cornering stiffness of tires, position of C.G. on the control and stability. Thus an effort has been made
using this model to come up with better decision.
3.3.4 Steady State responses:
Effect of CF on response of vehicle to control, applied Side force at C.G.
Model parameters:
Table 5 Model Parameters
Mass (kg) CF (N/deg) CR (N/deg) a (inch) b (inch) V (m/s)
280 Varies -300 35 25 10
Curvature Response vs Cf Lateral Accelaration Response vs C

120
Lateral Acceleration Response
1.2
Curvature Response
1 100
0.8
80
0.6
0.4 60
0.2
0 40
-8599 -14331 -20064 -25796 -31529 -8599 -14331 -20064 -25796 -31529
Cornering Stiffness Cornering Stiffness
39 | P a g e
Side Slip Response vs Cf
Yawing Response vs Cf
12
-8599 -14331 -20064 -25796 -31529
0 10
Yawing Response
-0.05 8
Side Slip Response
-0.1
6
-0.15
4
-0.2
-0.25 2
-0.3 0
-0.35 -8599 -14331 -20064 -25796 -31529
-0.4 Cornering Stiffness

Cornering Stiffness
Figure 28 Variation of different responses with cornering stiffness under control
Lateral Acceleration Response vs Cf Yawing Velocity Response vs Cf

(Applied Force) (Applied Force)
0.0001
0.00005
0.001
Yawing Velocity Response
0
0.0005
-0.00005
0
-0.0001
-0.0005
-0.00015
-0.001
-0.0002
-0.0015
-0.00025
-0.002
-0.0003
-0.0025
-0.003
Cornering Stiffness Cornering Stiffness
40 | P a g e
Curvature Response vs Cf Side Slip Response vs Cf
(Applied Force)
-11465
-14331
-17197
-20064
-22930
-25796
-28662
-31529
-34395
-8599
0.000044
0.00001
0.000042
0.000005
Side Slip Response

0.00004
0
Curvature Response
0.000038
-0.000005
-0.00001 0.000036
-0.000015 0.000034
-0.00002 0.000032
-0.000025
0.00003
-8599
-11465
-14331
-17197
-20064
-22930
-25796
-28662
-31529
-34395
-0.00003
Cornering Stiffness
Cornering Stiffness
Figure 29 Variation of different responses with cornering stiffness under applied side force
It is evident from the graphs that the curvature, yawing and lateral acceleration and side slip response
to control increases with cornering stiffness of front tires. This implies that the car tends to become
oversteer as the cornering stiffness is increased because the front tires will generate less slip angles.
However, increasing cornering stiffness by tire pressure is not a good idea after certain limit as ride
rate is adversely affected.
Fig 3 & 4 discusses about the response to an applied side force at C.G. From the graph it can be easily
deduced that the after a certain value of cornering stiffness, sign of the response changes, if the graphs
are analyzed carefully, it is found that the effect of applied force is reversed.
Table 6 Effect of CR on response of vehicle to control, applied Side force at C.G.
Model Parameters
280 -300 Varies 35 25 10
41 | P a g e
Curvature Response vs Cr Side Slip Response vs Cr
3.5
0.5
3 0
-0.5
Side Slip Ratio

Curvature Response
2.5
-1
2 -1.5
-2
1.5
-2.5
1 -3
-3.5
0.5
-4
0 -4.5
0 -10000 -20000 -30000 -40000
Cornering Stiffness
Cornering Stiffness
Figure 30 Variation of Curvature response with Cornering Stiffness
Lateral Acceleration response vs Cr

(Control)
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0 -5000 -10000 -15000 -20000 -25000 -30000 -35000 -40000
Cornering Stiffness
Figure 31 Variation of different responses with Cornering stiffness
42 | P a g e
Curvature Response vs m
(Control)
0.85
0.84
0.83
0.82
Curvature Response
0.81
0.8
0.79
0.78
0.77
0.76
0.75
250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340
Mass m
Yawing velocity response vs Cr Lateral acceleration response vs Cr

(Force) (force)
0.002
0 -10000 -20000 -30000 -40000
0.0002 0
Lateral acceleration response
0 -0.002
-0.0002 -0.004
-0.0004
-0.006
-0.0006
-0.008
-0.0008
-0.01
-0.001
-0.012
-0.0012
-0.014
-0.0014
-0.016
-0.0016
0 -10000 -20000 -30000 -40000
Cornenring stiffness
43 | P a g e
Side Slip Response vs Cr Curvature response vs Cr
(Force)
(Force)
0.0003
Cornering Stiffness
0.00025 0 -10000 -20000 -30000 -40000
0.00002
0.0002 0
Side Slip Response
Curvature response
-0.00002
0.00015
-0.00004
0.0001 -0.00006
-0.00008
0.00005
-0.0001
0
-0.00012
0 -10000 -20000 -30000 -40000
-0.00014
Cornering Stiffness
-0.00016
Figure 32 Variation of different responses with Cornering stiffness

As seen from the graph above the effect of increasing cornering stiffness tends to decrease the curvature
response dramatically thus making the vehicle understeer.
Table 7 Effect of Mass on response of vehicle to control, applied Side force at C.G.
Model Parameters
Varies -300 -300 35 25 10
44 | P a g e
Curvature Response vs Mass
(Force)
Mass
240 260 280 300 320 340 360
-7.5E-06
-7.6E-06
-7.7E-06
Curvature Response
-7.8E-06
-7.9E-06
-0.000008
-8.1E-06
-8.2E-06
Figure 33 Curvature response vs Mass (force)

As evident from the previous graph that the nature of the curvature, lateral acceleration, yawing and
side slip is same thus it is sufficient to know the nature of curvature response to control and side force.
In the graph above, we find that the mass is increasing the response. Though the effect of mass is not
as strong as previous parameters have on the response. Also, increasing mass to enhance the response
is negating the design objective.
Table 8 Effect of Velocity on response of vehicle to control, applied side force at C.G.
Model Parameters
280 -300 -300 35 25 Varies
45 | P a g e
Curvature Response vs V Curvature response vs Velocity
(Control) (Force)
1.2
Velocity
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
1 0
Curvature Response
0.8
-0.000005
Curvature respone
0.6
-0.00001
0.4
-0.000015
0.2
-0.00002
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Velocity
-0.000025
Curvature response vs CG Curvature response vs CG

(Control) (Force)
7 -0.00035
6 -0.0003
-0.00025
5
Curvature response
Curvature response
-0.0002
4
-0.00015
3
-0.0001
2
-0.00005
1 0
0 0.00005
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 0.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9 1 1.11.21.31.41.5
CG location (fom front) CG from front
Figure 34 Variation of various responses with Velocity and CG location

It is followed from graph that at higher velocities the response increases in both the case. Thus a rear
C.G. vehicle as is the case, have more response to control and side forces as vehicle speed is increased.
46 | P a g e
Table 9 Effect of C.G. location on response of vehicle to control, applied Side force at C.G.
Model Parameters
280 -300 -300 varies 25 10
As expected the response dramatically increases as the C.G. is moved towards rear.
As FSAE tracks are made to perform on tight turns thus a little oversteer is desired. Thus the location
of C.G. plays a big role in determining the attitude of the vehicle.
3.4 Mass Point Simulation

In order to prepare the design objective mass point simulation is performed on Optimum Lap. It helps
us to figure out the basic parameters affecting race car performance. Thus a better decision will be made
using this tool. As we have limited resources in our Formula Student Project, not all the advancements
can be made in the project within a single year’s time. Therefore, it becomes fruitful to recognize and
pick up the crucial parameters on which we need to work extensively.
3.4.1 About the software (Optimum Lap®)

Optimum Lap has been developed with the goal of providing users with an easy to use lap time
estimation tool that utilizes a basic quasi-steady state vehicle model. It can be used to rapidly analyze
characteristics of a vehicle on a given track. The user will be able to visually see and interpret the effects
of changing vehicle parameters.
Optimum Lap utilizes a quasi-steady-state point mass vehicle model. Though It adapts a simplistic
mathematical model but it has the ability to be accurate due to the combined states that the vehicle can
achieve. The vehicle is able to accelerate and corner simultaneously as well as decelerate and corner
simultaneously.
It is assumed that the driver and vehicle is working at its peak performance in the simulation. This
means that the lap time calculated by Optimum Lap will always be faster than what will actually happen
on the track. Thus it is better to compare the result than working on absolute value to check which
parameter is more sensitive to lap time. Optimum Lap has a lot of limitations, for example:
1.Doesn’t account for weight transfer (lateral or longitudinal).
a. No suspension affects.
b. No Inertia
c. Tire grip is a linear function.
2. Doesn’t utilize a real tire model.
a. The effects of camber, slip ratio and slip angle not taken into account.
b. The effects of temperature and pressures not taken into account.
c. The effect of adding weight and over saturating the tire can be taken into account by utilizing
the ‘Tire Load Sensitivity’ parameters in the vehicle.
3. Doesn’t account for vehicle yaw.
a. Since there is no CG (Center of Gravity) location or wheelbase entered the vehicle doesn’t have
the capacity to oversteer or understeer.
47 | P a g e
4. Doesn’t account for banking or grade on the track.
a. No increase or decrease in traction due to centrifugal forces or added weight transfer.
b. Doesn’t take into account transient effects.
Given these limitations it is still possible to achieve a greater understanding of a vehicle and the
sensitivities of vehicle parameters.
Figure 35 Speed vs Lap time curve
Source O lap
As shown in the fig 3.4, it is clear that if accurate vehicle and track representations are made then
Optimum Lap can give results within 10% error between the Logged data and simulated data.
3.4.2 Vehicle parametrization:

Here in our study, we have made variation in mass and aerodynamics parameter of the vehicle keeping
engine parameters constant. We will be observing the effect of these parameters on various key
performance Index (KPI). In order to get more realistic result, linear tire load sensitivity is incorporated.
To start with the simulation, it is better to discuss one of the test vehicle data. It is given below.
48 | P a g e
Table 10 Vehicle Configuration
Parameter Value
Total Mass 230 kg
Mass Distribution 50 %
Drag Coefficient 0.8
Downforce Coefficient 1.5
Front Area 0.93 m^2
Tire Radius 0.23 m
Lateral Friction 3
Max Torque 21.07 N.m @ 7000 rpm
Type of Fuel E85
Type of Transmission Sequential Gearbox
Ratio - Gear 1 3.333
Drive Efficiency 85 %
Max Power 24.34 hp @ 10000 rpm
Power Mass Ratio 0.11 hp/kg
Downforce @ 100 km/h 646.54 N
Drag @ 100 km/h 402.88 N
49 | P a g e
Figure 36 Engine torque and power vs engine speed
50 | P a g e
Figure 37 Tractive force at wheel
51 | P a g e
Figure 38 Vehicle speed vs engine speed
52 | P a g e
Figure 39 Traction model
53 | P a g e
One of the crucial parameters in judging the performance of race car is its acceleration in both
direction i.e. lateral and longitudinal. As the FSAE tracks are made to test its acceleration capabilities,
therefore the test vehicle is simulated on FSAE Germany endurance track.
Vehicle Mass (kg) 210 230 250 260 280 300 330
Lap time [s] 73.56 74.87 76.12 76.71 77.87 78.98 80.58
Percent in Corners [%] 84.77 84.73 84.68 84.66 84.62 84.59 84.54
Percent Accelerating [%] 85.74 86.03 86.31 86.45 86.73 87.00 87.29
Percent Braking [%] 13.65 13.36 13.09 12.95 12.67 12.41 12.12
Percent Coasting [%] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Percent 100% Throttle [%] 15.12 15.17 15.21 15.23 15.27 15.31 15.35
Percent TCS Enabled [%] 4.70 4.09 3.53 3.38 3.04 2.77 2.16
Lowest Speed [km/h] 37.78 37.49 37.22 37.08 36.82 36.56 36.19
Highest Speed [km/h] 96.53 94.81 93.23 92.51 91.08 89.75 87.83
Average Speed [km/h] 72.12 70.80 69.59 69.02 67.95 66.96 65.58
Energy Spent [kJ] 1024.30 1043.21 1060.77 1069.42 1085.59 1100.63 1120.40
Fuel Consumption [kg] 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15
Gear Shifts [-] 72.00 64.00 62.00 58.00 54.00 50.00 54.00
Maximum Lateral Acceleration [m/s^2] 31.61 30.53 29.61 29.20 28.45 27.80 26.96
Maximum Longitudinal Acceleration 5.73 5.25 4.82 4.63 4.29 4.00 3.63
[m/s^2]
Maximum Longitudinal Deceleration -33.17 -32.07 -31.11 -30.67 -29.87 -29.15 -28.17
Time in Sector 1 [s] 73.56 74.87 76.12 76.71 77.87 78.98 80.58
Maximum Speed in Sector 1 [km/h] 96.53 94.81 93.23 92.51 91.08 89.75 87.83
Minimum Speed in Sector 1 [km/h] 37.78 37.49 37.22 37.08 36.82 36.56 36.19
Percent in Gear 2 [%] 5.74 6.20 6.76 7.09 7.67 8.27 9.31
Percent in Gear 3 [%] 33.24 36.37 39.56 41.05 44.18 47.20 52.01
Percent in Gear 4 [%] 45.11 45.83 45.11 44.69 43.51 41.49 36.54
Percent in Gear 5 [%] 14.05 10.64 8.52 7.16 4.64 3.04 2.14
Table 11 Effect of mass on performance
54 | P a g e
Figure 40 Speed- elapsed distance curve
Figure 41 Longitudinal acceleration -elapsed distance curve
55 | P a g e
Figure 42 Lap time -vehicle mass curve
Figure 43 Longitudinal acceleration on FSAE Germany endurance track
56 | P a g e
Figure 44 Lateral acceleration on FSAE Germany endurance track
57 | P a g e
Table 12 Effect of Downforce on Performance
downforce downforce downforce downforce downforce

