ABSTRACT

Formula SAE is perhaps the highest profile, most intense

Mechanical Engineering design competition in the world. Roughly
100 schools converge to Pontiac, Michigan every May to participate.
Due to its complexity and real-world nature, Formula SAE is extremely
valuable on a graduates resume.
To participate in Formula SAE, students must design and build
an open-wheeled, formula style car that would be sold to the nonprofessional weekend autocross racer. Following are the basic rules
that govern the design of a Formula SAE car:
4-cycle piston-type engine, 600cc or less
20 mm engine intake restrictor
At least a 60 wheelbase
Front and rear roll hoops
Functional 4-wheel suspension with at least 2 total travel
4-wheel brakes
At the competition, the team competes in both driving and static
judging events. First off, the design, bill of materials, cost report,
crashworthiness, and several other aspects of the car are judged.
After meeting a few minimum safety requirements, the car proceeds
to the driving events. The team runs the car in a very tight autocross,
a 400-foot drag race, a skidpad, and a 22 km endurance race.
The team focused on using good engineering practices to design
and manufacture a winning car. The team performed experimental
tests and used theoretical calculations to better understand the
challenges faced when designing a racecar. The team then used many
tools from software packages such as AutoCAD, Pro/Engineer, Algor,
SusProg3D, TKSolver, and Excel, to strain gages for testing, to pencil
and paper for hand calculations, to build and test methods, to produce
the best engineering solution for these challenges.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Table of Contents...........................................................................................................1
2. Introduction....................................................................................................................3
3. Design Approach...........................................................................................................5
3.1.

Design of Chassis.......................................................................................................5

3.2.

Design of Suspension Geometry...............................................................................7

3.3.

Design of Suspension Components...........................................................................8

3.4.

Design of Drivetrain................................................................................................10

4. Prototyping Process.....................................................................................................14
4.1.

Chassis Prototyping.................................................................................................14

4.2.

Suspension Prototyping...........................................................................................14

4.3.

Drivetrain Prototyping............................................................................................14

5. Testing..........................................................................................................................15
6. Results and Discussion................................................................................................16
7. Conclusion...................................................................................................................17
8. References....................................................................................................................18
9. Appendix......................................................................................................................19
10. Contribution.................................................................................................................20

INTRODUCTION
We took on the task to design a small formula-style open wheeled racing car that is
designed with the weekend autocross racer in mind. The car was designed for
maintainability, reparability, manufactureablity, low cost, and performance in breaking,
handling, and acceleration. This project was carried out to produce a race car that handles
better, and keeps more tire patch on the ground during intense racing sessions. To
accomplish this we needed to design an optimum suspension layout, rear end setup, and
frame to hold it all in its optimum positions.
Within this report, one will find the evidence that we have
accomplished the task of optimizing the suspension, rear end, and the
frame. The report will also show what are optimized design looks like,
and how we arrived at it. I hope that this report will show some of the
grueling hours we spent researching, experimenting,
guessing/checking, cranking numbers, writing programs, and checks
for all kinds of fits. This report also is a great reference for any team
that might want to ever design a race car component because it lays
out what the critical design steps are.
This project was conceived because SAE has an annual Formula
SAE competition every year, and we decided that we wanted to design
a well functioning race car to compete in the competition with.
Sacramento State has only built one of these cars before to compete
with, and that was in 1996. The competition has been around since
1981, so we decided that it was time for Sacramento State to compete
again since we took tenth the first time we went there. Since we
already had the 1996 teams car we began a large reengineering
project on the car already built. In doing this we found many points on
the car that we could improve upon after repeated testing.
Our team has had some previous work experience in the field of
racing. John works for CTS a company that produces many of the
same type of components that we are using on our car, so he did a lot
of foot work figuring out how the car was all going to be put together.
Jason and Jesus have both had differ types of experiences working
with different types of cars. Terry and Greg did some preliminary
design work for the uprights for the car in a Concurrent engineering
class, but that design was completely scraped, and only the
experience gained was used.
The scope of our project is to produce a fully functioning open
wheeled racing car to compete in Detroit in May 2000. This semester
was spent in the design of the formula cars suspension, drive train,
braking system, and the frame/mounting schemes. Many of the other
components our being done by other groups. Such as the intake and
exhaust were designed by a MET 190 senior project. The engine is
being done by another group of people that have spent their semester
3

