Design and Optimization of a Formula SAE

Racecar Chassis and Suspension

by
Reid F. Allen
SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
AT THE
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
JUNE 2009
2009 Reid F. Allen
All rights reserved
The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce
and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies
of this thesis document in whole or in part in any
medium now known or hereafter created.
ARCHIVES
MASSACHUSETTS INSTTUTE
OF TECH--NOLOGY
SEP 16 2009
LIBRARIES
Signature of Author:
Z7
7D tent of Mechanical Engineering
May 12
t h
, 2009
Certified by :
S) Daniel D. Frey
Associate Professor of Me ical Engineering and Engineering Systems
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by:
John H. Lienhard V
ollins Professor of Mechanical Engineering
Chairman, Undergraduate Thesis Committee
Design and Optimization of a Formula SAE
Racecar Chassis and Suspension
by
Reid F. Allen
Submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineering
on May 12
th,
2009 in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Bachelors of Science in
Mechanical Engineering
Abstract
Designing and constructing a chassis and suspension system for a Formula SAE racecar is
a highly complex task involving the interaction of hundreds of parts that all perform an
essential function. This thesis examines the critical factors in designing and
implementing a Formula SAE chassis from the ground up, with a focus on the
performance and optimization of the vehicle as an entire system rather than a collection
of individual parts. Analysis includes examining the stiffness, strength, and weight of
each part, as well as design verification. The thesis will serve as a summary of the
knowledge that I have accumulated over four years of personally designing and
overseeing the manufacturing of the MIT Motorsports suspension, provide insight into
the design of the MY2009 vehicle, and act as a guide for future chassis designers.
Thesis Supervisor: Daniel D. Frey
Title: Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Engineering Systems
Table of Contents
Abstract.....................................................................................
............................................... 2
Table of Contents...........................................................................
................................ 3
List of Figures................................................................................
........................................... 5
1. Introduction to Form ula SAE..............................................................
............................. 7
1.1 Static Events Judging ........................................... ....................................... 8
1.2 Dynam ic Events Judging................................................ .................................... 10
2. Design Constraints ................................................................................................................
12
2.1 Rule Com pliance ......................................................................................................
13
2.2 Meeting Functional Requirements ........................ ......... ........ 17
2.3 Strength, Stiffness, and Durability ...................................................................... 18
2.4 W eight ................................................................................... .............................. 20
3. Design M ethodology ........................................................................... ............................ 21
3.1 M aterial Selection..................................................... ......................................... 21
3.2 Suspension Packaging and Kinematics Analysis................................22
3.3 Vehicle Dynam ics M odeling ................................................
25
4. M anufacturing ................ ................... ................................................... 27
4.1 Tim eline .................................................................................
.............................. 27
4.2 Fram e M anufacturing.................................................. ...................................... 27
4.3 Roll Hoop Bending ..................................................... ........................................ 28
4.4 Tube Preparation and Jigging ............................................... 29
4.5 W elding ............................................................... ................................................ 32
4.6 Finishing ............................................................... ............................................... 33
4.7 Suspension M anufacturing ............................................. .................................. 33
5. Testing and Verification.......................................................
.......................................... 39
5.1 Fram e.....................................................................................
.............................. 39
5.2 Suspension ..............................................................................................................
.... 43
6. Future Developments and Recommendations...................
........ 44
6.1 Technical Im provem ents .................................................................................. 44
6.2 O rganizational Im provem ents ........................................... ......... .......... 46
7. Conclusions....................................................................................
................................... 47
8. References.....................................................................................
................................... 49
9. Suppliers ........................................................................................
................................... 50
10. Acknow ledgem ents ......................................................................................................
51
List of Figures
Figure 1: 2009 Form ula SAE points breakdow n................................................................... 8
Figure 2: Diagram of Skidpad event layout ...................................... ................ 11
Figure 3: Table of Minimum Material Requirements for the Primary Structure...........14
Figure 4: New rules governing cockpit size...............................................
15
Figure 5: Solidworks model of MY2008 Frame showing interference with new 2009
m andated tem plates ............................................................. ............................................... 16
Figure 6: Student generated kinematics analysis model................................ ..... 23
Figure 7: WinGeo3 analysis of the front suspension kinematics.......................... ... 24
Figure 8: Traction Circle Diagram ................................................ ...................................... 26
Figure 9: Labeled Fram e Diagram ................................................ ..................................... 28
Figure 10: Completed front upper A-arm from the MY2008 vehicle.............................34
Figure 11: Waterjet cut A-arm bearing pocket..........................................36
Figure 12: Completed 2009 front upper A-arm.......................... ................................... 36
Figure 13: Diagram of V-groove staking procedure................... ...... 37
Figure 14: Completed 2009 front and rear uprights................ .. ....... 39
Figure 15: Meshing of the frame model in COSMOSWorks..............................................40
Figure 16: Color-coded plot of FEA for compliance in the frame................41
Figure 17: Frame torsion testing apparatus ................................... ........ 42
Figure 18: Results of physical torsion testing.....................................