Vehicle Downforce
0.6 0.95 1.2 1.5 1.9
Lap time [s] 77.30 77.02 76.82 76.58 76.26
Percent in Corners [%] 84.76 84.73 84.71 84.68 84.64
Percent Accelerating [%] 85.38 85.77 86.02 86.29 86.68
Percent Braking [%] 14.02 13.62 13.37 13.11 12.72
Percent 100% Throttle [%] 15.13 15.16 15.19 15.21 15.25
Percent TCS Enabled [%] 4.00 3.70 3.57 3.37 3.22
Lowest Speed [km/h] 36.76 36.88 36.97 37.08 37.23
Highest Speed [km/h] 93.12 93.12 93.13 93.13 93.13
Average Speed [km/h] 68.55 68.80 68.97 69.18 69.45
Energy Spent [kJ] 1067.57 1067.14 1066.39 1065.08 1063.46
Fuel Consumption [kg] 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
Gear Shifts [-] 58.00 56.00 58.00 58.00 60.00
Maximum Lateral Acceleration [m/s^2] 27.36 28.29 28.59 29.23 30.12
Maximum Longitudinal Acceleration 4.65 4.65 4.65 4.65 4.64

[m/s^2]
Maximum Longitudinal Deceleration
-28.29 -29.18 -29.83 -30.61 -31.67
[m/s^2]
Time in Sector 1 [s] 77.30 77.02 76.82 76.58 76.26
Maximum Speed in Sector 1 [km/h] 93.12 93.12 93.13 93.13 93.13
Minimum Speed in Sector 1 [km/h] 36.76 36.88 36.97 37.08 37.23
Percent in Gear 2 [%] 7.41 7.30 7.16 7.06 6.88
Percent in Gear 3 [%] 41.81 41.40 41.09 40.67 40.18
Percent in Gear 4 [%] 44.16 44.14 44.32 44.48 44.34
Percent in Gear 5 [%] 6.62 7.15 7.43 7.80 8.60
58 | P a g e
Figure 45 Aerodynamic downforce-elapsed distance
59 | P a g e
Figure 46 Lap time -downforce coefficient curve
Figure 47 Aerodynamic downforce curve on FSAE Germany endurance track
60 | P a g e
Table 13 Effect of Aerodynamic Drag on performance
Vehicle drag 0.35 drag 0.55 drag 0.75 drag 0.95 drag 1.2
Lap time [s] 75.48 76.02 76.58 77.14 77.84
Percent in Corners [%] 84.82 84.75 84.68 84.61 84.53
Percent Accelerating [%] 85.13 85.75 86.29 86.91 87.56
Percent Braking [%] 14.24 13.65 13.11 12.49 11.88
Percent 100% Throttle [%] 15.07 15.14 15.21 15.28 15.37
Percent TCS Enabled [%] 3.61 3.50 3.37 3.26 3.23
Lowest Speed [km/h] 37.09 37.09 37.08 37.08 37.08
Highest Speed [km/h] 98.59 95.79 93.13 90.67 87.76
Average Speed [km/h] 70.43 69.80 69.18 68.56 67.80
Energy Spent [kJ] 1032.59 1049.13 1065.08 1082.15 1101.90
Fuel Consumption [kg] 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.14
Gear Shifts [-] 64.00 62.00 58.00 56.00 50.00
Maximum Lateral Acceleration [m/s^2] 29.90 29.53 29.23 29.13 -29.10
Maximum Longitudinal Acceleration [m/s^2] 4.74 4.69 4.65 4.60 4.54
Maximum Longitudinal Deceleration [m/s^2] -30.13 -30.37 -30.61 -30.86 -31.17
Time in Sector 1 [s] 75.48 76.02 76.58 77.14 77.84
Maximum Speed in Sector 1 [km/h] 98.59 95.79 93.13 90.67 87.76
Minimum Speed in Sector 1 [km/h] 37.09 37.09 37.08 37.08 37.08
Percent in Gear 2 [%] 6.92 6.95 7.06 7.13 7.27
Percent in Gear 3 [%] 37.81 39.21 40.67 42.32 44.62
Percent in Gear 4 [%] 43.25 43.81 44.48 45.41 45.37
Percent in Gear 5 [%] 9.87 8.78 7.80 5.14 2.74
Percent in Gear 6 [%] 2.16 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00
61 | P a g e
Figure 48 Aerodynamic downforce-elapsed distance
Figure 49 Lap time -drag coefficient curve
62 | P a g e
Figure 50 Aerodynamic drag force curve on Germany track
3.4.3 Discussion
As the mass is increased, performance goes down. We can see that the Lap time increases from 73.56
s to 80.58 s for an increase of 120 kg of mass. If we talk in terms of race cars, it is a huge margin.
Thus mass must be reduced in every possible manner without losing the strength and integrity of
structure or leading to compliances. We can see that the longitudinal acceleration improves from 3.63
m/s2 to 5.73 m/s2.
Increasing Downforce increases the traction provided by the wheel. Though the tyre is load sensitive
and the coefficient of friction of tyres decreases with load, the tractive force being the product of normal
load on tyres and coefficient of friction increases. But the tyre is not traction limited i.e. engine is not
provided with enough torque to make the tire slip. Thus longitudinal acceleration is not affected.
However, the lateral acceleration is improved from 27.13 to 30.15 m/s 2. Overall the lap time is
improved. For downforce of 0.6 to 1.9, the lap time reduces from 77.30 s to 76.4 s. Thus downforce
needs to be enhanced for better performance. To increase downforce, diffusors and wings of light weight
needs to be designed (especially made from carbon fibre). Keeping in mind the time and resources
available, advancement to implement diffusors and wings was put on hold for this project. However, in
future it is possible to improve the design.
Drag is enemy of a race car. It is very much evident from the table 8. Lap time increases from 75.32s
to 77.23 s for an increase in drag coefficient from 0.35 to 1.2. Drag force decreases longitudinal
acceleration from 4.74 m/s2 to 4.54 m/s2. To reduce the drag, streamline body must be made and flow
separation, vortices must be removed at every potential zone. Wings and streamline body reduces drag;
thus extra care will be taken to reduce drag.
3.5 Spring Damper selection
63 | P a g e
Spring selection defines a part of suspension geometry. Spring selection is governed by many factors
out of which ride rate, roll rate, roll gradient, ride frequency, load transfer being a few to name. To
move farther it is necessary to define the terms related to suspension rate:
1. Spring Rate- Force per unit displacement for a suspension spring alone.
2. Wheel Centre Rate-Vertical force per unit vertical displacement at the location along the
spindle corresponding to the wheel centreline, measured relative to the chassis. This rate is
generally lower than the corresponding spring rate due to the installation ratio. In other words,
the wheel spindle vertical travel is usually larger than the corresponding displacement of the
spring.
3. Tire Rate-vertical force per unit vertical displacement of the tire at its operating load. This can
be a large part of the total suspension spring on cars with stiff springing, designed for banked
tracks or high aero downforce.
4. Ride Rate-Vertical force per unit vertical displacement of the tire ground contact reference
point relative to the chassis. This is equal to the wheel centre rate modified by the tire vertical
rate. For an infinitely stiff tire, the ride rate and wheel centre rates would be equal. For a real
tire (with finite vertical stiffness) the ride rate is always less than the wheel centre rate
5. Roll Rate-Moment (torque) resisting body roll per degree of body roll. The term can be applied
to either an individual axle or to a complete car. This resis-tance to body roll is provided by the
ride rates, axle track width, and anti-roll bar (or z-bar).
6. Assumptions in the above definitions include:
 0o camber and no camber change with ride.
 No tire lateral distortion
Spring selection possess a problem that does not have a closed form. Thus an iterative process is to be
performed to narrow down the result to the desired objective. It is due to the fact that the wheel loading
while manoeuvring decides ride rate and wheel travel allowed by vehicle. Wheel load itself depends on
ride rate and roll rate. Thus it becomes necessary to make an approximation at the start and later iterate
the process to achieve the desired result.
64 | P a g e
Figure 51 Flow chart for spring selection
There are several ways to approach the problem. It can be as defining the ride frequency depending
upon how hard or soft the ride/handling is desired. Other way is to define the target roll gradient. Roll
gradient is defined as degree of roll per unit lateral acceleration.
Table 14 Typical Roll Gradients
Very Soft-Economy and basic family transportation, both domestic and import, 8.5o/g
pre-1975.
Soft-Basic family transportation, domestic and import, 7.5
Semi-Soft-Contemporary middle-market sedans, domestic and import. 7
Semi-Firm-Imported sport sedans. 6
Firm-Domestic sport sedans. 5
Very Firm-High-performance domestic, such as Camaro Z-28 and Firebird Trans 4.2
Am.
Extremely Firm-Contemporary very-high-performance sports, such as Corvette, 3

and street cars extensively modified to increase roll stiffness.
Hard-Racing cars only. 1.5
Being aware of the situation of FSAE tracks, Stiff roll gradient should be chosen. Therefore, roll
gradient between 1.2-1.8 deg/g will be a better decision. Race cars also have stiffer ride i.e.; the ride
frequency is above 2 Hz, reason being that the driver does strict manoeuvring on the race track. Thus if
65 | P a g e
the ride is kept soft then the response of the vehicle is slow to the input causing a lag, thus affecting the
ride and handling of the car. The ride frequency of rear is kept a little higher than front to avoid pitching
effect generated while braking and bumping, the reason being that the lag in the motion at the front and
rear while bumping is compensated by a quicker response of the rear suspension thus minimizing the
pitching effect. So a 5% increase in the rear ride frequency is chosen for the iterative process.
At 2g cornering the analysis is performed. There are few assumptions to make:
 Variation of roll centres with ride is not considered.