setting up an engine dynamometer, and ordering engine parts. Some

of the other parts such as the pedal box, fuel tank, body, seat, control
levers, and tires are being taken care of by other SAE club members.
Much of the machining on the project has already begun because we
must have a fully functioning car by May 2000.
The principal methods used in this project were concurrent
engineering. This used because; no one part of the car could be
produced separate from the rest. All the different groups had to work
together at points to make the project all fit together. For example,
you could not design a suspension that had a lower A-arm going
through the drivers leg, and only the frame designer would know
where the legs would be. Another example of concurrent engineering
was that the rear end placement was constrained by the engine, and
the suspension was constrained by the rear end placement because
the suspension could not go where the rear end mounts had to go.
This type of fit problems came up all throughout our design of the car.
Another principle that we used was to design the car from the
wheels in. That means that the first thing to be designed was the
braking system, second the hat, next the upright, next the A-arms, the
drive shafts, rear end, frame, and last all the internal comments. Of
course, all of this was also done concurrently, but the designs were
finalized in somewhat that order.
There were many limiting factors in this project because SAE has
an eighty-page rulebook that the car has to meet. A few of the major
constraints on the car's design were:
Cost of production car, and prototype car is to be below
$300000

The wheel base must be at least 60 in

The cars ground clearance must be enough so that no
part of the car will ever touch the ground.
The suspension must have a least two inches of
movement.
Must have jacking point at the rear that is 11.8 in made
of 1.0 in tubing, and is exposed on the lower 180
degrees of the car.
Roll hoops must keep the drivers head and hands from
touching the ground in case of a rollover.
The main roll hoops must be made of 1.0 in OD and
wall thickness of .095 mild steel.
A bulkhead must be present with a height of 11.8 in
again made of mild steel.
The fuel tank must be two gallons.
This report will be broken up into five sections suspension,
frame, drive train, drive shafts, and brakes. Each of the sections
4

will almost be a report of their own because of the complexity of

each of the parts.

DESIGN APPROACH

Design of Chassis
The chassis is based off a space frame construction. This process will
ease the manufacturing of the chassis. The process is to build the
sides of the car first mirroring the left side onto the right side. Then
add in cross members; roll hoops, brackets, and bracing. Specific jigs
and fixtures will hold the members while the welding process is
applied to the frame. This insures that the frame will withstand
deflection while heat is applied to tubing joints.
The design of the chassis was done in two stages. The first or
preliminary design used AutoCAD and Algor to determine the location
of all components and boundaries designated by the 2000 Formula
SAE Competition Rules. The second or detailed design used Pro
Engineer to detail all information from the preliminary design
packaging all components in their specific location. The use of Pro
Engineer to finalize the design of the frame will make the
manufacturing process of the chassis simplified. The program gives
all dimensions to all parts, including bend angles, notch angles and
joint fitting parameters.
Suspension & Steering Geometry Location
As stated in the first section, the upright design and tires limit the
suspension location. Front and rear points and steering geometry
have been calculated. The steering rack location is mounted in the
front of the uprights. The frame was based off the idealized
suspension locations. That allows loads from the suspension
components to come into the frame at joints because when the loads
come into joints the loads get broken into tension and compression
instead of into bending moments in the rails of the frame. If you get
bending moments on a frame rail (made out of steel tube) the rail
bends quite easily, but the steel tubes are very strong in tension, and
compression. The major problem with bending in the frame is that it
allows the suspension points to slightly move; which is a huge
problem, since the suspension points are very exact locations.
Cockpit Layout

