A revolutionary design approach was taken in 2005.

Inspired by proIessional Formula One racing teams. a
monocoque. carbon composite Iront-end was designed with a
space Irame rear.
The chassis provides all mounting points Ior component
connections. The placement oI those components will restrict
and dictate the shape oI the chassis. The greatest chassis
accommodates all Iittings whilst still being incredibly light
and extremely rigid. Pleasing aesthetics are a maior concern as
marketing appeal is considered as part oI the proiect.
The chassis must Iit and securely hold all teams`
components. General mounts providing Ior:
Pedal box and master cylinders
Brake. Fuel and electrical line Iixtures
Dash Iixture
Suspension and steering mounts:
Control arm mounting
Bell crank mounting
Spring supports
Steering column Iixture
Steering rack Iixture
Engine and cooling:
Engine mounts
Fuel tank Iixings
Plenum support
Water pump mount
Radiator mount
Motec mount
Brakes and drivetrain:
DiIIerential Supports
Brake calliper supports
Ergonomics Ior the driver impacts on size and positioning
around the cockpit. A comIortable. driver-Iriendly cockpit
will improve driver times. reduce driver eIIort and increase
saIety. thus making the car Iar more attractive to potential
buyers and to aIIord the driver the best chance oI winning the
race. To aid this issue. designs were created Ior:
Light Ioam seating. moulded to each driver
Smooth carbon Iloor to ease exit and entry oI car
SoIt Ioam on bulkheads and roll hoops to improve comIort
Looking at perIormance. the design should include
aerodynamic considerations by the creation oI downIorce and
a reduction in drag. This helps push the car's tyres onto the
track and improve cornering Iorces. To optimise this concern
a smooth. Ilat chassis Iloor is designed.
Bodywork should be aesthetically appealing with room Ior
sponsors` logos and team signage. The aesthetics oI the car
are important. as potential buyers will always choose the more
attractive car when picking Irom equal perIormers. Body
components consist oI:
Side pods
Nose cover
Inner Iloor component cover
SaIety restrictions are handed down in a set oI Formula
SAE-A rules. Entry in the competition required an approved
saIety structure equivalency Iorm to ensure the car met or
exceeded the minimum requirements set and is able to
withstand all predicted racing loads and Iorces without
deIormation. To ensure saIety. the Iollowing Iixtures were
Crumple zone
SaIety harness attachments
Front and rear roll hoop Iastening

Chassis rigidity can always be improved upon. Monocoque
designs are promoted as having increased torsional stiIIness
and saIety properties. Innovation was included as a goal Ior
the proiect and monocoque construction is receiving increased
exposure in Formula SAE designs in recent years. The team
were keen to establish and pursue a proiect requiring Iresh
thought and consideration.
A small wheel base was mutually chosen by the entire
MUR team and the monocoque design leant itselI toward a
more compact car. A smaller car also means less surIace area
Ior sponsorship logos. Bodywork covering external
components would provide additional space to maintain
sponsorship. which is vital Ior the completion oI the proiect.
A monocoque design easily creates an undertray. The Iloor
is essentially Ilat. This reduces downIorce and improves yaw
stability Ior aerodynamics.
The aesthetics oI a monocoque design are neater and easier
to present. Carbon Iibre skin on the composite panel cures to a
clean black surIace. requiring minimal additional work.

Design and ManuIacture oI a Formula SAE
Chassis and Body
Michael Leptos. Carolyn Tan. Edwin Kusen. John Weir

Table 1: Decision table Ior selection oI the chassis type

The design and manuIacture was almost completely
undertaken by the students oI the proiect. CAD work was used
extensively. industry contact was paramount and many hours
in Melbourne University workshops were spent in

Monocoque construction requires composite sandwich
panel. Composite materials are used Ior weight savings. parts
consolidation. and cost reasons in low-volume applications.
Certain materials are more popular Ior aerospace and racing
applications. Skins are oIten carbon Iibre or glass and core can
be balsa. nomex honeycomb or aluminium honeycomb.
Nomex honeycomb is an aramid Iibre (similar to kevlar) that
oIIers exceptional weight to stiIIness values. but is expensive.
The 2005 chassis is constructed Irom carbon Iibre and
aluminium honeycomb laminates. Four layers oI carbon are
laid either side oI the core material. Boeing Hawker de
Havilland supplied MUR with pre-impregnated carbon Iibre
material. which is light and strong given its extreme stiIIness
once cured.
The core was sourced Irom Ayres Panels. is low in weight
and very strong in compression. being an ideal material to
work with Ior composites.