 Variation of tyre rate is not considered with load is not considered.
 Only load transfer due to cornering i.e. lateral acceleration is considered, no braking or bump
loads are considered thus no pitching effect is under consideration.
Table 15 Table: Wheel travel for several classes of vehicles
Off-road trucks ±12 in. ±12 in.
Passenger cars ±4 in. ±4 in.
Sports cars and small formula cars ±2 to ±4 in. ±2 to ±4 in.
Indy type cars (ground effects) ±0.5 in. (or Jess) ±0.5 in.
Below is a detailed procedure of how the calculations have been carried out:
Table 16 Specification of Car model
Front weight Rear Weight C.G. Height Track width Track width Wheel Base
𝑊𝑓 𝑊𝑟 ℎ f R 𝑙
𝑘𝑔𝑓 𝑘𝑔𝑓 𝑖𝑛 𝑡𝐹 𝑡𝑅 𝑖𝑛
𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛
112 168 10 48 47 64
1. Since the suspensions are independent, therefore ride frequency is given as:
1 𝐾𝑅 ∗ 2
𝜔= √
2𝜋 𝑊1
From eq.10 ride rate 𝐾𝑅𝐹 is calculated for a given ride frequency.
2. Since total ride rate can be considered of as a series of springs; one between chassis and tire
and the other between tyre and ground, thus Wheel centre rate can be found out.
𝐾𝑅 𝐾𝑇
𝐾𝑊 =
𝐾𝑇 − 𝐾𝑅
3. Next step is to find the Roll rates:

𝑡𝐹2 ∗ 𝐾𝑅
𝐾𝜙=
2
66 | P a g e
4. Then find the Roll gradient:
𝜙 𝑊∗𝐻
=
𝐴𝑌 𝐾𝜙𝐹 + 𝐾𝜙𝑅
This is first step to reach close to the desired design goal. Following graph shows the variation of roll
gradient with the ride frequency (front).
Roll gradient vs Ride frequency

8
6
Roll Gradient (deg/g)
0
1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4
Ride Frequency(Front) Hz
Roll gradient
Figure 52 The variation of roll gradient with the ride frequency (front)
From the above graph, it is clear that in order to get roll gradient in between 1.3 deg/g and 2.0 deg/g,
the target ride frequency must be chosen between 2.25-2.8 Hz.
Choosing Ride frequency as 2.4 (front) and 2.52 (rear) for further investigation.
5. Ride rate:
𝐾𝑅 = 2𝜋 2 ∗ 𝜔2 ∗ 𝑊1 /𝑔
𝐾𝑅𝐹 = 2𝜋 2 ∗ 2.4 ∗ 112
⟹ 𝐾𝑅𝐹 = 12721.25 𝑁/𝑚
∥ 𝐾𝑅𝑅 = 21037.77 𝑁/𝑚
67 | P a g e
6. Wheel rate:
𝐾𝑅 𝐾𝑇
𝐾𝑊 =
𝐾𝑇 − 𝐾𝑅
12721.25 ∗ 119087
⇒ 𝐾𝑊𝐹 =
119087 − 12721.25
⟹ 𝐾𝑊𝐹 = 14242.7 𝑁/𝑚
∥ 𝐾𝑊𝑅 = 25551.7 𝑁/𝑚
7. Roll rates are determined as:
𝑡𝐹2 ∗ 𝐾𝑅
𝐾𝜙=
2
48 ∗ 48 ∗ 12721.25
𝐾𝜙𝐹 =
2
⟹ 𝐾𝜙𝐹 = 9457.77 𝑁𝑚/𝑟𝑎𝑑
∥ 𝐾𝜙𝑅 = 14991.08 𝑁𝑚/𝑟𝑎𝑑
Now the effect of variation of roll centre position on various parameters like wheel load transfer, wheel
travel, roll gradient is considered. Roll centres determine the roll axis which in turn defines H. Roll
centres above ground provide jacking force to the suspension arms which is undesirable. Suspension
geometry defines roll centre therefore at the end suspension geometry should be defined in such a way
that the variation in roll centre with ride is minimum thereby avoiding the chance of negative effect of
varying roll centre height on roll gradient and load transfer. To be certain of the issue, a test is performed
by varying first the rear roll centre height (𝑍𝑅𝑅 ) and then front roll centre height (𝑍𝑅𝐹 ). Desirable result
is marked with green color whereas situation which should be avoided is marked with red.
Figure 53 Roll gradient

8. Load transfer
𝑊 𝐻 × 𝐾𝜙𝐹 𝑏
∆𝑊𝐹 = 𝐴𝑌 × ×( + × 𝑍𝑅𝐹 )
𝑡𝐹 𝐾𝜙𝐹 + 𝐾𝜙𝑅 𝑙
68 | P a g e
280 ∗ 9.81 13.8 × 9457.7 × .0254 38.4
∆𝑊𝐹 = 2 × ×( − × 2 ∗ .0254)
48 ∗ .0254 9457.7 + 14991.1 64
⟹ ∆𝑊𝐹 = 519.3 𝑁
∥ ∆𝑊𝑅 = 638.5 𝑁
𝑊𝐹
Front outside: 𝑊𝐹𝑜 = + ∆𝑊𝐹
2
𝑊𝐹
Front Inside 𝑊𝐹𝐼 = − ∆𝑊𝐹
2
𝑊𝑅
Rear Outside 𝑊𝑅𝑜 = + ∆𝑊𝑅
2
𝑊𝑅
Rear Inside 𝑊𝑅𝐼 = − ∆𝑊𝑅
2
Front outside 𝑊𝐹𝑜 = 1068.66 𝑁
Front Inside 𝑊𝐹𝐼 = 34.60 𝑁
Rear Outside 𝑊𝑅𝑜 = 1462.54 𝑁
Rear Inside 𝑊𝑅𝐼 = 185.54 𝑁
9. Wheel Displacement:
ΔW
𝛿=
𝐾𝑊
519.3
𝛿𝐹 =
14242.7
𝛿𝐹 = 36.4 𝑚𝑚
69 | P a g e
Table 17 ZRF=-2 in and ZRF=-1 in
𝑍𝑅𝑅 𝐻 ∆𝑊𝐹 ∆𝑊𝑅 𝑊𝐹𝑂 𝑊𝐹𝐼 𝑊𝑅𝑂 𝑊𝑅𝐼 𝛿𝐹 𝛿𝑅 𝜙

𝐴𝑌
In. In. N N N N N N mm mm
o
/g
-5.00 13.8 519.3 638.50 1068.6 34.60 1462.5 185.54 36.4 24.9 2.26
-4.00 13.2 492.7 665.63 492.74 61.16 1489.6 158.41 34.6 26.0 2.16
0
-3.00 12.6 0
466.1 692.75 6
466.18 4
87.72 1516.7 131.29 6
32.7 9
27.1 2.06
0 4
-2.00 12.0 439.6 719.88 439.62 114.2 7 1543.9 104.16 0
30.8 5
28.1 1.96
-1.00 011.4 8 413.0 747.00 413.06 140.8 9 1571.0 77.04 3
29.0 1
29.2 1.87
0.00 010.8 2 386.5 774.12 386.50 8 167.3 2 1598.1 49.92 7
27.1 7
30.3 1.77
1.00 10.2 6
0 359.9 801.25 359.94 193.9 4
3 1625.2 22.79 0
25.2 3
31.3 1.67
0
2.00 9.60 0
333.3 828.37 9
333.38 220.5 6
1652.4 -4.33 4
23.4 0
32.4 1.57
0 4
3.00 9.00 306.8 855.50 306.83 247.0 9
5 1679.5 -31.46 7
21.5 6
33.4 1.47
4.00 8.40 8 280.2 882.62 280.27 273.6 1
1 1706.6 -58.58 1
19.6 2
34.5 1.37
5.00 7.80 3 253.7 909.75 253.71 7 300.1 4 1733.7 -85.71 4
17.8 8
35.6 1.28
6.00 7.20 7 227.1 936.87 227.15 326.7 6
3 1760.9 -112.83 8
15.9 4
36.6 1.18
7.00 6.60 200.51 963.99 200.59 9 9
353.3 1788.0 -139.95 1
14.0 0
37.7 1.08
5
8.00 6.00 174.0 991.12 174.03 379.8 1
5 1815.1 -167.08 5
12.2 7
38.7 0.98
-112.83
9.00 5.40 9 147.4 1018.2 147.47 406.4 3
1 1842.2 -194.20 8
10.3 3
39.8 0.88
-139.95
10.0 4.80 3 120.9 1045.3 120.91 7 432.9 6 1869.4 -221.33 2
8.49 9
40.9 0.79
-167.08
11.0 4.20 7 94.35 41072.4 94.35 2
459.5 8 1896.5 -248.45 5
6.62 5
41.9 0.69
0 1 of traction
7 8 1 -194.20 1
Loss of contact,loss Jacking effect, undesirable Desirable
0 9 4 3 -221.33 7
MUST BE AVOIDED SHOULD BE AVOIDED -248.45
112.83
-5.00 13.4 547.3 609.83 1096.7 6.52 1433.8 214.21 38.4 23.8 2.19
-4.00 12.8 520.8 636.96 520.81 33.08 1461.0 187.08 36.5 24.9 2.09
-3.00 012.2 7
494.2 664.08 3
494.25 59.64 7
1488.1 159.96 3
34.7 7
25.9 2.00
-2.00 011.6 1
467.6 691.21 467.69 86.20 0
1515.2 132.83 7
32.8 3
27.0 1.90
-1.00 011.0 5
441.1 718.33 441.14 112.7 2
1542.3 105.71 0
30.9 9
28.1 1.80
0.00 010.4 9
414.5 745.45 414.58 139.3 5
1569.4 78.59 4
29.1 5
29.1 1.70
1.00 09.80 4
388.0 772.58 388.02 6
165.8 7
1596.6 51.46 7
27.2 1
30.2 1.60
2.00 09.20 8
361.4 799.70 361.46 2
192.4 9
1623.7 24.34 1
25.3 7
31.3 1.51
3.00 8.60 2
334.9 826.83 334.90 8
219.0 2
1650.8 -2.79 4
23.5 4
32.3 1.41
4.00 8.00 6
308.3 853.95 308.34 4
245.5 4
1677.9 -29.91 8
21.6 0
33.4 1.31
5.00 7.40 0
281.7 881.07 281.78 0
272.1 7
1705.1 -57.03 1
19.7 6
34.4 1.21
6.00 6.80 4
255.2 908.20 255.22 6
298.6 9
1732.2 -84.16 5
17.9 2
35.5 1.11
7.00 6.20 8
228.6 935.32 228.66 1
325.2 1
1759.3 -111.28 8
16.0 8
36.6 1.01
8.00 5.60 2
202.1 962.45 202.10 7
351.7 4
1786.4 -138.41 2
14.1 4
37.6 0.92
9.00 5.00 6
175.5 989.57 175.55 3
378.3 6
1813.6 -165.53 5
12.3 1
38.7 0.82
10.0 4.40 0
148.9 1016.6 148.99 9
404.9 9
1840.7 -192.65 9
10.4 7
39.7 0.72
11.0 3.80 5
122.4 1043.8 122.43 5
431.4 1
1867.8 -219.78 3
8.60 3
40.8 0.62
0 9 9 1 3 6 9
0 3 2 7 6 5
70 | P a g e
Table 18 ZRR=-2 in
𝑍𝑅𝐹 𝐻 ∆𝑊𝐹 ∆𝑊𝑅 𝑊𝐹𝑂 𝑊𝐹𝐼 𝑊𝑅𝑂 𝑊𝑅𝐼 𝛿𝐹 𝛿𝑅 𝜙

