2012 Formula SAE Outboard Suspension Jose Colin Efe Yildirim Chip Larson Rick Rickert Carole Gayley Thomas McCall Industry Advisor: Evan Waymire
Academic Advisor: Lemmy Overview Background Mission Statement Design Requirements Off the Shelf or Custom Custom Design options Calculations Design Decision
Final Design FEA Analysis Challenges and Solutions Conclusion Background Each year, Viking Motorsport (VMS) designs builds and tests an open wheel racecar. FSAE OS Team will redesign the outboard suspension for MY12. 2012 Competition: June 20-23 in Lincoln, NE
Functional need for center-lock wheels Competition in Nebraska-it may rain at a moments notice, so wheel change would be quicker Less rotational inertia Mission Statement FSAE-OS Team will design, validate and produce a new outboard suspension that will weigh less, have reduced part
machining time and cost that integrates a centerlock system. Design Requirements 2011 & 2012 parts are interchangeable Back-up system in case of failure Centerlock nut retention with two threads exposed FSAE rule Hub Weight
Target: 2lb Must withstand 2G cornering load Customer requirement Design Requirements Ease of Manufacturing Machining time: 80 min Hub cost
$200 each Service life 2 years Installation torque No more than 300 ft.lbf Off the Shelf Option Taylor Race FSAE/DSR hub and upright assembly
Centerlock Oversized for FSAE racecar Tripod CV joint Cost prohibitive ($4000)
Custom Design Wheel Nut Large (~ 2) Tapered Aluminum Small (1/2 1) Steel Hex Centers wheel
Inexpensive Higher clamp force Expensive
Lower clamp force Requires wheel centering method Custom Design Wheel Nut Retention Castle Nut
Spindle Nut Retainer Available in many sizes Able to modify existing nut Inexpensive Readily available 15* pin resolution Cuts reduce thread engagement
Poor pin resolution (60*) Difficult to produce custom units Custom Design Brake Hat 2011 - Integrated brake hat Increased machine time
Required larger OD material 2012 - Separate brake hat 2011 Integrated Brake Hat Plate steel Machined in-house 2012 Separate Brake Hat
Custom Design Wheel Speed Sensor 2011 Wheel speed sensors taped to the uprights Custom tone rings were machined, threaded onto hubs 2012 Wheel speed sensors integrated into upright Custom Design Upright
Small changes: Retain 2011 geometry Reduce machine time Relocate wheel speed sensor Realigned caliper mounting Calculations Hub Wheel nut torque Pin wheel contact stress
Wheel to hub friction Thermal expansion Bearings Loads from cornering Bearing to upright interference Bearing hub interference Design Decision Hub Hardened Steel Integrated CV joint
Lighter Retain 2011 axle Front and rear hubs identical Reduce design/FEA time Remove CV from front Design Decision Upright Aluminum High strength Ductile
Material: 6061-T6 Wheel Speed Sensor Mounted inside upright Reads slots in brake disc Design Decision Separate brake hat, drive pins, wheel centering components and wheel retention Brake Hat
Cut from plate Machined in-house 4130 Steel 3 OD stock for hub
Drive Pins 3 - drive pins Off the shelf Wheel Retention
Aluminum spacer Steel washer M16x2.0 Class 12.9 nut Spindle nut retainer R-ClipWheel Centering
Aluminum pilot Final Design Final Design Final Design Analysis Front Hub Bending 2G cornering
Final Design Analysis Clamp force Final Design Analysis Upright camber compliance 2G cornering load Upper deflection: 0.063 mm Lower deflection: 0.152 mm
Total deflection: 0.047* Camber compliance : 0.024*/G Final Design Analysis Upright cornering Final Design Analysis Upright braking
Final Design Analysis Brake hat, clamped Final Design Analysis Brake hat , no clamp load Challenges/Solutions High fatigue cycling in hub requires infinite life
The hubs were designed using experimental fatigue data for similar materials and conservative assumptions No dynamic vehicle data Typical dynamic vehicle data from similar applications No budget Prototype parts were donated by Viking Motorsports, Warn Industries, ARE Manufacturing, Beaver Heat Treat, Dr. Lemmy Meekisho and Zdenek Zumr. Challenges/Solutions Due to the necessity of donated manufacturing services, parts
of a new design will not be ready to test and use on the car within the same year New designs tested and used on the next model year Conclusion The Product Design Specification is the roadmap for the final design. Its completeness in satisfying known and unknown customer requirements is directly related to how good the final design is. Majority of time was spent working on non-design details
Q u e s t I o n s
?