The Iorward activation system is mounted across a bonnet
on the chassis. with the bellcrank mount located over the mid
bulkhead above the driver`s knees. The springs mount directly
onto the Iront roll hoop. The suspension is covered by
bodywork Irom the nose to the Iront hoop to give a clean
appearance. The mounts were designed and manuIactured by
the suspension team and are bolted and glued into the chassis.
Where the bolts are to be Iastened to composite panel.
hardpoints are located to reinIorce the connection.
The hardpoint material is Hysol EA 9394 potting compound
supplied by Henkel Aerospace.

A raised Iloor is built into the toe oI the chassis to meet the
suspension arm mounts and the steering rack mount. Although
the brackets have been designed to withstand the driving
Iorces. the mounts can interIere with the underside oI the
drivers` legs. A thin carbon sheet oI smooth bodywork is
aligned over the internal components to provide a protective
barrier Ior both the drivers` legs and the car components. To
accommodate the suspension arms inside the chassis. holes are
cut into the sides with allowances Ior arm travel. Again.
hardpoints are situated in the Iloor to give strength around the
The toe width is narrowed with allowance Ior the pedal
box. The pedal box was designed by the coordination team.
but included close consultation with the chassis team to ensure
enough space is included Ior all mechanics and driver leg

Three bulkheads were initially included in the design.
Bulkheads oIIer tremendous strength in areas where
compression and chassis Iailure is likely. They oIIer resistance
to buckling or crush. The three key locations are at the toe
(Iirst bulkhead) and under the Iront Iorward and Iront rear
suspension arms. When operating. the vehicle wheels will
experience travel and the a-arms will exert Iorces into the
chassis. Accurately placed. the bulkheads will absorb these
Iorces and maintain the integrity oI the outer chassis walls.
Bulkheads assist with keeping the deIlections to a minimum
and optimising the eIIectiveness oI the suspension.
The bulkheads are made oI the same composite panel as the
Iront-end chassis. slot inside the walls and are Iixed with holes
cut in the center to allow Ior the drivers` legs.
For buckling and stress analysis. the composite panel
structure can be simpliIied into a typical I beam arrangement
where the web is the honeycomb core and the Ilanges are the
Iour ply carbon Iibre skins.
The neutral axis can be Iound as Iollows.

v A v A
2 2 1 1


Where: A
- area oI ith rectangular section
Yi neutral axis oI ith section
The second moment oI inertia can be Iound using the
parallel axis theorem according to.

1 max 1
max 2 2
) ( 12
) ( 12
v v A bd
v v A bd I


Where: b.d the breadth and depth oI section
The stresses in the composite sheet can be derived as

I v M
v v max

Where: M moment applied

Y neutral axis
I second moment oI inertia
The bodywork is primed and painted as the Iinal product. It
gives the Iirst impression and must oIIer a strong aesthetic
appeal. PPG paints have supplied MUR with the products Ior
painting the chassis. The bodywork surIace area must also
allow enough space Ior competition stickers (identiIication)
and sponsors` stickers.
The Iinish is dictated by the quality oI the mould
constructed. A smoother skin Iinish means that the paint will
apply more easily and the Iinish will look more appealing.
The 2005 chassis shape is smooth. yet aggressive. The nose
is narrow and angled Ior a strong. Iast look. BeIore any racing
commences. there is viewing oI competitors entries. A car that
looks like a strong contender will pose an important mental

The Iirewall is removable in 2005`s chassis. This allows
greater access to the engine and its components. Rather than
rivet the panel to the walls oI the chassis. this section is bolted
through the brackets. This connection method is suIIicient Ior
the monocoque structure`s integrity and gives Ilexibility to the
team Ior maintenance on the engine. The edges are completely
sealed Irom the engine in case oI Iire. Removal oI the engine
is now achieved above the Iloor and saves liIting the car.