Foot room in the cockpit. The chassis will incorporate the same
steering angle and general length of the cockpit area. The foot box
area will be larger. With all these considerations in mind, the first
drawings were generated in AutoCAD as wire frame drawings (see
Appendix) so that we can import these files in Algor for FEA analysis.
The development of the overall structure of the car was done in the
preliminary stage to draw the final design in Pro/Engineer. The
analysis of the car will give us the areas where stiffness is needed.
Therefore, after the preliminary design, the material with tubing
diameters and thickness were selected for each section of the car.
Here is the material selection based on these parameters:
Material: 1020 welded and Drawn over Mandrel Steel Tubing (Ref.
12)
Size & Thickness: 1, OD (.095-. 058)
Mechanical Properties: Yield-70ksi, Tensile-80ksi, Elogation-15, and
Rockwell Hardness-RB80. This material has almost same
characteristics of 4130 normalized chromoly (standard in the racing
industry) and the same stiffness, but is half the cost, which is an
important issue in production. In addition, the use of various tube
sizes will make a stiffer and lighter car.
1010 Rectangular Steel
Size & Thickness: 3/4 X 1 in. (.065)
Mechanical Properties: Yield-55ksi, Tensile-40ksi, Elogation-20, and
Rockwell Hardness-RB60. Material will be used in some cross
members where either in tension or compression, as there is an
advantage in mounting various parts to flat areas versus round tubing.
Frame Stiffness
One of the major components of racecar (or any car) design is the
frame stiffness. The stiffer the frame you can get the better the
performance from the car you can achieve because it allows you to
better dial in the suspension, drive train, and steering system. The
analysis that was used to maximize our frame stiffness was done using
Algors FEA. The goal was to have a frame with torsion stiffness at
least ten times that of the wheel rates. This would minimize the effect
of the frame twisting when adjusting and test the suspension. The
FEA models show the stiffness to be about 1000 ft*lbs/degree.
Part of getting the frame as stiff as possible involves finding the actual
loads applied to the frame from all the suspension, steering, and drive
train components. To get all of these loads applied to the frame our
7

group, and Dr. Holls ME 180 class applied thirteen strain gages to
the right side of the car (looking at it from the front.) Twelve of the
strain gages just read tension and compression in the a-arms, and
steering arms. The other gage was a rosette applied to a high stress
point that kept breaking on the old car. With the strain gages applied,
and all of the equipment dialed in, we drove the car in predictable
ways to get some max loads on the members. These max loads will be
applied to the car in an FEA program to see what changes can be
made to our new frame to make it stiffer. Also, these max loads will be
used in the suspension, and drive train designs in forms of tube
diameters, strength needed, deflections in various parts, and to make
sure that the car will really hold together. Some iteration was done
inn Algor to maximize the frame stiffness. This iteration process
involved running a bare bones frame (one with just the minimum
requirements, no cross bracing) then adding two cross members (one
on each side of the car) and seeing how much stiffer the car got. After
that, the stiffness to weight ratio is found by taking the length of tube
that was used. To calculate the stiffness you multiply the load you put
on a tube by the length of the tube, and then divide it by the number
of degrees the frame rotated. When you do this you want to apply the
loads to the suspension points either front or back and then constrain
it at the other with all degrees of freedom constrained. Algor can take
these initial conditions, and give the amount of stress in different
locations. It can also give the deflection amounts in the frame.

Design of Suspension Geometry

The suspension design has been broken into two sections,
geometry and components. The design of the geometry consists of
the interrelations of the parts that make up the cars suspension. Any
part of the suspension thats geometric shape or placement on the car
changes the cars handling characteristics, such as the a-arms, tow
controls, dampers, anti-roll bars, etc. are determined by the
suspension geometry. Most components basic shapes and sizes are
determined by the geometry.
The designs of the individual components that make up the
suspension are discussed separately. Included in this discussion are
the final design features, the analysis used to accomplish these
features, alternative designs, and the manufacturing processes used
for the components. Three design criteria had to be met, first a
minimum of two inches total travel. The rules require the suspension
to travel at least one inch in both droop and rebound. Secondly,
allowing as much on track adjustability as possible. Suspension

design is not an exact science; the car must be driven and adjusted to
achieve the fastest lap times.
The last criterion is excellent performance; the reason a racecar
has a suspension at all to keep the tires in contact with the ground.
This criterion has many parameters that affect it, and is the biggest
challenge of the suspension design. Most of this discussion will be
addressing this issue.
The first step in the design of the 2000 FSAE suspension was to
come up with a basic layout of the suspension. This includes choosing
to go with an independent double a-arm suspension in both the front
and the rear, using inboard mounted shocks with push-rods. This type
was chosen because of the flexibility it allows. It makes it relatively
easy to change wheel rates, ride heights, roll rates, etc. It also makes
for a stiff structure; allow the engineers more control of the
suspension. Other starting parameters included: Goodyear tires, 13
wheels, a 50 track width, a 72 wheelbase, upright mounding points,
and estimated frame mounting locations. These parameters where
based on the researching of past and current cars, and knowing that
they will most likely changed as the design became more defined.
Nearly all calculations are based on the geometry, so it is essential to
have a starting point.
SusProg3D Suspension Software
After deciding on a starting layout, the values were entered into
SusProg3D. SusProg3D is a suspension design program that does
most of the geometry calculation including kingpin inclination,
camber change in bump and roll, caster, roll center locations and
movements, bump steer, Ackerman, spring rates, dynamic wheel
rates, anti-dive, anti-squat, motion ratios, shock location, axial plunge,
and basic packaging. Robert Small, the author of SusProg3D, donated
two licenses to FSAE CSUS.
The next step was to study the tire graphs from Goodyear, and
determine what kind of camber curves to aim for and iterate the
design in SusProg3D to accomplish these curves. The tires looked to
perform best when operating at 0 to -2 of camber. Other
parameters looked at during this stage of the design were: a front roll
center height of 0.5 2, a rear roll center height 2 higher than the
front, and lack of bump steer by correctly positioning the rack with
respect to the steering pivot on the upright; which is minimized by
SusProg3D.
Dynamic Suspension Analysis
9

After a rough design was created with SusProg3D, a dynamic analysis

of the suspension was needed to better determine parameters such
as:
Weight transfer
Required wheel rates
Roll stiffness provided by the springs
Additional roll stiffness required by anti-roll bars
Natural frequencies
Sprung and unsprung critical damping
An Excel spreadsheet was created for this purpose allowing easy
what if scenarios, and helped determine the effects that different
parameters had on the suspension. These parameters were then put
back into SusProg3D to refine the geometry. The focus now was to
get the desired wheel rates and minimize roll center movement,
without sacrificing the camber curves.
Dampers
For the shocks, double adjustable mountain biking shocks by Fox
were chosen for their low weight, low cost, and durability. Although
they are fully adjustable, these shocks are design for a very different
application (downhill mountain bike racing) and therefore there was
concern about their damping characteristics. To check this the shocks
were tested on a shock dynamometer at Ground Control. After
studying the dynamometer plots, it was determined that the shocks
would not give the desired damping characteristics with the existing
suspension geometry. To avoid re-valving the shocks, adjustments
were made to the suspension geometry allowing the desired
suspension damping characteristics to be achieved with the shocks
existing damping range.
The last step in the designing of the suspension was the finial
packaging. Meeting with the frame and drivetrain teams to be sure
everything will fit together.

Design of Suspension Components

When designing the components that make up the suspension
these four parameters needed to be considered:
Reliable
Lightweight
Able to manufacture at CSUS
Cost effective
10

Design of Upright
The design of the upright involves the consideration of many
aspects of the cars suspension. It defines the outer half of the
mounting locations of the suspension including both upper and lower
a-arms and the toe control. The upright defines kingpin inclination,
and at least partly controls Ackerman angle, the scrub radius, and
wheel-mounting offset. The front brake assembly, including rotor, hat,
and caliper must also be considered during the design of the upright.
In addition, all the loads into the car are transferred though the
upright so, it must be strong but since it is unsprung weight, it is also
beneficial to have it lightweight.
For these reasons, the design of the upright started with the design
of other parts of the suspension. Once a general idea of the
parameters where established, the upright could be designed. After
many design iterations, this is what was decided on.
Design Features

Light weight 356-T6 Al

Sand casting low manufacturing cost
Same part goes on all four wheels
Brake calipers mount directly to it
Desired kingpin inclination, 7
Double shear at lower ball joint mount
Large distance between bearings, reducing required bearing
size

Analysis
The analysis of the upright involved calculating loads at both the
suspension mounting points as well as at the bearing mounting points,
to select the appropriate bearings. A Statics analysis was used in
determining these loads. Once the loads were determined,
parameters such as the distance between the bearings, the distance
from wheel mount to bearings, the distance between suspension
mounts, etc., could be varied and the results noted, choosing the best
compromise in the design.
11

Next, solid models were created using Pro/Engineer and FEA

performed using Algor. Bearing life calculations were also performed
in the bearing selection.
Design of Hubs
The design of the hubs was considerably simpler than the upright.
The biggest challenge was to use Aluminum instead of steel. The
most common shaft material is 4340 steel mostly because of its good
fatigue properties. Aluminum on the other hand, has poor fatigue
properties. The problem with steel in this application is two fold; first,
it is heavy, nearly three times as dense as 6061-T6 Al. The second
down side is it is too hard to machine after it is heat-treated, it would
require the surface grinding, which cannot be done in the student
shop at CSUS. Because of these to drawbacks 6061-T6 Aluminum was
used for the material.
Analysis
Fatigue was the biggest concern in the design of the hubs. Fatigue
life analysis was performed and it was determined that the shaft could
not be notched and the use of a spacer would (see exploded assembly
model) be the only way to get the desired life from 6061-T6 Al.
Once determined that 6061-T6 Al could hold up in fatigue, a FEA
was performed to be sure the deflections were minimized. The FEA
results of two possible designs are shown below. 7075-T6 Al was
initially the material of choice but, it is more than twice the cost of
6061-T6, so the design was altered slightly for the use of 6061-T6.
Detailed Design
Using the AutoCAD drawings as a basis, the finalized design of the
chassis was done in Pro Engineer. The design drawings were an exact
simulation of the building process of the frame. After all tubes and
hoops were made, subassembly drawings were created. These
subassembly drawings include Bottom Rail Jig Location, Side Rail
Assembly, Rear End Assembly, Main Roll Hoop Assembly, and Front
Roll Hoop Assembly. The specific assemblies all have designated
parts that have specific notch, joint, and bend locations. The
subassemblies were then constructed to make the entire chassis. The
subassemblies created will have their own specific jigs and fixtures to
manufacture each assembly. If there is any changes to be made to a
12

section, Pro Engineer will not only change the subassembly, but will
change the entire frame to whatever specific application.

Design of Drivetrain
Differential
The main goal of any vehicle is to apply forces at point of
contact between the tire and the ground. The vehicle engine
generates the forces needed to move the car forward and the brakes
generate the forces needed to stop. In order for these forces to do
work, the vehicle must have traction.
The 96 car had a solid axle, which is great for accelerating in a
straight line but can cause a loss of traction in a corner. The loss of
traction during cornering is because the inner and outer wheels follow
a different path. Which means that the inner wheels follow a shorter
path than the outer wheels and therefore turn slower. With a solid
axle, the wheels must always turn at the same speed. This means that
one wheel must slightly slip during cornering.
A differential is a mechanical device that allows the wheels to
turn at different speeds. This keeps the tires from slipping during
cornering.

Limited Slip Torsen Differential

For the 2000 cat, a Torsen differential was chosen. The word
Torsen is short for Torque sensing. The Torsen uses a planetary gear
arrangement to transmit power from the engine to the drive wheels.
When the vehicle is traveling in a straight line, the planet gears do not
rotate. This sends all of the power to the wheels, just as a solid axle
would. During cornering, the wheels ate allowed to turn at different
speeds giving better traction.
The Torsen also can help when one of the wheels does loose
traction. The Torsen is a limited slip differential. If one wheel slips,
the planets start to rotate. This generates friction in the side that
slips. Since the power can follow two paths, it goes to the side with
less friction. The Torsen is capable of sending 70% of the available
power to one wheel.
Load Analysis
This unit was designed to use a collar to drive this section of the
housing. This was not the ideal situation for us due to the fact that we
13

use a sprocket to drive our car. Our plan was to cut this collar off and
attach our sprocket directly to the end of the housing. In order for
this to be done a full stress analysis was needed.
The first task was to determine the loads that are placed on the
unit. The main type of force generated at the sprocket is torque. The
torque had to be estimated using factory values for horsepower and
torque. New factory specks indicated that the engine had about 95
peak horsepower at 10,000 rpm at the crankshaft. The torque at this
speed was found to be about 45 ft-lb. The rules that govern out event
restrict our engine intake to 20mm. The factory engine has four 38nim
carburetors. The restriction on the amount of air reduces the amount
of horsepower that can be generated. We felt that the engine should
produce about 70 horsepower at the tear wheel with the restrictor.
The restrictor also lowers the rpm at, which the e ' e produces the
peak horsepower. The peak was estimated to occur at about 9000
rpm. Now all we needed to do was to determine the gear reduction in
first gear to get the maximum amount of power available at the rear
wheels.
To determine the gear reduction in first gear, we obtained the
internal gear ratios for the engine. These gear ratios combined with
the final drive ratio gave an overall gear reduction in 1st gear of
24.596. To calculate the revolutions that the rear axle is turning at an
engine speed of 9000 rpm, we multiplied the inverse of the gear
reduction by 9000. This estimated that the rear axle is turning at 365
rpm when the engine is at peak horsepower. To estimate the torque
at the rear axle in first gear at peak horsepower the following formula
was used:
Torque (rear axle) = (horsepower x 5252)/ rpin of rear axle
The car was estimated to have 1007 ft-lb at the teat wheel based
on an axle speed of 365rpm and 70 hp.

FEA Analysis
The next step was to determine how much could safely be cut
off. An arbitrary point was chosen to start. Ale cut off point was
chosen to be the maximum possible amount. This was not expected to
be possible. We did an FFA using PRO/ENGINNER to model the part
and ALGOR to apply the loads on the modified housing and found that
the stress levels in the unit were very low. The part was modeled as a
14

static item, which is much more severe of a condition than the unit
experiences 'in normal operating conditions. The low stress levels
allowed us to cut the housing at any point needed.
Modification of Endplates
The next thing to do was to find out if the end plates could
withstand the high amount of torque supplied by the engine. The
planned arrangement requited the TORSEN to be sandwiched
between two endplates that would transmit all applied forces
generated by the engine and brakes as well as support the unit. Three
main bolts went through the original set up. Out plan was to use these
bolts to hold the TORSEN and the two endplates together. With out
modification, the 3 main bolts must carry all of the power supplied by
the engine. The bolts are subject to shear loads on a single plain. The
three bolts needed to transmit loads as high as the calculated torque
without searing off. The 1007 ft-lb was converted to 12060 in-lb. Then
the force on the bolts were calculated by dividing this torque by the
radius of the bolt pattern:
Force on Bolts = 12060 IN-LB/ 1.480 IN = 8148.6 LBF
Therefore the force on each bolt was found to be 8148.6/3 =
2716.21bf/bolt. The area of one bolt is .0881 sq. in. 'Me shear stress is
then:
Shear Stress (one bolt) = Force / Area of Shear = 2716.21bf / .
0881 sq. in = 30,83 1 psi.
We plan to purchase grade 8 bolts, which have a rating of
130,000psi. At the yield point. Based on MHOR'S circle, the bolts
should be rated at 60,000psi. Against shear at the yield point. The
safety factor N, against the bolts shearing is therefore:
N = Shear Yield Strength / Force of Shear = 60,000 / 30,831 2.1
The analysis indicates that the bolts can safely handle the loads.
The next area of concern is to check the bearing stress that the
endplates will have to withstand. The original endplate had a wall
thickness
The next area of concern is to check the beating stress that the
endplates will have to withstand. The original endplate had a wall
thickness of .51 11 in. To make the machining simpler, a wall
thickness of .500 was chosen. Based on the thickness of the plate and
the diameter of the bolt, the beating stress is:
Bearing Stress - Force on one bolt /Area of one bolt=2716/(.500
x.3937)=13,479psi.
The next step was to pick out a material that can withstand the
bearing stress generated. After consulting tables on stress levels of
various materials. A 6061 heat treated aluminum was chosen. The
15

material has a tensile yield strength of 40,000psi. This gives a shear

yield strength of 20,000psi. The safety factor is therefore:
N = Shear Yield Strength / Beating Stress = 20,000 / 13,479 =
1.48
This is acceptable for the type of car we are building. The
material must be light which aluminum fits this specification.
Drive Shafts
The first decision that had to be made was what type of drive
shaft will be used out of the three types that have been considered.
Choosing between using a straight drive axle, constant velocity joint
(CV) assemblies and universal joint assemblies was very difficult. The
straight drive axle was eliminated when we decided to use a
differential to eliminate slip in the rear. The basis of a lot of designs
for this current racecar was to eliminate unneeded weight from the
previous 1996 racecar and to design some components rather than
purchasing them.
The CV joints and the universal joints allowed the drive shaft
assemblies to vary in axle plunge when the rear wheels are moving up
and down. The CV joints where the first choice. On the 1996 racecar,
the rear drive contains CV joint assemblies that range about 10
pounds in weight. A lot of the weight of the CV joint assembly is
because the weights of the CV joints are approximately two and a half
pounds each. 'Me shaft that the CV assembly uses is a solid shaft that
weighs five pounds. Looking at the weight of the unit, the weight
cannot be reduced without 'increasing the cost of the assembly.
Creating a CV joint to manufacture was not a possible concept. The
cost and the difficulty of the CV joint without having to manufacture
them would cost us a great deal of time and funding. Creating a CV
joint would have a lot of machining and purchasing of components
such as ball bearings. Therefore, purchasing CV joints would be more
productive.
The next step was to look at universal joints. The universal
beating would have to be purchase from Sacramento Beating. The
1210 series manufactured by Dana best fitted the specification that
was needed for the type of universal assembly that will be used on the
racecar. The yokes of the universal assembly could either be purchase
or manufactured. Manufacturing the yokes would be a lot simpler
than manufacturing the CV joints. Another advantage of having the
universal joint assembly is that either a solid shaft or a thin wall shaft
can be used, depending on the type of yoke that is being used. A thin
wall shaft will lighten the weight of the assembly and it allows more
power to be used than if we were to use the same type of material in a
solid shaft.
16

In the future FEA analysis using Algor will be done to prove the
validity of a thin wall shaft over a solid shaft, supporting the
calculations in the appendix.
The preliminary design for the drive shaft assembly is in the
following page. The preliminary design of the drive shaft utilizes the
universals. It has the least weight and it allows more torque. Another
reason why the universal assembly was chosen was due to that the
yokes could be manufactured, which can reduce the cost of the total
racecar.

17

PROTOTYPING PROCESS
Chassis Prototyping
The material selection of 1020 and 1010 steel tubing was purposely
chosen so that the club members of the SAE could weld the chassis by
the GMAW process. In MIG welding, a wire is fed continuously
through a gun to a contact surface that imparts the current to the
wire. The process is the easiest for inexperienced welders. The
saturation of heat and welding joint strength will be maximized with
this particular process. Also, currently one design member of the
chassis section and another member of SAE have already built the jig.
The jig will be 8 X 4 ft. 1/2in.steel plate built on legs of 2
1/4in.1/8in.thick square tubing. Various size aluminum clamps
especially made for the jig will be used to hold the tubing in specific
areas to be welded. This jig will also be used for the basis of welding
on various tabs, specific steering location, motor location, and pick-up
points of the chassis.

Suspension Prototyping
Nearly all of the suspension components were made by the FSAE
team, with the exception of the wheels, shocks and hardware.
As an example of the manufacturing process the uprights will be
looked at. They were sand cast, runner sawed off in a band saw, and
then sent to Edwards Heat-treat and heat-treated. A fixture was then
made to center the upright on the mill and the bearing seats milled.
Next, the brake caliper and steering arm mounting surfaces were
milled. The rod end mounting holes were then drilled and tapped.
Finally, using a reverse spot facing tool, the nut seats for the lower
rod end was cut.
Other parts made include the front and rear hubs, a-arms, tie-rods,
CNC bellcranks, camber adjusters, and lug nuts.

Drivetrain Prototyping

18

TESTING

19

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

20

CONCLUSION
The current Formula SAE team at CSUS has set out to design and
fabricate an entirely new Formula SAE car to compete in the annual
Formula SAE competition. This project is much larger than originally
anticipated and it is no wonder most teams take two years to process
a car from start to finish. The team is currently one year into the
process and has an excellent start.
Engineering and analysis has been heavily stressed in the
designing of the 2001 CSUS Formula SAE car. Using the latest
computer software such as AutoCAD, Pro/Engineer and Algor to
create computer models to help visualize and analyze most every part
of the 2001 car. The frame for example, was optimized for stiffness
using Algors Finite Element Analysis (FEA) software. Many of the
suspension and drive parts were optimized for light weight and
strength using both hand calculations and FEA, including uprights,
brake mounting hats, a-arms, hubs, differential housing, and yokes.
Using these techniques, has allow the team to fabricate parts that are
up to 50% lighter than the same parts on the 1996 car, without
sacrificing strength or reliability.
The suspension geometry was heavily analyzed using
SusProg3D, a software program written specifically for this purpose
and donated to the team by the author, Robert Small. Also by using a
custom spreadsheet written by the team the dynamic aspects of the
suspension, such as the weight transfer due to both braking and
cornering, dynamic wheel rates, roll stiffness provided by springs and
anti-roll bars, natural frequencies, and the sprung an unsprung
critical damping, was analyzed.
The engine development is also stressing the use of good
engineering techniques. Using a dynamometer that was built by the
team, several tests are being run using different combinations of
intake and exhaust manifolds designed and built by the team.
To date the CSUS Formula SAE team has a semi-rolling chassis
with about 70% of a complete car. The next year will be dedicated to
the finishing, testing and refining of this design. CSUS has an
excellent Formula SAE team and will be a serious contender in the
2001 FSAE competition.

21

REFERENCES

22

APPENDIX

23

CONTRIBUTION
Terry Alexander

Design of
o Uprights
o Hubs
o Brake hats
o Suspension geometry
o Bellcranks
o Drivetrain yokes
Prototype
o Uprights
o Hubs
o Suspension mounts
o Restrictor flanges

24