Drexel University Design Report

March 1, 2007
Introduction:
For the 2007 competition season, Drexel Racing Formula SAE is continuing to build upon its successful race-proven
design platform by shifting focus on key areas to improve performance. A thorough review of the 2007 competition
rules revealed that much of the knowledge and experience gained over the past four years would still be relevant.
With this in mind, focus shifted toward identifying areas of the racecar that would be most easily improved and that
have the greatest influence on vehicle performance and overall score. The first area chosen was mass placement,
and in particular, the driver’s seating position. The second area is suspension kinematics and steering geometry,
where slight modifications help make the static set-up less of a compromise between cornering and acceleration.
The second area of focus was the front frame, where weight could be reduced by eliminating unnecessary tubes and
by allowing the use of smaller hardware by designing the front bellcranks in double shear.
Again, this year’s schedule includes a large amount of testing, which will be critical for the success of Drexel Racing.
To maximize the results of the time spent at the track, data acquisition and dynamic simulation will be used
extensively. As has become Drexel tradition, the manufacturing schedule was compressed as well, to allow for more
testing time.
The remainder of this document details the process that was used to make important design decisions and helped
DR07 become the complex high-performance machine that it is.

Design from the ground up – Tires and Wheels:

Tires are arguably the vehicle component with the most influence on overall performance. They are definitely the
component with the most influence over the rest of the design. As such, the design process begins here. DR07
employs Hoosier 20.5x7-13 R25A tires on all four corners. This decision was based on two main factors:
Performance as described by tire data (courtesy of FSAE TTC) and Drexel Racing’s past experience and success
with these tires.
The Formula SAE Tire Test Consortium data was compared for four sets of tires: Goodyear’s 20x6.5-13, 20x7-13,
Hoosier’s 20.5x6-13 and 20.5x7-13. Both manufacturers’ 7” tires provided about 8% more cornering force than the
narrower tires when operating at an average temperature of 130 °F. From experience, it is known that 130 °F is a
reasonable temperature to expect the tires to reach on course. Also, reviewing past data has shown that it is
reasonable to expect a Formula SAE car to spend about 85% of the time on course in a corner. Since the two main
arguments for using narrower tires are that they are lighter (and have less rotational inertia) and they will build up
more heat, the narrow tires were removed from the list of choices.
To compare both manufacturers’ 7 inch wide tires, plots of each tire’s slip angle vs. cornering force plots and slip ratio
vs. longitudinal force were examined. The Goodyear tires provide 50 lbs more lateral force than the Hoosier tires, but
peak at slip angles more than two degrees higher than the Hoosier tires. Also, the peak slip angle for the Goodyear
tires moves a few degrees higher as the load on the tire is increased. Since the Hoosier tires reach their peak
cornering forces at lower slip angles, more of the force generated will go into helping the car pull through the corner
and a smaller component of the force will become drag. Creating the peak cornering force and aligning moment at
smaller slip angles also means that less steering input is required to get the tires to reach that peak slip angle, which
is effectively an increase in steering ratio. This analysis showed that from a performance point of view, the Hoosier
20.5x7-13 R25A tires have a slight edge. The decision was made to use Hoosier’s 20.5x7-13 R25A tires.
After choosing a tire, the next decision is how to mount them to the suspension. The choice of wheels was
determined by weight, cost, stiffness, and time to manufacture. Since Drexel Racing is traditionally understaffed, the
cost of purchasing an off-the-shelf wheel easily outweighs the time required to manufacture a custom set. To keep
the control arms as long as possible for a given track, and to get a reasonable kingpin inclination angle and scrub
radius, a wheel with a moderate to large negative offset is desired. For stiffness and weight, the material was chosen
to be magnesium. Also, since Formula SAE cars are lighter than a typical full-scale racecar, wheels that are
designed for full-scale cars will probably have adequate stiffness for Formula SAE application. The lightest 6 inch
wide, 13 inch diameter wheel that was readily available with a reasonable offset was a standard Formula Continental
front wheel, which has a -2.5 inch offset.