The driver harness is to be reused Irom MUR`s 2004 car. It
was bought new late in 2004 and remains in Iantastic
condition. The mounting points have varied. The lower
restraints are secured to the Iirewall and the upper mounts are
on the main roll hoop. The FSAE-A rules require the harness
be attached to round steel tube oI 25.4 mm (1 inch) outer
diameter and 1.65 mm (0.065 inch) wall thickness and the
SaIety Structure Equivalency Form Ior breached rules was

The car must contain a cockpit that will accommodate the
percentile male driver. The design oI the cockpit was
carried out with strict constraints regarding ergonomics. A
percentile man was created in Solidworks to assemble
with any CAD design to ensure that this criterion was met.
The sketch driver was drawn in a racing position with arms
ready Ior a steering wheel and legs comIortably bent Ior the
pedal box.
The drivers` legs are susceptible to knocks Irom the
steering column. the edges oI the bulkhead hole and the Iront
roll hoop. All these zones within the chassis are covered by
soIt padding to keep the driver comIortable and thereby
increase perIormance.


Mild Steel tubing was chosen Ior the rear space Irame due
to its low in cost. vastly available. and easy to weld properties.
The steel tubing being used is supplied by OneSteel and TS22
C300 is the baseline material used in the rear chassis
construction which has a yield strength oI 300 MPa and an
ultimate tensile strength oI 370 MPa. The material chosen Ior
the rear bulkhead was Aluminium 6061 T6(tempered) due to
its lightness. cheaper and has Yield Strength oI 276 MPa and
UTS oI 310 MPa which are adequate Ior this purpose.

For Formula SAE 2005 competition. the engine being used
is Honda CBR600RR. This type oI engine is used as stressed
member in motorcycle racing. To take advantage oI this Iact.
this year chassis team will use the engine as its structural
members in Iully-stressed` layout to increase torsional
rigidity and strength as typically seen in many Formula cars.
Using the engine as a stressed member within the space-Irame
has saved signiIicant mass in the chassis. By FEA analysis.
the rear chassis torsional rigidity without the engine is 1800
Nm/deg and with the structural engine. the torsional rigidity is
2300 Nm/deg. The engine will be mounted to the chassis at 3
points: Iront mount. upper rear mount and lower rear mount.
The rear engine is mounted to the Aluminium bulkhead.

A removable engine Iloor was designed which spans Irom
the main roll hoop to the very rear oI the chassis to make
maintenance easier. The engine Iloor is made Irom 2 mm thick
carbon composite with Aluminium core being added around
the edges to increase torsional rigidity with little additional
weight. This engine Iloor will also add to aerodynamics
advantage oI the 2005 car by creating a low pressure region
underneath the car and hence creates downIorce.

Figure 1: MUR2005 Chassis

The Rear suspension mounts are extension oI the chassis
tubing which are made Irom mild steel Rectangle Hollow
Section(RHS) Ior ease oI Iabrication. While the Iront upper
and lower leIt suspension brackets are made Irom machined
Aluminium 6061 which is glued to the bulkhead using Hysol
E30-CL and an M6 bolt oriented vertically. The Iront lower
right suspension bracket is made Irom RHS oriented with 3
M8 bolts shared between the damper mount and the lower
engine mount.

A Machined Aluminium 6061 T6 (heat tempered) bulkhead
with 20 mm thickness is used in coniunction with steel tubes

to maintain triangulation oI the rear chassis and also satisIying
the wheelbase requirement oI 1560mm. This bulkhead
incorporates the upper rear engine mount. suspension
brackets. rear damper mounts. a mounting base Ior diIIerential
mounts and location oI the chain tensioner.
The mounting oI the diIIerential is designed using FEA
analysis to use them as structural members oI the chassis to
take advantage oI high yield stress oI chromium alloy oI 700
MPa. The leIt diIIerential mount is positioned horizontally.
while the right diII mount which located in the centre oI the
car is positioned diagonally to triangulate the rear box section
oI the chassis