𝐴𝑌
In. In. N N N N N N mm mm
o
/g
-5.00 13.20 355.40 805.89 904.76 198.50 1629.93 18.15 24.95 31.54 2.16
-4.00 12.80 383.47 777.22 383.47 170.42 1601.26 46.82 26.92 30.42 2.09
-3.00 12.40 411.55 748.55 411.55 142.35 1572.59 75.49 28.90 29.30 2.03
-2.00 12.00 439.62 719.88 439.62 114.28 1543.92 104.16 30.87 28.17 1.96
-1.00 11.60 467.69 691.21 467.69 86.20 1515.25 132.83 32.84 27.05 1.90
0.00 11.20 495.77 662.53 495.77 58.13 1486.57 161.51 34.81 25.93 1.83
1.00 10.80 523.84 633.86 523.84 30.05 1457.90 190.18 36.78 24.81 1.77
2.00 10.40 551.92 605.19 551.92 1.98 1429.23 218.85 38.75 23.68 1.70
3.00 10.00 579.99 576.52 579.99 -26.09 1400.56 247.52 40.72 22.56 1.64
4.00 9.60 608.06 547.85 608.06 -54.17 1371.89 276.19 42.69 21.44 1.57
5.00 9.20 636.14 519.18 636.14 -82.24 1343.22 304.86 44.66 20.32 1.51
6.00 8.80 664.21 490.51 664.21 -110.32 1314.55 333.53 46.64 19.20 1.44
7.00 8.40 692.29 461.83 692.29 -138.39 1285.87 362.21 48.61 18.07 1.37
8.00 8.00 720.36 433.16 720.36 -166.46 1257.20 390.88 50.58 16.95 1.31
9.00 7.60 748.43 404.49 748.43 -194.54 1228.53 419.55 52.55 15.83 1.24
10.00 7.20 776.51 375.82 776.51 -222.61 1199.86 448.22 54.52 14.71 1.18
11.00 6.80 804.58 347.15 804.58 -250.69 1171.19 476.89 56.49 13.59 1.11
Table 19 ZRR= -1 in
-5.00 12.6 328.84 833.0 878.20 225.06 1657.0 -8.97 23.09 32.6 2.06
-4.00 12.2 356.91 804.3 356.91 196.98 1628.3 19.70 25.06 31.4 2.00
0 1 5 0
-3.00 11.8 384.99 775.6 384.99 168.91 1599.7 48.37 27.03 30.3 1.93
0 4 8 8
-2.00 11.4 413.06 747.0 413.06 140.83 1571.0 77.04 29.00 29.2 1.87
-1.00 011.0 441.14 7
718.3 441.14 112.76 1
1542.3 105.7 30.97 6
28.1 1.80
0 0 4 3
0.00 10.6 469.21 689.6 469.21 84.69 1513.7 134.3 32.94 26.9 1.73
0 3 7 1 1
1.00 10.2 497.28 660.9 497.28 56.61 1485.0 163.0 34.91 25.8 1.67
2.00 09.80 525.36 6
632.3 525.36 28.54 0
1456.3 8
191.7 36.89 9
24.7 1.60
0 9 3 5 7
3.00 9.40 553.43 603.6 553.43 0.47 1427.6 220.4 38.86 23.6 1.54
2 6 2 5
4.00 9.00 581.50 574.9 581.50 -27.61 1399.0 249.0 40.83 22.5 1.47
5.00 8.60 609.58 4
546.3 609.58 -55.68 8
1370.3 0
277.7 42.80 2
21.3 1.41
7 1 7 0
6.00 8.20 637.65 517.6 637.65 -83.76
-27.61 1341.6 306.4 44.77 20.2 1.34
0 4 4 8
7.00 7.80 665.73 488.9 665.73 -111.83
-55.68 1313.0 335.0 46.74 19.1 1.28
8.00 7.40 693.80 3
460.2 693.80 -139.90 7
1284.3 1
363.7 48.71 6
18.0 1.21
6 -83.76 0 8 4
9.00 7.00 721.87 431.6 721.87 -167.98
-111.83 1255.6 392.4 50.68 16.8 1.15
9 3 5 1
10.0 6.60 749.95 402.9 749.95 -196.05
-139.90 1226.9 421.0 52.65 15.7 1.08
11.0 6.20 778.02 2
374.2 778.02 -224.13 6
1198.3 2
449.7 54.63 9
14.6 1.01
0 5 -167.98 9 9 7
0 7 -196.05 1 7 5
-224.13
27.61
71 | P a g e
From the table, it is pretty much evident that the roll centre should be well below ground. Values of
𝒁𝑹𝑭 and 𝒁𝑹𝑹 as -1 and -2 as shown in green is satisfying the objective as defined earlier. The wheel
displacement in jouncing is nearly 30 mm. An additional travel of 20 mm due to acceleration, braking
and localized bumps in track is considered thus total jounce expected from the car is nearly 50 mm.
10. Motion Ratio
One of the tricky tasks is to find the motion ratio. Motion ratio (M.R.) as defined is:
𝑆𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒

𝑀. 𝑅. = 𝑆𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 =
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑙 𝑀.𝑅.2
As per the rule of FSAE, a minimum 1-inch jounce and bounce must be there in the springs. Thus
considering that the maximum jounce available to the wheels are 80 mm therefore motion ratio cannot
be below 0.32. Keeping motion ratio higher means the spring travel is more thus softer springs is used.
If strain energy to be stored by the spring (wheel load times wheel travel) is same then the springs of
equal strain energy/mass will have same mass regardless of M.R. Thus spring weight is not much
affected by M.R.
Table 20 Motion Ratio
MOTION Spring Rate Front Spring Rate

0.3
RATIO 158244.4444 283900
Rear
0.35 116261.2245 208579.6
0.4 89012.5 159693.8
0.45 70330.8642 126177.8
0.5 56968 102204
0.55 47080.99174 84466.12
0.6 39561.11111 70975
0.65 33708.87574 60475.74
0.7 29065.30612 52144.9
0.75 25319.11111 45424
0.8 22253.125 39923.44
0.85 19712.11073 35364.71
0.9 17582.71605 31544.44
0.95 15780.60942 28311.36
1 14242 25551
1.05 12917.91383 23175.51
1.1 11770.24793 21116.53
1.15 10768.99811 19320.23
1.2 9890.277778 17743.75
1.25 9114.88 16352.64
1.3 8427.218935 15118.93
1.35 7814.540466 14019.75
1.4 7266.326531 13036.22
1.45 6773.840666 12152.68
1.5 6329.777778 11356
72 | P a g e
Motion ratio of 0.9 to the front and 1.1 to the rear is chosen. Corresponding spring rate to the motion
ratio is 17.58 N/mm and 21.11 N/mm respectively. Available spring in the market is of 17.8 N/mm and
21 N/mm, close to what is required.
11. Damper Selection
For easy ride handling, dampers play a big role. A low damping ratio is undesirable due to the slow
response to an input. Similarly, critical damping is also undesirable due to no oscillations which causes
lack of comfort to driver. Thus considering the conditions of FSAE tracks damping coefficient between
0.3-0.6 is selected. Careful considerations are made while selecting dampers from the shelf. Following
conclusions are made:
Table 21 Damper Selection Decision Matrix
Damper Serviceability/ Cost Availability

Adaptability
Ӧhlins TTX 25 9 5 8
Penske Quarter Midget 8 9 8
Penske 7800 piggy bag 8 8 5
Fox Vanilla RC 7 7 7
Figure 54 Penske Racing Shock 7800 Series Part List
73 | P a g e
3.6 Preliminary CAD of the Suspension Geometry
After defining few of the parameters like roll centre, Motion ratio, wheel base, track width, springs and
dampers, it is possible to draw a CAD model of the suspension geometry. It is an essential part of the
whole design process. Detail of the geometry like camber, caster and kingpin inclination is not provided
at this stage.
As defined earlier regarding various suspension types, it has to be decided at this stage.
After a careful analysis, a decision matrix is prepared to choose the best among the various suspension
types
Table 22 Table: Decision Matrix for Selecting the type of Suspension
Types Weight Adjustability Feasibility C.G. Cost Remarks

location
Front Rear Front Rear
Direct 8 6 5 6 5 7 8 Due to poor adjustability

mount & feasibility for rear,
rejected
Pull rod 6 8 6 7 6 8 6 Recommended for front

actuated assembly
Push rod 6 8 7 8 5 5 6 Recommended for rear

actuated assembly
Note: Points are given on the basis of research done about various suspension and problems arising in
its design. It is just for a comparative study.
3.6 Certain features of assembly:
 Pull/push rod, rocker and spring should lie in one plane for proper actuation of the
assembly. If parts are not aligned in one plane, unnecessary force will be felt by the
rods, rocker and mounts, thus is highly undesirable. There is a possibility of changing
the plane of spring by providing an off plane provision to spring mount on rocker but
such idea is not felt necessary for the assembly.
74 | P a g e
 Since the rocker is made to transfer the load on the wheel to the spring in the form of
torque, thus for the rocker to work properly, pull rod/push rod and springs should make
900 with the respective arms of rocker. Though in dynamic condition the angles will
change by 6-70 but it cannot be avoided due to the limitations of the geometry designed.
Therefore, the best idea would be to design the rocker such that in the dynamic
condition arms make 90o to the attachments rather than in static condition as wheel in
jounce will transfer more load to the springs through rocker thus for effective
transmission and less deformation at high load of the rocker a deviation of certain
degrees depending upon the wheel travel should be given.
 Actuation of the assembly throughout the dynamic condition must be checked i.e., there
should be no obstruction due to any component in the movement of the parts. Thus
each minor detail must be considered.
 Weight reduction is prime design objective thus principle of weight reduction must be
applied everywhere possible in the assembly.
 The differences in the actual car and the model can be compensated by providing
variable motion ratio on the rocker. This can be done by providing various mount points
on the rocker.
Geometry of rocker is made first prior to the whole geometry. Since the motion ratio is defined for the
complete assembly which includes pull/push angle, rocker arm ratio. Pull/push angle itself depends on
length of rocker arm. Thus the problem again is not closely bounded. Therefore, iterative process is
used till a satisfactory geometry is achieved.
 Length of rocker arm tells us about the rotation of rocker, more the length, less will be the
rotation though mass will increase with arm length. Thus arm length should be as low as
possible keeping in mind the constraint that components do not hinder the motion of the
assembly in dynamic condition. Motion ratio in terms of arm length and pull rod angle is
defined as:
𝑥 sin 𝜃
𝑀. 𝑅. =
𝑦
Where 𝑥 is spring-rocker arm, 𝑦 is pull rod-rocker arm and 𝜃 is pull rod angle from horizontal.
Incorporating all the above said features, CAD geometry of the front and rear suspension geometry is
prepared after many iterative process.
75 | P a g e
Figure 55 Preliminary CAD drawing of Suspension Geometry
Next step is to add preliminary details to the geometry like kingpin inclination, caster and camber.
Design considerations: Caster, Camber and Kingpin Inclination
Keeping in mind that the 10 inch wheels provide limited space to test large variability in the parameters
like caster and kingpin inclination to achieve a satisfying geometry.
Kingpin Front view parameters
 Due to the packaging of several components, the kingpin or knuckle are offset from the wheel
centre thus resulting in scrub. Scrub is bad and should be avoided. It is the lateral movement of
the tyre relative to the ground resulting from the vertical motion of the tyres (providing a
staggering effect to tyres when moving forward on a rough road). Thus a prime consideration
of kingpin inclination is to minimize the scrub. This is done by tilting the kingpin such that the
kingpin axis intersects the wheel centreline on the ground. Due to packaging issues, all of the
scrub cannot be avoided but considering the smooth FSAE tracks, a little scrub may be
permitted. A kingpin inclination of 6o is initially given as the packaging is not known at this
stage.
76 | P a g e
Figure 56 Scrub effect
 Distance between the upper and lower mount of kingpin/knuckle should be as maximum as
possible; the reason being that more the distance, more torque arm will be there to balance the
moment generated by lateral forces at the ground. Thus the wheels are more stable during
cornering. A disadvantage of 10-inch wheel is that the provision for larger arm distance
comparatively is less than 13-inch or higher radius wheel. Kingpin, if kept outside the wheels
for large kingpin arm will result in large scrub. Thus the only way we have is to maximize the
arm distance within the wheel, keeping under consideration the packaging of various mountings
on the knuckle.
Caster and steering effect:
 Caster provides mechanical trail which when added to pneumatic trail provides the total trail.
This trailing effect influences the steering torque required to turn the wheel. Pneumatic trail
varies with slip angle and is only available through tire data. The lateral force acts along the
line of total trail. A self-aligning torque is produced which tries to steer back the wheel in the
direction of forward velocity. When sharp cornering is experienced, tyres reach the limit and
the pneumatic trail so generated counter balances the mechanical trail resulting in decreased
aligning effect. A skilled driver will come to know by the steering force it applies on the steering
wheel. A large caster will dilute the effect of pneumatic trail and driver will feel less of the
effect.
Caster generating large mechanical trail will make the steering hard. Also increasing the caster makes
the kingpin arm smaller thus imposing the limit on caster. A first hand investigation reveals the variation
of camber gain with steer at different caster angle. This will help in initial setting of the caster.
𝐶𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 = 𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑝𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 ∗ (1 − 𝑐𝑜𝑠 (𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒)) − 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑟 ∗ 𝑠𝑖𝑛 (𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒)
77 | P a g e
Figure 57 Slip angle vs aligning torque
It is clear from the graph that a large positive camber gain occurs comparative to negative camber gain
to wheel when steered out. Positive camber should be avoided. Initial setting of negative camber will
compensate for large positive camber gain but will add up to the camber loss on other tyre. Keeping in
mind effect of caster on steering force as well as camber, 6o caster was chosen as initial setting.
Camber gain vs. steer angle(right)

