Design Report for FSAE India 2009
Mohamed Irfan. N
Copyright © 2009 SAE International
Technocratz racing
College of engineering, Guindy
ABSTRACT
The aim of the competition is to design a formula style
car catering to the needs of the weekend racer. The
motive of our participation is to design a car without
getting into the fabrication process. The principle aim
was to understand the finer aspects of vehicular design
with the ulterior motive of fabricating a competitive car
for the 2011 edition of FSAE India, while strictly adhering
to the FSAE rules. The vehicle modeling was done in
CATIA, the FEA analyses of which were carried out
ANSYS. Flow analysis for the air intake and chassis
were carried out using FLUENT.
INTRODUCTION
The design gives prime importance to satisfy the end
user’s needs. The vehicle was assumed to be fabricated
in a fictitious firm and the conditions for the feasibility of
manufacturing such a vehicle were studied. The analysis
threw light on factors such as optimal performance, easy
maintenance, ease of handling and aesthetics.
For making a standout design, we’ve tried to
incorporate some new ideas, viz, outboard mounting of
suspension struts, an additional lever for the front brake
to provide more braking force during emergencies, a
variable rack pinion for reducing steering effort for better
handling, an aerodynamically sound chassis by CFD
analysis using FLUENT, which was also used to validate
the flow efficiencies of our air intake system.
DESIGN VISION STATEMENT
- To make a reliable and simple design, primarily
depending upon extensive analysis using virtual data,
due to our inability to procure various components
necessary to make detail practical studies and to come
up with a prototype due to time and financial constraints.
- Being the pioneer FSAE team from our college, it is of
prime importance to provide a firm footing for future
teams. So, we took a conscious effort to avoid too many
frivolities and keep things as simple as we possibly
could.
Author
G. Karthick
Co-author
POWERTRAIN
Engine
It was decided to use a 2000 Yamaha Yzf-R6 engine
(carbureted) amongst other available options such as
the Honda CBR600F4i and the indigenous Bullet
Machismo 500, principally for the following reasons
- Highest power to weight ratio (With a measured peak
horsepower of 96.5 bhp at 12800 rpm without a
restrictor, R6 has a power to weight ratio of 1.81 hp/kg,
whilst the Honda CBR600F4i, its nearest rival, has a
ratio of 1.75 hp/kg). This ratio was due to the lower mass
of rotating components when compared to the Honda - a
desirable facet for an engine to be used for FSAE.
- Carburetion. Fuel injection, in spite of its various
advantages, was avoided, mainly because of non
availability of a FI engine. This prevented a closer study
of the different sensors (like the fuel sensor), without the
proper knowledge of which, a complete and satisfactory
power train design is impossible.
Intake
The inclusion of a restrictor whose diameter is to be no
more than 20 mm (according to FSAE rules) would
cause potential power losses of up to 35 % due to lower
specific air input (about 0.12 kg/s). This would mean that
the maximum amount of fuel that can be burnt is
theoretically 8.3 g/s. To compensate for this a venturi
arrangement is incorporated to minimize pressure
losses. The venturi-restrictor system is to be made of
brass, since air flow is very smooth over a brass surface.
Also the restrictor necessitates the construction of an
intake plenum. CFD analysis was done using FLUENT
and, by trial and error, a satisfactory plenum and runner
arrangement was arrived at. Some of the results of this
analysis are shown in Appendix D.
Drive train
The stock 6-speed gearbox of the Yamaha YZF-R6
was retained.
It was decided to use a 14 teeth Al 7075 sprocket as our
front sprocket.