The monocoque structure is a Iirst Ior Melbourne
University Racing. Much consultation and research was
required to complete the design and manuIacture. The shape
oI the Iront-end was decided to look aggressive and have
progressive size. The key dimensions were completely
dictated by the Iellow teams.
The initial single-piece tub design was going to consume
too much time. The subsequent designs employed the use oI
angled moulds Ior each length oI the chassis. Iollowed by
panel assembly. Flat sections and. Iailing that. as Iew bends as
possible were desired Ior ease oI construction.
The moulds created in 2005 were constructed Irom 5mm
thick steel plate. These plates were Iolded in an industrial steet
metal Iolder and reinIorced with square hollow section (SHS).
The bracing was welded to the underside oI the moulds by
tacking. Consideration was given to the accuracy oI the
angles. Where two panels were to meet perpendicularly. the
angles were paramount Ior Iitting. The Iolds were produced
accurately with an angle guide. Given the thickness oI the
sheet. springback was not a maior concern. The sheet was
wedged and the bracing clamped at the desired angle during
welding and cooling. This reduced any possible thermal
eIIects leading to alterations in the angles.
The surIaces oI the moulds were prepared at Hawker de
Havilland. The sheet Iaces were in good condition upon
entering the plant. Release Iilm adhesive was painted directly
to the surIace oI the tools and only the edges roughed up Ior a
strong bond with the vacuum bag tape.
Lay up and vacuum bagging was administered at Hawker
de Havilland and closely monitored by the technicians. Each
layer has a speciIic orientation and stacking arrangement to
ensure a good cure.

Figure 2: Section sketch of composite panel on tool.

An autoclave provides the best Iinish Ior a composite
sandwich panel. Once cooked. the pieces can be easily
removed Irom the tools and the surIace Iinish. tool-side. is
generally impeccable.
The panels Irom the moulds were perIect aIter curing and
the salvage edges were trimmed using the bandsaw in the
workshop. A concern Ior construction was to ensure that all
sides met convincingly and would be manageable Ior the team
members to cut to adequate accuracy. Another important
concern is that carbon Iibre is carcinogenic. Full Iace masks
must be securely Iastened and hand protection is strongly
recommended. A splinter oI carbon can be extremely painIul.
The sawed oII edges are easily Iiled to precision dimensions.
Butt ioints are the easiest Iorm oI corner connection. The
bulkheads and dash are designed as iigs during assembly with
help via clamping. Extruded aluminium angle section at
1.6mm thickness was used to bracket the ioins in place. The
brackets are Iitted to both the inside and outside oI the
corners. with some bends in place to neatly hug the edges.
Between the brackets and the skins. Henkel`s Loctite Hysol E-
30CL industrial strength adhesive is applied. Both brackets
are riveted onto the sandwich panel. giving a clamping Iorce
while the glue dries. and oIIering an additional Iastening

The two ways oI producing the bodywork are a Iemale or
male mould. The Iemale mould is lighter and has a cleaner
surIace Iinish. but will take longer to construct.
MUR selected a Iemale manuIacturing technique which
involves creating a Ioam 'plug¨. which is a likeness to the
Iinal product. A Iiberglass Iemale mould is taken Irom this
plug. such that the Iinal piece can be laid inside. This will
produce an excellent surIace Iinish. Minimal weight will be
added to the part when Iinishing oII. as the smooth surIace is
the viewed surIace. The part can then be primed and painted.

For the space Irame rear end oI the chassis. TIG welding
was used to connect the steel tubes together. The
manuIacturing process aims to physically 'connect the dots¨.
this is where all critical vehicle component mounting points
are ioined. It is important to remember that the suspension
mounting points. engine mounting points and drive train
mounts are precise in their relative locations. tight tolerances
must be used. During manuIacturing their location in the
MUR motorsports co-ordinate system must be retained to

ensure accurate suspension geometry and to ensure the engine
and drivetrain can Iit into their mounting points. For the rear
sections mounting points a iig will be utilised to ensure
accuracy oI their respective locations. This iig will hold the
suspension points Iixed during the welding process and prove
the necessary tight tolerances needed Ior the suspension setup.
With the machined aluminium bulkhead. the Iront suspension
point are going to be accurate.