1.5
0.5
0
Camber gain
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
-3
Steer angle
0 deg 1 deg 2 deg 3 deg 4 deg 5 deg 6 deg
Figure 58 Camber gain vs steer angle (right)
78 | P a g e
Camber gain vs. steer angle(left)
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
Camber
gain
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-13
-32
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
-9
-10
-11
-12
-14
-15
-16
-17
-18
-19
-20
-21
-22
-23
-24
-25
-26
-27
-28
-29
-30
-31
-33
-34
Steer angle
0 deg 1 deg 2 deg 3 deg 4 deg 5 deg 6 deg
Figure 59 Camber gain vs steer angle (left)
The whole geometry was fed in Optimum K for better visualization.
Figure 60 Front suspension geometry on Optimum K
79 | P a g e
Figure 61 Front suspension geometry on Optimum K
3.7 Rim Design
Material of Studs: Black Oxide Coated Steel
Properties: Tensile Strength Sy=300 MPa
To Design: The studs of size M12 are selected and pitch Circle diameter is to be determined based
on the extreme load condition.
Extreme condition: Car is assumed to take a corner at 2g and 1.5 g braking and a bump of 3g.
Nature of loading:
 Normal force on the tire produces tensile stress and direct shear stress
 Lateral force produces tensile stresses
 Direct shear stresses due to braking torque.
Figure 62 Front view showing braking torque and side view showing lateral and normal
force.
80 | P a g e
Figure 63 Force resisted by bolt/stud
External Force/torque:
Based on the model parameters, the following load conditions are obtained under extreme
condition on the wheel.
 Maximum braking torque be 𝑀𝐵 = 250 𝑁. 𝑚.

 Maximum Normal force on the wheel 𝑁 = 4 𝑘𝑁
 Maximum lateral force on the wheel 𝐹𝑦 = 1 𝑘𝑁
 Here it is assumed that the shift of the centroid of the lateral force/normal force is negligible
from the center line of the wheel i.e. tire deformation is not considered whose effect is
added as an extra factor of safety in the design.
Load resisted by the bolts due to braking torque 𝑀𝐵 is 𝑃1 , 𝑃2 , 𝑃3 , 𝑃4 . The load is shared equally by
each stud. Thus,
2.𝑀𝐵
𝑃1 = 𝑃2 = 𝑃3 = 𝑃4 =
𝜙𝑟
At a general condition of rotation, the studs are in position as given in fig.4. The height of each studs
from the ground is given by:
𝜙𝑟
𝑙1 = 𝑅 − cos 𝛼
2
𝜙𝑟
𝑙2 = 𝑅 − sin 𝛼
2
𝜙𝑟
𝑙3 = 𝑅 + sin 𝛼
2
𝜙𝑟
𝑙4 = 𝑅 + cos 𝛼
2
81 | P a g e
As can be seen that the tensile force generated by the eccentric normal load 𝑁 is directly
proportional to the height of the studs. Thus the studs will bear maximum tensile force when the
stud is at its maximum height i.e, 𝛼 = 00 . Let the tensile force bear by each stud be given as
𝑁1′ = 𝐶𝑙1
𝑁2′ = 𝐶𝑙2
𝑁3′ = 𝐶𝑙3
𝑁4′ = 𝐶𝑙4
Moment balance:
𝑁 ∗ 𝑒 = 𝑁1′ 𝑙1 + 𝑁2′ 𝑙2 + 𝑁3′ 𝑙3 + 𝑁4′ 𝑙4
⇒ 𝑁 ∗ 𝑒 = 𝐶(𝑙1 2 + 𝑙2 2 + 𝑙3 2 + 𝑙4 2 )
𝑁∗𝑒
⇒𝐶=
𝑙1 + 𝑙2 2 + 𝑙3 2 + 𝑙4 2
2
𝑁∗𝑒
=
4𝑅2 + 𝜙𝑟 2
𝜙𝑟
𝑁 ∗ 𝑒(𝑅 + )
⇒ 𝑁′𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2
4𝑅2 + 𝜙𝑟 2
Similarly, tensile force generated by the lateral force is given as
𝜙𝑟
𝐹𝑦 ∗ 𝑒(𝑅 + )
𝐹𝑦 ′𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 2
4𝑅2 + 𝜙𝑟 2
Thus the maximum total tensile force bear by studs is
𝑁1 = 𝑁′𝑚𝑎𝑥 + 𝐹𝑦 ′𝑚𝑎𝑥
Stresses developed corresponding to the load conditions are:
𝑁1
𝜎𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
𝐴
𝑁2 𝜎 2
√(𝑃1 2 + ) + ( 𝑚𝑎𝑥 )
4 2
𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
𝐴
From the above two equations, it is clear that the bolt will fail in shear.
82 | P a g e
0.5 ∗ 𝑆𝑦𝑡
𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 =
𝑓. 𝑜. 𝑠.
As the wheel is in motion thus the studs has effect of loading and unloading. Therefore, the effect of
fatigue is incorporated by taking factor of safety as 4.
Thus,
0.5 ∗ 300
𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 = = 37.5 𝑀𝑃𝑎
4
Putting the value of 𝜏𝑚𝑎𝑥 in the expression and solving for 𝜙𝑟 , we get
𝜙𝑟 = 113 𝑚𝑚
Standard value of the rim close to the calculated value is 4 inch= 101.6 mm
Thus 𝜙𝑟 = 4′′ is chosen for the rim.
The specification of the wheels are as follows
Figure 64 Rim dimensions
83 | P a g e
Bolt Circle Diameter A= 4”
Counter Sink Angle B= 60o
Critical Dim. Actual C= 0.65”
Wheel Diameter D= 9.5”
Actual Diameter of stud E= 12 mm
Backspacing to inner flange F= 5”
Width of wheel G= 6”
Material of Studs: Black Oxide Coated Steel
Properties: Tensile Strength Sy=250 MPa
To Design: The studs of size M12 are selected and pitch circle diameter is to be determined based on
the extreme load condition.
Extreme condition: Car is assumed to take a corner at 1.5g and 1.5 g braking and a bump of 3g.
Nature of loading:
 Normal force on the tire produces tensile stress and direct shear stress
 Lateral force produces tensile stresses
 Direct shear stresses due to braking torque.
3.8 Bearing Selection
One of the most complex and critical part of defining the wheel packaging is to choose the bearing.
There are myriad number of bearings available. In order to choose the correct bearing, load conditions
at the bearing must be known.
3.8.1 Bearing selection, front upright:

Wheel bearing that is to be mounted on the upright to provide free wheel motion has to bear certain
radial load as well as bi-axial load due to the normal load on the tires and due to cornering and
bumping.
The model parameters used to calculate the load on the bearing are
Table 23 Model parameters for bearing calculation
Weight 280 kgf

Weight 60:40 (rear: front)
distribution
track width 50 inch
Wheel base 60 inch
CG height 12-inch
CG 36 inch from front
Based on the assumption that the longitudinal
tire can resist up to 1.5g lateral and longitudinal acceleration (which
holds good for most of the tires used in the Formula SAE competition) and neglecting the tire
sensitivity for this particular design consideration.
84 | P a g e
Now load on the tires in static condition
𝑊𝑟 = 𝑊 ∗ 0.3; 𝑊𝑟 = 84 𝑘𝑔𝑓
𝑊𝑓 = 𝑊 ∗ 0.2; 𝑊𝑓 = 56 𝑘𝑔𝑓
Considering combination of lateral acceleration of 1.5g and braking of 1.5g and bumping of 3g which
is the extreme case of expected manoeuvrability.
𝑊∗𝐶.𝐺.𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡∗1.5 280 ∗12"∗1.5
Lateral load shift= = = 91.1𝑘𝑔𝑓
𝑇𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑘 𝑊𝑖𝑑𝑡ℎ 55"
56
⇒ Lateral Load shift on front Tires= ∗ 91.1 = 61 𝑘𝑔𝑓
84
𝑊∗𝐶.𝐺.𝐻𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡∗1.5 280∗12"∗1.5
Longitudinal load shift= = = 84 𝑘𝑔𝑓
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒 60"
84
⇒Longitudinal load shift on front tires= = 42 𝑘𝑔𝑓
2
Bumping force on front tires=𝐹𝑧 = 𝑑𝑦𝑛𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑟𝑒 ∗ 3𝑔 = (61 + 42 + 30.5) ∗ 3 =
400.5 𝑘𝑔𝑓
Total lateral load on front tire= 𝐹𝑦 = 56 ∗ 1.5 = 84 𝑘𝑔𝑓
Resultant dynamic Load, 𝐶 = √𝐹𝑧 2 + 𝐹𝑦 2 = 409.2 𝑘𝑔𝑓
3.8.2 Bearing Selection rear upright:

The FSAE team chose to use a tripod to fix the drive shaft end to the hub spindle. Therefore, keeping
in mind that the size of tripod is itself 62 mm, the bearing internal diameter can be no less than 70
mm. Bearing of such a size can easily bear the load thus calculation was not required. So for this time,
the parameters which were kept in consideration were weight, type of load and cost.
3.8.3 Decision matrix:

After researching a lot about the suitable bearing which fits in the frame of requirement, selection
matrix is prepared to choose the best among it.
Table 24 Decision Matrix for Bearing Selection
Designation Type Static Dynamic Dimension Remark

load load
(Suitable
capacity capacity
parts)
B D D 𝑀
7208 Angular contact ball 24 34.5 18 40 80 0.37

bearing
6008-2Z Deep Groove Ball Bearing 11 17.8 15 40 68 0.20 Front Uprights
7214 Angular contact ball 56 67.6 24 70 125 1.1

bearing
6014-2Z Deep Groove Ball 31 39.5 20 70 110 0.64 Rear uprights

Bearing
85 | P a g e
3.8.4 Fits and Tolerances
After selection of bearing, fit of the bearing in the assembly needs to be determined.
To keep the rolling bearing located on shaft and in housing, its movement should be locked. Radial
and tangential movement is done by force locking i.e. by providing tight fit on the bearing rings.
Axial location of the bearing is secured by geometric locking.
The following must be taken into consideration in the selection of fits:
 The bearing rings must be well supported on their circumference in order to allow full
utilization of the load carrying capacity of the bearing.
 The rings must not creep on their mating parts, otherwise the seats will be damaged
 One ring of the non-locating bearing must adapt to changes in the length of the shaft and
housing and must therefore be capable of axial displacement
 The bearings must be easy to fit and dismantle.
If materials other than cast iron or steel are used for the adjacent construction, modulus of elasticity
and the differing coefficients of thermal expansion of the materials must also be taken into account to
achieve a rigid seating.
For aluminium housings, thin-walled housings and hollow shafts, a closer fit should be selected
if necessary in order to achieve the same force locking as with cast iron, steel or solid shafts.
Higher loads, especially shocks, require a fit with larger interference and narrower geometrical
tolerances
Table 25 Condition of rotation of the bearing in the assembly
Condition of motion Schematic Load case Fit
Rotating inner ring Circumferential load Inner ring: loose fit

on inner ring permissible
Stationary outer ring

Outer ring: tight fit
necessary
Constant load direction
86 | P a g e
Zero line
Nominal diameter
Loose fit
Transition fit
Tight fit
Shaft diameter
Housing bore
ΔDmp = tolerance for bearing
outside diameter
Δdmp = tolerance for bearing
bore
Figure 65 Fits for rolling bearing
Table 26 Shaft tolerances for radial bearings with cylindrical bore
Condition of rotation Bearing type Shaft Displacement facility Tolerance

diameter Load zone
mm
Point load on inner ring Ball All sizes Inner ring easily displaced g6 (g5)
bearings,
roller Inner ring not easily displaced, h6 (j6)
bearings angular contact ball bearings and
tapered roller bearings with
adjusted inner ring
Needle roller All sizes Non-locating bearing h6 (g6)1)

bearings
Circumferential load on Ball bearings up to 50 Normal loads2) j6 (j5)

inner ring or
indeterminate load 50 to 100 Low loads3) j6 (j5)
direction
Normal and high loads4) k6 (k5)
87 | P a g e
100 to200 Low loads2) k6 (m6)
Normal and high loads5) m6 (m5)
over 200 Low loads m6 (m5)
Normal and high loads n6 (n5)
Roller up to 60 Low loads j6 (j5)

bearings
Normal and high loads k6 (k5)
60 to 200 Low loads k6 (k5)
Normal loads m6 (m5)
Table 27 Housing tolerances radial bearings
Condition of rotation Displacement facility Load Operating conditions Tolerance

zone
Point load on outer ring Outer ring easily displaced, The tolerance grade is H7 (H6)1)
housing unsplit determined by the running
accuracy required
Outer ring easily displaced, H8 (H7)

housing split
Outer ring not easily displaced, High running accuracy H6 (J6)

housing unsplit required
Outer ring not easily displaced, Normal running accuracy H7 (J7)

angular contact ball bearings and
tapered roller bearings with
adjusted outer ring Housing split
Outer ring easily displaced Heat input via shaft G72)
88 | P a g e
Circumferential load on Low loads, outer ring cannot be For high running accuracy K7 (K6)
outer ring or displaced requirements:
indeterminate load K6, M6, N6 andP6
direction
Normal loads, shocks, outer ring M7 (M6)
cannot be displaced
High loads, shocks (C/P ＜ 6), N7 (N6)

outer ring cannot be displaced
High loads, severe shocks, thin- P7 (P6

walled housing, outer ring cannot
be displaced
Thus the bearing fit is determined as j5M6.

Maximum Deviation of bearing bore diameter = -12 𝜇𝑚
Shaft deviation corresponding to j6 and nominal diameter of shaft 40mm= +6 𝜇𝑚

Thus shaft diameter = 40.006 mm
Maximum interference= = +18 𝜇𝑚
Minimum interference: +6 𝜇𝑚
Similarly, for the Housing:

Maximum Deviation of bearing outside diameter (normal tolerance) = -13 𝜇𝑚
Housing deviation corresponding to M6 and nominal diameter of housing 68 mm= -24 𝜇𝑚
Minimum Interference= 11 𝜇𝑚
Maximum interference= 24 𝜇𝑚
Therefore, the housing diameter= 68.024𝑚𝑚
89 | P a g e
3.9 Study of Suspension geometry on IPG Kinematics
Before finalizing the geometry as obtained from earlier consideration, it is better to check the effect
of crucial parameters on the factors affecting the performance of the car as a whole.
About IPG Kinematics:
IPG Kinematics is a program system designed to simulate a vehicle’s axle on an axle kinematics test
bench and is used to calculate the kinematics, steering kinematics and elasto-kinematics of all types
of suspension. IPG Kinematics is a calculator that describes the movement of the wheels in space (it
describes its kinematics tables). It calculates the corresponding forces necessary to trigger the
movement and thus determines the complete kinematics, steering kinematics and compliance of all
types of suspensions.
About the simulation:
Using IPG Kinematics, at ﬁrst, all the parameters should be defined for the simulation control.
Secondly, all the values should be entered which are needed to parametrize axle ("Input Data"). In
third step, simulation is performed to calculate the wheel positions and forces. Finally, results can be
exported and analyzed.
There are three types of kinematic analysis:
Parallel kinematics in which both the wheels (left and right) are jounced and bounced in the same
direction.
Reciprocal Kinematics in which the left and right wheels are jounced and bounced in opposite
direction.
Steering Kinematics in which the steering rack is displaced in the transverse direction corresponding
to which the wheels are steered.
3.9 a) Front Suspension Geometry test
Figure 66 A geometrical view of a typical suspension points fed in IPG kinematics
90 | P a g e
3.9.1 Variation of Upper a- arm z coordinate:
Upper a-arm z coordinate is varied to check the effect on wheel geometry, steering characteristics,
forces felt on the arms, etc.,
Variation of the z coordinate of the a-arms changes the instantaneous center location of the
connecting wheel thus affecting the roll center height from the ground.
3.9.1.1 Parallel Kinematics:
Figure 67 Wheel travel, left vs Roll centre height in parallel kinematics
91 | P a g e
Figure 68 Wheel travel, left vs Toe angle, left in parallel kinematics
Figure 69 Wheel travel, left vs Camber angle, left in parallel kinematics
92 | P a g e
Figure 70 Wheel travel, left vs Track change in parallel kinematics
Figure 71 Wheel travel, left vs Spring deflection, left in parallel kinematics
93 | P a g e
Figure 72 Wheel travel, left vs Force (Z) on upper wishbone, left in parallel kinematics
3.9.1.2 Reciprocal kinematics:
Figure 73 Wheel travel, left vs Roll centre height in reciprocal kinematics
94 | P a g e
Figure 74 Wheel travel, left vs Roll centre (Y) in reciprocal kinematics
Figure 75 Wheel travel, left vs Roll angle in reciprocal kinematics
95 | P a g e
Discussion:
Parallel kinematics:
It can be seen that as the upper wishbone is lifted more above the ground, roll centre height keeps
on decreasing at static condition. Also the rate of decrement is increasing with the height of mount
of wishbone. The trend in the roll center height with the wheel travel is almost linear and slope is
less varying. Wishbone at 229 mm height from ground is in conformity with the design objective.
Toe angle is least changed with this variation so not being a deciding factor. Wheel travel of 40 mm
causes the wheel to toe in to almost 200 minutes thus the toe in/out rate is 5min/mm.
On investigating the trend, it is clear that the camber change with wheel travel is affected much by
this parameter. The trend line can be thought of as rotating with the variation. As discussed earlier
about the camber, 229 mm setting suits best.
Track change suggests that the wheel is scrubbing which is bad for tyre as the tyre life will reduce
due to wear. The best setting is 229 mm.
The slope of the deflection of the spring with wheel travel is changing. This slope is defined as
motion ratio; thus motion ratio is changing with this variation. Spring travel at 40 mm wheel travel is
24 mm at 210 mm height and 36 mm at 310 mm height. Thus the motion ratio changed from 0.65 to
0.9.
Increasing the height keeps on decreasing the load in Z-direction. This implies that the load is shared
by some other member of the assembly (thus uneven distribution of load). Hence increasing the
height is not a good idea.
Reciprocal kinematics:
Roll center height trend in reciprocal kinematics is different from parallel kinematics. The roll center
near the ground is conforming with the design objective and the red line in the graph follows it.
Roll center laterally shifts when body corners. A large shift is undesirable as it affects the attitude of
the vehicle adversely. As the height of the wishbone is increased, shift is decreased.
Roll angle of the suspension assembly is following the same trend with wheel travel. At 40 mm
wheel travel, there is a roll of 3.40.
Decision:
After evaluating the trend of each crucial parameter, suspension setting with 229 mm wishbone
height is best among all the tested ones.
3.9.2 Variation of lower a-arm z coordinate:
3.9.2.1 Parallel kinematics:
96 | P a g e
Figure 77 Wheel travel, left vs Camber angle in parallel kinematics
97 | P a g e
Figure 79 Wheel travel, left vs Spring deflection, left in parallel kinematics
98 | P a g e
Figure 80 Wheel travel, left vs Force (z) on lower wishbone, right in parallel kinematics
3.9.2.2 Reciprocal kinematics:
99 | P a g e
Figure 82 Wheel travel, left vs Toe angle, left in reciprocal kinematics
Figure 83 Wheel travel, left vs Track change in reciprocal kinematics
100 | P a g e
3.9.2.3 Steering Kinematics:
Figure 85 Steering angle, left vs KPI angle, left in steering kinematics
101 | P a g e
Figure 86 Steering angle, right vs Roll centre (Y) in steering kinematics
Discussion:
Parallel kinematics:
As the lower a-arm mounting height is increased, roll centre height is increased. The variation is
nearly same for each case. The best to choose among the cases is the red line which is 102 mm.
The rate of camber gain increases with the height of lower a-arm mounting. For the red setting, the
camber gain is 1.70/40 mm wheel travel.
Track change with the wheel travel at different setting is such that the trend line is rotated clockwise
for each setting as the height is increased. 102 mm setting maintains minimum track change with
wheel travel.
Spring deflection with wheel travel remains almost same for each setting. Thus the motion ratio
remains same. This is different from the previous case when upper a-arm setting was changed. Thus
in a pull rod suspension system, motion ratio is affected by the configuration of upper a-arm.
It is better to check the forces developed on the control arms at different configurations. Since it will
be a hectic task to show variation of forces for each configuration, so a typical variation of force in z
direction for lower a-arm (both front and rear) is shown. It is to check for any unnecessary force
developed due to improper configuration.
Reciprocal kinematics:
102 | P a g e
Roll centre height for the setting 60 has a concave trend seen from the positive side. The concavity
increases till 102 and then gets reversed. As the height is increased further, the trend line with wheel
travel becomes more straight. Roll centre height increases as the setting height is increased. The 102
mm setting is most following the design objective.
Toe angle follows a straight line trend. As the height is increased, the slope of the line increases
about the 0 mm travel. For the blue setting, toe variation is minimum with wheel travel.
Track change follows a concave trend. The concavity is maximum for the lowest height setting; thus
the track change is maximum for it and least for the highest setting (track change of -1 mm at 180
mm setting and -3.5 mm at 60 mm setting).
Laterally, the roll centre varies maximum for the red setting i.e. for 102 mm height of lower a-arm. It
is the only setting for which the roll centre varies too much laterally
Steering Kinematics:
Most of the parameters do not vary too much with different setting as the wheel is steered. Few of
the parameters which vary and are crucial in making decision are being discussed here.
Kingpin inclination is varying as the wheel is turned in or out. Kingpin inclination as discussed earlier
is for scrub adjustment. Thus, too much variation from the normal increases the chance of wheel
scrub.
Lateral variation of roll center is completely different for 102 mm setting. For other settings except
120 mm, the roll center does not vary too much as the wheel is steered.
In analyzing the overall trend, 102 mm setting is most favoring the design objective.
3.9.3 Variation of Caster:
Effect of variation of caster at different setting is being observed for front suspension geometry only
as the caster plays a major role on steering stability.