No of teeth on smaller/front sprocket = z1= 14
Pitch = P = 15.875
Diameter of the smaller sprocket = d1 = P/(sin(180/z1)
= 15.875/(sin(180/14)) = 71.34 mm
The commercially available choices for the rear
sprocket are with 40, 42, 45 and 52 teeth. The
larger/rear sprocket was chosen to be a 52 teeth Al 7075
sprocket. In spite of the obvious loss in top speed due to
the relatively larger number of teeth, it is a known fact
that a larger sprocket would produce more torque, and
more torque to the wheels would mean better
acceleration. Since acceleration is given priority over top
speed at FSAE, our selection is justified. Also a larger
sprocket reduces the working load for a given amount of
transmitted power.
No of teeth on larger/ rear sprocket = z2 = 52
Diameter of the larger sprocket = d2 = P/(sin(180/z2) =
15.878/(sin(180/52)) = 262.925 mm
Pitch for both the sprockets = 15.875 mm (5/8”). The
standard motorcycle chains which correspond with the
above pitch are the 520, 525, 530 and 532 O ring
chains, in increasing order of their sizes. The 520 chain
was chosen since a smaller chain would spin faster,
resulting in a more efficient drive, better power
transmission and better fuel efficiency.
Speed Table
After calculations, an approximate speed table for a
tire of dimensions 185/60/R13 was obtained. Taking into
account a speed reduction factor of .965 due to reduced
tire diameter caused by factors such as atmospheric
pressure, temperature, humidity, car weight, car weight
distribution, weight shifting caused by acceleration, and
rotational speed (centrifugal force).
1 2 3 4 5 6
0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
13.2 16.6 19.3 21.8
3000 9.1 23.8
18.2 26.5 33.2 38.7 43.5
6000 47.6
27.2 39.7 49.8 58.0 65.3
9000 71.4
36.3 53.0 66.4 77.3 87.0
12000 95.2
12800 38.7 56.5 70.8 82.5 92.8 101.6
redline
After a market survey, the Torsen University special
differential (Limited Slip Differential, Torque Sensing /
Torque Biasing) was chosen among a wide variety of
possible differentials. Its 3:1 torque bias ratio will more
than satisfy our requirements.
CHASSIS
Ergonomics:
The entire frame is designed around the driver, giving
him or her just the right amount of space. To have the
best compromise between driver’s CG and comfort
(visibility, seating position, and steering wheel angle) a
backrest angle of 50 degrees was selected. Our chassis
has been designed in such a way that all drivers will be
able to exit to the side of the vehicle in no more than 5
seconds.
Firewall and Floor plan:
We planned to use panels constructed from aluminum
sheets as firewall. They will be bolted to the chassis. The
use of fiberglass for this component was investigated but
rejected because of greater manufacturing costs.
Floor pan of aluminum sheet was made in two
sections: a 2mm section at the front of the compartment
extending to the seat where the driver could step, and a
1.2mm section for the remaining rear section.
Fuel tank:
Aluminum sheet metal (corrosion resistant) was
selected for the primary tank material due to its light
weight, low price, and ease of manufacturability. A sheet
thickness of 0.060 inch was chosen to provide sufficient
strength to contain the required weight of fuel in a non-
load bearing tank while minimizing weight.
Sidepods:
Structural sidepods are bolted to the chassis to provide
safety and increased torsional stiffness. The frame has a
calculated torsional stiffness of about 3759 Nm/deg,
which is almost 14 times greater than the roll stiffness of
the suspension.
Space frame:
We chose AISI 4130(chromium-molybdenum steel) to
construct our space frame because of its lightness yet its
yield strength is very high compared to mild steel of
same weight. The space frame is provided with
necessary triangulation to provide stiffness and strength.
Impact attenuator:
With the attenuator, the mean deceleration at a crash
with a velocity of 7 m/s was calculated as 12.5 g. A
honeycomb structure made of aluminium composite was
selected for constructing the impact attenuator due to its
nearly linear crush resistance force versus displacement,
rate independence, and high energy absorption per
volume.
Ansys test:
An FEA analysis was done using ANSYS and some of
the results are shown in the Appendix C. The test results
show that the deflection is within the permitted limit.
STEERING
The steering system constitutes a vital part in an
automobile. There are numbers of steering mechanism
the one that we employ in our design is variable ratio
Rack and pinion steering. This is same in functioning
when compared to normal rack and pinion. All the
components are the same, and it all works the same
except that the spacing of the teeth on the rack varies
depending on how close to the centre of the rack they
are. In the middle, the teeth are spaced close together to
give slight steering for the first part of the turn - good for
not to oversteer at speed. As the teeth get further away
from the centre, they increase in spacing slightly so that
the wheels turn more for the same turn of the steering
wheel towards full lock. The pinion used is helical pinion
against a variable rack. The steering takes three turns to
move from lock to lock positions. The material used for
making gears is 50Cr4. We use feather key for the
removal of steering wheel when desired. The angle of
inclination of steering shaft is 35 deg with horizontal.
We set the wheel to have negative camber angle of
about 1 deg to generate more grip on the tires.
KPI (King pin inclination) is the angle of the king pin
when viewed from the front. We set angle to 10 deg in
order to have sufficient jacking effect when the car is
steered.
Caster is an angle that gives directional stability to the
car in straight ahead position, and this contributes to
weight jacking when the steering is turned. So, we
o
provide a positive caster angle of about 4
SUSPENSION
For FSAE, since handling is given a higher priority
over ride quality, a very stiff suspension with very good
anti-roll properties is required to carry more speeds
around the corners. To minimize the car’s weight, a light
suspension is preferred. As per the FSAE rule book
we’ve designed our suspension for a jounce of 2 inches
and a re-bound of 1 inch. As this car is going to be used
by weekend Autocross racer the suspension should be
easily tunable.
Front Suspension: Double Wishbone, Coil over Strut
(outboard), Torsion Anti roll bars
Rear Suspension: Double Wishbone, Coil over Strut
(outboard), Torsion Anti roll bars
Owing to the lower weight of wishbones, to maintain a
lesser ground clearance, we chose Double Wishbone
Suspension. The Double Wishbone is made of Mild
Steel with Carbon Content of nearly 0.2%. Another
advantage of the double wishbone suspension is its
kinematic possibilities. The positions of the suspension
control arms relative to one another can determine both
the height of the body roll centre and the pitch pole.
We’ve incorporated a coil over strut for each
wishbone. After analysis, the Yamaha R15’s strut,
amongst the stiffest in India, was chosen. The strut
would be mounted outboard in both the front and rear
suspensions. The advantage of using Monocross
Suspension Strut is that it is stiffer than a normal strut,
with a suitable length of 20 cm. Also the stiffness of a
monocross suspension can be easily adjusted. Though
inboard mounting of struts is preferred in Formula cars,
we’ve gone for outboard mounting as it is cheaper as it
eliminates the necessity of bell cranks and push rods.
Another advantage is easy accessibility for tuning.
Torsion anti roll solid bars of higher torsional stiffness
has been selected.
After a study of the track layout in the proposed venue
for the 2011 competition, the toe-in setting, which
ensures better grip around the corners and better
0
straight line stability, was chosen. A positive caster of 4
has been used to ensure self straightening of the
steering.
Tie rod from the rack of steering column is attached to
wheel hub, which serves to easily adjust the toe setting
of the front wheels. An additional tie rod is deliberately
given in the rear suspension between space frame and
wheel hub to adjust the toe setting of the rear wheels.
In both front and rear suspensions, the frame pivots are
bolted to the frame using long bolt nuts. So for the
adjustment of camber, shim plates are given in between
pivot clamps and frame in the bolts.
Suspension Analysis:
Elastokinematic properties such as wheelbase, track,
roll centre, camber, and toe-in were analyzed with the
aid of suspension analyzer. The inputs provided were
• Height and location of the ball joints which hold the
wheels to the wishbone
• Spring rate
• The point of spring mounted on the frame, which was
determined from the CATIA model.
With these inputs, properties such as length of A-arms,
static and dynamic camber, roll centre and the estimated
track width were calculated. A sample of the tests are
shown in Appendix B
 BRAKES Most importantly, the design of the vehicle was strictly in
accordance with the FSAE rules.
The brake system of a FSAE vehicle should have the
following requirements
• Provide effective and safe braking at various speeds and ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
situations.
• Have minimal weight. Team CEG would like to thank and acknowledge the
• Ignition should get cut automatically when brakes fail. following persons for their support and guidance.
• Providing a switch using which the racer may cut off 1. Faculty Advisor – Dr. G. Nagarajan.
ignition manually, as per FSAE rules.
• When brakes are applied, a clearly visible light should REFERENCES
glow at the rear of the car, as per FSAE rules.
1. 2009 FSAE rulebook and 2011 Formula
Of the two basic types of hydraulic brakes available SAEINDIA rulebook.
(drum and disc), we will use disc brakes for all 4 wheels
2. Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics – Thomas
as they provide better braking and superior heat
dissipation. D. Gillespie
3. Race Car Vehicle Dynamics – Millikan
As per FSAE rules, one pedal (foot pedal) can
activate all 4 brakes. The foot pedal will activate a
tandem master cylinder which can apply hydraulic
pressure to all 4 brakes with a bias of 70% to the rear
wheels and 30% to the front wheels. This mechanism,
achieved by flow control valves, is designed to provide
optimum turning and cornering capabilities to the rear
loaded car.