AIter Iinalising the design using CAD soItware. a physical
model is needed to check Ior driver space. component Iit and
rule compliance issues. By viewing a physical model it gives
the designer a greater insight into their component and any
changes that need to be made.
Full-scale paper print-outs were created Ior dimensioning
and medium density Iibre wooden panels were cut and
assembled. Two assemblies were carried out throughout 2005.
both at Strathmore High School and most Iastening was
achieved with mdI glue and nails.

Finite Element Analysis is a tool used to determine the
response oI a component subiected to various loads. such as
structural. thermal or vibrational. This method calculates the
component`s response. which can be deIlection. strain or
stress. using the prescribed loading conditions. Easily
understood visualizations are also an advantage.
FEA oIIers many advantages over hand calculations and
mechanical testing. Hand calculations are limited by the
problems that can be solved mathematically. Mechanical
testing is oIten expensive and does not provide the internal
response oI the material. Since the accuracy oI FEA
proportionally increases with the number oI elements. the
limitations oI FEA is largely due to the available computation
MUR 2005 used COSMOS/Works. The team completed a
course in February to become proIicient with the soItware.
FEA soItware was primarily used to calculate the torsional
rigidity and to simulate the response oI the chassis under
operating conditions. The worst case scenario oI the Iollowing
operating conditions were under consideration:
Braking and cornering
The Iorce data oI the operating conditions was supplied by
the suspension team. Note that the braking and cornering case
was the most demanding Ior the chassis.
Although FEA is very advantageous. especially Ior
complicated geometries. the MUR results are by no means
deIinite. COSMOS/Works cannot work with composite
panels. Parts with high length to depth ratios (approx 1:5 and
above) are more accurately modelled as shells with Iinite
thickness. rather than solid panels. The material applied Ior
FEA was user speciIied. The chassis team calculated
equivalent properties Ior the composite panel in the SaIety
Structure Equivalency Report using the buckling modulus
equation below:

2 12 6 ) (
2 3 3
btd E bc E bt E EI
f c f eq

Where: I- Iacing material
c- core material.
The buckling modulus can be divided by the second
moment oI inertia to yield Young`s Modulus. E ÷ 64.61 GPa.

The lack oI exact results led the analysis to Iocus on
comparative values. Between each subsequent design.
identical loads were placed at the proper locations. This
analysis indicates which Ieatures Iurther enhanced the rigidity
oI the chassis and where weak spots in the Iront-end were
Regarding the rear-end spaceIrame. teams in 2003 and 2004
discovered an approximate error oI 6° when comparing the
mechanical testing and COSMOS/Works testing. FEA results
are very sensitive to mesh size and boundary conditions.
despite the team`s best eIIorts in ensuring these parameters are
as accurate as possible. these parameters are the most likely to
introduce discrepancies to the results. Also. the material
applied in FEA models has consistent properties throughout
its volume. hence it is oI perIect construction. This is
deIinitely not expected in real liIe materials.

Torsional rigidity measures how much torque can be
withstood by a component per degree oI twist. The units Ior
torsional rigidity is Nm/degree. High values are very
important in chassis design. as suspension design assumes a
perIectly rigid chassis Ior the suspension set-up to perIorm at
its maximum level.
MUR`s 2005 vehicle was composed oI two sections. Each
section underwent separate analysis and the results were
combined by taking the connection in series using the
equation below:

1 1

r f (5)

Where: I - torsional rigidity oI the Iront-end
r - torsional rigidity oI the rear-end

From the combined FEA results. the torsional rigidity oI the
2005 chassis was calculated to be 1496Nm/degree. The error
to be taken into account cannot be assumed Irom previous
A conservative estimate using these raw results gives 60°
improvement in torsional rigidity when comparing to 2004.
This is considered as a signiIicant improvement by the team.
since the Ieedback Irom the 2004 team was very positive
regarding the chassis perIormance during the competition.

Table 2: Torsional rigidity comparisons.