Engine Selection and Preliminary Mass Analysis:

Following the choice of tires and wheels, a preliminary mass properties analysis was conducted. Target weight
distribution was chosen to be 45/55 front/rear. This decision was based on previous testing and simple vehicle
dynamics simulations, which both show that a car with weight biased toward the rear performs better in braking and
acceleration. Going beyond 55% rear weight, however, makes achieving a neutral balance in corners an
unnecessary challenge. With this goal, a target center of gravity height of 8.75 inches, and a total weight of 480 lb,
the analysis begins with the heaviest components: the engine and the driver.

Drexel University -1- Team #046

Continuing with the evolutionary design philosophy, the decision was made to use a 4-cylinder 600 cc motorcycle
engine as Drexel Racing has done in the past. Making the assumption that proper design of engine peripherals will
make it possible to produce about the same torque curves on a number of different engines, engine selection
becomes a mass and center of gravity problem. Since the Honda CBR 600 F4i still maintains one of the lowest
crankshaft positions (which is approximately proportional to the height of the center of gravity) and are inexpensive
and readily available, the decision to use a CBR 600 F4i was made. To further reduce the height of the center of
gravity of the engine, a custom dry-sump system was used, very similar to past Drexel Racing designs. More detail
on this system will be provided later.
Since the only way to modify the contributions of the driver to the height of the center of gravity is to adjust the
driver’s seating position, this became the next area of consideration. In previous Drexel racecars, the driver sat with
his or her back just slightly off of vertical. In an effort to reduce the height of the center of gravity to meet the design
goal, DR07 features a much more reclined seating position, with the driver’s back at 45 degrees, cantilevered over
the engine head. This also helps keep the driver’s center of gravity close to the engine, reducing the moment of
inertia in yaw and helping to achieve the target weight distribution while keeping the wheelbase short. Additional
components that were placed and given preliminary shapes and volumes at this time include the radiator and water
pump, electronics bay, and fuel tank. The conclusion of this analysis was that the design targets are reasonable and
may be used for design of other systems, which was expected based on past experience.

Basic Vehicle Dimensions and Suspension Design:

Given that the vehicle is to be designed for an autocross style course, the size of the vehicle becomes a significant
factor in maneuverability, and ultimately in lap time. In a four-cone slalom with cones spaced at 25 feet, for every
inch removed from the half-track, the minimum path length is reduced by as much as one foot. Although this may not
seem significant, it is important to note that reducing the track also minimizes the path length through other
maneuvers as well. This fact alone may not make a significant difference in lap time, but it does make the car easier
to steer around the course without hitting cones, and for the amateur drivers that pilot Formula SAE cars, this could
make a very significant difference.
The average track width was chosen based on the maximum expected lateral acceleration (based on previously
recorded data – 1.8 g’s) and the target height of the center of gravity. To keep the lateral weight transfer due to these
accelerations within an acceptable range, an average track width of 41.5 inches was chosen. To aid with
maneuverability in slaloms and lane changes, the front track should be larger than the rear track. The front and rear
track were chosen to be, respectively, 43.25 and 40 inches.
Minimizing the wheelbase is also key to keeping the overall vehicle dimensions small. Based on a study of past
Drexel racecars and the preliminary mass placement analysis, the smallest wheelbase that will still allow for 45/55
weight distribution is about 65 inches.
From the beginning, the decision was made to evolve, not re-design Drexel’s race-proven unequal-length non-parallel
double A-arm suspension. Testing has shown that lap times improve when anti-roll bars are stiffened. To
compensate for the reduced roll angle, camber gain due to steering inputs was slightly reduced to provide the same
dynamic camber desired in the corners. This was accomplished by lessening caster and king-pin inclination. By
reviewing track data and using custom MATLAB programs to analyze the motion of instant centers and roll centers as
the racecar maneuvered around the track, it was determined that the instant center and roll center positions that were
used in last year’s design were very well controlled laterally and vertically. As was intended, the roll centers (front
and rear) move up and down with the motion of the sprung mass to maintain a constant roll moment, and lateral roll
center migration remained less than ±0.020 inches.
This information provided the basis for decisions on front-view virtual swing arm lengths, control arm lengths, and roll
center positions. Front-view virtual swing arm lengths were chosen to be 85 inches in the front and 65 inches in the
rear, and the roll center heights were chosen to be 1.29 inches in the front and 1.43 inches in the rear. Final static
kinematic variables are given below, with the process by which they were obtained described below them.
Front: Rear:
·Camber gain, bump: 0.68 degree/inch ·Camber gain, bump: 0.88 degree/inch
·Camber gain, roll: 0.27 degree/degree ·Camber gain, roll: 0.31 degree/degree
·Caster angle: 3.80° ·Caster angle: 5.9°
·Kingpin angle: 4.20° ·Kingpin angle: 13.6°
·Mechanical trail: 0.0” ·Mechanical trail: 0.532”
·Scrub radius: 1.51” ·Scrub radius: -1.588”
·Track: 43.25” ·Track: 40.00”
·Roll Center: 1.29” above ground ·Roll Center: 1.43” above ground
Design goals for the suspension also include minimizing scrub (achieved by keeping the roll center close the ground)
and maximizing the installation ratio for the dampers. Scrub minimization is necessary to maintain tire compliance
and avoid upsetting the tire-ground interface. Maximizing the installation ratio for the dampers helps reduce
hysteresis caused by the internal disks to deflect when changing the direction of motion and makes small variations in

Drexel University -2- Team #046

damper force less noticeable at the tire. To achieve all of the above suspension kinematics, an iterative approach
was taken using Racing by the Numbers software (WinGeo3).
Another unique feature of DR07’s suspension is the decoupled spring/damper system. By placing the spring next to
the damper instead of using a traditional coil-over design, the bending forces generated when compressing the spring
no longer affect the performance of the damper. By allowing these bending loads to act on the damper, additional
