A Reactive Camber suspension for a Formula SAE Car

Ross Bunnell, Eduardo Salecedo

Abstract
This paper presents a new suspension system for Formula SAE cars allowing for reactive camber change due to lateral accelerations. The benefits of cambering a tire to produce more grip during cornering are well known, as are the drawbacks when traveling in a straight line. This new system attempts to minimize these drawbacks while maximizing the performance gain using a reactive system allowing for variation in tire camber angles dependent on speed and turning radius. Using MCAD software it was possible to design and simulate component behavior and test for proper functionality and structural endurance. Furthermore computer simulations were used to examine the effects of increased camber on the time to traverse a corner relative to a conventional FSAE car. The results indicated that the components of the camber car would withstand their caseloads and behave without interference. Moreover these simulations proved that the grip generated from lateral acceleration and the overall performance potential was comparable to a conventional FSAE car.

Club of America [3]. This vehicle, shown in Figure 1, was not intended for competition, but rather as an experimental test vehicle to examine vehicle dynamics characteristics which were used in Millikens textbook on race car design [4]. The objective of the current project was to design a reactive camber suspension for a Formula SAE (FSAE) car designed to compete in the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) annual competition [5] using the current Indiana University Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) Motorsports Engineering [6] FSAE car as a base design. The project goal was to evaluate whether such a car, using high camber angles, could negotiate corners faster than a standard car. This included evaluation of the design under dynamic considerations to determine whether the complete vehicle concept could attain performance gains.

Introduction
Several attempts have been made in the past to develop a car with extreme camber adjustment capabilities. Systems of this type were designed as early as 1939 with the Hurley pendulum suspension system. This system further evolved into different reactive suspensions such as that used on the Dreschel and Fairthorpe TX-1 vehicles [1]. These designs were early attempts improving cornering performance by passively adjusting the camber of the wheels. The Hurley suspension used a pendulum to harness inertial force created by the lateral acceleration and transfer it to a set of four master cylinders that induced camber changes in the suspension. The Fairthorpe TX-1 used two trailing arms allowing the wheels to move vertically while permitting the wheel hubs to rotate about the trailing arms. The camber was controlled by a system of intercoupled linkages, allowing for camber change when the body rolled. The Drechsel suspension utilized a subframe separate from the vehicle body. The suspension members were attached to the subframe, thus allowing the body to roll about the subframe resulting in dynamic adjustments of the tire camber angles. The principal of having a high roll center was present in the Drechsle design in order to allow for improved body roll motion.

Figure 1. The Milliken MX-1 camber car was used to examine vehicle dynamics. [2]

Concept
The current project was based on creating a suspension system allowing a formula car to harness the grip benefits of extreme camber angles during cornering without reducing straight line acceleration performance. The concept merges the ability of a motorcycle to lean its tires when cornering with the stability and increased tire patch of an automobile. The basis for such a performance gains for motorcycles during cornering is due to the relationship between camber and the lateral force called camber thrust. Even at low angles this force is combined with lateral force generated from the slip angles of the tires, increasing the tire force capacity through a corner. At low angles, using conventional automobile tires, camber thrust may account for up to 10% of the total lateral force [7]. Motorcycle tires allow for larger lean angles and improvement in tire patch due to their sidewall construction, therefore a better use of the cambering forces. On a

Perhaps the most notable of the experimental camber cars was the Milliken MX-1 camber car [2] developed by William Milliken, an engineer and early competitor with the Sports Car Page 1 of 6

motorcycle, camber thrust might be the larger than the force generated by slip angle. [8] In previous systems, control of camber angles came from either steering linkages that changed the angle of the tire or an electronic or hydraulic system that changed the tire camber based on data received from sensors. This project uses a novel approach based on the dynamics of a motorcycle. Motorcycle riders lean the vehicle by changing their CG position before inducing any slip angle change via the steering controls. Specifically controlling the location of the CG was deemed to be unfeasible due to the fact that in a four wheel racing vehicle, the driver is secured in the cockpit and cannot induce the roll. This project used a double wishbone suspension to capitalize on the influence of suspension geometry on roll center heights. The distance between the roll axis, as defined by the roll centers, and the sprung mass CG height has a significant influence on the dynamic roll behavior of a vehicle. As the design evolved, the benefits of a parallel wishbone suspension became evident. A parallel wishbone design provided the designers flexibility to set the pickup points at varying heights so as to generate higher than normal roll centers. The calculation for the roll center of a parallel suspension lies in projecting a line from the contact patch parallel to the wishbones and determining the intersection of this line with the vehicles centerline. As such, the suspension pickup points were selected at the highest possible location while keeping the pickup points on the upright in as low a position as possible. This resulted in a roll center located at a higher position that the projected CG height. All forces acting on a vehicle can be resolved to equivalent forces acting at the CG. With a roll center located above the CG, the moment about the roll axis induces a leaning behavior on the car opposite to conventional lean angles. With this design, the uppermost part of the chassis leans into the corner, creating a behavior similar to that seen with a motorcycle. It is important to note that the lean is only in the body and is not transferred directly to the wheels and tires. The nature of a conventional double wishbone suspension prevents the wheels from cambering at extreme angles without interference. As the design evolved, it was decided to separate the upper wishbone to allow for the lean of the body to be transferred directly to the wheels. Since decoupling the upper wishbone created a two-member wishbone it was decided to create another support structure to join the pivot point for the upper wishbone to a second point in the lower wishbone. The resulting motion characteristics allowed the vehicle to lean freely without binding between members. The resulting vehicle could induce camber angle at the wheels when lateral acceleration was present. This can be seen in Figures 2a and 2b. b

Figure 2. The design is shown without body roll (a) and with body roll (b).

The next design iteration was intended to reduce the distance between the upper pushrod pickup point and the lower pickup point on the upright when the car leaned. Since a pushrod/pull rod suspension works on the basis of the change of distance between the pickup points with vertical wheel travel, it was necessary to minimize the extreme distance change when the vehicle cornered. This meant that it was not possible to position the pushrod pickup point on the upright. Therefore, it was decided to take advantage of the fact that it was possible to use the newly designed member connecting the wishbones as a pickup point. This would allow the car to use the leaning characteristics of the wishbone connector to minimize the distance change induced by the extreme roll angles of the body. The first key to the suspension system lies in locating the lower wishbone outboard point while finding an appropriate point to attach both the upper wishbone and pushrod to the rocker. The motion ratio for the rocker was modified by changing its dimensions and the dimensions of the wishbone connector. The wishbone connector is the member which allows the roll to be transferred from the chassis to the uprights and subsequently to the tires. The wishbone connector was first located at a point on the lower wishbone. The location points of the upper wishbones and pushrods to the wishbone connector were dependent on the desired motion ratio of both the rocker and the tires. Finally, the upper and lower wishbones were connected to the upright which holds both the brakes and wheel. The system works by transferring chassis roll, induced by lateral acceleration, to the suspension members. Since the roll center of the vehicle is higher than the CG, the acceleration causes the body to roll into the corner. The upper part of the chassis moves closer to the center of the corner while the lower part of the chassis moves outward, Figures 3 and 4 show how the body rolls during cornering. The system is subject to the following geometric conditions: The length of the lower wishbone cannot change. The upper wishbone is split into two components with each piece having an independent pickup point on the wishbone connector.

Page 2 of 6

This geometry creates a degree of freedom for the virtual length of the upper wishbone because the linear distance between the upper wishbone outboard point and the upper wishbone inboard point can vary. When the vehicle experiences roll, the length of the virtual upper wishbone changes and the wishbone connector rotates. Figure 4 shows the orientation of the wishbone connector prior to, and during, a generic turn. Figure 5 shows how the position of the two upper wishbone components change with respect to each other, dependent on the rotation angle of the connector. Figure 2 showed how the upright cambers when the vehicle leans. The camber angle of the upright is transferred directly into the wheels inducing a tire camber, thus improving cornering performance.

Figure 4. The wishbones are shown without body roll (a) and with body roll (b).

b
Figure 3. The camber of the wheels is shown without body roll (a) and with body roll (b).

Performance Assessment
With a reactive camber system, high levels of camber are introduced when cornering. This creates an increased amount of camber thrust compared to a traditional style suspension. This camber thrust allows the tire to generate more lateral force. This was confirmed by estimating how much lateral force a vehicle with this suspension could theoretically generate when cornering and comparing that to the lateral force that a conventional FSAE car could generate.

Figure 5. The wishbones connectors are shown without body roll (a) and with body roll (b).

Solidworks was initially used to estimate the center of gravity location for the vehicle and the camber angles of the tires in a cornering condition. The center of gravity was determined to be 13 inches above the ground reference plane. The camber angles of the outside tires and inside tires were estimated to be 26.5 degrees, and 25.5 degrees, respectively. With the track width of the vehicle known to be 58 inches, using an approximate weight of 800lbs, and a 50/50 weight distribution, it was possible to calculate the vertical load at each contact patch during a 1 G turn. The vertical loads for each tire are shown in Table 1

Page 3 of 6

Table 1. Vertical loads (Newtons) calculated for each tire.

4000 2000 Fz (N) 0 -40 -20 0 -2000 -4000 Slip Angle (Deg)
Figure 6. Pacejka tire curves for the motorcycle tire versus the conventional FSAE tire. Table 2. Estimated lateral cornering force (Newtons)

Axle Front Rear

Left Side 490.8 490.8

Right Side 1288.5 1288.5

FR RR FSAE FR,RR 20 40 FL RL FSAE FL,RL

A motorcycle tire model developed by Pacejka [9] was used to determine the coefficients required to represent the motorcycle tires. However, the tire model used was a motorcycle tire intended for street use, not one with the increased friction coefficient of a race tire. Additionally, it did not take into account the increase in the contact patch of the tire when camber was induced. Data from Milliken [4] was used to develop a scaling factor between a typical performance street tire and a race tire. In comparison of this data we found the scaling factor to compare a street tire to a race tire to be 1.7. To correct for the increase in tire contact patch a graph from Foale [8] was utilized and it was found that at 26 degrees of camber the tire contact patch increases by a factor of 1.07. Combining data from these two sources in order to compare the motorcycle tire to the FSAE tire resulted in an overall scaling factor of 1.82. Data from the Milliken Research Associates Formula SAE Tire Test Consortium [10] was used to generate a tire model for the FSAE car with the help of OptimumT software [11]. Figure 6 compares the Pacejka tire curves of the motorcycle tire and the conventional FSAE tire. The results are shown in Table 2 where it can be seen that the adjustable camber vehicle is predicted to generate a combined lateral force of 7832 N (1760 lb) while cornering at 1G. The conventional FSAE car examined had a CG Height of 12 inches, a total weight of 750 lbs, and a track width of 47.5 inches. In addition, a dynamic camber of 1.0 degree was assumed during a 1 G turn. A comparison of the lateral forces generated by the camber car and the conventional car are shown in Table 2. The results indicate that the camber car generates 352 N (80 lbs) less than the current FSAE car.. Overall the camber car is predicted to be capable of generating nearly as much lateral cornering force as the FSAE car. However, one must consider the fact that the motorcycle tires have a much smaller frontal area in comparison to the conventional FSAE tire. With tires being one of the largest contributors to drag on a formula style car, this could result in a fairly significant acceleration and top speed gains for the camber car, meaning that the camber car should be able to perform competitively with the conventional car. To ensure the structural integrity of the vehicle, a Solidworks 3D model Finite Element Analysis (FEA) was performed. The models results are shown in Figure 7 for the chassis and in Figure 8 for the lower A arm as a representative component. The models were examined assuming the worst case scenario for a FSAE car, of 3G vertical acceleration, 1 G lateral acceleration, and -1 G longitudinal acceleration. A vehicle with a 50/50 front to rear weight distribution and a total weight of 800lb vehicle was assumed.

Tire LF RF LR RR Total

Camber Car 1081 2835 1081 2835 7832

Standard Car 1120 2972 1120 2972 8184

Figure 7. Stress analysis model of the chassis.

In order for all components to meet appropriate safety standards, minor adjustments to wall thickness were required on the control arms to ensure they would not fail under the dynamic loads they would experience. It was also necessary to change both the pushrod and the wishbone connector to alloy steel in order for these components to meet a sufficient factor of safety. The final analysis results indicated a factor of safety above 1.5 for all components. A torsional stiffness analysis of the chassis was also competed. This was done by applying forces to the suspension pickups at the front axle and fixing the rear of the chassis. A vertical force of 300 lbs was applied to each of the suspension points at the front of the chassis, one side in the positive z direction and the other side in the negative z direction. This created a torsional moment about the center of the chassis calculated to be 302 ft-lbs. The chassis was observed to have

Page 4 of 6

twisted 0.0848 degrees under the 302 ft/lbs of applied torque, resulting in a torsional stiffness of 3560 ft-lb/degree.

Figure 8. Stress analysis model of lower A arm as a representative component.

The front view of the suspension shown in Figure 9 illustrates all the new components added and/or redesigned for the cambering FSAE car. Within the wheel lies an upright (arrow 1) with two close pickup points for the two wishbones, as in a normal double suspension. The lower wishbone suspension goes from the upright to the pickup point in the chassis. The inboard pickup points are located within two supporting plates (arrow 2). These hold the pickup points for the rocker (arrow 7), the lower wishbone and one of the upper wishbone components (arrow 3). The usual upper wishbone was separated into two different parts one going to the upright and connecting into the wishbone connector (arrow 4) and the other linking the connector to the support plate. This allowed for the roll of the chassis to be transferred to the tires and in addition to actuate the suspension by moving the pushrod (arrow 6) and the rocker attached to it. The complete chassis is shown in three views in Figure 10.

Figure 9. Front view of the suspension.

Figure 10. Three views of the full chassis. The new design focuses on a high roll center with a low CG. The use of motorcycle tires allows for reduced frontal area over a conventional car and increasing tire patch when in camber due to cornering. The chassis (arrow number 1), new suspension system (arrow 2) and motorcycle tires (arrow number 3) for the car are indicated.

Page 5 of 6

Results
The following results were reached during this study: 1. The suspension designed for this project successfully accomplished all of the objectives defined at the outset of the project. Pacejka models showed that the camber car could generate 7832 N (1760 lb) of lateral force during a 1G cornering maneuver, which is nearly as much lateral cornering force as generated by the conventional FSAE analyzed. The motorcycle tires result in a significant reduction of frontal area when compared to the conventional FSAE car, allowing for greater top speed and acceleration. Considering items 2 and 3, above, the camber car should be able to perform competitively with the conventional car. FEA studies of the components designed indicated all of the chassis and suspension components were structurally sound when the vehicle was analyzed to conditions of 3G vertical acceleration, -1G longitudinal acceleration, and 1G lateral acceleration. The designed chassis has a torsional stiffness of 3560.4 ft-lb/degree. During the analysis of the vehicle movement, no interference of the suspension components was observed.

5.

2.

3.

4.

2013 Formula SAE Rules (2013). Warrendale, PA, USA: Society of Automotive Engineers Inc. 6. Hylton, P., Raymond, S., & Otoupal, W. (2012) Constructing a Collegiate Motorsports Engineering Program. Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, October 2012, Seattle, WA. 7. Gillespie, T. D. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics. Warrendale, PA, USA: Society of Automotive Engineers Inc. 8. Foale, T. (2006). Motorcycle Handling and Chassis Design (Second ed.). Spain: Tony Foale Designs. 9. Pacejka, H.(2006) Tyre and Vehicle Dynamics. Amsterdam: Elsevier/Butterworth Heinemann. 10. Kasprzak, E. & Gentz, D. (2006). The Formula SAE Tire Test Consortium Tire Testing and Data Handling. SAE Paper 2006-01-3606. 11. Optimum T (2013). Comparing Tire Data. available at www.optimumg.com/docs/TireComparison.

5.

6.

7.

Conclusions
After analyzing the suspension configuration designed as part of this project, it was concluded that a vehicle using larger than normal camber angles could be successfully designed within the envelope of the FSAE rules. The roll center of the suspension system would be far higher than any other similar car. The new components forming the upper part of the suspension achieve the goal of transferring roll from the chassis to the tires, thus inducing a change in the camber angles. This, in conjunction with the aforementioned roll center height, allows the car to lean into the corner when lateral acceleration is applied at the center of gravity. The resulting vehicle showed potential to very nearly match the cornering capabilities of a more conventional FSAE car, and when aerodynamic advantages are factored in, the camber car should be able to perform competitively with the conventional car.

References
1. 2. 3. Dixon, J. (2009). Suspension Geometry and Computation. Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley. Milliken, W. (2006). Equations of Motion. Cambridge, MA: Bentley Publishers. Hylton, P. (2009) The Gentlemens Club: The Growth and Transition of American Sports Car Racing. Paducah, KY: Heritage Publishing. Milliken, W. & Milliken, D. (1995) Race Car Vehicle Dynamics. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers.

4.

Page 6 of 6