Year 2003 2004 2005
Claimed (Nm/deg) 3542 941 1496
Tested (Nm/deg) 283 885 ???

The team MP-4663. Formula SAE-A Chassis and Body.
successIully designed the chassis that meets all regulations
and saIety requirements stated in the 2005 Formula SAE-A
competition rules.
The team decided on a revolutionary approach in the design
oI the chassis. The 2003 and 2004 chassis were not used as the
basis Ior Iurther improvement. rather. the team decided to
completely design a monocoque Iront-end with space-Irame
rear. The monocoque was constructed entirely by MP-4663 at
Boeing Hawker de Havilland Irom carbon Iibre and
aluminium honeycomb laminates. The space-Irame is
constructed oI mild steel tubing. with an aluminium bulkhead
Ior secure mounting points. Carbon Iibre bodywork was
completed in the emissions laboratory at Melbourne
University to Iit the nose and bonnet oI the Iront-end. the
radiator and the electrical components either side oI the
cockpit. and an inner Iloor skin to shield components and the
drivers` legs.

Figure 3: Manufactured chassis

The team successIully integrated all requirements Irom
suspension. steering. drivetrain and engine teams. Many
modiIications were made throughout the year and constant
CAD designing and FEA was required. No maior sacriIices
were committed Ior other teams` components that would
compromise the perIormance oI the car during racing. Two
mock up versions oI the chassis Iront-end were built. They
were checked against the current designs. the integration team.
and could Iit a 95
percentile male comIortably and
The weight oI the chassis was estimated to be below 30kg
using the SolidWorks package and excel spreadsheets. This is
approximately 16° lighter than the car oI 2004. The torsional
rigidity oI the chassis (combining Iront and rear-ends) is
approximately 1496Nm/degree using the FEA package
COSMOSWorks. compared to 2004`s chassis oI
941Nm/degree. This is a 60° improvement in stiIIness. The
chassis also showed encouraging results under operating
conditions using FEA. with minimal deIlection and low stress
concentration levels.
The team. MP-4663. achieved all obiectives and tasks set
out at the beginning oI the proiect. SigniIicant improvement in
many perIormance measures was achieved and this indicates a
successIul outcome. The size has slightly increased. but this is
due to engine selection in 2005. not through a chassis team
decision. The real test is at the competition events. where
hopeIully the results can be veriIied.
The monocoque deIinitely proved to be a challenging task
to design and manuIacture. Cost was not an issue as the team
had solid sponsorship. but the manuIacture was a slow
process. Although the time commitments were previously
understood. lack oI experience resulted in Iailures and less
eIIicient strategies Ior construction. The lay-up process was
repeated and panel Iitting required many well thought out
approaches. The rear-end welding process was conIidently
carried out at Melbourne University by a qualiIied welder and
the aluminium bulkhead is solid and durable.
MP-4663 unanimously recommend a monocoque chassis
Ior Iuture Formula SAE-A cars. Although. this approach
cannot be underestimated in terms oI time or inIormation
required. A sub-standard monocoque would be inIerior to a
well built space-Irame. but a completely committed team
would easily achieved all that MP-4663 has achieved this
year. A one-piece Iemale mould Ior the monocoque is the
obvious next step to take and time taken in the beginning Ior
design and construction should be oIIset later on by the lack
oI panel Iitting. Positive industry contact is paramount Ior
success and integrity oI the chassis.
FEA skills are vital and Iuture teams should be conIident
with soItware packages very early in the year. The advantages
lie in relatively accurate mechanisms to predict Iailure modes
and location oI weak points. comparative strength and torsion
testing between designs and CAD designs can be modiIied
very quickly.


|1| The Automotive Magazine. 'Technical Designs
and Reasons Ior Chassis¨.
|2| Ayres Panels. 'Boating Products and Supplies¨.
|3| Benham. P.P. CrawIord. R.J.. and Armstrong.
C.G.. :Mechanics oI Engineering Materials¨.
Longmann. Harlow. 1996
|4| Callister. W.D. 'Materials. Science and
Engineering: an Introduction¨. Wiley. New York.
|5| The Catholic University oI Leuven. Belgium.
'Buckling oI Structures¨ . viewed 25
|6| Hexcal composites. 'HexWeb¹ Honevcomb
Sandwich Design Technologv.` Publication No
AGU 073b. December 2000.

