Stefan Williams

May 2003

Mech 1540, Introduction to Mechatronics

Major Assignment due 16th June
(Tutorial on 12th June)

Please Read these Instructions Very Carefully

General: The Major Assignment is worth 50% of the final mark for Mech 1540
Introduction to Mechatronics. You are expected to spend 10-15 hours
(including the tutorial times) on this assignment. The completed assignment
should be placed in the appropriate assignment box on the 3rd floor of the
mechanical engineering building by the due date. Please do not copy from
other students in this assignment. If copying is detected, then all suspected
parties will be given a zero mark. You have been warned. You may use
material from other sources (books, the web, etc) but these sources must be
acknowledged.

Goals: The goal of this assignment is to apply what you have learned in this
course to the design of a mechatronic system. The intention is to get you to
think about what you have seen and to come up with an original design for a
practical system. The design should be sensible and considered. Emphasis is
to be placed on system design and on clear concept. Technical information
should be no more extensive than that found in the lecture notes.

Directions: You are required to submit a written report detailing the design of
the mechatronic components (sensors, actuators, computers and controllers)
of an engine management system for a small racing vehicle similar to that
developed for the Formula Sae competition. A description of the vehicle and
its operation are included here. The design report should consist of no more
than 10 pages including figures. You should assume that the mechanical
engineering design of the vehicle is complete and is as detailed in the
following description.

1
The Report:
Your report should consist of the following sections (required headings are
underlined):
1. A Summary Description of the system. This should be approximately 1-
2 pages, include a requirements analysis, functional and environment
specification, and an overall block-diagram showing how all the
components in the system relate to each other. Please focus on the
mechatronic components of the system.
2. A Component Description in which specific hardware choices for the
actuators, sensors and other mechatronic components are made (4-5
pages). In particular, you should provide:
a) A considered choice for each of the actuators, and a description of
how they are controlled and powered.
b) A considered choice for each of the sensors, how measurements
are acquired and processed to provide control information.
c) Appropriate block diagrams that expand and explain how each
component (actuator, sensor, computer) relate to each other.
3. A Process Description (or flow diagram) showing how the hardware
and software interact in sequence to achieve the desired function. Pay
particular attention to the detection and recovery from possible faults
(2-3pages).
4. A brief summary of how well your design achieves the functional
specification and requirements laid down (fitness for purpose) (1 page).

Marks will be assigned according to the following breakdown:

1. Summary Description 10
2. Component Description 20
3. Process Description 10
4. Fitness for Purpose 5
5. Presentation 5
TOTAL 50

2
 Figure 1 - The University of Sydney's 2001 Formula SAE car

The Formula SAE Car

The Formula SAE competition is for Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE)
student members to conceive design, fabricate and compete with small
formula -style racing cars. Restrictions are placed on the car frame and
engine so that the knowledge, creativity and imagination of the student are
challenged. Four cycle engines up to 610cc can be turbocharged or
supercharged to add a new dimension to the challenge of engine design. The
cars are built by a team of students over a period of one year and are taken to
a host institution for judging and comparison with other competitors.
For the purpose of the competition, the students are to assume that a
manufacturing firm has engaged them to produce a prototype car for
evaluation as a production team. The intended sales market is the non-
professional weekend autocross racer. Therefore the car must have very high
performance in terms of its acceleration, braking and handling qualities. The
car must be low in cost, easy to maintain and reliable. In addition, the cars
marketability is enhanced by other factors suc h as aesthetics, comfort and
use of common parts. The challenge to the design team is to design and
fabricate a prototype car that best meets these goals and intents. Each
design will be compared and judged with other competing designs to
determine the best overall car.
The cars are judged in three different categories: static inspection and
engineering design, solo performance trials and high performance track
endurance. These events are scored to determine how well the car performs.
In each event, the manufacturing firm has specified minimum acceptable
performance levels that are reflected in the scoring criteria. More information
on the Formula SAE comptetion can be found at the following websites:
http://www.aeromech.usyd.edu.au/sae
http://www.sae.org/students/formula.htm
http://www.sae-a.com.au/formula_sae