friction is added to the system that increases the hysteresis of the damper. Testing has shown that removing the
spring from the damper can reduce the hysteresis of the assembled suspension by as much as 15%.
The dampers used on DR07 are Penske 7800 series internally adjustable dampers. The decision to use these was
based on cost and performance. Drexel already owns several sets of these dampers and all of the components (and
some experience) required to adjust their damping characteristics. Having been very satisfied with the performance
and adjustability of these dampers in the past, Drexel Racing was happy to be able to re-use extra components in lieu
of purchasing new dampers. This also helps increase efficiency at the track, where having more than one set of
dampers means one set can be rebuilt in the trailer while the test engineers are evaluating another set on course.
The damping rates are initially chosen to be slightly less that critically damped (for the sprung mass) in jounce and
about twice that in rebound. These choices are based on what has typically worked well in the past, but are likely to
change once track testing has begun.
The springs used on DR07 are custom wound, and range in stiffness from 300 to 800 lb/in. By putting the springs
next to the dampers, the installation ratio for the springs is reduced to 0.57. This makes the adjustable range for the
wheel rate 100 to 260 lb/in (sprung mass natural frequencies from approximately 1.7 to 2.7 Hz). The decision to have
springs custom wound rather than purchasing commercially available components was based on the need to have
relatively stiff springs in a relatively small size. The working range for the springs is less than 1.35 inches, so very
short springs (~3.5 inches) will work, but are not readily available. Also, the cost of having springs custom wound is
very similar to the cost of buying high quality springs off-the-shelf. Roll control is bolstered by the use of front and
rear tubular anti-roll bars, connected to the bellcranks via drop links.
Control arms are fabricated from 0.625 inch diameter 0.049 inch wall 4130 steel tubing. Spherical bearings are
double anvil swaged at all joints except the lower ball joints, which feature spherical bearings retained with a snap
ring for easier replacement. These joints are smaller, lighter, and stronger than similar sized rod ends.
The front and rear uprights are designed to be as light as possible while being stiff enough to make deflections
reasonable. In the front, uprights are machined boxed 6061-T6 aluminum with bonded shear plates. In the rear, the
uprights are also machined from billet 6061-T6, and use a triangular pattern of cuts to reduce weight while
maintaining part stiffness. In both the front and the rear, camber adjustment is designed in by using shims between
the upright and a bracket that bolts to the upper control arm and the tie-rod.
The steering system incorporates a front-upper steering layout with the rack mounted directly in front of the upper tub
mounts. This allows the steering links to reside in the same front-view plane as the upper control arms to minimize
bump steer. Bump steer is easily adjustable through interchangeable bushings at the outer steering link joint and/or
shimming of the steering rack in relation to the frame. A splined quick release steering wheel is utilized to reduce
steering compliance over a hex-style quick release. In order to decrease the steering effort required by the driver
without sacrificing steering feedback, an upright design featuring zero mechanical trail was employed.
Ackermann was designed using an iterative process with a custom MATLAB program. The optimal curve is
generated based on peak front and rear slip angles (determined from tire data to be 7.0 degrees) and rear toe. This
curve is compared to the actual curve, which is a function of the steering geometry and the front toe. Steering
geometry is tweaked until the curves match throughout the range of steering rack travel. Final designed Ackermann
is 160% and it is almost constant through the range of travel, with only a slight progressive trend. Ackermann is
adjustable by replacing the bracket at the top of the front upright, or by simply changing the hole through which the
steering tie-rod is bolted in the same bracket. This is something that will be varied and tested during the test phase of
the racing season.