|7| Hexcel (Technical Paper). The basics on bonded
sandwich construction. Hexcel Composites. TSB
|8| OneSteel (Technical Paper). 'Technical
Specifications. BTM TS22`. OneSteel Market
|9| Physics Forums. 'Why Include an Undertray?¨.
|10| Samuel. A and Weir. J. 'Introduction to
Engineering Design Part 2: Basic ideas and
strategies¨. Engineering Design Group.
Department oI Mechanical and ManuIacturing
Engineering. The University oI Melbourne.
Melbourne. 1998
|11| Shigley. J.E.. 'Mechanical Engineering Design
Third Edition¨. McGraw Hill. Boston. 1977
|12| |15| Sih. G.C.. and Skudra. A.M.. 'Failure
Mechanics oI Composites Volume 3¨. Elsevier
Science Publishers. Amsterdam. 1985
|13| Society oI Automotive Engineers. '2005 Formula
SAE Rules¨. 2005
|14| Thompson. L.L. et. Al.. 'Design oI a Twist Fixture
to Measure the Torsional StiIIness oI a Winston
Cup Chassis¨. SAE Technical Paper Series. 1998

5+ +.. $ 5 # * < 1 60 " $ # % < $ $ : $ . $ / 0 5#". # ' # # / # < < .. #60.+ * # # # . / " $ 1 * # " ' $ ! # 9 9 $ :9.' ' # # $ # # 9) + $ # & $ 1 6 : 0 5#". $ :>. 9 ) . / ) 1A .5+ . $ . = ? >= / # > 9 ) " @ A $ # $ # > 9 9 : : A $ 9 $ . : . (5 ! " .

.+ # $ # ' 2 . 6#. 0". >9 1 % .> "-3 0. . ! 1% .! : . > < # . -*0B 00 # > >C 1 % # B B9 #B: @ ." ? B . . #. . . . . " 9E # > # ' # 0 # ! ' # 0 # # ? # # 9B . # 1 60' ? $ # # = = . .5+ . 1 1E B B9 #B : & .. # 0 :0<. #60. 1 # -> .@A A # %( % # $ 1 60 : ' . C 1% B < # ! D " ' # # * # 6 * 5 F > 5 F ) # . B B9 1B $ 0 / < # 0<. ! :9 .

<.! 9 B # # . 1 # # " ! " ! $ # * # # ! # / # ( & # # # < # 0 1 60 G 3 < < .$ & # & & # + 1 60 " ." :. $ # #( # G & H 1 H # ! < # # * > -3 < '3 * < . 9B . C 1% # 2 $ 1 56 # 6 ! " 2 # # # 0 ! 1 -#60. .

. " " . . # .3. 2 $ < 1 $ . . .& # $ / & ! . 0 " $ . . 5 F < # ! # . 1 -7 6% .. . # > BJ . ./ 1 F % .! ) 0 : . .1 ./ 1 F 2 ' & # ' . 1 60 .5# 5 3@... . .+ * # @ # $ * ! # '1 . " $ 1 60' . 1 60 . " " # 5 . 9 / 9 ) 9 : . ! ./ 1 F # ! # ) * * ) . # # ) # : $ 9) # 9? B5 F = # B J ? ? . ? 5 #. . / ) " " > B > 9 :? .I B?B9 (% " # . < " " .

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

# % . + L 99M L M 9 L 9>M L M 9? H . 9 (. G 1 . . + # . . . 1 1 % G / 6 ) F F F F " E N N NN N / 8 G A % )* + . :# % . * K H 9 L M .LM C <$ :# " % LM E LM = 9 ? . / . 9= E = . . .0 H # 33 G + # $ 1 # . # 6 1 1 9= E = . G . 8.H . % 9= E . H1 ( < * 9= C C L M . <$ #. # $ %& '! ' . 1 G 1 Q >H . ( + 1 1 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful