Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4


Team #3: Hussain Abdellatif, Sohaib Syed Alam, Adam Procter This report will summarize the testing performed to test the performance of the design team#3s deisgn project. Testing is split into three sections: 1. Engine Testing The engine was put against a small engine dynamometer to obtain power, torque and engine curves. It was necessary to increase the torque supplied to the dyno by the engine by sprockets and roller chain. The gear reduction ratio was 3.82:1. This meant that direct measurement of the engine torque and power was not possible. The dynamometer also had fuel flow meter but was oversized for our engine fuel intake. We used a graduated 50mL burette as our fuel flow rate measurement device. The burette was filled with gasoline and connected to the engine fuel intake. The time it took for 1 mL drops was then recorded three times versus different engine RPM. The rolling chassis dynamometer was also oversized for the size of our thin, low traction tires. Therefore, we could not measure the power output at the wheels. It was still possible and worthwhile to validate the profile of the engine curves and the best efficiency point of ~5000 RPM provided by the engine manufacturer. It is important to note that the torque and RPM was measured at the dyno. The gear ratio correction factor was applied to back calculate the engine RPM and torque. It is also important to note that the engine is equipped with a centrifugal clutch that engages at around ~3500 RPM. Therefore, data points at engine RPM lower than 3500 are neglected. Figures below are the engine curves obtained from dyno testing at wide open throttle.

Manufacturer Engine Curve

Torque vs RPM
1.4 1.2 Torque (Nm) 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 Horsepower (HP) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 4000

Power vs RPM






Engine RPM

Engine RPM

Fuel Consumption vs RPM

Fuel Consumption (mL/s) 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

From the figures and the manufacturer engine curve attached we notice the important similarities between the two curves: Max. power occurs at around 7000 RPM Min. fuel consumption at 5000 RPM Max. torque occurs at around 5000 RPM Similar profiles of curves

Engine RPM

2. Reliability Testing When the vehicle was fully assembled, reliability and operation tests were conducted at Peir 21 with the permission of the Halifax Port Authority and at Kart Bahn Indoor Karting with the permission of its owner. It is important to realize that the ambient weather conditions were extremely cold in comparison to the weather at the competition site which greatly affected the performance of our engine. The engine would require choking several times just to get started. As such, no mileage results were attainable. Moreover, neither Peir 21 nor Kart Bahn resembled the length or size or inclination of the track in anyway. However, several important reliability issues were discovered and rectified:

Battery underpowered: An eight cell lithium ion lightweight battery of capacity 10 Amp-Hour was purchased from Anti-gravity batteries as shown in the figure below. Chain tensioner: The #35 chain transmitting power to the rear wheel would jump over the sprockets and slip. Our solution was the addition of spring loaded idler sprocket that would pull down on the chain. Ceramic bearings failure: Ceramic bearings on the front wheel hubs and on the clutch housing supporting the clutch drum failedBearings were replaced with standard steel bearings.

3. The Competition (Further Testing) The competition can be considered as an elaborate test of our vehicle performance. The completed car passed the technical and safety inspection on the first try. The inspections were as follows: Weight of driver with racing gear 63 kg (Min 50 kg) Size of car within geometric limitations Two independent braking systems, front and back, capable of stopping vehicle on a 20 degree ramp Harness Test (Withstand 700N force) Weight of vehicle 48 kg (Max 140 kg) Visibility test of 180 degrees Exiting vehicle in less than 10 second in case of emergency Slalom course driving test We were able to complete 8 runs, of which 6 were official runs.
Run st 1 nd 2 rd 3 th 4 th 5 th 6 Mileage 447 mpg 440 mpg 552 mpg 548 mpg 744 mpg 806 mpg Modification

Replaced Bearings with non-contact seal bearings and Sprocket Insulated Engine, Corrected brakes Insulated Further and Increased Tire Pressure th 12 place out of 49 teams

Design Requirements Check The following design requirements and goals were set for the 2011/2012 Shell Eco-Marathon (supermileage) design team as follows: To achieve more than 900 mpg To participate and compete for the Shell Eco-Marathon competition in the prototype category with gasoline as our fuel source To meet all the rules and regulations set out by Shell, the competition organizer To attain a lighter overall design compared to previous super mileage teams from Dalhousie university

Previous team vehicle weighed 133 lbs vs 106 lbs of our vehicle. We were able to save 27 lbs.

To allow for easy and reliable engine starting, an electric starter is required such that the starter motor will not propel the vehicle forward but only start the engine The electric starter must be capable of providing reliable and several starts without the need of charging the battery or an alternator To be able to run for a total of 50 miles for testing and competition runs The vehicle must be able to attain higher speeds than 15 mph. The vehicle must be able to complete 6 miles, one run in a maximum time of 24min The power train will be equipped with a clutch to immobilize the vehicle when required without outside assistance Independent braking systems are required for rear and front wheels