If higher braking torque is needed at any time, as in

the case of emergency stops, there will be a separate
lever/pedal close to the racers hand, which will activate
the front brakes to their full potential. The detailed circuit
is shown below in Appendix A.

Automatic cut-off of engine when brake line fails is

achieved by means of 4 pressure transducers. These
continuously generate a small current as long as there is
no drop in pressure below a specified value in the brake
lines close to the cylinders (a sign of brake failure) and a
series of AND logic gates leading to ignition system.
Manual ignition cut-off is also provided by means of a
simple normally closed switch.

With such a system we calculated a satisfactory

stopping distance of 104 ft from a speed of 60 kmph.

CONCLUSION

Since alleviation of safety concerns is one of our main

priorities, utmost importance was given to the design of
the roll cage and extensive ANSYS analysis was done to
ensure that our frame was devoid of any glaring safety
issues. Special attention was paid to the optimization of
intake air flow and a highly satisfactory intake plenum
design was procured by employing CFD using the
FLUENT software. Recognizing the importance of
vehicle handling in an event like the FSAE, a variable
steering rack a suspension system whose
Elastokinematic properties were thoroughly analyzed
using the SUSPENSION ANALYZER software. Again,
keeping safety in mind, an additional brake lever has
been incorporated to provide immediate additional
braking force to the front wheels in case of emergencies.
FRONT VIEW OF THE VEHICLE (CATIA DESIGN)

SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW
 APPENDIX A

APPENDIX B

Rear Suspension (Front View) Front Suspension (Front View)

Front Suspension (Top View) Front Suspension (Side View)

 APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

Deflection due to Rear Impact

Velocity Analysis

Deflection due to Front Impact

Pressure Analysis

Deflection due to Side Impact

Analysis of flow magnitude