Most of the parameters follow the same trend with wheel travel at different settings. Few of the
parameters which vary are given in the graph below.
103 | P a g e
3.9.3.2 Reciprocal Kinematics:

There is little or no variation in the trend of different displacement parameters as well as force with
wheel travel. Thus, it is not a deciding factor.
3.9.3.3 Steering kinematics:
Figure 88 Steering angle, left vs Camber angle in steering kinematics
104 | P a g e
Figure 89 Steering angle, left vs KPI angle, left in steering kinematics
Figure 90 Steering angle, right vs Roll centre (Y) in steering kinematics
105 | P a g e
Figure 91 Steering angle, left vs Force (Y) on steering rod, left
Discussion:
As evident from the graphs above, varying the lower mount changes the caster. After investigation,
it is found that caster does not affect the displacement characteristics in parallel kinematics and in
reciprocal kinematics. However, it majorly affects the steering characteristics.
From the graph between steering angle and steering rod force in Y-direction, it is clear that as the
caster is increased, steering force is increased.
Also there is a significant change in camber due to steering whose trend is varying with different
settings.
106 | P a g e
3.9.4 Variation of X-coordinate of Upper Knuckle Mount
Figure 92 Wheel travel, left vs Caster offset, left

It is the variation of caster trail at different settings. The settings changed the caster angle which in
turn changed the caster trail.
No significant change in trend for the crucial parameters detected at different settings. Thus it is not
considered for decision making.
Discussion:
Varying the upper mount of the knuckle did little to the displacement parameters. However, steering
rod force is considerably increased due to increase in the caster trail.
107 | P a g e
3.9.5 Variation of kingpin inclination
3.9.5.1 Parallel and reciprocal kinematics:
Figure 93 Wheel travel, left vs KPI angle, left in parallel kinematics
108 | P a g e
Figure 94 Wheel travel, left vs Caster offset, left in parallel kinematics
109 | P a g e
3.9.5.2 Steering kinematics:
Figure 96 Steering angle, left vs Force (Y) on steering rod, left in steering kinematics
Discussion:
Kingpin Inclination is used to minimize the scrub. However, its effect on other parameters must be
studied. It affects the caster most as evident from the graph. Caster plays a big role in steering
stability. As per the design requirement, 546 mm setting is chosen.
Apart from the above test, the suspension assembly was tested under lateral, longitudinal and mixed
forces. The force at different component was used for FEA simulation of the CAD made.
3.9 b) Rear Suspension Geometry Test

The objective was to make the rear wheel as stable as possible. As the wheel is not steered, only
parallel and reciprocal kinematics is considered kinematics.
To prevent the twisting of chassis, roll angle variation with wheel travel should be close to each
other.
110 | P a g e
3.9.6 Variation of Z co-ordinate of lower wishbone on chassis
Parallel and Reciprocal kinematics:
111 | P a g e
Figure 98 Wheel travel, left vs Toe angle, left in parallel kinematics
112 | P a g e
113 | P a g e
Figure 102 Wheel travel, left vs Roll angle in reciprocal kinematics
Discussion:
It is highly desired that the vehicle should not toe in/out as the wheel travels which is best obtained
by the red setting which is 102 mm.
Camber change is minimum for the blue setting i.e. 80 mm
The roll angle is nearly same as that on the front which is desired. Variation in roll centre is low
which is also desired.
If analyzed, keeping all the parameters as discussed above, height of lower wishbone should be 102
mm.
114 | P a g e
3.9.7 Variation of Upper wishbone chassis mount height:
115 | P a g e
3.9.7.2 Reciprocal Kinematics
Figure 106 Wheel travel, left vs Toe angle, left in reciprocal kinematics
116 | P a g e
Discussion:
Not all the parameters have been shown on the graph because the trend was almost same for
different settings. Thus it would not be helpful in making decision.
From the two graphs, one can analyze that the setting with upper wishbone height of 280 mm is the
best one.
Final Configuration:
Figure 107 Final configuration of the geometry as visualized in IPG Kinematics
MATERIAL SELECTION
Parameter
Mechanical property
MATERIAL Chemical Manufac Remarks ( Suitable for parts)
Fatigue Wear Cost
UTS Tougness Density Tolerence turability
Strength
AI-6061-T6 6 8 6 7 3 8 8 7 Rocker, various mountings
AI-6063 5 7 5 7 4 8 8 6 Rejected over 6061
AI-7075 8 6 8 6 5 8 8 5 Uprights, hubs, A-arm bracket
Control rods, push/pull,steering,tie
Carbon Fibre 10 7 6 8 6 6 5 4
rods, seat and body
Brake rotors for excellent thermal
Cast Iron 6 6 6 3 8 7 7 8
and compressive property
Figure 108 Decision matrix for the selection of Material
117 | P a g e
Chapter 4
CAD of the components
4.1 Factors under consideration
After defining crucial parameters and details of the geometry, it is equally important to incorporate
the same features in a small space of 9.5 inch. Each of the designs is tested for these four features as
mentioned earlier:
 Functionality
 Strength
 Accessibility
 Minimum compliance
4.2 CAD Drawings
4.2.1 Front and Rear Hub:

Improving upon the previous design, the hub and spindle are made of a single piece aluminum. The
reason being that there is a lot of play generated due to the aluminum wear. Also the assembly was
inconveniently attached to the hub causing problem. Instead of finding a solution by remaining in the
same domain of two-piece component, it was decided to make it a one-piece component. For this, Al-
7075 is used. It provides better strength and wear properties than its other variants. Some of the other
features are to prevent bolt from direct shear to the normal load on tire. An extruded cap is provided
at the end of the hub to divide the load on it. For brake mount, bolted joints are provided, though it
was later realized that mounting the brake rotors with the help of floaters would have been a better
option. Packaging issues were there with the assembly but the design was refined to settle it down
with the features mentioned earlier. Rear hub is same as front except that the spindle is different. In
spindle, a tripod housing is provided to accommodate the tripod joint.
118 | P a g e
Figure 109 Wheel hub and Spindle
Figure 110 Wheel hub and Spindle assembly on NX Siemens
119 | P a g e
4.2.2 Front Knuckle:
With details as defined earlier, preliminary CAD designs of the front and rear knuckle were made.
Every possible measure was taken to reduce mass without affecting other features. Some of the
salient features are:
 Earlier for camber adjustment, spherical rod ends were loosened/tightened, but this a bad
practice as load is felt on the hanged thread portion causing rod ends in heavy bending and
the rod end may break. To avoid this, shim plate is used for camber adjustment. Shim plate
is attached in between the bracket and knuckle for camber adjustment. However, a small
misalignment occurs while adjusting the camber; thus unwanted stress develops on the bolt
and no possible measure has been thought to remove it.
 In order to minimize the compliance, seating is provided at the upper mount of the knuckle
to reduce the direct shear and bending of the fasteners used to attach the bracket to the
knuckle.
 Earlier, steering arm was made detachable for obvious advantage that the steering arm can
be changed but disadvantage is that there is a play and compliance developed with time and
steering force. It could be avoided by cleverly designing the steering arm mounting on the
knuckle and proper fastening. The team could have opted a detachable steering arm.
However, the packaging issue overtakes this consideration as there was a narrow degree of
freedom left for more provision to provide. Finally, an integrated steering arm is made.
Figure 111 Front knuckle 3d CAD on NX Siemens®
120 | P a g e
Figure 112 Front knuckle drawing
4.2.3 Rear Knuckle:

The main difference from the front knuckle is its housing for spindle which shaped its design
completely different from the front knuckle. To prevent wobbling, large toe arm should be provided
thus kingpin offset was given. After careful considerations of each component, a preliminary CAD
was made which was refined at every stage to finally conform with the design objective.
121 | P a g e
Figure 113 Rear knuckle drawing
Figure 114 Rear knuckle 3d CAD on NX Siemens
122 | P a g e
4.2.4 Rocker Front and rear:
A line drawing of the CAD is made first marking all the three mounting points as obtained from
suspension geometry. Bearing housing is provided at chassis rocker mount point to prevent
hindrance to the motion due to friction. Each part attached to the rocker is checked in dynamic
condition for proper actuation of the assembly. Thus necessary changes in the drawing of rocker is
incorporated. A single piece rocker is made in comparison to last year’s model which is a two-piece
rocker with no bearing mount. Aluminum is used for manufacturing the rocker.
Figure 115 Front rocker drawing
Figure 116 Front rocker 3d CAD on NX Siemens®
123 | P a g e
Figure 117 Rear rocker drawing
Figure 118 Rear rocker 3d CAD on NX Siemens®
124 | P a g e
4.2.5 A-arm end bracket and Knuckle bracket:
A significant improvement incorporated in the design is to make the control arm assembly free from
rod ends in bending. To avoid this, the control rods were integrated into a bracket such that the axis
of the control rods ended at mount of the A-arm. Mount point of the pull/push rod was provided on
the A-arm. To allow the motion of the wheels, housing for spherical plain bearing was provided.
Knuckle bracket was made such that it rests completely on the seat provided to it on the knuckle.
The gap between the upper and lower flanges is given so as to accommodate spacer in between the
spherical plain bearings which would allow complete movement of the bearing.
Figure 119 A arm end bracket drawing
Figure 120 A arm end bracket 3d CAD on NX Siemens®
125 | P a g e
Figure 121 A arm end bracket drawing
Figure 122 A arm end bracket 3d CAD on NX Siemens®
126 | P a g e
Figure 123 Knuckle bracket drawing
Figure 124 Knuckle bracket 3d CAD on NX Siemens®
127 | P a g e
Figure 125 Wheel speed sensor and Hub fastener drawing
Figure 126 Wheel speed sensor 3d CAD on NX Siemens®
128 | P a g e
Figure 127 Front and rear suspension and steering assembly on NX Siemens®
129 | P a g e
Figure 128 CAD assembly of the Car on NX Siemens®
130 | P a g e
Chapter 5
FEA Analysis
5.1 Introduction
The CAD of different parts were finalized through an iterative process. Each of the components was
checked in its strength. For this, static analysis was performed at different load conditions which
would arise in various maneuvering cases like braking, cornering and combined cornering and
braking. Parts like wheel hubs which are under constant reversal of loading conditions (as the wheel
rotates) are checked for their fatigue strength also. The lifetime of the FSAE cars are not more than a
year. Thus its fatigue strength is considered for 107 cycles which, if calculated on the basis of average
rotational speed of 1000 rpm of wheel, would lend a life near to 170 hours
Loading at different location of the part is obtained from the force analysis of suspension geometry
under mixed force i.e., both longitudinal as well as lateral with the wheel travel which is a kind of
extreme condition faced by the vehicle under maneuvering. The forces so obtained are directly used
in FEA analysis of the components. Proper analysis would be to create a dummy spherical bearing at
each mount point and the load applied on it as obtained from the Kinematics Software. But when
each part is analyzed separately, these forces at the node point must be transferred to the part of
the component under testing in a form in which it bears the given load. Thus the part of the
component where the forces and moments are felt is recognized and load is transferred to it. The
strength of the structure is reduced so a factor of safety of 1.5 or above for static components will
suffice the design need.
Solidworks® Simulation is used for FEA as it provides user friendly environment and higher flexibility
in applying the real situation to the problem.
Very fine and structured tetrahedral mesh is used for simulation. Mesh is refined at every stage till
the solution converges.
131 | P a g e
5.2 Analysis of Knuckle
Table 28 Material Properties
Model Reference Properties Components
Name: 7075-T6 (SN) Front Knuckle
Model type: Linear Elastic