3
For the purposes of this assignment you are to assume that you have joined
the team as part of the newly formed mechatronic engineering group. Your
responsibility is to identify and design mechatronic systems that could be used
to enhance the car and aid in its development, tuning and operational
performance. In particular, you should consider ONE of the following system
enhancements and design its interface with the existing mechanical system:
1. Engine management unit an Engine Management Unit (EMU) is
designed to regulate the fuel air mixture in the vehicles engine. Inputs
typically consist of the throttle position, engine speed, temperature and
exhaust levels. Outputs include timing characteristics and control of the
fuel valves. The current EMU on the Formula SAE car is implemented
open loop with tuning performed off-line on a dynamometer that measures
engine performance under various operating conditions . More advanced
systems also monitor wheel speeds, braking effort and emissions to further
refine the engine settings and adapt to changing driving conditions some
even adaptively change the EMU behaviour by monitoring engine
performance. Propose a design for the EMU that incorporates feedback
and demonstrate how this will lead to improved engine performance.
www.efitechnology.com/engcontrol.html
www.sts.sae.org/membersonly/techinfo/servicetech/oxygen13-17.pdf
www.simcar.com/literature/sae950417/sae950417.htm
2. Telemetry system tuning of the engine can be done using a
dynamometer to measure engine performance off of the track. However,
important information relating to the performance of the car itself should
also be collected during vehicle operation. This includes such things as
steering angles, throttle position and resulting accelerations of the vehicle,
wheel speeds and stresses in the suspension and other components. In
high performance race cars this information is monitored during the race to
monitor the system performance and optimize the race plan. Propose a
telemetry system for the Formula SAE vehicle. Consider the pros and
cons of designing a system to be used solely during testing versus one
that might be used during the race itself.
www.howstuffworks.com/champ-car7.htm
http://www.plextek.co.uk/pages/brochure/f1.pdf

4
3. Drive by wire Traditional road vehicles, including the Formula SAE car,
rely on mechanical linkages between the steering, throttle and brakes and
the devices they control. There has been a significant amount of work
recently on the development of drive by wire systems, similar to those
found in advanced fighter aircraft. These systems work by replacing
conventional mechanical control systems with sensors that monitor the
pedal positions and send this information to an engine control module. By
eliminating the mechanical elements and transmitting a vehicle's throttle
position electronically, drive-by-wire greatly reduces the number of moving
parts in the throttle system. This can lead to greater accuracy, reduced
weight, and, theoretically, reduced service requirements. Design a driver
by wire system suitable for the Formula SAE car.
www.edmunds.com/news/innovations/articles/43033/article.html
www.daimlerchrysler.com/specials/sidestick/sidestick1_e.htm
www.citroen.com/site/htm/en/technologies/tomorrow/drivebywire
4. Anti-lock brakes Anti-lock brakes are designed to minimize the skid in a
wheel during hard braking. A skidding wheel (where the tire contact patch
is sliding relative to the road) has less traction than a non-skidding wheel.
By keeping the wheels from skidding while the vehicle slows down, anti-
lock brakes provide a twofold benefit: the car will stop faster, and the driver
will be able to steer while stopping. Anti-lock braking systems monitor
vehicle speed when the brakes are applied. A sudden deceleration in
wheel speed is often an indication that the wheels have locked up and are
beginning to skid. A controller dynamically adjusts braking pressure to
keep the wheel from locking up. Propose an anti-lock braking system
appropriate for the Formula SAE vehicle.
auto.howstuffworks.com/anti-lock-brake.htm
http://autorepair.about.com/library/weekly/aa052001a.htm
www.intel.com/design/mcs96/designex/2351.htm
5. Active suspension A typical suspension system consists of a spring
and damper in parallel. The spring exerts a force proportional to
displacement while the damper exerts a force proportional to the rate of
change of displacement. The parameters for these two components are
selected based on the characteristics of the vehicle, anticipated operating
conditions and desired performance of the suspension system. Stiffer
suspension is often appropriate for high speed applications but causes
significantly more vibration to be transmitted to the driver. Active
suspension systems dynamically adjust the stiffness and damping
constants to minimize disturbances to the vehicle. This can result in
improved vehicle handling and performance. Propose an active
suspension system to be used with the Formula SAE vehicle.
www-control.eng.cam.ac.uk/gww/what_is_active.html
e-www.motorola.com/webapp/sps/site/application.jsp?nodeId=02M0ylfWcbfM0ym4PgS8

5
6. Vehicle dynamics controller a vehicle dynamic controller monitors the
motion of the vehicle and adjusts braking, and sometimes steering, of the
four wheels independently to assist in controlling the dynamics of the
vehicle. The car assists the driver in maintaining control of the vehicle
during hard cornering or during loss of traction. This technology effectively
combines advances in Anti-lock braking with traction control systems to
improve vehicle handling and control. Propose a vehicle dynamics
controller design suitable for the Formula SAE vehicle and show how it will
improve vehicle performance.
www.kraftfahrzeugtechnik-heute.de/k/en/esp/index_flash.jsp
www.abs-education.org/ishs/techindex.html
www.subaru.net/prototype/vdc.html

You should research your chosen system and consider alternatives

appropriate to the Formula SAE vehicle. In particular, pay attention not only
to the technical merit of your solution but consider its appropriateness from a
financial perspective as well. More information regarding these systems can
be found at the websites supplied above. Consider this a starting point for the
research and not a comprehensive source of information. Texts relating to
these systems are also available in the library. The appendix at the back of
this handout contains the design report for the University of Sydneys 2001
Formula SAE entry detailing the major components of the car.

6
Appendix A: University of Sydney Formula SAE 2001
Design Report

The following report details the design of the 2001 University of Sydney
Formula SAE vehicle. It details the design criteria and provides a high level
overview of major components of the system.

7
 USYD FORMULA SAE 2001

Engineered to Win

Manual
FSAE-006

USYD FSAE DESIGN REPORT

An overview of the University of Sydneys Formula SAE Race Car Design. Outlining
detailed characteristics of the final product and reasons for design methodology and
application.

Produced By: Date: 20th September 2001 Signed:

Denis Mesaros
Team Leader
USYD FSAE 2001
Approved By: Date: 20th October 2001 Signed:
Paul McHugh
Team Adviser
School of Aerospace, Mechanical,
Mechatronic Engineering.

Implementation Date: 2/11/2001

Approved Document The Original of this document has been signed

 USYD FORMULA SAE 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL OVERVIEW OF DESIGN.................................................................................................................................3

RELIABILITY ...............................................................................................................................................................................3
SAFETY........................................................................................................................................................................................3
LOW W EIGHT ..............................................................................................................................................................................3
SIMPLE ALL ROUND ..................................................................................................................................................................3
HIGH O VERALL PERFORMANCE...............................................................................................................................................3
EASY A CCESS .............................................................................................................................................................................4
EASE OF M ANUFACTURE ..........................................................................................................................................................4
LOW COST ...................................................................................................................................................................................4
DESIGN OF THE CHASSIS ...................................................................................................................................................5
OVERALL FRAME DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................................5
TUBE SIZES AND MATERIALS USED ON THE FRAME...............................................................................................................5
BODY CONSTRUCTION...............................................................................................................................................................5
ERGONOMICS..............................................................................................................................................................................5
DESIGN OF SUSPENSION SYSTEM..................................................................................................................................6
OVERALL SUSPENSION DESIGN CONSIDERATION .................................................................................................................6
FINAL SUSPENSION SPECIFICATIONS ......................................................................................................................................7
DESIGN OF BRAKING SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................................7
OVERALL BRAKE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................................7
BRAKE DESIGN SPREADSHEET .................................................................................................................................................8
DESIGN OF POWER-TRAIN SYSTEM .............................................................................................................................9
DIFFERENTIAL ............................................................................................................................................................................9
INLET ...........................................................................................................................................................................................9
ENGINE COOLING.......................................................................................................................................................................9
FUEL SYSTEM DESIGN ...............................................................................................................................................................9
FINAL PRODUCT .................................................................................................................................................................. 10
FRONT VIEW .............................................................................................................................................................................10
REAR VIEW ...............................................................................................................................................................................10

USYD FSAE Design Report Issue 1, 21/05/03

FSAE-006 Approved Page 2 of 10
 USYD FORMULA SAE 2001

General Overview of Design

The design of the University of Sydneys Formula SAE Racecar has been governed by the following criterias we
set for ourselves.

1. Reliability
2. Safety
3. Low Weight
4. Simple All Round
5. High Overall Performance
6. Easy Access
7. Ease of Manufacture
8. Low Cost

A brief rundown of each design objective is given below.

Reliability

From our observations of last years contest we made the conclusion that reliability was clearly the most important
design component of the car. On our return from the 2000 competition, the team sat together and made a list of
what we thought were the key lessons to learn from our observations and research. The outcome of that list
provided the grounds to decide what to focus on in our designs. We immediately decided that RELIABILITY was
our first design priority. We want to have a car that is engineered to last and to be reliable in all components. We
found that many Australian teams had many technical problems with their cars last year and things kept breaking
down. Hence we wanted to make sure our car does not break down and competes with its full potential.

Safety

Safety is important in any project. Our high regard to health and safety has seen that our second design objective is
to ensure the car is structurally sound and that driver safety is paramount. We have carefully followed all SAE
Rules and guidelines in terms of required roll-hoop design and side impact design and in most cases exceeded
minimum requirements for driver safety. Our designs give reassurance to the driver that their safety is not
compromised and that safety has been factored into the design of the car.

Low Weight

An obvious design feature if one expects to perform well. We have designed the car so that every component has
been optimised to the bare minimum mass possible. Although the above two factors has ensured that our car
weight is slightly more then what we budgeted for. Our initial target was approximately 200kg total mass (not
including driver), although our final mass is slightly over 250kg. The reason for this is that the frame has been
slightly over engineered to ensure a stiff frame in all locations has been attained and that the frame remains reliable
under the most severe tests. We could have decreased mass; although as mentioned earlier we wanted to make sure
that the car is reliable and safe hence decided to keep it as it is.

Simple All Round

Keep it simple is the key. Another outcome of our observations in last years competition was that the car should
be designed to be simple. We therefore designed the car to be simple in every aspect including frame, suspension,
braking, engine, steering and body shell. You will find that there are no complex components in our design.
Everything on the car serves a purpose and does so with the minimum complexity. The result of keeping our
designs simple is that reliability remains and there are less complex problems to solve when bugs appear. It is clear
to see that our car has one mission and that is what its been designed for (to compete well in the competition).
We have omitted any added complexities such as electric controlled gearing, ABS, Turbo-charging and Engine-
Reworking to ensure the car remains simple. The less complex our car and components is, the lesser the chance of
something failing during competition

High Overall Performance

To be competitive our car must be designed to perform well in all events. Our suspension, brakes, chassis and
engine have been designed and adapted so that the car performs well primarily in acceleration, braking, cornering
and fuel economy. Our intake and exhaust have been designed such that the engine has maximum volumetric

USYD FSAE Design Report Issue 1, 21/05/03

FSAE-006 Approved Page 3 of 10
 USYD FORMULA SAE 2001

efficiency and the chassis is designed to consider suspension kinematics and load transfer. The weigh distribution
was factored in so that the car has symmetry of weight distribution and a low centre of gravity with respect to our
designed roll centres.

Easy Access

Our car has been designed so that every component in the car is positioned so that there is easy access to it should
any work need to be made to it. You will find that every major component in the racecar can be accessed directly
without having to remove any other major component. For example, our diff can be removed and inserted easily
just by removing one bar; our entire engine can be removed easily and accessed easily should any work be
required on it easily just by removing the roll-hoop bracing and ancillaries. By making the car easily accessible,
this further adds to ease of maintenance and ease of operation.

Ease of Manufacture

It is important that our racecar is easy to manufacture. Our team is one of the only teams in Australia to entirely
build the racecar on our own. We have had to learn how to weld, lathe, machine and more to be able to have the
satisfaction of building our racecar entirely ourselves with no other assistance. To do so our designs had to ensure
that we could manufacture what we were designing. We used DFM (Design for Manufacture) & DFA (Design for
Assembly) techniques to ensure that our car was easily manufacturable and also easily assembled. As an added
benefit, by making the car easily manufacturable using DFM & DFA, we found that we could keep the costs down
at the same time and also adapt our simplicity and reliability objectives as well. Our DFM & DFA methods has
also kept the number of parts to a minimum and therefore reduced the chances of things failing.

Low Cost

We wanted to ensure our car was valued in the reach of a typical autocross enthusiast. Our targeted market
suggested that the maximum cost should not exceed $60000 AUD. Hence our designs needed to ensure that we
kept within this limit. Our actual aim was to make the one prototype worth no more than $50 000 AUD so that in
actual industry competitiveness our car will be attractive to buyers as being the best value for money.

Below is our final Racecar Design as designed using solid modelling software (SolidWorks). The model gives an
accurate presentation of what our final Racecar design looks like.

USYD FSAE Design Report Issue 1, 21/05/03

FSAE-006 Approved Page 4 of 10
 USYD FORMULA SAE 2001

Design of the Chassis

Overall Frame Design Considerations

The chassis is a space frame design where all tube members meet at nodal points. This was chosen over other
chassis types such as monocoque chassis do to its ability to retain high efficiency without difficult design and
manufacturing processes. The space frame construction ensures that all tubes are in ether tension or compression
making the most efficient use out of the material. We decided to use Chromoly 4130 tubing for our tube material
since its strength in tension is superior to mild steel. Although
its higher difficulty to weld and treat than mild steel the
expertise on the team was sufficient enough to make use of the
higher tensile properties of the material. This allowed the
frame to have increased stiffness without the added weight. The
frame was designed to take into account the geometries of the
suspension components and the dimensions required by the
engine and drive train. With those constraints, along with the
constraints of the 2001 Formula SAE design and safety rules,
the above chassis was designed to meet all interfacing needs
and at the same time efforts were made to minimise weight
where possible. As a first year team reliability was a
strongpoint we aimed for and thus the frame does has minor
over-engineering in areas based on the fact that adding a few
more grams wont hurt when reliability is critical.

Tube sizes and materials used on the frame.

-Alternate tubing sizes were used for the side impact members. Under the alternate tubing requirements the tubes
must have a minimum wall thickness of 2.1mm and must show equivalency to the sizes given for mild steel. The
alternate tube size was calculated using the solver function with in Microsoft Excel. The solver allowed the tube
dimensions to be optimised in relation to size and we ight and resulted in a tube size that possessed increased
strength in compression and tension, with a decrease in weight compared to the mild steel tube sizes given.

- Calculations were performed which indicated that the use of Chromoly Steel provided a significant increase in
strength (tension) over the use of mild steel. This arises, as the tensile strength of Chromoly steel is significantly
larger than for mild steel. It must also be noted that the density of chromoly and mild steel is the same, indicating
that tubes with the equivalent size will have the same weight. These factors indicate that the use of Chormoly steel
will yield a frame that is the same weight as mild steel but with an increased strength. It is no wonder most
professional racecar manufacturers use this material for their racecars.

Body construction

- The body comprises of Aluminium panels, a fibreglass nose cone and a single fibreglass side pod. The
aluminium panels are used on the outer skin of the vehicle in the side impact regions. These are simple, light -
weight and provide a safe barrier around the middle body region of the driver. The fibreglass side pod is located on
the left hand side of the vehicle around the radiator. The purpose of the side pod is to provide an air inlet to direct
the flow of air into the radiator. The side pod is constructed of fibreglass, which is relatively lightweight and is
simple and easy to construct, especially when multiple components are made. The use of fibreglass also allows
repairs to be easily performed. The fibreglass nose cone provides a cover for the front section of the vehicle that is
durable and aesthetically pleasing. Both the nose cone and the side pod are attached to the frame via Oddie turn
fasteners, which allow for fast and easy attachment and removal of the component. This allows for easy access to
the components covered by these body members.

Ergonomics
The instrumentation, seating and controls were all designed with the utmost attention being paid to ergonomic
factors. This was conducted in order to develop the best possible interaction between driver and vehicle, which is
crucial in the development of a race vehicle.

USYD FSAE Design Report Issue 1, 21/05/03

FSAE-006 Approved Page 5 of 10
 USYD FORMULA SAE 2001

Design of Suspension System

Overall Suspension Design Consideration

The suspension system is a double wishbone, with non-equal and non-parallel arms. The suspension geometry was
designed and analysed in bump and roll in order to give the optimal camber gain to maximise grip. The car uses an
inboard type suspension system front and rear, with pushrod-actuated coil over dampers, adjustable in rebound and
compression. Aluminium bell cranks connect the pushrod and shocks. The uprights and wheel assembly where
designed to reduce unsprung mass, whilst maintaining low cost and reliability. The entire suspension system was
CAD modelled and FEA analysis was performed in order to optimise components and the entire suspension
system. The front suspension was designed to help give the best handling characteristics. A caster angle of 7
together with King Pin Inclination of 0 where used as they give desirable camber effects in steering. The steering
rack was located to eliminate bump steer. Below are some illustrations of designs of suspension components and
geometries.

Rear Suspension System Front Suspension System

Illustrated below are stress analysis results showing the stress contours acting under maximum loadings with a
degree of safety factors. Alongside these results are pictures of actual manufactured components.

Some stress results for the bell crank design and wheel hubs.

USYD FSAE Design Report Issue 1, 21/05/03

FSAE-006 Approved Page 6 of 10
 USYD FORMULA SAE 2001

The suspension geometry was simulated and optimised using the SusProg3D. Assembly and cut out views of the
rear and front wheel assemblies are shown below respectively.

Rear Wheel &

Brake Assembly

Front Wheel &

Brake Assembly

Final Suspension Specifications

Type: Double Wishbone, non-parallel, unequal length

Pushrod actuated DNM coil-over dampers
Construction: 4130 Chromoly A -arms and pushrods
Wheels: 13 x 5.5 Auscar
Tyres: Yokohama A032R 175/60 R13 Wet & Dry Approved Race Tyres
Wheel Base: 1760mm
Front Track: 1315mm
Rear Track: 1225mm
Front Caster: 7
King Pin Inclination (KPI): 0
Scrub radius: 14mm
Caster Trail: 20mm
Front roll centre height: 25mm
Rear roll centre height: 40mm

Design of Braking System

Overall Brake Design Considerations

Our braking system incorporated the Dual hydraulic circuit (2 master cylinders) as required by the SAE Rules. We
are using four wheel braking, due to our differentia l design. The negative side to this is that we increase the
unsprung mass of the suspension assembly. Although reliability, safety, easy access and braking performance is
upheld by doing so

Our car is designed to stop in 33m, with factor of safety in the friction coefficient between pad and disc. The pedal
effort requirement is 65kg. (50 front and 15 rear).

USYD FSAE Design Report Issue 1, 21/05/03

FSAE-006 Approved Page 7 of 10
 USYD FORMULA SAE 2001

The brake design based on the uniform pressure assumption (Norton V5):

2 ( ro ri )
3 3

T = NFAt
3 ( ro ri )
3 3

Where
T- Braking torque
F- Axial force on disc
u m- Friction coefficient between pad and disc.
ri,ro - inner and outer disc radius respectively
A t - area factor
N- number of friction surfaces

The force analysis completed on the our car, assuming a deceleration of 1.2 gs, approximately 70% rearward
COM, weight of driver and car approximated at 350kg. Hence moments were taken about the front and rear wheels
to find the reaction torque. This torque is then inserted into the uniform pressure equation and the axial force is
found. The results were placed in a spreadsheet and the solver function was used to come to an optimised
condition for braking design requirements as shown below.

Brake Design Spreadsheet

Preliminary Brake Design for SAE car

Brake for SUFSAE

Values Description

Fixed Front
Pad force 30858.06637 Force of pad on disc
Ro (m) 0.11 outer disk diameter Required pedal effort (N) 321.4381914 Using ME's
Ri (m) 0.075 inner disk diameter (front) Required pedal effort (Kg) 32.76638037
Rir (m) 0.1 inner disk diameter (rear)
vehicle mass (kg) 350 Rear
Master cylinder Diameter (m):mc 0.015 Pad Force 11250.79797
Front Calliper piston diameter:fcp 0.03 Required Pedal Effort 168.7619696
Rear Calliper piston diameter: rcp 0.025 Required pedal effort (Kg) 17.203055
Number of pistons front 2
Number of Pistons rear 2
Length b/w pivot and pushrod 50
Length b/w pivot and foot 300

Variable

Friction coefficient :U_1 0.3 Between pad and disk Caliper

deceleration (m2/s) :a 11.799367 100km/hr to 0 in 33m
Wheel base (m) :xt 1.73 between front and rear wheels
COM height (m) :y 0.39 height of centre of mass
friction coefficient :U_2 1.2027897 Longitudinal force between tire and road
angle of pad contact (radians) :B Front 0.6981317 Enter chosen angle
angle of pad contact (radians) :Brear
Hydraulic Mechanical Advantage (Front) 16
Hydraulic Mechanical Advantage (Rear) 11.111111
Pedal mechanical advantage 6

Clearance
The space within the wheel proved to be a governing factor that
determined the maximum disk diameter and calliper size. As can be
seen in the diagram on the right, there is minimal clearance between
the calliper and wheel. By searching existing motorcycle brakes we Upright/hub assembly
found a unit that perfectly matched our design requirements.

The disc front and rear was sourced from a CBR900 rear disc unit. Ro -110mm, Ri-75mm. Front callipers are a
dual piston floating calliper with Piston f 30mm, pad area 44.6cm2. Rear callipers are also dual piston floating

USYD FSAE Design Report Issue 1, 21/05/03

FSAE-006 Approved Page 8 of 10
 USYD FORMULA SAE 2001

calliper with Piston f 25mm, pad area 14.5cm2. We are using dual master cylinders with Bore f 5/8. The remote
reservoirs are raised above the height of the callipers, which will remove possibility of brake fluid flow back.

The pedal effort biased is made through the use of a bias bar, which distributes the foot load to front and rear
cylinders as required. By rotating the bar the pedal effort is distributed in the ratio of pushrod distances from the
centre of the bar.

Design of Power-Train System

Differential

The Differential is a Japanese Specification Limited Slip Ball Type Competition Differential. It has been adapted
from a front wheel drive Mitsubishi Mirage Cup Mivec Car. Originally, the differential was in a transverse
mounted gearbox and had an extremely high preload, which was tuned for a 140kW, 1000kg vehicle. This all had
to be modified and adapted to suit a rear wheel drive vehicle with much less power, and less than one third the
mass. Tuning of the differential is very important to allow maximum traction under acceleration and braking,
whilst not compromising vehicle turn-in when entering or exiting a corner.

Inlet

The standard Honda CBR-600 engine has a carburettor at each cylinder, and draws air from a settling chamber
located after the air filter. This has been thrown out as we opted for electronic fuel injection to maximize
performance. The entire inlet had to be redesigned to accommodate the mandatory restrictor of 20mm in diameter,
and to house the injectors.

The inlet has been tuned to match the exhaust to improve engine efficiency over a particular rev band. The tuning
of the inlet was performed by implementing Helmholtz resonance tuning. The entire inlet manifold and pipes
constitute a mathematical model that should create peaks in efficiency at chosen revs. The inlet is manufactured
from an all aluminium construction featuring a carbon fibre inlet restrictor, which is a venturi design to minimize
losses.

Engine Cooling

The engine cooling is performed through a heat exchanger that has a puller fan mounted on the back. The radiator
has been selected by using thermodynamic equations that allow us to select a size that suits worst case scenario.
The size allowable has a factor of safety to ensure that the engine will never overheat whilst the system functions
within reasonable operating conditions. The radiator design is a cross-flow, finned tube heat exchanger. The driver
operates the puller fan by a toggle switch, so that the engine does not loose valuable power whilst on the track.
Clear images of the above components can be seen in the final product section on the next page.

Fuel System Design

The fuel system has been implemented as an efficient, low weight, low cost and performance oriented design. A
confined space within the engine bay meant that the actual fuel tank features a complex shape that effectively
limits the overall systems capacity to approximately 5.5 litres. Aluminium was selected as the primary fuel tank
material both due to its superior strength to weight ratio combined with its ease of manufacturability for this
complex shape. Baffles were designed and incorporated into the fuel tank design in order to minimise the
possibility of fuel splash and therefore fuel surge during the acceleration, braking and cornering cycles.

In line with SAE regulations the fuel system features screw type fittings on the high-pressure side of the fuel pump
as well as braided hoses for all fuel lines. This lowers the possibility of catastrophic damage to the fuel system in
the advent of an accident or mechanical failure, as well as providing improved aesthetics.

USYD FSAE Design Report Issue 1, 21/05/03

FSAE-006 Approved Page 9 of 10
 USYD FORMULA SAE 2001

Final Product
Below are some pictures of the final product that has been designed (without body panels in place).

Front View

Rear View

USYD FSAE Design Report Issue 1, 21/05/03

FSAE-006 Approved Page 10 of 10