Powertrain and Drivetrain Design:

The DR07 racecar is powered by a naturally aspirated 600cc Honda F4i, which Drexel Racing has developed over
the past five years. Our engine system design goals are focused on driveability and reliability. Analysis of recorded
data has shown that a well sorted car performs better than the one with the highest horsepower. The highlights of the
engine system for this year include a tuned length intake manifold, custom dry-sump system, and a tuned 4-2-1
exhaust system.
A log-style intake manifold/plenum with a 3020 cc volume and 12” long x 1.00” ID intake runners was fabricated out of
aluminum. A converging/diverging nozzle, which houses the required 20 mm air restrictor was constructed out of
6061-T6 Aluminum. A 35mm butterfly throttle body is mounted directly upstream of the restrictor, which then
transitions into the inner portion of the fabricated aluminum plenum. By using this design, the length of the diverging
portion of the restrictor can be adjusted during testing, while staying within the roll plane of the car, as mandated by
the rules.

Drexel University -3- Team #046

The engine management and fuel system uses a stock Honda F4i fuel injection system in combination with a Dyno-
Jet Power Commander PC-IIIr piggyback system. This system was chosen in favor of custom standalone system for
several reasons. First, the inexpensive cost of the stock Honda fuel injection setup and the Dyno-Jet system better
fits the overall budget goal of the team and the competition. With the basic goal of the Formula SAE competition to
construct cars that a weekend autocrosser could purchase and race, it is difficult to justify an expensive and
complicated engine management system. By using the stock Honda F4i fuel injection system there are additional
benefits of having pre-calculated fuel and ignition maps, including proper idle control, which can easily be
manipulated to work with the mandated restricted intake, while keeping fuel economy in the range of 20 liters/100 km
(13 mpg).
A dry-sump system is used on the DR07 to prevent loss of oil pressure at high lateral accelerations, where oil could
flow away from the pickup tube, starving the oiling system. The dry sump system uses a custom designed billet
aluminum oil pan. Two scavenge pumps powered off of the stock Honda water pump output shaft are used in
conjunction with the internal stock Honda pressure oil pump to feed oil to the engine This system has been tested
and proven to be reliable by tilting a running engine under load at 30, 45, and 60 degree angles to simulate 0.6, 1.0,
and 1.7 G’s respectively. The stock mechanical water pump is replaced in the cooling system by a temperature
dependant, flow adjustable electric water pump, which allows for greater control of engine water temperature.
The design of the drivetrain for DR07 centers on the integration of a chain drive Salisbury style differential into the
rear chassis. Previous cars have had chronic understeer problems that, through testing, have been attributed to the
Torsen differentials we have used in the past. Their operation provides more power to the slower moving wheel,
which is the inside wheel in a turn, causing understeer. With a more easily adjustable Salisbury differential the torque
bias and lockup can be tuned in conjunction with the suspension rather than tuning the suspension to act as a crutch
for the differential. The center mount differential assembly resides in aluminum pillow blocks which bolt directly to a
welded steel bulkhead attached to the rear box. The pillow block design of the rear differential allows for easy chain
adjustment by the addition or removal of shims between the differential and the mounts on the frame. Axle half-
shafts are fabricated out of high-strength VascoMax C350 that has been gun-drilled and designed to eliminate excess
mass in the drive.

Driver Controls, Brake System, and Ergonomics:

The rotating mass of the brake hat/rotor assembly was reduced by 20% over previous designs by utilizing a lighter
rotor design along with a redesigned brake hat. The braking system is comprised of two 10.5-inch cast iron rotors in
the front and a single 9-inch cast iron rotor in the rear, with each rotor Blanchard ground to 0.18” thick. The rotors are
machined from Type-40 cast iron blanks chosen for its high strength, thermal properties and frictional characteristics.
The single rear rotor, attached to the differential, reduces un-sprung weight without compromising rear clamping
force. Both front and rear rotors are attached via a dog-drive brake hat, which allows the rotor to float axially. Dual
piston Wilwood calipers are used front and rear due to their low 1.4 lb weight, diverse pad selection, and ease of
packaging which allows maximum rotor diameter. The calipers are actuated by independent master cylinders for the
front and the rear, with a bias bar assembly in the pedal for adjustment. The entire pedal set is modular and has 6
inches of travel fore and aft to accommodate a range of different drivers. The master cylinders are mounted below
the driver’s feet, which allow the overall car length to be shortened five inches and further help lower the overall CG
of the car.

Frame Design:
Drexel’s 2006 vehicle chassis is a welded tubular space frame that has been reinforced by the inclusion of shear
panels. The space-frame has been constructed from AISI 4130 steel while the shear panels are made from carbon
fiber reinforced epoxies.
The frame is composed of two separable portions; a front-frame that includes everything from the front bulkhead to
the engine and a rear-box which lies behind the engine and houses drivetrain and rear suspension components. The
front-frame and rear-box are connected to each other and to the Honda F4i engine, which serves as a semi-stressed
member. This configuration has been chosen for three reasons: (1) by using the engine as a tension member steel
tubes can be eliminated from the frame, (2) the removable rear-box allows the motor to be easily removed from the
frame while keeping frame tubes tight around the engine, and (3) the removable rear-box is modular, allowing the
next model’s rear-box and drivetrain to be built and tested before the completion of the front-frame.
The first design goal for the frame was to achieve a target torsional rigidity of at least 2500 ft-lbs/deg, and the second
was to reduce the weight of the frame to 55 lbs. To meet the weight and stiffness targets for the frame,
unconventional design tools were employed. Custom software tools were developed to pick tube diameters, wall
thicknesses, and cross-section shapes using a Genetic Search Algorithm. The software uses the ANSYS Finite
Element Solver to evaluate potential designs according to their stiffness-to-weight ratio. The algorithm was run for
approximately 12 hours on 30 parallel computers, evaluating over 45,000 potential frames, before converging on a
family of high-stiffness, low weight designs.

Drexel University -4- Team #046

Drexel University -5- Team #046