Isotropic
Default failure Max von Mises

criterion: Stress
Yield strength: 5.05e+008 N/m^2
Tensile strength: 5.7e+008 N/m^2
Elastic modulus: 7.2e+010 N/m^2
Poisson's ratio: 0.33 Rear Knuckle

Mass density: 2810 kg/m^3
Shear modulus: 2.69e+010 N/m^2
Thermal 2.36e-005 /Kelvin

expansion
coefficient:
Table 29 Mesh information
Mesh type Solid Mesh
Mesher Used: Standard mesh
Automatic Transition: Off
Include Mesh Auto Loops: Off
Jacobian points 4 Points
Element Size 1 mm
Tolerance 0.05 mm
Mesh Quality High
132 | P a g e
Table 30 Mesh Information-Details
Part Front Knuckle Rear Knuckle
Total Nodes 2130278 2055491
Total Elements 1491433 1426036
Maximum Aspect Ratio 2241.9 51776
% of elements with Aspect Ratio < 3 99.8 99.8
% of elements with Aspect Ratio > 10 0.0239 0.0244
% of distorted elements (Jacobian) 0 0
Time to complete mesh (hh; mm; ss): 00:02:19 00:04:14
Table 31 Description of Applied Loads
Load name Load Image Load Details
Entities: 2 face(s)
Type: Apply torque
Torque-1 Value: -250 N.m
133 | P a g e
Entities: 2 face(s)
Type: Apply normal force
Force-1 Value: 2000 N
Entities: 2 face(s)
Entities: 2 face(s)
Entities: 1 face(s)
Coordinate System: Coordinate

BearingLoads- System2
1 Force Values: -600 800 0 N
Entities: 1 face(s)

134 | P a g e
Entities: 1 face(s)
Entities: 1 face(s)

Entities: 1 face(s)

6 Force Values: 400 800 0 N
135 | P a g e
Name Type Min Max
Stress1 VON: von Mises Stress 2080.36 N/m^2 2.37121e+008 N/m^2
Node: 8510 Node: 2029277
Front Knuckle Static-Stress
Figure 129 Front Knuckle Static-Stress FEA Analysis
Figure 130 Front knuckle static- displacement
136 | P a g e
Name Type Min Max
Factor of Safety1 Automatic 2.12971 242746

Node: 2029277 Node: 8510
Figure 131 Front Knuckle Static-Factor of Safety
Table 32 Rear Knuckle Loading Condition
Entities: 2 face(s)

Force-1
Value: 1500 N
Entities: 2 face(s)
Coordinate System: Coordinate System2

BearingLoads-1
Force Values: -140 750 0 N
137 | P a g e
Entities: 1 face(s)

BearingLoads-3
Force Values: 600 -200 0 N
Entities: 1 face(s)

BearingLoads-4
Force Values: 600 -200 0 N
Entities: 2 face(s)

Force-2
Value: 1400 N
Entities: 2 face(s)
Reference: Face< 1 >

Torque-1
Type: Apply torque
Value: 250 N.m
Entities: 2 face(s)

Force-3
Value: 176 N
Entities: 1 face(s)

BearingLoads-7
Force Values: 0 820 0 N
138 | P a g e
Name Type Min Max

Node: 15325 Node: 2054806
Figure 132 Rear Knuckle Static-Rear Knuckle Static-Stress-Stress1
Name Type Min Max
Displacement1 URES: Resultant Displacement 0 mm 0.136535 mm

Node: 1597 Node: 1695432
Figure 133 Rear Knuckle Static-Rear Knuckle Static-Displacement-Displacement1
139 | P a g e
Name Type Min Max
Factor of Safety1 Automatic 1.45394 1.1603e+006
Node: 2054806 Node: 15325
Figure 134 Rear Knuckle Static-Rear Knuckle Static-Factor of Safety-Factor of Safety1
5.3 Analysis of Wheel Hub
Table 33 Mesh information
Mesh type Solid Mesh
Mesher Used: Standard mesh
Jacobian points 4 Points
Element Size 1 mm
Tolerance 0.05 mm
Mesh Quality High
140 | P a g e
Table 34 Mesh information – Details
Part Front Hub Rear Hub
Total Nodes 1491323 2466421
Total Elements 1035720 1736634
Maximum Aspect Ratio 47.018 31.772
% of elements with Aspect Ratio < 3 99.7 99.8
% of elements with Aspect Ratio > 10 0.00299 0.00645
% of distorted elements(Jacobian) 0 0
Time to complete mesh(hh;mm;ss): 00:01:27 00:02:34
141 | P a g e
Load Condition
Table 35 Load Condition on Front Hub
Entities: 1 face(s)

Force-1
Value: 700 N
Entities: 4 face(s)

Torque-1
Type: Apply torque
Value: 250 N.m
Entities: 1 face(s)
Reference: Axis1
Torque-2
Type: Apply torque
Value: 150 N.m
Entities: 4 face(s)
BearingLoad Coordinate System: Coordinate System1
s-1, s-2,
Force Values: 700 0 0 N
s-3,s-4
142 | P a g e
Name Type Min Max
Stress VON: von Mises Stress 7.90789 N/m^2 2.99531e+008 N/m^2
Node: 1288412 Node: 1299908
Figure 135 Front Hub-Static-Stress FEA Analysis
Name Type Min Max

Node: 17989 Node: 17807
Figure 136 Front Hub-Static-Displacement Analysis
143 | P a g e
Name Type Min Max
Factor of Safety Automatic 1.68597 6.38603e+007
Node: 1299908 Node: 1288412
Figure 137 Front Hub-Static-Factor of Safety
Name Type Min Max
Strain1 ESTRN: Equivalent Strain 1.01976e-010 0.00397329
Element: 608546 Element: 856629
Figure 138 Front Hub-Static-Strain
144 | P a g e
Table 36 Load Condition Rear Hub
Entities: 1 face(s)
Value: 1000 N
Force-1
Entities: 4 face(s)
Type: Apply torque

Torque-1
Value: 250 N.m
Entities: 4 face(s)
BearingLoads Force Values: 700 0 0 N

-1,2,3,4
Entities: 1 face(s)
Reference: Axis1
Type: Apply torque

Torque-2
Value: 150 N.m
145 | P a g e
Name Type Min Max

Node: 1003275 Node: 2331650
Figure 139 Rear Wheel Hub Tripod-Static 1-Stress-Stress1
Name Type Min Max

Node: 1 Node: 1179193
Figure 140 Rear Wheel Hub Tripod-Static 1-Displacement-Displacement1
146 | P a g e
Name Type Min Max
Strain1 ESTRN: Equivalent Strain 2.52454e-013 0.00080421
Element: 687108 Element: 949160
Figure 141 Rear Wheel Hub Tripod-Static 1-Strain-Strain1
Name Type Min Max
Factor of Safety1 Automatic 7.22687 1.43434e+010
Node: 2331650 Node: 1003275
Figure 142 Rear Wheel Hub Tripod-Static 1-Factor of Safety-Factor of Safety1
147 | P a g e
Appendix:
Manufactured Components
Figure 143 Real Image of Front Upright
148 | P a g e
Figure 144 Real Image of Rear Upright
149 | P a g e
Figure 145 Real Image of Front Wheel Hub
Figure 146 Real Image of Rear Wheel Hub
150 | P a g e
Figure 147 Real Image of Front Wheel Cap
Figure 148 Real Image of Front Wheel Cap
151 | P a g e
Figure 149 Real Image of Penske Damper
Figure 150 Real Image of Suspension Spring
152 | P a g e
Figure 151 Real Image of Front Upright Bearing
Figure 152 Real Image of Front Upright Bearing
153 | P a g e
REFERENCES
[1] Milliken & Milliken, “Race Car vehicle dynamics”, SAE International, 1995, ISBN I-56091-526-9
[2] Carroll Smith, “Tune TO Win”, Aero Publisher, Inc, 1978, ISBN 0-87938-071-3
[3] Carroll Smith , “Engineering TO Win”, Aero Publisher, Inc, 1978, ISBN 87938-071-3
[4] http://www.fsae.com/forums/forum.php
[5] Adam Theander, “Design of Suspension for Formula Student Race car”, Vehicle dynamics
. Royal Institute of Technology, vol 12, ISSN 1651-7660, pp 2-4, May 2004.
[6] William Davis, “Design and optimization of Formula SAE Race car”, Worchester polytechnic
Institute of Technology, Jan 2011.
[7] Badia A. Jawad, “Design of Formula SAE Suspension”, Lawrence Technological University,
. 2002- 01-3310, ISSN 0149-7191, pp 382, Dec 2002.
[8] Jason Bauman, “Design of Formula SAE Suspension”, Lawrence Technological
University, 2002-01-3310, ISSN 0149-7191, pp 382, Dec 2002.
[9] Andrew Wong, “Design and optimization of upright assemblies for Formula Student Race car”,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Toronto, March 2007.
[10] John Dixen, “Suspension Geometry and computation”, Wiley publications, 2002, ISBN
9780470510216, pp 13-14
[11] Thomas Gillespie, “Fundamentals of vehicle dynamics”, SAE publications, 1992, ISBN 978-
81-89401, pp 5-6
154 | P a g e
View publication stats

Finalyearreport15 16

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

Finalyearreport15 16

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Study of vehicle dynamics of a formula student car

Technical Report · June 2016

Ayush Mittal Mohd Faraz

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mobility of charging stations to curb range anxiety of EV cars. View project

Vehicle Dynamics of Formula Student Car View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Under the supervision of

Dr. Yasser Rafat

Department of Mechanical Engineering

Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh

(Dr. Yasser Rafat)

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, ZHCET

Aligarh Muslim University

MOHD FARAZ AYUSH MITTAL KASHIF

a: CG location from front

b: CG location from rear

W: mass of the vehicle (with driver)

Wr : mass distribution on rear

Wf: mass distribution on front

Fy: lateral load shift

Fz: longitudinal load shift

C: resultant dynamic load

αf: slip angle for front tire

αr: slip angle for rear tire

Cf: cornering stiffness for front tire

Cr: cornering stiffness for rear tire

Nδ: control moment derivative

Yδ: control force derivative

Nr: yaw damping derivative

Yβ: damping-in-slide-slip derivative

Nβ: static directional stability derivative

Yr: lateral force/ yaw coupling derivative

1.1 Problem Definition

Table 1 Project Schedule

Name Begin date End date Days

Design target 02-02-2015 17-07-2015 120

Procurement of materials 17-07-2015 01-01-2016 121

Selection of tyres and wheels 10-06-2015 25-08-2015 55

Mass point simulation 17-08-2015 15-09-2015 22

Estimated lump model of the Car 15-09-2015 23-09-2015 7

Steady state analysis 24-09-2015 20-10-2015 19

Design of knuckle &hub assembly(preliminary) 19-10-2015 19-11-2015 24

Design of suspension and analysis of geometry 03-11-2015 18-11-2015 12

Design of steering system 16-11-2015 27-11-2015 10

First iteration of preliminary design 30-11-2015 15-12-2015 12

Second iteration 15-12-2015 30-12-2015 12

Final design 01-01-2016 05-01-2016 3

Manufacturing of parts 04-01-2016 22-01-2016 15

Assembly of parts 20-01-2016 29-01-2016 8

Testing and tuning 04-02-2016 07-04-2016 46

Static Events and Maximum Scores

Technical Inspection No points

Cost and Manufacturing 100 points

Design 150 points

Dynamic Events and Maximum Scores

Skid Pad 50 points

Autocross 150 points

Fuel Economy 100 points

Grand total 1000 points

1.4 Vehicle Requirements

1.5 Suspension Requirements