BSC ÓskarKúld 2016

Uprights, wheel hubs and brake system for a
new Formula Student race car

skar Kld Ptursson
Final Report in Mechanical Engineering B.Sc.

2016
Name: skar Kld Ptursson

Kennitala: 1104893239
Supervisor: Indrii Svar Rkharsson
School of Science and Engineering

Tkni- og verkfrideild
ii
Tkni- og verkfrideild
Heiti verkefnis:
Upprttur, hjlnf og bremsukerfi njan Formula
Student bl HR
Nmsbraut: Tegund verkefnis:

Vla- og orkutknifri B.Sc. Lokaverkefni tknifri B.Sc.
nn: Nmskei: grip:

Haust 2016 VT LOK jl 2017 stefnir li Hsklans Reykjavk,
1012 Sleipnir a ttku sinni annarri Formula
Student keppni Silverstone Englandi.
Formula Student er ein strsta
Hfundur: hnnunarkeppni milli nemenda hsklastigi
skar Kld Ptursson ar sem eir hanna og framleia einssta
kappakstursbl anda Formlu 1. September
2015 var Team Sleipnir stofna af
galvaskum nemendum sem smuu fyrta bl
Sleipnis og tku tt Formula Student.
Umsjnarkennari: essu lokaverkefni er megin herlsa lg
Indrii Svar Rkharsson hnnun hluti milli spyrna, .e upprttur
hjlnf og bremsukerfi fyrir nja
kappakstursblinn sem er hnnun. hlutirnir
Leibeinandi: urfa a mta eim krfum og lagi sem
Baldur Gunnarsson er lagt Formula Student keppni sem og
uppfylla reglur SAE. Hnnunin sem leidd er
t essu verkefni leiir af sr lttari hluti
Fyrirtki/stofnun: fjrunarkerfi sem lgmarka fjarandi massa
Hsklinn Reykjavk. blins samt v a vera stillanlegri en forveri
Menntavegi 1 ess. essi ritger er ritu ann htt a hgt
101 Reykjavk er a nota hana til hlisjnar vi
framtarverkefni Formula Student HR.
Dagsetning: Lykilor slensk: Lykilor ensk:

12. desember Upprttar, Fjrun, Upright, Suspension,
2016 Hjlnaf Wheel hub,
Dreifing:
opin loku til:
Hsklinn Reykjavk Menntavegi 1, 101 Reykjavk smi: 599 6200

www.ru.is
iv
Abstract
In July 2017 Team Sleipnir will attend at its second Formula Student competition at Silverstone
in England. The Formula Student competition is one of the largest engineering competition in
the world were students at university design and build a open wheel formula style race cars.
Team Sleipnir was founded in September 2015 by engineering students Reykjavik University,
students with high ambitions that set the road to compete in Formula Student with fully devel-
oped race car. In this thesis the aim of the work is to design and evaluate components for a
new Formula Student race car between the a-arms of the suspension, that is the uprights, wheel
hubs and brake system at the wheel. The design shall meet the requirements and demands that
it faces during Formula Student competition, comply with the rules set by the organizers and
meet the Team Sleipnir requirements. The design will be implemented in the suspension and
chassis that is being designed and built by other students participating on the vehicle. The re-
sults from this thesis work is a lighter partial suspension system that minimizes unsprung mass
of the vehicle yet is more adjustable than previous design and a better evaluated brake system
at the wheel. The way this thesis is written is that it can be used as a guideline and reference for
future Formula Student projects at RU.
vi
Acknowledgements
This B.Sc. thesis came about through Formula Student Team Sleipnir, project at Department of
Science and Engineering at Reykjavik University in Reykjavik, Iceland. The work of this thesis
has been carried out from September 2016 to December 2016. Team Sleipnir was designing a
new suspension system and was in need of the components that connected the linkage between
the vehicle and tires for their upcoming race car.
I would like to use this opportunity and express my gratitude to the following persons;
Baldur Gunnarsson for his sharing of knowledge and guiding me through this project;, Ingi
Nels Karlsson for his unlimited help, tips and tricks and wisdom; my supervisor, Indrii Svar
Rkharsson, for his unlimited resource of knowledge of everything; Jn Bjarni Bjarnason for
his help with Latex, advices and keeping me on track with the project. Esther Fririksdttir and
Gumundur Bragason for proof reading. Last but not least I would like to give special thanks
to the students that participated in the first build of the team, there will and dedication to the
project. Without them there would not have been a racing team at Reykjavik University.
Reykjavik, December 2016
skar Kld Ptursson

viii
ix
Contents
Abstract v
Acknowledgements vii
Contents ix
List of Figures xi
List of Tables xiii
List of Abbreviations xv
List of Symbols xvii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Objective of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Constraints and other considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Rules and requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Thesis structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Brake System 5
2.1 Introduction to brake systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.1 Design of brake system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2.1.1 Brake caliper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2.1.2 Disc brake rotors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.1.3 Brake disc bracket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2.2 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.3 Brake system summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3 Wheel hub 25
3.1 Introduction to wheel hub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.1 Front wheel hub design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.2.2 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.2.3 Rear wheel hub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2.4 Central locking lug nut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.3 Wheel hub summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4 Uprights 39
x
4.1 Introduction to upright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.2 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.2.1 Ackerman steering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.2.2 Material selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.2.3 Front upright design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.2.4 Front upright analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.2.4.1 Ackerman analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.2.4.2 Upper ball joint bracket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.2.4.3 Front upright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.2.5 Rear upright design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.2.6 Rear upright analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.3 Uprights summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5 Results 65
5.1 Proposal for improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6 Discussion 69
6.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.2 Obstacles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.3 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Bibliography 71
A Parts Datasheets 73
A.1 Bearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
A.1.1 Bearing parameters calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
A.2 Wheel center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
A.3 Wheel Backspacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
A.4 Brake Caliper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
A.5 Aluminum 7075-T6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
A.6 Steel ASTM A 1011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
B Tables and calculations 89
C Drawings 91
xi
List of Figures
1.1 Team Sleipnirs last years car: Frankenstein. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.1 Static axle loads [5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.2 Schematic figure of a fixed caliper [5]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3 Schematic figure of floating caliper [5]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.4 Schematic sketch for constrains due to brake caliper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.5 3D CAD drawing of Wilwood GP200 caliper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.6 3D CAD figure of the floater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.7 Front brake system placed placed behind the wheel hub. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.8 3D CAD drawing of the brake disc and bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.9 3D CAD drawing of the brake disc bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.10 Shear stresses acting on the brake disc assembly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.11 Von-Mises stress acting on the assembly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.12 Deformation in the brake disc assembly. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.13 Exploded view of the front upright assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.1 Wheel center dimensioned from Keizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.2 Old Wheel hub fitted in the upright with the lug bolts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.3 Measurements for the wheel center backspace and more [13] . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.4 Side view with annotation of the wheel hub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.5 Maximum shear stresses acting on front wheel hub. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.6 Maximum deformation on front wheel hub. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.7 Von-Mises equivalent stress acting on front wheel hub. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.8 Maximum shear stresses acting on front wheel hub. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.9 Total deformation on front wheel hub. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.10 Von-Mises equivalent stress acting on front wheel hub. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.11 ISO metric view of rear hub to show the splines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.12 ISO metric view of the designed CL nut. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.13 A figure of R-clip [17]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.14 A figure of the CL nut assembled on the wheel hub to show the aligning slot and
hole for R-clip. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.15 Designed Front wheel hub with nut and lug pins assembled. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.1 Kingpin geometry, side view and front view [19] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.2 Top view of a vehicle showing what toe is. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.3 Ackerman steering, parallel steer and reverse Ackerman steer [4]. . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.4 Ackerman geometry, with steering rack behind the axle line [4]. . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.5 Front wheel assembly front view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.6 Upper a-arm fastener. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
xii
4.7 Designed Ackerman bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4.8 Side section of the upright with annotations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.9 Front view of the front upright with annotations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.10 Final front upright design with brackets and brake caliper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.11 Set up of the force and fixed position of the Ackerman bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.12 Shear stresses acting on the Ackerman bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.13 Von-Mises stress acting on the bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.14 Deformation in the Ackerman bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.15 Shear stresses acting on the Ackerman bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.16 Von-Mises stress acting on the bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.17 Deformation in the Ackerman bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.18 Maximum shear stresses acting on the front a-arm fastener. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.19 Total deformation of the front a-arm fastener. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.20 Von-Mises stress acting on the front a-arm fastener. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.21 Maximum shear stresses acting on the front a-arm fastener. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.22 Total deformation of the front a-arm fastener with body fixed. . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.23 Von-Mises stress acting on front a-arm fastener. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.24 Maximum shear stresses acting on Front Upright. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.25 Total deformation of the front Upright. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.26 Von-Mises stress acting on front upright. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.27 Rear linkage bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.28 Deformation of the rear upright. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.29 Shear stress acting on rear upright. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.30 Von-Mises stress acting on rear upright. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.31 Deformation of the rear linkage bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.32 Shear stress acting on the rear linkage bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.33 Von-Mises stress acting on the rear linkage bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.34 Worst case scenario deformation of the rear linkage bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.35 Worst case scenario Shear stress acting on the rear linkage bracket. . . . . . . . . . 62
4.36 Worst case scenario von-Mises stress acting on the rear linkage bracket. . . . . . . 63
4.37 Front and rear final assembly in perspective view . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.1 Exploded view of the front upright assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
A.1 Load-Application factors [12, p. 576] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

A.2 Typical Weibull Parameters for two manufactures [12, p.601] . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
xiii
List of Tables
2.1 Brake calipers comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.2 Results from brake assembly analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.1 Constants, factors and calculated parameters for bearing selection . . . . . . . . . 28

3.2 Forces acting on the wheel hub for analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3 FEM analysis results for the front wheel hub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.1 Specifics of 2016 uprights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4.2 Comparison of 2016 and 2017 uprights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.3 Front upright static values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.4 Forces acting on the Upright for analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.5 Results from FEM analysis on the Ackerman Bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.6 Results from FEM analysis of the front upper ball joint bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.7 Results from front upright analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.8 Rear upright static values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.9 Results from FEM analysis of the rear linkage bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.10 Comparison of weight between 2016 and 2017 uprights and its attachments. . . . . 64
5.1 Weight comparison of 2016 and 2017 parts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5.2 Overall weight reduction between 2016 and 2017 designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
B.1 Design Parameters set by the team and by associated parts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

B.2 Calculated values for the Wilwood GP200 brake caliper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
B.3 Properties of the brake disc material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
xiv
xv
List of Abbreviations
ATV All Terrain Vehicle

B.Sc. Bachelor of Science
CG Center of Gravity
CL Central Locking
CNC Computer Numerical Control
CV Constant Velocity
FEA Finite Element Analysis
FEM Finite Element Method
FRU Front Upright
FS Formula Student
I.D. Inner Diameter
IMechE Institution of Mechanical Engineers
KE Kinetic Energy
LBJ Lower Ball Joint
LSD Limited Slip Differential
MFDD Mean Fully Developed Deceleration
N1L Newtons First Law
N2L Newtons Second Law
N3L Newtons Third Law
NS Neutral Steer
O.D. Outer Diameter
PE Potential Energy
RRU Rear Upright
RU Reykjavik University
RWD Rear Wheel Drive
SAE Society of Automotive Engineers
UBJ Upper Ball Joint
WH Wheel Hub
xvi
xvii
List of Symbols
Symbol Description Value/Units

A Area mm2
a Acceleration m/s2
C Brake clamp load N
c Specific heat J/kg/K
D Outer diameter m
d Inner diameter m
E Energy J
F Force N
k Thermal conductivity W/mK
KE Kinetic Energy J
L Length m
l Length m
` Lifetime hours
M Mass kg
m Mass kg
n Number of items
P Power W
p Pressure Mpa
PE Potential Energy J
q Heat flux W/m2
R Radius m
r Radius m
S Slope %
s Distance m
T Temperature C
t Time s
V Volume m3
v Velocity m/s
X Realtive center of gravity
x rating life
Coefficient of friction
Static axle load distribution
Torque Nm
Density kg/m3
xviii
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
Formula Student is one of numerous competitions that are held for students at university level
yet it is one of the largest engineering competition for students world wide. Students are given
the opportunity to design and fabricate small single seat racing car and compete in a 3 day
event at various locations. The prototype is tested by competing in various events where teams
are evaluated on their design and production of their prototype. Formula Student roots go all
the way back to 1981 when the first event was held at Austin Texas, USA and has been held
since [1]. The competitions grew year by year and FS expanded to Europe in 1998 when an
International competition between US and UK was held at MIRA Proving Ground [2].
Last years car, shown in figure 1.1, was underestimated towards handling and the main
focus was to make it function and comply with the set of rules set by the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE) [3]. The purpose of this B.Sc. thesis project is to improve the suspension
of the car in development as well as develop a design process that future team members can
follow. The main aspect is to limit the unsprung mass and add adjustability for the suspension
using previous experience, research and analysis methods. The project involves all the parts
that connects the wheel to the control arms of the suspension including the brake system at the
wheels. After examining the components of the suspension system the structure of the chapters
follows the order of methods that are used during designing of a suspension system.
1.1 Objective of the project

The project is to design and fabricate part of the suspension system for Team Sleipmirs new
FS race car. This thesis is covers the parts that connect between the a-arm (double wishbone)
and the wheel. Those parts include the front and rear uprights, wheel hubs and brake system
at the wheels. Last years car was not built with maximum performance in mind but with low
cost and reliability. That meant some parts were built with higher factor of safety than needed
to prevent any critical structural failures. Since the one of key elements in race car design
is to keep unsprung mass as low as possible the aim of the design is to be lightweight yet
reliable and easily maintained while maintaining structural integrity. This will be achieved by
background research on the physics and applying Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and various
design methods.
1.2 Constraints and other considerations

This project will be used in the 2017 FS competition and the primary constraint is to design
and develop within the rules and regulations set by SAE and IMechE. Since this project is
2 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
Figure 1.1: Team Sleipnirs last years car: Frankenstein.
only a part of the whole vehicle, and a subsystem of the suspension, the final testing of the
constructed model cannot be performed within this thesis since the whole vehicle needs to be
completed. The performance of this project will be evaluated with a fully functional vehicle but
those testings will be conducted in spring 2017 when the vehicle is completed. Since the project
is part of Team Sleipnirs car, the aim is to design the system according to their requirements.
They are the following:
High reliability.
Fit inside 10" wheels.
Adjustability in camber and caster.
30% lower weight than previous design limit unsprung mass and reach the 230 kg weight
goal of the car.
Low center of gravity for improved performance
Must comply within SAE and IMechE rules. [3]
Fewer assembly parts than in previous design.
With these design constrains we need to take a closer look at the rules and regulations set
by the SAE that regard our subsystem.
1.3 Rules and requirements

In the rules set by IMechE and SAE each design of the race car is constrained within their
criteria. The following list summarizes the rules and regulations regarding this subsystem [3];
The vehicle must maintain all required specifications, e.g. ride height, suspension travel,
braking capacity (pad material/composition) throughout the competition.
1.4. THESIS STRUCTURE 3
The car must be equipped with a fully operational suspension system with shock ab-
sorbers, front and rear, with usable wheel travel of at least 50.8 mm (2 inches), 25.4 mm
(1 inch) jounce and 25.4 mm (1 inch) rebound, with driver seated.
All threaded fasteners utilized in the drivers cell structure, and the steering, braking,
drivers harness and suspension systems must meet or exceed SAE Grade 5, Metric Grade
8.8 and/or AN/MS specifications.
All spherical rod ends and spherical bearings on the steering or suspension must be in
double shear or captured by having a screw/bolt head or washer with an O.D. that is
larger than spherical bearing housing I.D.
The car must be equipped with a braking system that acts on all four wheels and is oper-
ated by a single control.
It must have two independent hydraulic circuits such that in the case of a leak or failure
at any point in the system, effective braking power is maintained on at least two wheels.
The brake system must be capable of locking all four wheels during the brake testing
event.
In side view no portion of the brake system that is mounted on the sprung part of the
car must project below the lower surface of the frame or the monocoque, whichever is
applicable.
With those rules and design constrains set by Team Sleipnir it is possible to start the design
process.
1.4 Thesis structure

This thesis is structured the following way:
Chapter 2: Analysis conducted on brake system theory, suitable brake calipers evaluated and
brake system designed.
Chapter 3: Central locking wheel hub designed and analyzed along with its important compo-
nents.
Chapter 4: Methods and theory explained about the front and rear uprights, design and analy-
sis constructed on the uprights and its compents compared with previous uprights.
Chapter 5: Results: The results of the thesis listed and discussed
Chapter 6: Discussion: The results and construction of this thesis discussed along with future
work.
4
5
Chapter 2
Brake System
2.1 Introduction to brake systems

A big part of any vehicle design in the modern world is how to stop the moving vehicle. The
brake system is one of the main component on a vehicle and proper operation is important to
safety and performance of competition cars [4]. Automotive brakes function from a force input
applied by the driver which gets multiplied by the actuation system and enables the energy of the
vehicles motion to be transferred to the brake drums or rotors where friction converts it into heat
energy and stops the vehicle. Good brakes give better handling into corners, that is the driver
can decelerate later thus having greater speed prior to cornering. When discussing automotive
brake system it can be divided into two interrelated systems; service brakes and parking brakes.
Since the goal is to find a brake system solution for an FS race car or a competitive race car we
only focus on the service brakes. The brake system itself can be broken down into four basic
areas [4]:
1. Suitable mechanical components - disk, caliper, pads etc.
2. Hydraulic system
3. Adequate cooling
4. Brake distribution (adjustable)
This project will mainly cover the mechanical components of a hydraulic system since the
position of the caliper and disk are key parameters in the suspension design for positioning the
hard points of the a-arms.
2.2 Methods
In order to design and find the suitable components in the brake system the physics that apply
to modern brake system needs to be looked over. All brake systems work in accordance with
the physical laws or principles that describe the relationships between elements of our physical
world such as:
Energy
Friction
Hydraulics
6 CHAPTER 2. BRAKE SYSTEM
Mechanics
At first examination, N1L is well in order. N1L states that an object will remain at rest or in
uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. In order to stop the
vehicle from any velocity, the foundation brakes provide that external force. The foundation
brakes are the complete brake assembly, the components of the mechanical parts in or around
the wheels. To stop a moving vehicle we have to generate torque which is used to apply the
force at the tire to road interface (the tire patch). With that being said, the first primary job of
the foundation brake is to generate torque. For the foundation brakes to convert kinetic energy
into heat they must be applied with great force. The force required to stop a vehicle is so great
that leverage and hydraulics are used to facilitate a person to apply it. Size and materials of
foundation brakes are also important because of the inevitable compliance to the natural law
for the conservation of energy. The components have to convert the kinetic energy into heat
energy and transfer this heat into the atmosphere. In conclusion the two fundamental functions
of Foundation brakes are [5]:
Generating torque
Converting and transferring energy
To design a brake system the following data available of the vehicle needs to be available:
1. Empty and loaded vehicle weight.
2. Static weight distribution lightly and fully laden.
3. Wheelbase.
4. Center of gravity height lightly and fully laden.
5. Intended vehicle function.
6. Tire and rim size.
7. Maximum speed.
8. Global braking standards.
These values are listed in table B.1 in appendix B Although in some cases certain data may
change during design and production phase such as maximum weight so the design of a braking
system must always be based on systems approach [5]. N2L states that the net force acting on an
object is equal to its mass times its acceleration and has the same direction as the acceleration.
In our case the acceleration is opposite the direction of travel and called deceleration. The
equation of Newtons second law is the following:
F = m a [N] (2.1)
Where F is the force, m is the mass and a is the acceleration or deceleration. The deceleration
of a vehicle is one of the first parameters that needs to be decided at beginning of designing
a brake system. After establishing the basic motion parameters it is possible to calculate the
stopping distance and other important factors of a moving vehicle [5]. The deceleration is
calculated with the following equation:
v v2 v1
a= = (2.2)
t t2 t1
Where
2.2. METHODS 7
t1 = time at start of deceleration [s]
t2 = time at end of deceleration [s]
v1 = velocity at start of deceleration [m/s]
v2 = velocity at end of deceleration [m/s]
It is possible to divide the braking into three intervals with relations to distance, velocity and
time [5]. They are written in general as:
1. Reaction
2. Deceleration rise time
3. Constant deceleration
The reaction is the period when the driver reacts to any upcoming conditions prior to braking.
The deceleration time is when the system pressure is rising for full force until constant decelera-
tion is reached and the vehicle decelerates to desired velocity. For simplifications in this project
the average deceleration will be used. The average deceleration is calculated by [5]:
amax
aav = tb (2.3)
19.7amax (ta + 2 )
1+ v
Where:
amax = Sustained maximum deceleration [g-units]
ta = Brake application time [s]
tb = Deceleration time [s]
v = Initial velocity [m/s]
For any brake system the static axle load distribution is very important. Axle load distribution
is the ratio between the static axle load and the total vehicle weight and is defined with the
following equation:
Mr
= (2.4)
M
Where
= Static axle load distribution
Mr = Static rear axle load [kg]
M = Vehicle weight [kg]
The axle distribution varies between laden and unladen vehicles and changes therefore with the
weight of individual driver as well as the weight of fuel and fluids. Figure 2.1 shows a schematic
sketch for the load distribution were forces are acting on a two axle vehicle during deceleration
on a straight level road.
Figure 2.1: Static axle loads [5]
When vehicle decelerates a change in axle loads happen. This load change bears no re-
lationship to which axles is braking, they only depend on the static laden conditions and the
deceleration. To calculate the dynamic axle load is necessary define the relative center of grav-
ity height. It is calculated by using the following formula [5]:
h
X= (2.5)
L
Where:
X = Relative center of gravity height
h = Vertical distance from CG to ground [m]
L = Wheelbase [m]
With equations 2.4 and 2.5 the dynamic axle load is:
((1 ) + X a)
Mf dyn = (2.6)
M
Where:
Mf dyn = Dynamic front axle load [kg]
M = Total vehicle mass [kg]
a = Deceleration [g-units]
The dynamic front axle can then be transferred to dynamic normal force by applying N2L, eq.
2.1.
In order to stop the vehicle the total braking force required can simply be calculated using
N2L transcribed as:
Ftotal = M a g (2.7)
where:
2.2. METHODS 9
Ftotal = Total braking force [N]

a = Deceleration [g units]
g = Acceleration due to gravity [m/s2 ]
This force is based upon the total mass of the vehicle and the deceleration. The braking force can
only be generated if the wheels dont lock. The friction of a sliding wheel is much lower than
on a rotating one therefore the maximum possible braking force on an axle prior to wheel lock
needs to be estimated. Assumptions of proper brake balance have to be made and the maximum
deceleration must be assumed to calculate the approximate wheel loads during braking. For
vehicle that will race on wet and dry surfaces, the calculation must be done with two sets of
values to find the range of adjustments required. The following equation calculates the load on
the front axle: [4]:
W1braked = W1 + W a/g h/l (2.8)
Where
W1braked = Weight on front axle during a stop of deceleration
W1 = Weight on front axle with no braking but with any aerodynamic effects at the speed
of interest
W = Gross weight of vehicle
a = Deceleration of the vehicle in "g" units
h = Height of the vehicle center of gravity above ground
l = Wheelbase, measured in the same units as h
The load on the rear axle is then calculated as:

W2braked = W2 W a/g h/
l (2.9)
Where W2braked is the weight on rear axle during a stop of deceleration. Equations 2.8 and
2.9 show us that at very low decelerations the weight on the wheels is nearly the same as the
weight distribution. On the other hand for a high g deceleration the second term becomes more
significant. In order to minimize the second term effect, a low CG and long wheelbase are
necessary [4]. Next we take a look at the tire data for braking coefficient, since that coefficient
is necessary to calculate the braking force. The coefficient of friction, for tires can be found
from tire manufacturer but there is no tire data available for the 10" Hoosier tires which will
presumably be used. Therefore the estimated coefficient is based on data for 13" Avon tires.
The estimate coefficient for dry weather slicks is; = 1.2 1.5 [6]. With the coefficient and
equations 2.8 and 2.9 we can apply N2L equations 2.1 to calculate the brake force possible
before wheel lock using the following equation:
FA = Wbraked ef f ective (2.10)
It is also possible to calculate the braking force by the brake factor which is defined as [5]:
Fd
BF = (2.11)
Fa
Where Fd is the total rotor drag to the application force Fa against one pad. For a standard disc
brake caliper with two pads the brake factor is the following [5]:
2Fd 2L Fa
BF = = = 2L (2.12)
Fa Fa
Where:
BF = Brake factor
Fd = Rotor drag
Fa = Application force
L = Pad coefficient of friction
By knowing the wheel lock force it will allow Team Sleipnir to conduct a brake lock test prior
to FS event which is one of the scrutineering tests that FS vehicle needs to pass prior to dynamic
competition [3]. "A torque or moment exists when two parallel and opposite forces of equal
magnitude, separated by a distance, act on a body. In the case of a disc brake, the two parallel
forces are the drag forces between pads and rotor, and the bearing force [5]." Therefore it is
possible to calculate the braking torque of each wheel as:
Fw R
TB = (2.13)
r
Where
TB = Braking torque [Nm]
Fw = Braking force for the wheel [N]
R = Static laden radius of the tire [m]
r = Speed ratio between the wheel and the brake
Thereby the braking force produced by the two brakes of one axle equals Fx = 2TB r/r or [5]:
Fx = 2 (pl po ) Awc c BF (r/R) (2.14)
Where:
B = Number of brakes
Awc = Wheel cylinder or caliper size area [mm2 ]
BF = Brake factor
po = Push-out pressure required to bring the brake pads in contact with drum or rotor
[N/mm2 ]
r = Effective rotor radius [mm]
R = Tire radius [mm]
c = Caliper cylinder efficiency

2.2. METHODS 11
Any brake disc system has its effective radius where the brake system has the most impact
effect. The effective radius, or the torque radius of the foundation brakes is at the center brake
pads area. To calculate the effective radius the following formula is used [5]:
D+d
re = (2.15)
4
Where
re = Effective radius [m]
D = Disc usable outside diameter [m]
d = Disc usable inside diameter [m]
Last but not least we calculate the clamping load which is the clamping load that the brake
caliper produces. At this point we assume that the clamping load acts on all friction surface
equally and utilize N3L which states that every force has an equal and opposite reaction. With
that in mind we can conclude that the reaction from a sliding caliper is the same as an opposed
piston caliper. The clamp load is calculated with the following formula [5]:
T
C= (2.16)
re f n
Where
C = Brake clamp load [N]
T = Brake torque [Nm]
re = Effective radius [m]
f = Coefficient of friction of disc material
n = Number of friction faces
In addition to mechanical advantage, hydraulic principles are used to increase the brake appli-
cation force. Hydraulic systems are very efficient at transmitting motion and force by using
liquids to transmit motion with the movement of the liquids volume. For all practical purposes,
a liquid cannot be compressed while gas, such as air, will compress and a hydraulic system
must be free from air to work properly. Brake hydraulic systems not only transmit motion they
also transmit force in the form of pressure. Pressure in a brake system is primarily determined
by 2 factors:
Force on the brake pedal multiplied by the mechanical advantage of the pedal ratio
Surface area of the master cylinder piston
The pressure of the hydraulic system is a function of the clamp load as well as the piston area
and is calculated by using the following formula:
C
p= (2.17)
A
Where
p = System pressure [MPa]
C = Brake clamp load [N]
A = Total piston area [mm2 ]
When braking in a straight-line the brake force will divide approximately evenly left and right,
that is the braking force will be half of the total force for its axle on each tire. The following
formula may be used to calculated the brake line pressure required at the wheel [4]:
Fx (Rl /r)
pl = (2.18)
Ac pad
Where
p = Brake line pressure [MPa]
Fx = Required longitudinal force from a wheel [N]
Rl = Loaded radius of the tire / brake caliper radius
Ac = Total caliper piston area (sum of all the pistons area) [mm2 ]
pad = Coefficient of friction of brake pad (typical range = 0.3 to 0.45)
Stopping distance is calculated as:

v2
s= (2.19)
2 g aave
Where:
s = Stopping distance [m]
v = Initial speed [m/s]
aave = Average deceleration for the whole stop [g-units]
g = Acceleration due to gravity [ms2 ]
Lets take a closer look at the energy in a braking system. Weight and speed of a vehicle con-
tribute to kinetic energy they do not affect it to the same degree speed has a much greater
effect. The relationship between weight, speed and kinetic energy has significant practical con-
sequences for brake system design. Weight transfer increases the load on the front wheels while
the load on the rear wheels is reduced.
When looking over the energy stored in the system it is well in order to look at the definition
of kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is the energy of a object in motion and that energy is deter-
mined by the object mass and speed. Mathematical definition of kinetic energy is given by the
following formula:
1
KE = M v 2 (2.20)
2
Where:
KE = Kinetic energy [J]

2.2. METHODS 13
v = Initial speed [m/s]

It is also in order to look at the first Law of Thermodynamics, also known as Conservation
of Energy, states that energy cannot be created or destroyed in an isolated system, it can only
be converted or transferred. To get the vehicle moving we convert some of the energy in the
fuel with the engine and drivetrain into kinetic energy. The brakes at the wheels use friction to
convert vehicle kinetic energy into heat energy. Friction is the resistance to movement between
two surfaces in contact with one another. The friction force between two objects or surfaces
is proportional to the coefficient of friction . Three factors affect the friction coefficient of
vehicle brakes [5]:
1. Surface finish
2. Friction material
3. Heat effects
Rotational energy or angular kinetic energy is the kinetic energy due to the rotation of an object
and is a part of its total kinetic energy. It varies between vehicles and which gear is selected at
the time, however taking 3% of the kinetic energy is a reasonable assumption for the rotational
energy [7]. Potential energy is the energy that a object has due to its position rather than its
motion. For a racing vehicle the potential energy is the energy lost or gained due to an incline
or a hill. Potential energy is given with the following formula:
PE = M g h (2.21)
But we can rewrite equation 2.21 for a given slope or incline angle such that:
M gS
PE = p (2.22)
(1 + S 2 )
Where:
P E = Potential energy [J]
g = Acceleration due to gravity [m/s2 ]
S = Slope [%] (tan incline angle )
In order to calculate the braking power we need to know the braking time. The braking time is
obtained by using the following formula [5]:
v
t= (2.23)
ag
Where:
t = Brake time [s]
v = Vehicle test speed [m/s]
aave = Deceleration [g units]
g = Acceleration due to gravity [m/s2
The power is then obtained by:

E
P = (2.24)
t
Where:
P = Average power [W]
E = Energy [J]
t = Brake time [s]
The peak power at the initial state of braking is double the average power. Sometimes brake
drums and rotors are forced to absorb the heat of braking faster than they can dissipate it into the
atmosphere. If repeated high energy stops are demanded of a brake system, it can overheat and
lose effectiveness, or even fail altogether. This loss of braking effectiveness is called brake fade.
Usually brake fade is temporary. The vehicles brakes will return to a more normal performance
after they have cooled. However, the high temperature changes the lining and drums/rotors
which can cause customer satisfaction issues such as squeal noise, grabs, pulls or vibration. In
some extreme situations the high temperature could damage the friction material, the rubber
boots, seals or even the caliper pistons and sliding parts in the foundation brake assemblies [4].
A disc brake compared to a drum brake of similar diameter has a greater ability to resist fade.
One reason for this is the cooling ability since all the major parts are usually exposed to air
flowing around them. Also, many rotors have cooling passages cast into them to help reducing
operating temperatures. To calculate the heat flux on one side of a disc the following equation
is used [5]:
4P
q= (2.25)
(D2 d2 )
Where:
q = Heat flux [W/m2 ]
P = Average Power [W]
D = Rotor usable outside diameter [m]
d = Rotor usable inside diameter [m]
During deceleration the temperature rises in the brakes. A single stop temperature rise is calcu-
lated with the following formula [5]:

0.527 q t
Tmax = + Tamb (2.26)
ck
Where:
Tmax = Maximum rotor temperature [C]
q = Heat Flux [W/m2 ]
t = Brake time [s]
= Density of rotor material [kg/m3 ]
c = Rotor specific heat capacity [J/kg/K]

2.2. METHODS 15
k = Rotor thermal conductivity [W/mK]
Tamb = Ambient temperature [C]
Repeating usage of the brakes causes the temperature to rise even more than in a single stop.
The fade stop temperature rise can be approximated such as:
P t
T = (2.27)
cV
Where:
T = Average temperature increase per stop [C]
P = Average Power [W]
t = Brake Time [s]
= Density of rotor material [kg/m3 ]
c = Rotor specific heat capacity [J/kg/C]
V = Rotor volume [m3 ]
With all of the before mentioned theory and understanding about the breaking system it is
possible to start looking for suitable brake system for the new FS car.
2.2.1 Design of brake system

The first part of designing a brake system is to determine the stopping distance and necessary
brake force needed to stop our new 230kg race car. It is estimated that is a 70 - 90 kg driver
will be driving at the time so total mass of the vehicle is 300-320kg. Since it is aimed to run
on 10" wheels, the size of the caliper needs to be compact as well, the size and packaging of
the brake caliper also determines the size of the brake discs. A research was conducted on
what other teams are using, a two piston calipers are commonly used by other FS teams. In
the following sections the parts for the vehicle will be evaluated and what parts needs to be
purchased regarding the brake system.
2.2.1.1 Brake caliper

Brake calipers in high performance racing car, where every kg has to be taken into account,
must be designed to be as light weight as possible while maintaining its stiffness. In racing cars
fixed caliper brakes are preferably used for their low volume capacity and therefore they can
be designed very light weight. While aluminum calipers will reduce unsprung weight, steel (or
iron) calipers of the same design will be stiffer [4]. When designing a race car suspension one
of the key parameter to constrain in the design is the brake caliper and wheels. How big caliper
can be fitted in 10" wheels and what offsets for wheels are available. There are many different
designs of brake calipers and manufactures that produce them but the all contain the same basic
parts:
Caliper body
Bleed screw
Piston(s)
Piston(s) seals
Dust boots
Pads
Foundation of any disc brake is the caliper body, the U-shaped casting that wraps around the
rotor. Single piston calipers are usually one piece, and multi piston calipers that have pistons
on both sides of the rotor are made in two pieces that are bolted together with high strength
bridge bolts. Disc brake caliper bodies can be separated into two main groups: floating and
fixed caliper. A Fixed Caliper, the body usually manufactured in two halves; has two, three or
four pistons and gets its name from the fact that it is rigidly mounted to the knuckle; no part of
the caliper body moves when the brakes are applied. The advantages of a fixed caliper are [5]:
Size and rigid mounting does not flex much
Strong and provides a firm and linear brake pedal feel
Strength and heat dissipating ability ideal for heavy duty use
Disadvantages:
Weight, cost and complexity
More difficult to service with more opportunity for leaks
Figure 2.2 shows a schematic sketch of a fixed brake caliper.
Figure 2.2: Schematic figure of a fixed caliper [5].
As shown in figure 2.2 a floating caliper has piston(s) on one side and slides back and forth
on bushings or pins acting as a clamp. When you apply the brakes, the piston pushes the brake
pad on the inboard side against the rotor. The caliper then slides on the bushings or pins and
squeezes the outboard pad against the rotor [8]. "Floating-caliper brakes offer a number of
advantages over fixed-caliper designs. They are easier to package in the wheel because they do
not have a piston on the outboard or wheel side" [5, p. 49]. They are usually lower cost and
due to their relatively simple construction, potential leak points are fewer and they are easier to
bleed. The disadvantages of a floating caliper are the following:
2.2. METHODS 17
Allows a degree of flex in the caliper suspension which may contribute to a slight spongy
pedal feel.
Caliper suspension flex also allows the body to twist slightly when brakes are applied
which can cause taper lining wear.
Do not have the mass of fixed calipers and the flexible mounting systems slow the transfer
of heat from the caliper body to the anchor plate and other vehicle components that aid
the cooling process.
Figure 2.3 shows a schematic sketch of a floating brake caliper.
Figure 2.3: Schematic figure of floating caliper [5].
As for this high performance race car, a fixed body caliper is better suited due to its stiffness,
hydraulic power and the limited flex. After a research from brake caliper manufactures and FS
forums, fixed calipers in our size range arent that common or at lower cost. The fixed calipers
in our size range for 8" rotors are common in motorcycles and ATVs and therefore more suited
for our needs. The calipers listed in table 2.1 are highly recommended by other teams and suit
our needs.
Table 2.1: Brake calipers comparison
Brake calipers comparison table

Make Wilwood Yamaha Wilwood Wilwood
Model GP200 R6 PS-1 Dynalite
No. Pistons 2 4 2 2
Bore size[inch] 1.25 N/A 1.12 1.75
Rotor min. diam. [inch] 8 N/A 6 6
Rotor max. diam. [inch] 11 12 9 13
Rotor width [inch] 0.25 0.20 0.2 0.38
Weight [kg] 0.41 0.97 0.5 0.82
Pad Area [in^2] N/A N/A 2 3
USD $ 98.93 $ 75.00 $ 91.74 $ 119.30
The first choice was to re-purpose the 4 piston brake calipers from the Yamaha R6 donor
motorcycle that were in stock but they are overkill for our purpose. Those calipers are 4 piston
and are used with 310 mm brake rotors. Those rotors are to large to fit inside the 10" wheels
(255mm). In order to fit a suitable brake caliper, a schematic sketch was made to see the proper
constraint box of the caliper and the rotor see figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4: Schematic sketch for constrains due to brake caliper.
The calipers that are available and fits our box are listed in table 2.1 on page 17 with the
R6 calipers for reference. The pistons from the R6 calipers can though be re-purposed for
future project in manufacturing custom calipers by the team. The Wilwood GP200 caliper is
the second most expensive, second biggest bore size and is the lightest. It can also take max
6.25mm width rotors. It takes standard 8 inch rotors as well but those are fairly common, both
in steel and aluminum. The unsprung weight is a big deal for race car suspension and that
weighs the most in choosing the right caliper for FS size race car, minimize weight as much as
possible. As with this analysis our brake caliper of choice is the Wilwood GP 200 two piston
caliper on all four wheels. The manufacturer information can be found in appendix A.4. A
CAD drawing of the caliper is shown in figure 2.5.
2.2. METHODS 19
Figure 2.5: 3D CAD drawing of Wilwood GP200 caliper.
Wilwood offers two types of brake pads, for aluminum rotors and for other alloys and the
purchase of pads goes after the selected brake rotors discussed in section 2.2.1.2.
2.2.1.2 Disc brake rotors

Any disc brake system needs disc brake rotors. The rotors are the largest and one of the heaviest
parts of the disc brake system. The rotors provide the friction surface that the brake pads rub
against and these parts create together the "friction couple" that converts the KE into heat and
stops the vehicle. The typical rotor for a vehicle is a circular metal plate with two friction surface
on either side machined to exact dimension. They typically made from cast iron but on race-cars
and high end sports car other materials have been used such as carbon, magnesium etc. Those
parts cost a lot more and is more commonly used on more expensive high-end vehicles. When
comparing those high end materials with cast iron, both performance and cost, the cast iron cost
is way less yet maintaining the performance [9]. Brake discs made of carbon fiber composites
are often driven in racing, but for the route and driving profile in the FS this is not applicable
because of the low cold friction coefficient and high production costs [10]. The rotors can be
vented that is when the rotors have cooling passages cast between the friction surfaces allowing
cooling air to enter the center and exit at the outer edges.
The laws of physics are well in order when conducting analysis on brake rotors. The energy
that has to be slowed down or stopped is the sum of three great laws, kinetic-, rotational- and
potential energy. Last year the team fabricated their own brake disc, made out of steel, that
worked well. They were easy to manufacture, low cost and did their part in the scrutineering
tests. A floating brake disc design was used that allows the brake disc to expand when its
temperature rises. Since it is fairly low cost to cut from a sheet of steel a brake disc and to
maintain the knowledge with more physics than last year, it is aimed to fabricate the brake
discs. The maximum size of brake discs that fits in the 10" wheels are 8" but that is also the
preferred size for the GP200 caliper. The design is based upon the old discs from last year, 4
mm solid steel with no special thermal design. The thermal design itself of a brake system is
a material for its own thesis project. Being a floating design a floater or bobbins needs to be
made for the installation of the brake disc. The floater minimize rattling noise and let the brake
disc stay in place while allowing it to expand while its temperature rises, see figure 2.6 for the
floater.
Figure 2.6: 3D CAD figure of the floater.
2.2.1.3 Brake disc bracket

In order to fasten the floating brake disc to the wheel hub a bracket had to be made hold the
disc. Last years design of the brake discs wasnt good for maintenance because the brake disc
was fastened behind the wheel hub. In order to change the disc, the wheel had to be taken off,
the wheel hub needed to be pressed out of its bearings. Then the bolts needed to be loosened.
That was not effective in maintenance perspective and proved to damage the wheel bearings
if careful measures were not applied during re-installation, see figure 2.7. Therefore it was in
order to design a bracket that could be replaced if the overall shape of the brake disc would
change, for example if the brake disc are not effective after brake testing. That way the wheel
hub it self would not be in need of redesigning and manufacturing also. The bracket is made
fairly simple, a steel base of same thickness as the rotor, cut out of same steel plate as the rotor
in order to waste as little material as possible, see figure 2.8 for the assembled disc and bracket.
The bracket it self can be seen in figure 2.9 and further drawings can be found in appendix C.
Figure 2.7: Front brake system placed placed behind the wheel hub.
2.2. METHODS 21
Figure 2.8: 3D CAD drawing of the brake disc and bracket.
Figure 2.9: 3D CAD drawing of the brake disc bracket.
2.2.2 Analysis
A FEM analysis was conducted on the brake assembly. The Hex dominant method was used and
setup with 5 mm mesh. The brake disc bracket was fixed by its bolt holes while the connection
between the disc and bracket was bonded. The load applied is a moment around the brake disc
is 610.27 Nm and the material was set as structural steel. The results of this analysis is shown in
figures 2.10 - 2.12. The maximum shear stress is 114.29 MPa and is located in the curve where
the floaters attach in the assembly, see figure 2.10.
Figure 2.10: Shear stresses acting on the brake disc assembly.
The maximum equivalent stress (von-Mises) is 209.37 MPa. The location is at the same
curve as the shear stress, where the floaters attach, see figure 2.11.
Figure 2.11: Von-Mises stress acting on the assembly.
The maximum total deformation of the brake disc assembly is 0.070 mm and is located at
the edge of the brake disc. This is where the location of the disc is the furthest from the fixed
position, see figure 2.12.
2.3. BRAKE SYSTEM SUMMARY 23
Figure 2.12: Deformation in the brake disc assembly.
The values and safety factor of the brake disc assembly analysis is listed in table 2.2. The
properties of steel is found in appendix A.6.
Table 2.2: Results from brake assembly analysis
Brakes analysis
Type Value Unit Safety factor
Maximum Deflection 0.070 mm
Von-Mises equivalent 209.37 MPa 1.91
Maximum Shear 114.29 Mpa 2.19
2.3 Brake system summary
The physics of a modern brake system were evaluated and calculations set up for the analysis. A
suitable brake caliper, the Wilwood GP200 was selected because it fitted the design parameters
while being relatively low cost. A floating brake disc design was based upon last years design
but made more serviceable by making a special bracket that allows the I.D of the floating disc
to be greater than the wheel hubs in order for the disc to be changed without taking the wheel
hubs off the car. A FEM analysis was conducted on the brake disc assembly and the results are
graphically shown in figures 2.10 - 2.12 and listed in table 2.2. Figure 2.13 shows a 3D sketch
of all the parts evaluated in this chapter.
Figure 2.13: Exploded view of the front upright assembly

25
Chapter 3
Wheel hub
3.1 Introduction to wheel hub

Wheel hubs are one of key features in the suspension. Wheel hubs support the lugs of the
vehicle and houses the wheel bearing. The purpose of the wheel hub is to connect the wheel
to the suspension and keep the wheel spinning freely. If the hub is placed on a drive axle, the
power from the motor transfers through the hub to the wheels. The hubs also hold the brake
rotor in order to transfer the braking force to the wheels and slow the car.
In modern race vehicle, depending on the rules and regulations, the connection of the wheel
may be restricted. For example, in a normal street legal car, the lug bolt pattern varies from 4
-6 bolts mainly. However in NASCAR racing it is mandatory to use 5 lug bolt pattern [11]. In
Formula 1 teams utilize a central lock wheel hub with only one nut fastening the wheel to the
hub. This is done because of the quick pit stops that teams need to perform during a race and
also to save more unsprung weight.
3.2 Methods
The wheel hub has to be strong enough to withstand the forces acting on it. During a race, there
are four main forces acting on the wheel hub;
1. Force due to acceleration or deceleration
2. Cornering
3. Wheel travel or bump
4. Brake torque or torque from the axles
One of the requirements set by Team Sleipnir was use central locking wheels from Keizer. Al-
though central locking wheels use only one lug nut to fasten the wheel, there are tough lug
bolts that are used to guide the wheel to the hubs and to receive the torque from the drivetrain.
Regardless of the forces, there are also number of numerical dimensions that the hubs must con-
firm on. Those numerical dimensions constrain the design and it must under all circumstances
match the following:
1. The inner diameter of the wheel bearing
2. The inner diameter of the CL wheel (axle stub diameter)

26 CHAPTER 3. WHEEL HUB
3. The outer diameter of the CL wheel center (for control pins)
4. Position of the brake rotor and caliper
5. Offset of the wheels
First order of business was to acquire information for the inner diameter of the CL wheels.
According to Keizer spec. sheet about the CL wheels, the axle stub diameter is 1.5 inch = 38.1
mm. The outer diameter of the wheel center is 3.0 inch = 76.2 mm. The dimension that the
stub axle needs to clear depends on the offset of the wheel due to the packaging of the brake
caliper. Figure 3.1 show the dimension given by Keizer in inches and a cross-sectional view of
the wheel center. Annotated drawings from Keizer can be found in appendix A.3.
Figure 3.1: Wheel center dimensioned from Keizer
At first hand it was decided to check out tapered roller bearings. Tapered roll bearings are
usually more reliable and there is no need for specialized tools for installation or disassembly
also they can carry more loads than ball bearings. When calculating the bearings, the following
3.2. METHODS 27
set of equations are used:
1/
a

xD
C10 af FD R 0.90 (3.1)
1
x0 + ( x0 ) (1 RD ) /b
where:
C10 = Catalog load rating (Basic Dynamic Load Rating) [N]
af = Application factor
FD = Design load
xD = Dimensionless multiple of rating life
x0 = Guaranteed, or "minimum," value of x
= Characteristic parameter
RD = Reliability
b = Shape parameter that controls the skewness
a = 10/3 for roller bearings (cylindrical and tapered roller)
These factors or parameters are found in Shigleys Mechanical Engineering Design textbook in
various tables that are included in appendix A.1.1 and listed in table 3.1.
Shafts generally have two bearings [12]. For the wheel hub we need two bearings and there
for it is in order to calculate the reliability for a pair. "Often these bearings are different. If
the bearing reliability of the shaft with its pair of bearings is to be R, then R is related to the
induvidual bearing reliabilities RA and RB [12] p. 571." We can use the following equation to
calculate the combined reliability:
R = RA RB (3.2)
By applying algebra methods and denoting that R = 0.9, see equation 3.1 the reliability coeffi-
cient for RD = 0.95. To calculate the rating life xD we use the following equation [12]:
LD 60 `D nD
xD = = (3.3)
LR L10
Where:
xD = Rating life
`D = Rifetime [hours]
nD = Speed [rev/min]
L10 = Rating life

Table 3.1: Constants, factors and calculated parameters for bearing selection
Bearing calculation constant

Value Unit
Dtire 457.20 mm
utire 1435.608 mm
v 2000 m/min
rpm 1393.138 rev/min
af 1.20
FD 4.286 kN
xD 83.588
x0 0.02
4.459
RD 0.95
b 1.483
a 10/3
C1 0 22.519 kN
The constants and calculated values are listed in table 3.1. After applying the calculations
mentioned above, and checking SKF bearing manual, as well as their website, the bearing of
choice is the SKF JL 26749 F/710. It weighs 0.11 kg, compared to similar roller bearings of
same size that can handle similar loads weighs between 0.2 to 0.5 kg. Further information about
the bearing can be found in appendix A.1.
3.2.1 Front wheel hub design
Previous car used a hub design that had a rotating aluminum end section to which the rotor and
wheel were bolted on. The hub had a four bolt lug pattern with 108 mm in diameter because the
13" wheels used at the time. Last years wheel hubs were made from casted Alufont aluminum
weighed 0.7 kg each, last years hub can bee seen in figure 3.2 where it is fitted in the upright.
3.2. METHODS 29
Figure 3.2: Old Wheel hub fitted in the upright with the lug bolts
It has always been Team Sleipnirs focus that students can design and manufacture their
parts at the RU machine shop therefore the overall concept of the wheel hubs is simplicity. It
is desired to lower the hubs overall weight to minimum of 30% set by Team Sleipnir. Since
there arent many technical paper about central locking wheel hub, reverse engineering of CL
hub from a production car was applied and minimized for FS size car. A bolt on bracket for the
brake disc, as evaluated in previous section, allows for minimizing of the wheel hubs diameter
therefore save material, machining time and weight. After making the bearing selection, the
diameter of the hub shaft that goes through the upright is fixed at 32 mm. A four bolt pattern
was made in order for centralizing the Keizer wheels on the hub and to hold the wheel in place
by the hub when torque from the motor is applied. The diameter of the axle stub that goes
through the CL wheel is 38.1 mm and its length depends on the rim offset and the length of the
CL nut. The backspace that will be used is 4.5" (114.3 mm) in the front and 5.0" (127 mm) in
the rear. Wheels backspace is measured from the inside lip to the back of wheels center, see
figure 3.3 labeled G. The full datasheet about the Keizer wheels is in appendix A.3 [13].
The design of the CL wheel lug is evaluated in section 3.2.4. Threads on CL hubs must have
different direction on left and right side in order for the nut to self-tighten due to braking. On
left side the threads are right handed and on the right side the threads are left handed. The offset
of the threads is 8 mm from the end to drill for split to secure that the lug nut doesnt fall off
during a race and the threads are set to be standard M36x3. To keep the hub as light as possible
yet maintaining its strength and rigidity, aluminum 7075 will be used to construct the each front
hub with 80 mm diameter and 150 mm long.
Figure 3.3: Measurements for the wheel center backspace and more [13]
The hubs center core is to be drilled through for a bolt holds the hub in place and tighten the
wheel hub to the upright. A annotated figure of the wheel hub can be seen in figure 3.4 on page
30.
Figure 3.4: Side view with annotation of the wheel hub
A suspension model in a software called ADAMS was to be programmed beside this project.
ADAMS can evaluate real time forces on many aspects of a vehicle, including the wheel hubs.
Due to late changes in the design and complications by the suspension team, the model was not
finished in time to use in the analysis of wheel hubs. Because of this complication, forces for
worst case scenario were estimated to be the following per tire: 2g in longitudinal direction, 2g
in lateral direction and 3g in bump. The maximum forces are listed in table 3.2 [14].
The wheel hub is constrained by several of parameters set by other design evaluations: The
inner diameter of the wheel bearing comes from the selected wheel bearing in previous section,
32 mm. The I.D of the CL wheel is 38.1 mm while the O.D is 76.2. The weight of the new hub
3.2. METHODS 31
is 0.39 kg wile the old hub weight was 0.7 kg. Light reduction of about 44%. That is 14% more
than the original goal set by Team Sleipnir. The design is more complex than previous because
of the CL wheel.
3.2.2 Analysis
The FEM analysis is done in two parts. The first parts utilizes the forces in x, y and z direction.
In the second analysis the forces that act on the hub while braking is conducted. The forces that
were used during the both analysis are listed in table 3.2. In ANSYS, Hex dominant was used
for meshing with 2 mm of mesh for both analysis.
Table 3.2: Forces acting on the wheel hub for analysis
Direction Magnitude Situation

Brake moment 1700 Nm Braking
X 6278 N Acc/braking
Y 6278 N Corner
z 9418 N Bump
In the first part the forces in x, y and z direction are due to Acceleration/Braking, cornering
and bump. The bearing seat was constrained as fixed and force applied to the shaft where the
tire rests.
The results from the first analysis is illustrated in figures 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7. The maximum
shear stress is 63.3 MPa and is located the groove by the bearing seat. Maximum shear stress
acting on the front wheel hub are showed in figure 3.5.
Figure 3.5: Maximum shear stresses acting on front wheel hub.
The most deflection is at the end of the hub where the CL lug nut attaches (the most outer
point) at magnitude of 0.0376 mm. The total deformation analysis is seen in figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6: Maximum deformation on front wheel hub.
The maximum von-Mises equivalent stress is located at the groove where the bearing seat
ends as can be seen in figure 3.7. The magnitude of the stress is 110 MPa.
Figure 3.7: Von-Mises equivalent stress acting on front wheel hub.
The results and calculated safety factor is listed in table 3.3. The same mesh set up was used
in the second analysis and brake torque that is listed in table 3.2 applied to the cylinder where
the wheel is located. The mounting holes for the brake rotor are fixed during this simulation
and the bearing seat becomes loose. The moment of the brake is applied at the chamfer where
the wheel attaches to the hub. The maximum shear stress is in the chamfer where the wheel
attaches, a value of 211.12 MPa. Still under the maximum shear stress of Al 7075-T6 which is
331 MPa [15]. The analysis result is shown in figure 3.8
3.2. METHODS 33
Figure 3.8: Maximum shear stresses acting on front wheel hub.
The total deformation of the front wheel hub is 0.0046 mm at the end facing outwards as
shown in figure 3.9.
Figure 3.9: Total deformation on front wheel hub.
The equivalent stress is most at the chamfer where the moment is applied in the analysis with
a value of 365.67 MPa. A little high but the maximum yield stress is 508 for Al 7075-T6[15].
The results are shown in figure 3.10.
Figure 3.10: Von-Mises equivalent stress acting on front wheel hub.
The results from both analysis are listed in table 3.3. The factor of safety is 1.39 for the
worst case scenario of braking. This magnitude of moment due braking might be set a little
high and hub may never face such a moment but nevertheless it can withstand the loads.
Table 3.3: FEM analysis results for the front wheel hub
Wheel hub analysis 1

Maximum Principal 161.94 Mpa 3.14
Von-Mises equivalent 110 MPa 4.62
Wheel hub analysis 2
Maximum Principal 212.87 Mpa 2.39
3.2.3 Rear wheel hub

Since our vehicle is rear wheel drive the rear hubs must withstand the torque of the motor and
connect the axles to the wheels. In sake of symmetry and machine setup it was decided to base
the rear hubs on the same design as the front with the addition of connecting the axles with
CV-joints to transfer the power from the motor to the wheels. The design goals for the rear
wheel hub are the following:
Same external geometry as front wheel hub
Connect the CV joint to rear wheel hub
The design goals for front wheel hub see chapter 3.2.1. Last years design used axles from Po-
laris ATV, connected to BMW LSD. These component where connected via CV-joint (Constant
velocity-joint) made in house. The drivetrain team aims on manufacturing there own CV joint
3.2. METHODS 35
again and the spline pattern of the CV joint has yet to be designed by the drivetrain team but
for instructional and to accelerate simulation process, they were modeled in Inventor, see figure
3.11.
Figure 3.11: ISO metric view of rear hub to show the splines.
A FEM analysis was not conducted on the rear wheel hub similar to the front hubs. The
torque output of the motor is way less than the 1700 Nm analysis conducted. The maximum
torque from the motor is 58 [Nm] at the gearbox output shaft [16]. The analysis is to be con-
ducted when the right spline pattern has been modeled for correct analysis.
3.2.4 Central locking lug nut
A Central lock wheel nut is the fastener that tightens the wheel to the wheel hub. In a normal
road car there is usually a 4 to 6 lug bolt pattern where the wheel is guided and bolted to the
wheel hub. The CL wheel nut needs to fit the wheel hub and be strong enough to withstand
the forces that it endures during a race. Two options were considered, make a custom nut for
each wheel or to purchase off the shelf castle nut that would fit. A standard steel castle nut
is heavy and steel nut can damage aluminum threads on the wheel hub while a custom made
aluminum nut could prevent thread damaging and offers more customization that better suits
this application. The first option was modeled in Inventor using standard M36x3 castle nut as a
reference guide and modify it in a way that it fits the CL wheel. The nut has to have chamfer on
the area that presses up against the wheel, that chamfer was matched in the model to the Keizer
3D model.
Figure 3.12: ISO metric view of the designed CL nut.
The threads are modeled to fit M36x3 threads and the wheel hub dimension where adjusted
for that configuration. The height of the nut is 22 mm from the upper to lower face but with
added chamfer that guides the wheel, the total height of the nut is 23.6 mm. This is the maxi-
mum height for the nut so that it wont be the most outer part of the vehicle. Figure 3.12 shows
the designed CL nut.
The nut has to have a fail safe safety mechanism to prevent that if the nut comes lose it
would fall off and the wheel also. To prevent that, a circular pattern was modeled at the wheel
hub end for standard R-clip that goes through a slot on the nut and through holes on the wheel
hub preventing possible lose nut falling off as stated in the SAE rules[3]. Figure 3.13 shows
how R-clip looks like.
Figure 3.13: A figure of R-clip [17].
The circular pattern offers many opportunities to place the R-clip and in figure 3.14 the
alignment of the slot and pattern is shown with the CL nut and hub assembled. It has 11 holes
that goes through the hub where the R-clip is inserted after the desired preload has been applied
during fastening of the CL nut.
3.3. WHEEL HUB SUMMARY 37
Figure 3.14: A figure of the CL nut assembled on the wheel hub to show the aligning slot and
hole for R-clip.
Aluminum 7075-T6 is our material of choice for its strength, durability and light weight.
Detailed CAD drawings are to be found in appendix C. A FEM analysis was not conducted
on the CL because of difficulties in placing the loads on threads and the limited license in
ANSYS. To conduct an analysis the model needs to be drastically simplified and would be too
time-consuming to perform in this project.
3.3 Wheel hub summary
The wheel hubs where designed, modeled and analyzed using Inventor and ANSYS for the 10"
CL Keizer wheels. The wheel hubs are to be manufactured out of solid aluminum 7075-T6 80
mm cylinder. The front and rear hubs are based upon the same design while only difference
being the CV joint attaching the rear hubs. Left and right hub threads for the CL nut are in
different direction to tighten in stead of loosening the nuts while driving. Being a CL design,
a CL lug nut had to be designed. The nut was based upon a standard castle nut and is to be
manufactured out of aluminum. The design is almost 0.40 kg in weight lightening the old
design from 0.7 kg for about 40%. The overall design of the hub with its component discussed
in this chapter are shown in figure 3.15.
Figure 3.15: Designed Front wheel hub with nut and lug pins assembled.
39
Chapter 4
Uprights
4.1 Introduction to upright

An upright is one of the key component in vehicle dynamics which connects all suspension
components between the wheel and the car. The uprights provide a link between the upper and
lower ball joints [18]. The upright connects components for example, the control arms, steering
arms, springs, shock absorbers, brakes, tires and at the rear it connects the axles. Since it is
a key component it must withstand all forces that the suspension will encounter. The uprights
must be strong enough to withstand those forces, sum may occur simultaneously for example
during braking into a corner. As for this design, the goal is to design a light, yet sufficiently
strong uprights that can withstand the forces that the new FS car will encounter.
4.2 Methods
In order to start the upright design the tire and wheel size must be settled. As mentioned before,
the car is aimed to be running on 10" wheels with 6" wide at the front and 7.5" at the rear
and running on Hoosier tires which are 18" in diameter. Those parameters where set by the
suspension team that is conducting an analysis for the suspension using ADAMS software.
The location of the brake caliper has been set in chapter 2 that automatically locates the rotor
position. The brake disc position is the absolute farthest location for the LBJ [4]. In race cars
the height of the LBJ is placed as low as possible but since it is placed inside the wheel it has to
clear the wheel under all travel and load conditions.
Figure 4.1: Kingpin geometry, side view and front view [19]
40 CHAPTER 4. UPRIGHTS
The UBJ location is determined by the kingpin axis. The kingpin axis is a line drawn
through the UBJ and LBJ down to the tire. The distance that the line is offset from the tire
center line is called scrub radius, measured horizontally. If we look at this in front view, the
angle that the two lines make is called Kingpin inclination. The spindle length is the distance
measured horizontally from the kingpin axis to the wheel center at axle height. These factors
are shown in figure 4.1 and all are interrelated and each effects the behavior of the vehicle in its
own way and a compromise is needed. These effects are the following [4]:
Spindle length: If the spindle length is positive the car will lift when the wheels are
turned. This results an increase of the steering moment at the steering wheel. This effect
is symmetric side to side only if there is no caster angle. This raise also has a self-aligning
effect that aids centering of the steering at lower speeds.
Kingpin inclination: Kingpin angle also effects lift during steering. The more the king-
pin angle the more the car lifts when steered. The kingpin inclination affects the camber
of the wheel when steered. The camber is a function of the kingpin angle and the caster
angle. As kingpin is increased the wheel loses camber with more steering input thus giv-
ing positive camber on the outside wheel. When the wheel is turned it will lean outwards
at the top towards positive camber if the kingpin is in normal direction. The amount of
this is small but significant if the track includes tight turns [4].
Scrub radius: The braking forces introduce steer torques that are proportional to the
spindle length. If there is a difference between braking force on left and right tires there
will be a net steering torque felt by the driver at the steering wheel. With zero scrub
radius this is not true since there is no moment arm for the drive forces to generate torque
around the kingpin [4].
In the side view in figure 4.1 there is a term called Mechanical trail and Caster angle. If the
kingpin axis doesnt go through the wheel center then there is a kingpin offset. The distance
between the points where the kingpin axis touches the ground and the wheel centerline is called
mechanical trial. The angle that is between them is called Caster angle. These factors affect
the handling of the vehicle and are of great importance in any suspension design. The trial and
caster produce more self-centering effects and are the primary source of self-centering moment
about the kingpin at high speeds. The larger the trial, the more torque is needed for steering.
The caster angle causes the wheel to rise and fall with steer like the kingpin angle. Although
unlike the kingpin inclination, the effect of the caster angle is the opposite from side to side and
causes weight transfer and roll. This behavior leads to an over-steering effect. The caster angle
has positive effect on the steer-camber, that is with positive caster angle the outside wheel will
camber in a negative direction while the inner wheel cambers in positive direction. This causes
both wheels to lean into a turn [4].
Camber angle to the road surface is one of the fundamental variables in suspension design
but it is the angle between the vertical plane and a tilted wheel plane. Positive camber is de-
fined when the wheel is tilted outwards at the top and negative if the wheel is tilted inwards at
the top. The camber angle affects tire performance, along with load, slip angle, pressure and
temperature. Camber also works like a steer, that is when a tire is in camber angle it tends to
pull the vehicle in the same direction as the top of the tire is leaning [4].
Toe settings can be used to adjust and improve handling difficulties in the car. For example
with rear toe-out can be used to improve corner turn-in. It is possible to adjust the load that
transfers to the outside wheel as the car turns in and gives the effect of an over-steer direction.
In the front the static toe depends on many factors such as Ackerman geometry, ride and roll
4.2. METHODS 41
Figure 4.2: Top view of a vehicle showing what toe is.
steer and camber. Static toe is desired to reduce rolling resistance, heat and tire wear that can
occur when the tires are working against each other. A simple rule of thumb, static negative
camber will require toe-out to keep the wheels from fighting each other [4], see figure 4.2.
4.2.1 Ackerman steering

A car traveling in a corner needs the inner wheel to travel in a smaller diameter circle than
the outer wheel, see figure 4.3. To achieve this, a steering geometry called Ackerman angle is
implemented in the design that increases the turning circle of the inner wheel. The conventional
relationship for the Ackerman angle can be derived from the NS (Neutral Steer) car responses at
low lateral acceleration when the vehicle is tracking at the Ackerman steer. Ackerman geometry
ensures that all wheels roll freely and prevents slip angles since the wheels are steered to a
common turn center. At low speed turns where external forces due to acceleration are negligible,
the Ackerman steering angle can be described as [4]:
L L
a = = (4.1)
V /r R
Where:
a = Ackerman angle
L = Wheelbase [m]
R = Radius of turn [m]
With that being said, we can now define that if both front wheels are tangent to a circular curve
about the same turning center the vehicle is said tho have Ackerman steering. If both wheels
use the same steering angle it is said to have Parallel steering and last but not least, if the outer
wheel has more steering angle than the inner wheel it is said to have Reverse Ackerman, see
figure 4.3. In production cars the angle is usually between Ackerman and Parallel steer since
they travel at lower speeds and need to be more smooth in corners. During those low speed
maneuvers the Ackerman ensures that all wheels roll freely with limited slip angles. On the
other hand in race cars the story is quite different and it is more common to use a set up be
between Parallel and Reverse Ackerman. Race cars maneuvers at higher speeds at high lateral
accelerations, therefore "all wheels operates at significant slip angles and the loads on the inner
wheels are much less than the curve outer wheels due to the lateral load transfer [19]."
Figure 4.3: Ackerman steering, parallel steer and reverse Ackerman steer [4].
When constructing the suitable steering geometry, for example Ackerman steer, the simplest
way is to establish a schematic 2D model with key points such as Tie rod outer ball joint, tie
rod, steering rack position and draw lines from the center of the rear axle through he kingpin
axis. Where the tie rod and this line meets you find the Ackerman location. In figure 4.4 is
shown a schematic Ackerman steer.
Figure 4.4: Ackerman geometry, with steering rack behind the axle line [4].
4.2.2 Material selection

One of the first key design parameter when designing a part for FS competition is the material
selection. The factors that we need to consider during our design are cost, strength and weight.
In our case for the upright the aim is to design light yet strong parts. The most common material
to use is aluminum or steel for the uprights but since this year we are taking a huge step and
going to 10" wheels, that leads us to a smaller yet lighter uprights but they have to withstand
higher forces due to suspension geometry and remain fairly stiff. To limit the unsprung mass
as much as possible it is intended to use aluminum 7075 for the uprights because it strength is
similar to steel and it is easily to machined.
4.2. METHODS 43
4.2.3 Front upright design

The goal for the front upright design was to lighten the previous design from the first year car.
The uprights from the previous model were casted and designed to use with 13" wheels and
with mass production in mind by using the same geometry for the front and rear uprights as
well as left to right. The only thing that was different were the a-arm fasteners. As for this new
model the goal is to base them upon previous model since they were effective, fairly light and
are still going strong. The primary flaw to those uprights was that they were casted. Casted
aluminum isnt as strong as Al 7075 and therefore not a viable solution for the new design. The
weight and material for the 2016 uprights are listed in table 4.1. The wheel bearings werent
good enough and needed reconfiguring. The steering arm bracket (Ackerman) was made out of
steel and bolted to the casted aluminum and was to heavy. Making threads in aluminum isnt
very good in terms of strength and steel to aluminum threads can lead to damaging the threads.
So for the new design it is aimed to make the bracket more simple and more safely bolted onto
the upright.
Table 4.1: Specifics of 2016 uprights.
2016 upright material and weight

Year Location Material Weight [kg]
Front AlSi7 0,8
2016
Rear AlSi7 0,8
In order to meet our design parameters and constrains, we need to have some adjustments
including:
Toe
Camber
Caster
Ackerman
The static camber is set to negative 2 by the suspension team. For future adjustments while
testing the camber it can be adjusted by using shims behind the UBJ bracket. It is optimal
to keep the design as light as possible both for the design goal of total weight of the race car
and to keep unsprung mass to minimum. Unsprung mass is the mass of every component not
supported by the shocks, that is everything from shocks and to the wheels. If the unsprung mass
is kept at minimum it will affect the overall acceleration of the vehicle. First order of business
was to sketch the bearing house that fits the selected SKF bearing. Bearings are ideally located
such that the tire center is between the two rows of balls or rollers, that way minimizing the
loads on the bearings [4]. In our case that wasnt possible due to the packaging issue see figure
4.5.
Figure 4.5: Front wheel assembly front view
Next parameters are the height and width of the upright. The height of the upright was set
as high as possible with reasonable clearance inside the wheel. The overall height of the upright
is 216 mm that way the hard points for the a-arms are met. The LBJ point is fixed by the brake
rotor but to keep a safe distance from the rotor it is held 25 mm from the rotor. The LBJ is a
non adjustable point and is at an angle to meet the a-arm geometry at static. In both the UBJ
and LBJ the bearing is press fitted in the a-arm and bolted through the fasteners on the upright.
As for the UBJ, a bracket is designed to meet the hard point set by the suspension team. The
bracket is bolted on the upright in a pocket that is designed at an angle so the bracket can be
made quickly from a small stock of material see in figure 4.6.
Figure 4.6: Upper a-arm fastener.
For the steering rod connection the aim is to have a bracket bolted to the upright. The
position of the bracket is over the lover a-arm pocket and under the bearing seat. For this design
4.2. METHODS 45
the connection to the steering rod is in double shear which is a requirement from the SAE
rules [3]. The bracket can be made for both true Ackerman, Parallel and reverse Ackerman
and can simply just be adjusted to fit each situation. The reason for a bolted bracket instead of
fastening it on the upright is that if desired to change the angle (use reverse Ackerman instead of
Ackerman) it is relatively easy to manufacture a new bracket and easy to change during testing
resulting in less material waste from the solid aluminum block that the uprights are made of.
See figure 4.7 for the designed Ackerman bracket.
Figure 4.7: Designed Ackerman bracket.
In figures 4.8 and 4.9 you can see the side section with annotation of the designed upright.
Figure 4.8: Side section of the upright with annotations.

Figure 4.9: Front view of the front upright with annotations.
The brake caliper mounts are designed from the brake caliper that will be used for the new
race car. See analysis and design in chapter 2. The hard points must be strong enough to prevent
yield in the aluminum. Shape generator was used in inventor to lighten the geometry as much
as possible prior to detailed FEA. The mounting points are fixed by the GP200 caliper and its
distance from the main body is constrained by the 8" brake rotor. The weight of the designed
upright and its bracket is listed in table 4.2 and are compared with last years uprights.
Table 4.2: Comparison of 2016 and 2017 uprights.
Upright comparison
Year Location Material Weight [kg]
Front AlSi7 0,85
2016
Rear AlSi7 0,85
Front Al 7075 0,57
2017
Rear Al 7075 0,57
In figure 4.10 you can see the front upright with all its brackets bolted on along with the
brake caliper.
4.2. METHODS 47
Figure 4.10: Final front upright design with brackets and brake caliper.
In table 4.3 the static values for the front upright and suspension geometry are listed.
Table 4.3: Front upright static values.
Front upright
Value Unit
Static camber 2 deg
Kingpin angle 7.4 deg
Scrub radius 6.7 mm
Spindle length 36.6 mm
Caster 3 deg
Kingpin offset 0 mm
Mechanical trail 12.0 mm
The suspension team didnt finish their analysis on the suspension model at the time of this
thesis thus the estimated forces on the upright are under the same conditions as for the wheel
hubs. The forces are listed in table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Forces acting on the Upright for analysis.
Direction Magnitude Situation

Brake moment 1700 Nm Braking
X 6278 N Acc/braking
Y 6278 N Corner
Z 9418 N Bump
4.2.4 Front upright analysis
4.2.4.1 Ackerman analysis
A FEM analysis was conducted on the Ackerman bracket. Hex dominant method was used with
1 mm mesh. Two analyses were conducted, one fixed at the bolt holes and other with fixed bolt
holes and fixed body that faces the upright. The reason for that is if the front upright werent
stiff enough and would flex a bit, the Ackerman bracket needs to be able to flex with it. A
dummy pin was added to simulate the tie rod that connects to the bracket and 1000N of force
(used 600N last year) as the maximum steering output. The new steering wheel is designed
to have larger diameter and therefore can produce more torque which transfers to more linear
force at the steering rack. This force is determined by the steering team. In figure 4.11 the setup
of the analysis is showed.
Figure 4.11: Set up of the force and fixed position of the Ackerman bracket.
In the first analysis were the bracket is only fixed by its mounting holes the shear stress value
is 121.16 MPa. The locations of the maximum shear stress is at the edge where the bracket is
bolted facing the upright, see figure 4.12.
4.2. METHODS 49
Figure 4.12: Shear stresses acting on the Ackerman bracket.
The maximum equivalent stress (von-Mises) is also located at the front edge of the mounting
hole facing the upright. The maximum stress is 222.04 MPa and showed in figure 4.13.
Figure 4.13: Von-Mises stress acting on the bracket.
The total deformation of the Ackerman bracket is at the edge that is furthest away from the
upright facing the car where the tie rod dummy rod is located. The deflection is 0.096 mm and
is shown in figure 4.14.
Figure 4.14: Deformation in the Ackerman bracket.
The later analysis where the body facing the upright was fixed resulted in lower shear stress.
The maximum shear stress is 50.75 MPa and located at the top corner, see figure 4.15.
Figure 4.15: Shear stresses acting on the Ackerman bracket.
The maximum equivalent stress (von-Mises) is also located at the same corner with a value
of 94.31 MPa as shown in figure 4.16.
4.2. METHODS 51
Figure 4.16: Von-Mises stress acting on the bracket.
The total deformation is at the same edge as in the first analysis, the facing the inwards
where the steering rod connects with a value of 0.025 mm, see figure 4.17.
Figure 4.17: Deformation in the Ackerman bracket.
The results are listed in table 4.5. The safety factor is 2.3 if the bracket flexes but if the
upright is stiff enough the factor of safety becomes 5.39.
Table 4.5: Results from FEM analysis on the Ackerman Bracket.
Ackerman bracket analysis

Maximum deflection 0.0955 mm
Ackerman bracket analysis 2
Maximum shear 50.57 Mpa 6.55
4.2.4.2 Upper ball joint bracket
Two analyses were conducted on the front UBJ bracket, fixed only on bolt holes and other with
fixed bolt holes and fixed body that faces the upright with the same reasons as for the Ackerman
bracket, if there is a flex the bracket compensate for it. The Hex dominant method was used
with 2 mm mesh. For the first analysis the maximum shear stress is found on the edges of the
mounting holes with a value of 211.87 MPa, see figure 4.18.
Figure 4.18: Maximum shear stresses acting on the front a-arm fastener.
The total deformation under the loads is at the inward facing edges of the bracket case
scenario with a value of 0.116 mm, see figure 4.19. This deflection is a bit of concern since the
suspension needs to have low flex in its components and let the damper take those loads.
4.2. METHODS 53
Figure 4.19: Total deformation of the front a-arm fastener.
The maximum von-Mises equivalent stress, figure 4.20 is at the mounting hole of the bracket
with a value of 389.97 MPa.
Figure 4.20: Von-Mises stress acting on the front a-arm fastener.
The second analysis has the body facing the upright also constrained. The maximum shear
stress is in the dummy pin and the edge where it mounts in the bracket. The value is 109.18
MPa, see figure 4.21.
Figure 4.21: Maximum shear stresses acting on the front a-arm fastener.
The total deformation is at the inward facing edge and it deflects 0.06 mm under the loads,
see figure 4.22.
Figure 4.22: Total deformation of the front a-arm fastener with body fixed.
The maximum von-Mises equivalent stress, figure 4.23 is at the same edges as the shear
stress, where the mount hole for the linkage is with a value of 209.98 MPa.
4.2. METHODS 55
Figure 4.23: Von-Mises stress acting on front a-arm fastener.
The results for the UBJ front bracket is listed in table 4.6. The safety factor of 1.3 is acquired
by using the bolted connection to the upright flexes due to the loads, if not the factor of safety
is 2.42.
Table 4.6: Results from FEM analysis of the front upper ball joint bracket.
Front upper ball joint bracket analysis 1

Front upper ball joint bracket analysis 2
4.2.4.3 Front upright
A FEA analysis was conducted on the FRU. The loads that were used during the simulation are
listed in table 4.4. The worst case scenario for the upright is when the car is braking into a turn
and the simulation was based upon that criteria. The Hex dominant method was used with 4
mm mesh since the ANSYS license capacity was maxed with that setting. The maximum shear
stress is found at the inside of the lower brake caliper mount. On that edge there is no fillet that
could improve the results but due to the license that could not be evaluated at this moment in
time. The value of the shear stress is 103.7 MPa, see figure 4.24.
Figure 4.24: Maximum shear stresses acting on Front Upright.
The total deformation at the top of the upright with a value of 0.29 mm see figure 4.25.
Figure 4.25: Total deformation of the front Upright.
The maximum von-Mises equivalent stress, figure 4.26 is found at the inside of the lower
brake caliper mount, same place as the maximum shear stress with the value of 199.93 MPa.
4.2. METHODS 57
Figure 4.26: Von-Mises stress acting on front upright.
The maximum values of this analysis are listed in table 4.7. The safety factor for the front
upright under this worst case scenario load is 2.54.
Table 4.7: Results from front upright analysis.
Front upright analysis results

4.2.5 Rear upright design

The design was based upon the front uprights to save machining setup time. The designs differ
where the Ackerman bracket is bolted to the lower part of the Front Upright. The extra material
was removed to lighten the design. A new bracket for UBJ needed to be designed with added
position of the toe link for the rear. The bracket was based upon the same shape as the front but
with wider jaws for the linkage pickups. This bracket can feature multiple holes for testing of
the toe linkage and for future adjustability. In table 4.8 the static values for the rear upright and
suspension geometry are listed. Figure 4.27 shows the design of the rear linkage bracket. The
position of the linkage and size of the can vary and can be manufactured with more wide jaws
and more mounting holes for adjustability. The adjustment of camber is done with shims as for
the front upright. The bolt pattern is identical for both front and rear in that way the same type
of shims can be manufactured for use both in front and rear.
Figure 4.27: Rear linkage bracket.
Table 4.8: Rear upright static values.
Rear upright
Static camber 2 deg
Kingpin angle 7.4 deg
Scrub radius 6.7 mm
spindle length 36.5 mm
Caster 3.1 deg
Kingpin offset 5.0 mm
Mechanical trail 12.0 mm
4.2.6 Rear upright analysis
FEM analysis was conducted on the rear uprights. The analysis used the same parameters as
for the front without the force due to steering input from the driver. The torque from the motor
is 58 Nm which is less than the brakes can produce. Therefore only the worst case scenario
was simulated, braking into corner. Figure 4.28 shows the deformation in the rear upright. The
location is at the top of the upright with value of 0.319 mm.
4.2. METHODS 59
Figure 4.28: Deformation of the rear upright.
The maximum shear stress is located at the LBJ mount hole with value of 109.68 MPa which
can be seen in figure 4.29.
Figure 4.29: Shear stress acting on rear upright.
The equivalent stress is located at the wheel facing side on the bottom of the bearing house.
The value of the von-Mises stress is 210.82 MPa. There isnt any fillet on this edge since the
license for ANSYS was maxed out but this point stress is not of concern since the ultimate
strength of Al 7075-T6 is 503 MPa.
Figure 4.30: Von-Mises stress acting on rear upright.
As for the front a-arm fastener the rear fastener was also simulated in ANSYS with the Hex
dominant method and 2 mm mesh. The analysis was conducted in two parts, first analysis with
only the mounting holes fixed and the second with the body that is facing the upright also fixed.
For the first analysis the maximum deformation is in the top edge inward facing with a value of
0.0258 mm. The results are showed in figure 4.31.
Figure 4.31: Deformation of the rear linkage bracket.
The maximum shear stress in the first simulation is found at the bottom body at the corner
where the bracket matches the uprights geometry. The maximum value of the shear stress is
44.64 MPa and the results are seen in figure 4.32.
4.2. METHODS 61
Figure 4.32: Shear stress acting on the rear linkage bracket.
The maximum equivalent stress is found at the same location as the shear stress with the
value of 79.54 MPa.
Figure 4.33: Von-Mises stress acting on the rear linkage bracket.
The second analysis with the body facing the upright also fixed the maximum deformation
is in the mounting holes for the linkage with a value of 0.039 mm. The results are showed in
figure 4.34.
Figure 4.34: Worst case scenario deformation of the rear linkage bracket.
The maximum shear stress in the second simulation is found at the top body in at the corner
where the bracket matches the uprights geometry. There is no fillet or chamfer there and that
can explain the rise in shear stress. The maximum value of the shear stress is 94.94 MPa and
the results are shown in figure 4.35.
Figure 4.35: Worst case scenario Shear stress acting on the rear linkage bracket.
The maximum equivalent stress is found at the same location as the shear stress in the second
analysis with the value of 184.22 MPa. The results of that analysis are shown in figure 4.36.
4.3. UPRIGHTS SUMMARY 63
Figure 4.36: Worst case scenario von-Mises stress acting on the rear linkage bracket.
The analysis results for the rear linkage bracket are listed in table 4.9.
Table 4.9: Results from FEM analysis of the rear linkage bracket.
Rear linkage bracket first analysis

Rear linkage bracket second analysis
4.3 Uprights summary

The front and rear uprights where designed modeled and analyzed using Inventor and Ansys.
The aim for the upright design was to fit inside 10" CL wheels, be 30% lighter than previous
design and offer more adjustability. The uprights where based upon previous year geometry but
are to be manufactured out of solid aluminum 7075-T6 block. The front and rear uprights design
differs only towards the Ackerman bracket thus saving machining setup time and minimizing
material waste. The UBJ brackets used the same bolt pattern and base plane thus when adjusting
camber, the same type of shims is used. The brake caliper was fitted to the upright using
dimension from its manufacturer and FEM analysis was conducted on the parts. The overall
weight savings compared part by part is 57% on average. Comparison between each part is
listed in table 4.10 and figure 4.37 shows of both uprights with all parts assembled.
Table 4.10: Comparison of weight between 2016 and 2017 uprights and its attachments.
Weight comparison 2016 2017

Part name Weight [kg] Material Weight [kg] Material
Front Upright 0.85 AlSi7 0.568 Al 7075-T6
Rear Upright 0.85 AlSi7 0.568 Al 7075-T6
Front A-arm fastener 0.3 Al 6061 0.042 Al 7075-T6
Rear A-arm fastener 0.6 Al 6061 0.045 Al 7075-T6
Ackerman bracket 0.4 Steel 0.027 Al 7075-T6
Total weight [kg] 2.92 1.25
Weight reduction 1.667 57%
Figure 4.37: Front and rear final assembly in perspective view

65
Chapter 5
Results
The developing of the uprights, wheel hubs and a brake system for the new Formula Student race
car was conducted. The complete assembly needed to be more compact than the older system
since the new vehicle was aiming to run on 10" wheels and minimizing the vehicles weight
to 230 kg. A calculation of a new brake caliper was conducted and a new Wilwood GP200
calipers were selected for all wheels. Those calipers offer enough brake force this application,
are lightweight and partially low cost compared with similar calibers. The overall comparison
of the 2016 and 2017 parts are listed in table 5.1 where the parts are compared head to head.
The brake discs were designed as a floating brake disc and to be machined out of steel. The
size was modeled after standard 8" discs if decided to use off the shelf discs. The assembly
of the brake discs was made more easy in maintenance by designing a bracket that bolts to the
wheel hub and the disc is attached with floaters. This offer the possibility to play with other
exotic materials such as aluminum or magnesium brake discs and perhaps lighten the design
even further.
Table 5.1: Weight comparison of 2016 and 2017 parts.

Part name Weight [kg] Material Weight [kg] Material
Front upright 0.85 AlSi7 0.568 Al 7075-T6
Rear upright 0.85 AlSi7 0.568 Al 7075-T6
Front a-arm fastener 0.3 Al 6061 0.042 Al 7075-T6
Rear a-arm fastener 0.6 Al 6061 0.045 Al 7075-T6
Ackerman bracket 0.4 Steel 0.027 Al 7075-T6
Brake caliper 0.5 Aluminum 0.408 Aluminum
Lug nut(s) 0.2 Steel 0.102 Al 7075-T6
Lug pin 0.04 Steel 0.003 Al 7075-T6
Wheel hub front 0.703 Alufont 0.386 Al 7075-T6
Wheel hub rear 0.703 Alufont 0.376 Al 7075-T6
Bearing 0.5 - 0.2 -
Brake rotor 0.835 Steel 0.635 Steel
Brake rotor bracket - N/A 0.156 Steel
Total weight [kg] 6.40 3.52
For the wheel hubs the greatest challenge was the integration of the CL wheels. Reverse
engineering had to be conducted CL hub for production cars and minimized for FS size race
66 CHAPTER 5. RESULTS
car. A CL nut was designed that complies with the wheel hub and modeled after a standard
M36X3 castle nut. The reason being that if the nut fails, due to some unknown reasons, the
same size castle nut can be fitted instead and saving the day. To analyze the threads the license
for ANSYS wasnt capable of the wast number of elements of the threads to conduct a analy-
sis. The integration of the brake disc to the hub is by 4 bolts and a special made bracket that
complies with the hub and the disc. The bracket is to be machined out of the same steel plate as
discs to minimize material waste. All the numerical weight values are listed in table 5.1. The
brake discs assembly between the two vehicles is similar in terms of weight, thus in future de-
velopment a more detailed analysis should be made towards lightening the brake disc assembly.
For the hub itself the weight saving is around 0.320 kg per wheel which is huge weight loss for
a vehicle of this size. With further analysis and testing the design can be improved.
Table 5.2: Overall weight reduction between 2016 and 2017 designs

Part name Weight [kg] Weight [kg] Weight reduction %
Front assmbly 4.27 2.527 1.74 41%
Rear assmbly 4.21 2.493 1.71 41%
Total weight 4 wheels [kg] 16.95 6.91
The uprights were based upon previous design but designed to be milled using a 3 axis CNC
mill at the RU workshop. The front and rear uprights share the same outer geometry and only
differ in the position where the Ackerman bracket is bolted on the front one. The front uprights
can be fitted in the rear but are slightly heavier due to the extra mass of the Ackerman position.
Adjustability was added to the uprights with camber shims, that way the team can adjust the
camber quickly and accurately. The upper a-arm fasteners are bolted on the uprights and are
interchangeable. That way when the team begins to test the prototype car, measurements and
adjustments can be made and the final piece machined after that phase. The overall weight
reduction of unsprung mass is 59% or 10.4 kg and the results are listed in table 5.2 This results
will lead to a better handling vehicle and a big step towards the team goals of lightening the car
to 230 kg. Figure 5.1 shows the front upright assembled final design in exploded view.
5.1. PROPOSAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS 67
Figure 5.1: Exploded view of the front upright assembly
5.1 Proposal for improvements

As with every design there is always room for improvements of any sort as Rudolf Limpert
wrote in his textbook: "The first design solution is generally not the best one [5]." With those
words in mind it is well in order to prompt improvements to the design that should be further
evaluated with more time:
Brake system: The fixed brake caliper is a fairly simple design that can be more utilized
built in the upright and offer possible more weight loss. The R6 calipers can be re-
purpose for a custom caliper made to fit the upright can also offer countless possibilities
in designing.
Wheel hub: Built in tripods in the rear upright is a interesting solution for a this size
of vehicle. Fewer parts in the assembly can make the vehicle more reliable. As for this
design, the central bore of the front wheel hub can be of greater diameter put depends
further analysis to confirm.
Uprights: With more complex design the major factor is the machining time. In order
to save even greater weight on the uprights, the arms that go from the bearing house the
UBJ and LBJ can be milled at the side plane without compromising structural integrity,
although this has to be confirmed with further analysis. Minimizing overall material in
the design can lead to extreme measures regarding weight loss.
68
69
Chapter 6
Discussion
6.1 Summary
The objective of this thesis was to design new uprights, wheel hubs and brake system for a new
Formula Student race car from Team Sleipnir, Reykjavik University. The main goals for the
design were the following
High reliability: Was met by conducting more detailed design analysis than prior system
using Al 7075-T6 aluminum for manufactured parts and a better bearing selected.
Fit inside 10" wheels: Was met by designing the upright to be no less than 216 mm across
which is less than the inside diameter of the wheel.
Adjustability: Was met by fixing the lower ball joint and use shims to adjust the camber
on the upper ball joint bracket. The caster is statically fixed but adjustments are to be
made in the upper a-arm by the suspension team.
Critical mounts must be in double shear: Was met by designing all brackets for double
shear.
Lower weight: Was met by minimizing material of every part compared with previous
model. The total weight lost is 10.04 kg or around 59%.
Low center of gravity: Was met by designing the parts to be as light as possible and using
10" wheels, that results in lowering of all masses in the vehicle thus lowering the center
of gravity.
Must comply within SAE rules [3]: Was met by carefully reading the rules and require-
ments while designing.
Fewer assembly parts: Was not met due to the Central Lock wheel hub. More parts need
to be assembled than on previous model.
6.2 Obstacles
A number of obstacles arose during the design phase of the project. The main obstacle was that
halfway through the thesis time a major change of plan was made going from 13" wheels to
10". And to put more pressure on this thesis, a CL wheels were decided. Because of this a lot
of changes in the design needed to be addressed. There arent many science articles available
70 CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION
about the central locking system and thats why some reverse engineering and analysis had to
be made. On top of all this the suspension team did not finish their ADAMS model for the
vehicle so all loads were estimated for certain criterias.
6.3 Future Work

This thesis covers a broad range of parts with different approaches. Some parts have more com-
plex alternatives that would need further inspection and analysis. Implementation was weighted
against the attainable results due to the time constraints imposed.
One of the biggest obstacles was the central locking system. A further analysis of the
central locking system are needed that werent implemented in this thesis. Manufacture
ideas as well as minor tweaks to the system will be further developed in the following
months.
A part of participating in Formula Student is to bring a fully produced prototype. In order

to bring a functional prototype the vehicle needs to be manufactured. With that being
said, it is a high priority to purchase the parts and material needed for building every part
described in this thesis.
A big impact in this thesis was the involvement of the brake system. The brake system is
one of key safety and handling feature in any race car. In this thesis the coverage of the
brake system was only a scratch on the surface and further development of the hydraulics
of the overall system will need further analysis. From the caliper itself to the brake pedal
of the driver.
Some thoughts for future development: integrating each part together, conduct analysis of
implementing the brake caliper into the upright itself and check the advantages of using
a bolted housed wheel bearing between the hubs and uprights.
71
Bibliography
[1] SAE International. History - formula SAE - SAE collegiate design series - students
- SAE international, [Online]. Available: http : / / students . sae . org / cds /
formulaseries/history/ (visited on 12/12/2016).
[2] Institution of Mechanical Engineers. History of formula student, [Online]. Available:
https://www.imeche.org/events/formula-student/about-formul
a-student/history-of-formula-student (visited on 12/12/2016).
[3] S. International, 2017-18 FSAE rules 9.2.16a, Sep. 2, 2016. [Online]. Available: http:
//www.fsaeonline.com/content/2017-18%20FSAE%20Rules%209.2.
16a.pdf.
[4] W. F. Milliken and D. L. Milliken, Race car vehicle dynamics. Warrendale, PA, U.S.A:
SAE International, 1995, 890 pp.
[5] R. Limpert, Brake design and safety. Warrendale, Pa. (400 Commonwealth Dr., Wallen-
dale PA USA): Society of Automotive Engineers, 2011.
[6] Cooper tire. Downloads | avon motorsport, [Online]. Available: http://www.avo
nmotorsport.com/resource-centre/downloads (visited on 11/29/2016).
[7] Engineering Inspiration. Engineering inspiration - brake system design calculations,
Engineering Inspiration, [Online]. Available: http://www.engineeringinspir
ation.co.uk/brakecalcs.html (visited on 11/30/2016).
[8] SSBC Performance Brake Sysems. What are floating calipers?, SSBC Performance
Brake Systems, [Online]. Available: http://ssbrakes.com/p-10470-floati
ng-calipers.html (visited on 12/01/2016).
[9] M. A. Maleque, S. Dyuti, and M. M. Rahman, Material selection method in design of
automotive brake disc, International Association of Engineers, vol. 3, pp. 23222326,
Jan. 1, 2010. [Online]. Available: http : / / www . iaeng . org / publication /
WCE2010/WCE2010_pp2322-2326.pdf (visited on 12/01/2016).
[10] S. Dallmer, Design and construction of the brake system for the formula student - rac-
ing cars BRC08 / BRC09, Studiengang Fahrzeugtechnik, HTW, Berlin, Design Report,
p. 41.
[11] Kenny Bruce. (Apr. 25, 2016). Rules update: NASCAR reinforces five lug nuts, Nascar,
[Online]. Available: http://www.nascar.com/en_us/news-media/articl
es/2016/4/25/nascar-updates-lug-nut-rules-officiating.html
(visited on 12/02/2016).
[12] R. G. Budynas, J. K. Nisbett, and J. E. Shigley, Shigleys mechanical engineering design,
Tenth edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education, 2015, 1082 pp.
72 BIBLIOGRAPHY
[13] K2W Precision Inc. Formula SAE racing wheels | racing wheels | keizer aluminum
wheels, [Online]. Available: http : / / keizerwheels . com / product _ cat /
formula-sae-racing-wheels/ (visited on 12/02/2016).
[14] T. Bakker, Design of a drivetrain for FS race car, B.Sc. thesis, Technische Universiteit
Eindhoven, Eindhoven, Mar. 2009, 47 pp. [Online]. Available: http://www.mate.
tue.nl/mate/pdfs/10750.pdf.
[15] MatWeb. Aluminum 7075-t6; 7075-t651, [Online]. Available: http://www.matw
eb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=4f19a42be94546b686bbf
43f79c51b7d (visited on 12/06/2016).
[16] S. McClintock, J. Walkingshaw, C. McCartan, G. McCullough, and G. Cunningham,
Camshaft design for an inlet-restricted FSAE engine, Sep. 9, 2008. DOI: 10.4271/
2008- 32- 0073. [Online]. Available: http://papers.sae.org/2008- 32-
0073/ (visited on 12/03/2016).
[17] Soloflex, File_14.jpg (27522136). [Online]. Available: https://www.soloflex.
com / store / media / catalog / product / cache / 1 / image / 5e06319eda
06f020e43594a9c230972d/f/i/file_14.jpg (visited on 12/05/2016).
[18] B. A. Jawad and J. Baumann, Design of formula SAE suspension, Dec. 2, 2002. DOI:
10.4271/2002- 01- 3310. [Online]. Available: http://papers.sae.org/
2002-01-3310/ (visited on 12/02/2016).
[19] A. Theander, Design of a suspension for a formula student race car, MSc, Royal In-
stitute of Technology, Stockholm, May 2004, 74 pp. [Online]. Available: http : / /
s3 . amazonaws . com / academia . edu . documents / 36457432 / Design _
of _ a _ Suspension _ for _ a _ Formula _ Student _ Race _ Car_ - _Adam _
Theander . pdf ? AWSAccessKeyId = AKIAJ56TQJRTWSMTNPEA & Expires =
1472763961&Signature=9YdzbYPQn4AWVv76MGFdVBrbuto%3D&respon
se-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DDesign_of_a_
Suspension_for_a_Formula_Stu.pdf.
[20] SKF. Tapered roller bearings, single row - JL 26749 f/710, [Online]. Available: ht
tp :/ /www . skf. com/ group/ products /bearings - units - housings/
roller - bearings / tapered - roller - bearings / single - row - taper
ed - roller - bearings / single - row / index . html ? designation = JL %
2026749%20F%2F710&unit=metricUnit (visited on 12/02/2016).
[21] Wilwood, GP 200 billet caliper, p. 2. [Online]. Available: http://www.wilwood.
com/PDF/Flyers/fl255.pdf.
[22] MatWeb. AK steel ASTM a 1011, grade 36 type 2 hot rolled carbon steel, structural
steel (SS), [Online]. Available: http : / / www . matweb . com / search / DataS
heet . aspx ? MatGUID = 7363563bf91e47909db9a43924c67af6 (visited on
12/11/2016).
73
Appendix A
Parts Datasheets
74 APPENDIX A. PARTS DATASHEETS
A.1 Bearing
The datasheet below is from SKF of an JL 26749 F/710 tapered roller bearing, [20].
JL 26749 F/710
Dimensions
d 32 mm
D 53 mm
T 14.5 mm
d1 43.4 mm
B 15 mm
C 11.5 mm
r 1,2 min. 1 mm
r 3,4 min. 1.3 mm
a 11 mm
Abutment dimensions
da max. 38 mm
db min. 43 mm
Da min. 47 mm
Da max. 47 mm
Db min. 50 mm
Ca min. 2 mm
Cb min. 3 mm
ra max. 3 mm
rb max. 1.3 mm
Calculation data
Basic dynamic load rating C 27 kN
Basic static load rating C0 35.5 kN
Fatigue load limit Pu 3.6 kN
Reference speed 9000 r/min
Limiting speed 13000 r/min
Calculation factor e 0.33
Calculation factor Y 1.8
Calculation factor Y0 1
Mass
Mass bearing 0.11 kg
75
76 APPENDIX A. PARTS DATASHEETS
A.1.1 Bearing parameters calculations

The following figures are for use for bearing calculations
Figure A.1: Load-Application factors [12, p. 576]
Figure A.2: Typical Weibull Parameters for two manufactures [12, p.601]
REV. DESCRIPTION DATE BY
A.2
A
.250 .375 1.500
30 TYP.
12X
A.2. WHEEL CENTER
Wheel center
6.750
3.500
BCD
6.250 3.000 6.625 7.225 1.500 3.000

The drawings below is from Keizer of 10" CL wheel center, [13].
1.109
A .250
SECTION A-A
PRODUCT MATERIAL DRAWN BY NOTES:

FSAE Wheel Center 6061-T6 JCS 1. ALL DIMENSIONS CRITICAL TO FUNCTION. ALL OTHERS PER SUPPLIED ELECTRONIC MODEL
TITLE WEIGHT DATE TOLERANCES UNLESS NOTED PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL 2. SEE SHEET 2 FOR POST MACHINING SPECS.
CL-10 1.58 12 OCT 10 [INCHES] mm THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS
DWG. NO. FINISH .XXX = .005 .XX = .10 DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF THE
SHEET 1 OF 2 RACESENG DESIGN INC. ANY
CL-10 WHEEL BLACK ANODIZED .XX = .010 .X = .25 REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE
PART NO. B DO NOT SCALE DRAWING SCALE:1:1 ANGLES = 1 RACESENG DESIGN INC. IS PROHIBITED.
3981 Jackson Avenue Orange City, Iowa 51041 Set Backspacing
77
CHAMFERING POST MACHINED
AFTER ANODIZING
K"" LOGO MACHINED AFTER ANODIZING

WITH 1/16" BALL END MILL
78
INNER SPOKE DETAIL MACHINED AFTER
ANODIZING WITH 1/4" BALL END MILL
PRODUCT MATERIAL DRAWN BY

FSAE Wheel Center 6061-T6 JCS
TITLE WEIGHT DATE TOLERANCES UNLESS NOTED PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL
CL-10 1.58 12 OCT 10 [INCHES] mm THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS
DWG. NO. FINISH .XXX = .005 .XX = .10 DRAWING IS THE SOLE PROPERTY OF THE
SHEET 2 OF 2 RACESENG DESIGN INC. ANY
CL-10 WHEEL BLACK ANODIZED .XX = .010 .X = .25 REPRODUCTION IN PART OR AS A WHOLE
WITHOUT THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE
PART NO. B DO NOT SCALE DRAWING SCALE:1:1 ANGLES = 1 RACESENG DESIGN INC. IS PROHIBITED.
3113 WEIDASVILLE RD. OREFIELD, PA 18069 Set Backspacing
The CL-10 CENTERLOCK SERIES wheel offered by Keizer, offers endless design
opportunities for teams who are ready for the challenge. This wheel was created to
support almost every centerlock design know to the racing industry. It gives teams
A.3
the ability to custom design its hub package around a high quality wheel center at
an affordable price. The core of the CL-10 strength lies in its cold forged center and
extensive precision CNC machining. The CL-10 series wheel is capable of extreme
offset requests while remaining versatile to accept any brake package.
Our tachnical support team is willing and waiting to help incorporate your design
into this wheel. The culmination of the CL-10 characteristics give this wheel a
step up on its competitors and yours!
A.3. WHEEL BACKSPACING
4.5
Wheel Backspacing
10 x 3
10 x 4
10 x 4.5
The datasheet below is from Keizer of 10" CL wheel backspacing, [13].
10 x 5
10 x 5.5
10 x 6
10 x 6.5
10 x 7
10 x 7.5
10 x 8
10 x 8.5
10 x 9
79
I
B
A
E F
customer name
D
phone number
C
address
G
email
H
signature
car type
distance from centerline A
car weight to underside of caliper
g-load capacity distance from centerline B

to top of caliper
machined drive pin diameter C

FOR CENTER LOCK WHEELS
length of axle stub axle stub diameter D
plus clearance
center lock washer diameter
hub pad diameter E
thickness of center lock washer
inside wheel diameter F
actual drive pin diameter
actual drive pin length backspacing G
drive pin circle diameter width of wheel H

drive pin qty
distance from front of caliper I
actual axle stub size to back of hub
80
A.4. BRAKE CALIPER 81
A.4 Brake Caliper

The datasheet below is from Wilwood of GP200 caliper, [21].
Sales and Marketing Bulletin
GP 200
BILLET CALIPER
Caliper Highlights:
The GP 200 billet caliper represents the newest
lightweight (only .90 pounds) caliper specifically
designed for tight fit applications while utilizing a
standard 2.38 lug mount. The GP 200 combines
superior strength with a black anodized finish along
with several new performance features.
The strength of the GP 200 is a combination of

process and design. GP 200 calipers are fully CNC
machined from premium grade alloy billet. The FEA
generated body design incorporates a highly fortified
transition between the piston housings and the bridges.
Strengthening this critical area of the caliper has substantially
increased its resistance to deflection and body separation under load.
Structural deflection and volume displacement testing have proven the
efficiency of this innovative design. Reductions in overall deflection, and the subsequent decreases in fluid volume
displacement, translate to increased clamping efficiency with less pedal travel. The bottom line is a firm, responsive
pedal with outstanding stopping power.
The GP 200 uses heavy wall stainless steel pistons to resist corrosion and slow the heat transfer from the pads. The
heavy wall sectional thickness improves pedal firmness and adds to the overall clamping efficiency by eliminating
piston backside deflection at higher system pressures.
Every GP 200 caliper is also fitted with replaceable stainless steel SRS bridge plates. SRS plates eliminate the bridge
wear caused by pad gouging to extend the service life of the caliper body. The spring-loading action of the SRS plates
also eliminates pad rattle and dampens the vibration harmonics that contribute to squeal during engagement. The
package is completed with internal fluid passages and four corner bleed screws that allow mounting in any front, rear,
left, or right side position.
ORDERING INFORMATION:
BORE SIZE DISC WIDTH PART NUMBER

1.25 31,8 mm .25 6,4 mm 120-12178
4700 Calle Bolero Camarillo, CA 93012 www.wilwood.com Sales: (805) 388-1188 For More Information, e-mail: info@wilwood.com
255 REV DATE: 04-24-15
GP 200 CALIPER, MOUNTING DIMENSIONS:
.25 (6,3)
DISC WIDTH
3.85 (97,8)
1.33 1.18
TOP OF FRICTION MATERIAL
PISTON (33,8) (29,9)
AND DISC O.D. TO BE FLUSH
1.10 (27,9)
.32 (8,1) MOUNT HEIGHT
MOUNT HOLE
"E"
OUTSIDE
2.38 (60,9) .86 (21,8)
RADIUS
MOUNT CENTER "D1" MOUNT OFFSET
A
BOLT CIRCLE
RADIUS
DIMENSION "D1" =
(DISC DIAMETER/2) - 1.10 (27,9) DISC/WHEEL CENTERLINE
INLET FITTING: 1/8-27 NPT DISC "E" "D1" "A" BOLT

DIAMETER OUTSIDE RADIUS HEIGHT CIRCLE RADIUS
8.00 (203,2) 4.68 (118,9) 2.90 (73,7) 3.13 (79,5)
8.75 (222,2) 5.03 (127,8) 3.28 (83,2) 3.48 (88,4)
10.00 (254,0) 5.62 (142,8) 3.90 (99,1) 4.07 (103,4)
10.50 (266,7) 5.86 (148,9) 4.15 (105,4) 4.31 (109,6)
10.75 (273,0) 5.90 (149,9) 4.28 (108,6) 4.43 (112,6)
11.00 (278,4) 6.10 (155,0) 4.40 (111,8) 4.57 (115,0)
GP 200 CALIPER, TYPE 4908 PAD DIMENSIONS AND ORDERING INFORMATION:
1.61 (40,9) .31

AXLE SET PART NO. PAD TYPE / COMPOUND
(7,9) 150 - 12270K 4908 Purple Pad for
Aluminum Rotor
1.78 (45,2) 150 - 12128K 4908 CM Composite Metallic
ORDERING INFORMATION, USER SERVICEABLE COMPONENTS:

CALIPER SQ RING BLEED SCREW BODY SEAL RETAINING
PART NO. PISTON KIT (4 PK) (EA) (EA) CLIP PIN (EA)
120-12178 200-8488 (1.25) 130-3602 220-9969 210-2582 310-3634
Need additional information - fast? Utilizing your Smartphone, scan the image
at the left to jump to our web site. This code takes you to our home page and
social media sites where information is just a click away, or click here.
Wilwood April 2015 805 / 388-1188 Fax 805 / 388-4938 www.wilwood.com

Additional Information: info@wilwood.com
82
A.5. ALUMINUM 7075-T6 83
A.5 Aluminum 7075-T6

The datasheet below is from MatWeb about the properties of Al 7075-T6 Alloy, [15].
12/6/2016 Aluminum7075T67075T651
Aluminum7075T67075T651
Categories: MetalNonferrousMetalAluminumAlloy7000SeriesAluminumAlloy
Material General7075characteristicsanduses(fromAlcoa):Veryhighstrengthmaterialusedforhighlystressed
Notes: structuralparts.TheT7351temperoffersimprovedstresscorrosioncrackingresistance.
Applications:Aircraftfittings,gearsandshafts,fuseparts,metershaftsandgears,missileparts,regulating
valveparts,wormgears,keys,aircraft,aerospaceanddefenseapplicationsbikeframes,allterrainvehicle
(ATV)sprockets.
DatapointswiththeAAnotehavebeenprovidedbytheAluminumAssociation,Inc.andareNOTFOR
DESIGN.
CompositionNotes:
AZr+Tilimitof0.25percentmaximummaybeusedwiththisalloydesignationforextrudedandforged
productsonly,butonlywhenthesupplierorproducerandthepurchaserhavemutuallysoagreed.Agreement
maybeindicated,forexample,byreferencetoastandard,byletter,byordernote,orothermeanswhich
allowtheZr+Tilimit.
CompositioninformationprovidedbytheAluminumAssociationandisnotfordesign.
Key Aluminium7075T6Aluminium7075T651,UNSA97075ISOAlZn5.5MgCuAluminium7075T6Aluminium
Words: 7075T651AA7075T6
Vendors: Clickheretoviewallavailablesuppliersforthismaterial.
Pleaseclickhereifyouareasupplierandwouldlikeinformationonhowtoaddyourlistingtothismaterial.

Physical Metric English Comments
Properties
Density 2.81g/cc 0.102lb/in AATypical

Mechanical Metric English Comments
Properties
Hardness,Brinell 150 150 AATypical500gload10mmball
Hardness,Knoop 191 191 ConvertedfromBrinellHardnessValue
Hardness,Rockwell 53.5 53.5 ConvertedfromBrinellHardnessValue
A
Hardness,Rockwell 87 87 ConvertedfromBrinellHardnessValue
B
Hardness,Vickers 175 175 ConvertedfromBrinellHardnessValue
TensileStrength, 572MPa 83000psi AATypical
Ultimate
41.0MPa 5950psi
@Temperature371C @Temperature700F
55.0MPa 7980psi
76.0MPa 11000psi
110MPa 16000psi
214MPa 31000psi
483MPa 70100psi
572MPa 83000psi
@Temperature24.0C @Temperature75.2F
593MPa 86000psi
621MPa 90100psi
@Temperature80.0C @Temperature112F
http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet_print.aspx?matguid=4f19a42be94546b686bbf43f79c51b7d 1/5
12/6/2016 Aluminum7075T67075T651
703MPa 102000psi
>=462MPa >=67000psi PlateT62,T651
@Thickness88.93102mm @Thickness3.5014.00in
>=490MPa >=71100psi PlateT62,T651
@Thickness76.2388.9mm @Thickness3.0013.50in
>=496MPa >=71900psi PlateT62,T651
>=510MPa >=74000psi Sheet
>=524MPa >=76000psi PlateT62,T651
>=531MPa >=77000psi PlateT62,T651
>=538MPa >=78000psi PlateT62,T651
>=538MPa >=78000psi PlateT62,T651
TensileStrength, 503MPa 73000psi AATypical
Yield
>=372MPa >=54000psi PlateT62,T651
>=400MPa >=58000psi PlateT62,T651
>=421MPa >=61100psi PlateT62,T651
>=441MPa >=64000psi PlateT62,T651
>=462MPa >=67000psi PlateT62,T651
>=462MPa >=67000psi PlateT62,T651
>=469MPa >=68000psi PlateT62,T651
32.0MPa 4640psi
@Strain0.200%, @Strain0.200%,
Temperature271C Temperature520F
45.0MPa 6530psi
62.0MPa 8990psi
87.0MPa 12600psi
186MPa 27000psi
448MPa 65000psi
84
12/6/2016 Aluminum7075T67075T651
503MPa 73000psi
Temperature24.0C Temperature75.2F
517MPa 75000psi
Temperature28.0C Temperature18.4F
545MPa 79000psi
Temperature80.0C Temperature112F
634MPa 92000psi
ElongationatBreak 9.0% 9.0%
11% 11%
11% 11%
11% 11%
14% 14%
30% 30%
55% 55%
65% 65%
70% 70%
70% 70%
>=3.0% >=3.0% PlateT62,T651
>=5.0% >=5.0% Sheet
>=5.0% >=5.0% PlateT62,T651
>=5.0% >=5.0% PlateT62,T651
>=5.0% >=5.0% PlateT62,T651
>=6.0% >=6.0% PlateT62,T651
>=7.0% >=7.0% Sheet
>=7.0% >=7.0% PlateT62,T651
>=8.0% >=8.0% Sheet
>=8.0% >=8.0% Sheet
>=9.0% >=9.0% PlateT62,T651
11% 11% AATypical
@Thickness1.59mm @Thickness0.0625in
11% 11% AATypical
@Diameter12.7mm @Diameter0.500in
Modulusof 71.7GPa 10400ksi AATypicalAverageoftensionand
Elasticity compression.Compressionmodulusisabout2%
greaterthantensilemodulus.
PoissonsRatio 0.33 0.33
FatigueStrength 159MPa 23000psi completelyreversedstressRRMoore
@#ofCycles5.00e+8 @#ofCycles5.00e+8 machine/specimen
FractureToughness 17.6MPam 16.0ksiin T651PlateSLaverage
85
12/6/2016 Aluminum7075T67075T651
16.519.8MPam 15.018.0ksiin T651PlateSL

18.7MPam 17.0ksiin T651ForgingsSL
20.0MPam 18.2ksiin K(IC)inSLDirection
22.025.3MPam 20.023.0ksiin T651PlateTL
24.2MPam 22.0ksiin T651PlateTLaverage
25.0MPam 22.8ksiin K(IC)inTLDirection
28.6MPam 26.0ksiin T651PlateLTaverage
27.529.7MPam 25.027.0ksiin T651PlateLT
29.0MPam 26.4ksiin K(IC)inLTDirection
Machinability 70% 70% 0100ScaleofAluminumAlloys
ShearModulus 26.9GPa 3900ksi
ShearStrength 331MPa 48000psi AATypical

Electrical Metric English Comments
Properties
Electrical 0.00000515ohmcm 0.00000515ohmcm AATypical
Resistivity @Temperature20.0C @Temperature68.0F

Thermal Metric English Comments
Properties
CTE,linear 21.6m/mC 12.0in/inF
@Temperature50.020.0C @Temperature58.068.0F
23.4m/mC 13.0in/inF
23.6m/mC 13.1in/inF AATypicalaverageoverrange
24.3m/mC 13.5in/inF
25.2m/mC 14.0in/inF
SpecificHeat 0.960J/gC 0.229BTU/lbF
Capacity
Thermal 130W/mK 900BTUin/hrftF AATypicalat77F
Conductivity
MeltingPoint 477635.0C 8901175F AATypicalrangebasedontypicalcomposition
forwroughtproducts1/4inchthicknessor
greater.Homogenizationmayraiseeutectic
meltingtemperature2040Fbutusuallydoesnot
eliminateeutecticmelting.
Solidus 477C 890F AATypical
Liquidus 635.0C 1175F AATypical

Processing Metric English Comments
Properties
Annealing 413C 775F
Temperature
Solution 466482C 870900F
Temperature
AgingTemperature 121C 250F

Component Metric English Comments
Elements
Properties
Aluminum,Al 87.191.4% 87.191.4% Asremainder
Chromium,Cr 0.180.28% 0.180.28%
Copper,Cu 1.22.0% 1.22.0%
Iron,Fe <=0.50% <=0.50%
Magnesium,Mg 2.12.9% 2.12.9%
86
A.6. STEEL ASTM A 1011 87
A.6 Steel ASTM A 1011

The datasheet below is from MatWeb about the properties of AK Steel ASTM A 1011, [22].
12/11/2016 AKSteelASTMA1011,Grade36Type2HotRolledCarbonSteel,StructuralSteel(SS)
AKSteelASTMA1011,Grade36Type2HotRolledCarbonSteel,StructuralSteel(SS)
Categories: MetalFerrousMetalCarbonSteelLowCarbonSteel
Material Type2forconversiontoA36
Notes:
InformationprovidedbyAKSteel
Key
ASTMA568,A1011,A635,A1018,A659,A749,SAEJ1392,SAEJ2340
Words:
Vendors: Novendorsarelistedforthismaterial.Pleaseclickhereifyouareasupplierandwouldlikeinformationon
howtoaddyourlistingtothismaterial.

PhysicalProperties Metric English Comments
Density 7.87g/cc 0.284lb/in

MechanicalProperties Metric English Comments
TensileStrength, >=400MPa >=58000psi
Ultimate
TensileStrength,Yield >=250MPa >=36300psi
ElongationatBreak >=21% >=21%
ModulusofElasticity 200GPa 29000ksi

ElectricalProperties Metric English Comments
ElectricalResistivity 0.000142ohmcm 0.000142ohmcm

ThermalProperties Metric English Comments
CTE,linear 12.4m/mC 6.89in/inF
SpecificHeatCapacity 0.481J/gC 0.115BTU/lbF
ThermalConductivity 89.0W/mK 618BTUin/hrftF
Someofthevaluesdisplayedabovemayhavebeenconvertedfromtheiroriginalunitsand/orroundedinordertodisplaytheinformationinaconsistent
format.Usersrequiringmoreprecisedataforscientificorengineeringcalculationscanclickonthepropertyvaluetoseetheoriginalvalueaswellasraw
conversionstoequivalentunits.Weadvisethatyouonlyusetheoriginalvalueoroneofitsrawconversionsinyourcalculationstominimizeroundingerror.
WealsoaskthatyourefertoMatWeb'stermsofuseregardingthisinformation.Clickheretoviewallthepropertyvaluesforthisdatasheetastheywere
originallyenteredintoMatWeb.
http://www.matweb.com/search/datasheet_print.aspx?matguid=7363563bf91e47909db9a43924c67af6 1/1
88
89
Appendix B
Tables and calculations
Table B.1: Design Parameters set by the team and by associated parts.
Design parameters
Description Symbol Value Unit
Total Vehicle mass M 320 kg
Static rear axle load Mr 192 kg
Vertical distance from C to G h 0.4 m
Wheelbase wb 1.22 m
Deceleration a 1.5 g-units
Acceleration gravity g 9.81 m/s^2
Vehicle max speed v 25.5 m/s
Coefficent of friction between
f 1.5 -
road and tire
Radius of tire R 0.230 m
speed ratio between the wheel
r 0.443 -
and the brake
Disc usable outside diam D 0.2 m
Disc usable inside diam d 0.136 m
Coefficent of friction lining
f disc 1.3 -
material on disc
Number of friction faces GP200
n 2 -
caliber
Piston area A 791.707 mm^2
System delay 0.3 s
Slope on a hill S 5% %
Ambient temperature T 15 C
90 APPENDIX B. TABLES AND CALCULATIONS
Table B.2: Calculated values for the Wilwood GP200 brake caliper
Calculated value of brake system

Description Symbol Value Unit
Relative CG X 0.328 -
Static axle distribution Y 0.6 -
Dynamic front axle load Mf dyn 285.377 kg
Total braking force BF 4708.8 N
Total possible braking force on axle FA 4199.323 N
Braking Force for the wheel BF w 1177.2 N
Brake Torque T 610.270 Nm
Disc Effective radius (torque radius) re 0.084 m
Disc Effective radius full circle re 0.0850 m
Clamp Load C 2794.276 N
System Pressure p 3.529 Mpa
Average deceleration for whole stop aave 1.279 g-units
Stopping distance s 25.920 m
Kinetic energy KE 104040 J
Rotational Energy RE 3121.2 J
Potential Energy PE 156.764 J
Brake on time t 1.733 s
Average Brake Power P 60037.20 W
Peak Break power P 120074.40 W
Heat flux into one side of the disc q 2843899 W/m^2
Single stop Temperature rise Tmax 151.065 C
Fade stop Temperature Rise T 1957.465 C
Table B.3: Properties of the brake disc material
Properties of the brake disc material

Material,type: Structural Steel Symbol Value Unit
Density of disc material 7250 kg/m^3
Brake disc specific heat
c 500 J/kg/K
capacity
Brake discthermal conductivity k 58 W/(mK)
Brake disc thickness w 0.004 m
Brake disc volume V 1.29E-05 m^3
91
Appendix C
Drawings
The following drawings were made using Autodesk Inventor and are of each part discussed and
evaluated in this thesis.
0 3,2
2
92
216
147,4
APPENDIX C. DRAWINGS
216,8
Designed by Checked by Approved by Date Scale Date
skar K ld 1:3 12/11/2016
168,1 Front assembly

Edition Sheet
1 / 18
D 2
03,
2
63,0
216
D
147,4
D-D ( 1 : 3 )
216,8
skar K ld 1:3 12/11/2016
93
Rear assembly
154,3
Edition Sheet
2 / 18
2,5
50
00
45,
2,
X UGH
R3
0
94
1,6 R O
x3 - TH
M36
A A
63,51
2,50
3,00 A-A ( 1 : 1 )
23,60
22,00
55,00
skar K ld 1:1 12/11/2016
Central Locking nut

Edition Sheet
3 / 18
25,0
7,0 ,0
B B 10
6,0
8,0
40
E P
DE
X
0,6
0
1,0
B-B ( 3 : 1 ) 50
-
6,
M6x1 - 20,0
skar K ld 3:1 12/11/2016
95
Lug pin
Edition Sheet
4 / 18
H(1:1)
96
H R2,5
5,0
R ,0
R64
20
,0
R58
203,2
R2
5,
4,0
skar K ld 1:2 12/11/2016
Brake disc
Edition Sheet
5 / 18
7,8
,0
F 11
E E
5,0 - THRU
9,0
F ( 10 : 1 )
E-E ( 5 : 1 ) 1,0
0,6
8,45
5,0
5,2 Date Scale Date

Designed by Checked by Approved by
skar K ld 5:1 12/11/2016
97
1,0
Floater
Edition Sheet
6 / 18
98
G(2:1)
8 ,58
R5 8 R2
,0
R3
,0
G
25,0
R7,5 ,5
43
115,6
,0 6,0
R37
16,5 R4
,0
R5,0
4,0
skar K ld 1:1 12/11/2016
Brake disc bracket

Edition Sheet
7 / 18
K-K ( 1 : 1 )
U 12
0 THR 147,4 ,00
6,0 -5,
0 0D
EE
38,1
P
43,0
K
J J
76,2
6,0
0T
HRU
R2 H RU
T
8,5
8 M36x3 K 18
L J-J ( 1 : 2 )
1,80 X 4
5,00
28,00 -12,00 DEEP
32,00
,0
L(2:1) R1
0
1,5
R2 15,8 50,0
43,1 10,0
skar K ld 1:2 12/11/2016
99
62,0
Edition Sheet
8 / 18
P-P ( 1 : 1 ) 12
,0
0
RU
-5
,00
0
TH
M36x3
,2
DE
76
100
00
EP
6,
N P
N
R
P
R U
147,4
TH
6,0
,0
0T
18
HR
U
R28,
N-N ( 1 : 2 )
58
28,00 -12,00 DEEP
32,00
0
R1,
R(2:1)
,50 50,0
1 43,1
R2
10,8
15,0
skar K ld 1:2 12/11/2016
62,0 Rear wheel hub

Edition Sheet
9 / 18
40,0
3,0
,00 DEEP
- 3
4,9 19,0 4,9
8,00
28,8
37,0
9,5
25,0
8,0
20,0
40,0 Designed by Checked by Approved by Date Scale Date
101
skar K ld 1:1 12/11/2016
Front A-arm bracket

Edition Sheet
10 / 18
32,5
102
52,50
5,0 18,8 5,0

28,8
27,5
8,0 T
HRU
,5
11,14
69
40,0
10,0
0,38
5,0
20,0
10,
00
T HRU
25,0
5
2,
R1
skar K ld 1:1 12/11/2016
Rear upper a-arm bracket

Edition Sheet
11 / 18
3,5
38,0
75,3
20,0
14,0
RU
6,0 TH
32,45 17,5
59,3 8,0
19,6
30,0
0,0
R1
16
0,
0
103
skar K ld 1:1 12/11/2016
Ackerman bracket
Edition Sheet
12 / 18
HRU M-M ( 1 : 2 )
13,1 M 8,00 T
28,75
97,
13,0
104
25,00
60
5
5,38 ,
8
R7
71
0,
14,50 14,50
R2
R31
,50
53,00
216,0
60,45
43,0
8,0
TH
6,00
RU
THR
21,2
U
,0
84
50,0
M 8,0
0T
HRU
114,06
skar K ld 1:2 12/11/2016
Front Upright
Edition Sheet
13 / 18
25,00
C-C ( 1 : 2 )
13,1 C U
8,00 THR
13,0
5,4 97
,5
HRU
T
00
8, 14,50 14,50
63,00
216,0
60,45
53,00
43,00
U
THR
0
5,4 R7 8,0
8
21,20
13,0 ,6
0
50,00 C
114,1
105
skar K ld 1:2 12/11/2016
Rear upright
Edition Sheet
14 / 18
9
12
2
13
106
15
3
16
22 11
20
10
19
17
4 21
5
8
skar K ld 1:2 12/11/2016
18 14
Front assembly
1 Edition Sheet
15 / 18
PARTS LIST
ITEM QTY PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION 107
1 1 Front wheel hub
2 1 Front Upright
3 2 JL 26749 F/710 BT1_001_101-Tapered roller bearings, single row
4 1 Brake disc bracket
5 1 Brake disc
6 1 Wilwood GP200 caliper
8 1 Central Lock nut
9 1 Upper a-arm bracket
10 6 ISO 7089 - 8 Plain washers - Normal series - Product grade A
11 2 ISO 4017 - M8 x 30 Hex-Head Bolt
12 4 ISO 4032 - M8 Hex Nut. Product grades A and B
13 2 DIN EN ISO 4018 - M8x25 Hexagon head screws. Product grade C
14 8 Floater
15 8 ANSI B27.7 - 9 General Purpose Tappered and Reduced Cross
Section Retaining Rings Basic External Series 3AM1
Retaining Rings
16 8 CNS 4407 - 9.3mm Crinkle Washer
17 4 ISO 4016 - M6 x 30 Hexagon head bolts. Product grade C
18 4 Log pin M6x1
19 1 Ackerman bracket
20 4 ISO 7092 - ST 6 - 140 HV Plain washers-Small series-Product grade A
21 2 ISO 4017 - M6 x 40 Hexagon head screws
22 2 ISO 4032 - M6 Hexagon nuts, style 1 - Product grades A and B
skar K ld 1:4 12/11/2016
Front assembly
Edition Sheet
16 / 18
18
16 9
10
12
108
1 7
13
14 2
17
6 Designed by Checked by Approved by Date Scale Date
skar K ld 1:2 12/11/2016

15
11 Rear assembly
Edition Sheet
17 / 18
PARTS LIST
ITEM QTY PART NUMBER DESCRIPTION 109
1 2 JL 26749 F/710 BT1_001_101-Tapered roller bearings, single row
2 1 Brake disc bracket
3 1 Brake disc
4 1 Wilwood GP200 caliper
6 1 Central locking nut
7 6 ISO 7089 - 8 Plain washers - Normal series - Product grade A
8 2 ISO 4017 - M8 x 30 Hex-Head Bolt
9 4 ISO 4032 - M8 Hex Nut. Product grades A and B
10 2 DIN EN ISO 4018 - Hexagon head screws. Product grade C
M8x25
11 8 Floater
12 8 ANSI B27.7 - 9 General Purpose Tappered and Reduced Cross
Section Retaining Rings Basic External Series 3AM1
Retaining Rings
13 8 CNS 4407 - 9.3mm Crinkle Washer
14 4 ISO 4016 - M6 x 30 Hexagon head bolts. Product grade C
15 4 Lug pin
16 1 Rear upright
17 1 Rear wheel hub
18 1 Rear a-arm fastener
skar K ld 1:3 12/11/2016
Rear assembly
Edition Sheet
18 / 18
110
111
112
School of Science and Engineering
Reykjavk University
Menntavegur 1
101 Reykjavk, Iceland
Tel. +354 599 6200
Fax +354 599 6201
www.ru.is

BSC ÓskarKúld 2016

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

BSC ÓskarKúld 2016

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Uprights, wheel hubs and brake system for a

new Formula Student race car

Final Report in Mechanical Engineering B.Sc.

Name: skar Kld Ptursson

School of Science and Engineering

Nmsbraut: Tegund verkefnis:

nn: Nmskei: grip:

Dagsetning: Lykilor slensk: Lykilor ensk:

Hsklinn Reykjavk Menntavegi 1, 101 Reykjavk smi: 599 6200

Reykjavik, December 2016

skar Kld Ptursson

List of Tables xiii

List of Symbols xvii

4.1 Introduction to upright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

B Tables and calculations 89

1.1 Team Sleipnirs last years car: Frankenstein. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.1 Static axle loads [5] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.1 Wheel center dimensioned from Keizer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.1 Kingpin geometry, side view and front view [19] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4.7 Designed Ackerman bracket. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

5.1 Exploded view of the front upright assembly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

A.1 Load-Application factors [12, p. 576] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

2.1 Brake calipers comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.1 Constants, factors and calculated parameters for bearing selection . . . . . . . . . 28

4.1 Specifics of 2016 uprights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.1 Weight comparison of 2016 and 2017 parts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

B.1 Design Parameters set by the team and by associated parts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

ATV All Terrain Vehicle

Symbol Description Value/Units

1.1 Objective of the project

1.2 Constraints and other considerations

Figure 1.1: Team Sleipnirs last years car: Frankenstein.

1.3 Rules and requirements

1.4 Thesis structure

2.1 Introduction to brake systems

1. Suitable mechanical components - disk, caliper, pads etc.

4. Brake distribution (adjustable)

t1 = time at start of deceleration [s]

t2 = time at end of deceleration [s]

v1 = velocity at start of deceleration [m/s]

v2 = velocity at end of deceleration [m/s]

2. Deceleration rise time

amax = Sustained maximum deceleration [g-units]

ta = Brake application time [s]

tb = Deceleration time [s]

v = Initial velocity [m/s]

= Static axle load distribution

Mr = Static rear axle load [kg]

M = Vehicle weight [kg]

Figure 2.1: Static axle loads [5]

Ftotal = Total braking force [N]

FA = Wbraked ef f ective (2.10)

L = Pad coefficient of friction

TB = Braking torque [Nm]

Fw = Braking force for the wheel [N]

R = Static laden radius of the tire [m]

r = Speed ratio between the wheel and the brake

Fx = 2 (pl po ) Awc c BF (r/R) (2.14)

Awc = Wheel cylinder or caliper size area [mm2 ]

r = Effective rotor radius [mm]

R = Tire radius [mm]

c = Caliper cylinder efficiency

re = Effective radius [m]