....... 43
Figure 19: Completed Full Car Assembly Model.................................... ....... 48
1. Introduction to Formula SAE
Formula SAE is a series of collegiate engineering competitions run by the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) in which students must conceive, design, and build a small,
open cockpit formula-style racecar. The premise of the competition is that each student
team represents a small start-up company, which is designing and building a prototype
racecar to sell to weekend autocross racers for less than $25,000. The competition pits
the teams against each other in a bid to "sell" the design to a company that wishes to
manufacture it on a large scale. Therefore, the cars are judged not only on engineering
design and performance, but also on cost, manufacturability, marketing, and reliability.
In comparison to many other racing series, the rules for Formula SAE are very open,
allowing for a maximum of student creativity in mechanical design. The majority of the
rules are intended to ensure that the vehicles built will be safe to operate, not only for
the driver, but also for any spectators or team members.
Figure 1 below shows the point breakdown and weighting for each event. It is
important to note the high standards that each team is held to in the judging for each
event and the attention to detail that is required. Event judges are experts in the
industry, usually with a minimum of 20 years of experience in their specific area of
expertise. Every design flaw is scrutinized, and each compromise and design choice
made must be justified with detailed analysis. During the dynamic events, the cars must
exhibit a very high level of performance, while also being durable and reliable enough to
withstand the very demanding racing conditions over a long period of time.
Static Events:
Presentation 75
Engineering Design 150
Cost Analysis 100
Dynamic Events
Acceleration 75
Skid-Pad 50
Autocross 150
Fuel Economy 100
Endurance 300
Total Points 1,000
Figure 1. 2009 Formula SAE points breakdown.
1.1 Static Events Judging
Static events judging begins with a thorough technical inspection of the vehicle which is
not scored. There are three parts to the inspection, successful completion of which
earns the team a sticker. All three stickers are required to be displayed prominently on
the body of the car in order to be allowed to compete in any dynamic events. The first
part of the inspection is a thorough scrutineering of the vehicle, ensuring it complies
with the rules. The second part is a tilt test where the car is fitted to a platform that is
first inclined to an angle of 45 degrees where it is held and checked for leaks. Then the
angle is increased to 60 degrees, which tests the rollover stability of the car, as the angle
corresponds roughly to a 1.7g lateral acceleration. After the tilt test, the car must pass
the brake, noise and kill switch test. First, the car is turned on, and both of the cars
emergency electrical system kill switches are tested. Next, the car must pass the noise
test in which the sound level is measured at a 45-degree angle 0.5 meters from the
engine exhaust outlet, and must not exceed 110 dB. Once the car has passed both the
noise and kill switch tests, it must pass the brake test. A small distance is given where
the car must accelerate from a stop, abruptly apply the brakes, and successfully lock all
four wheels. If the car fails any of the above inspections, it must return to the paddock
area, affect any repairs, and reattempt the test. It is extremely important to come to
competition with a well-prepared and tested car, as it often takes more than one try,
and sometimes several, in order to successfully pass all of the technical inspection
requirements. This can sometimes take an entire day or more of the competition, and
delay or prevent the team from competing in dynamic events.
The first scored event is the Presentation event. The judges of this event are considered
"investors" and the team must pitch their business case including market analysis, cost,
manufacturing, and profitability analysis. The team that was deemed to have given the
best presentation wins the event.
The Cost event includes three parts. The first part is prepared and submitted by the
team in advance and includes a comprehensive cost report and analysis. Every nut, bolt,
and minute of labor used to manufacture the car must be recorded on the Bill of
Materials and submitted. The second part involves the judges inspecting the car, and
making sure that the report submitted accurately reflects actual parts and processes
used to make the car. The third part is a challenge in which students must respond to a
challenge question related to manufacturing on the spot.
The most important static event both from a points and also a prestige perspective is
the Design event. This consists of six judges scrutinizing the mechanical design of the
car and evaluating the engineering effort put in by the students. During this event, the
judges are very critical, and often push team members to the limit of their knowledge in
order to find out the lengths that students have gone to in designing their parts or
systems and selecting components. The first round of design judging lasts only ten
minutes, after which the top 10 percent of teams are called back for design semi-finals,
and given additional time to show off their designs and their expertise. From here, the
top five teams are selected for the finals. It is considered very prestigious to make it
past the first round of design due to the high level of competition and the ever-
increasing level of quality of the cars.
1.2 Dynamic Events Judging
During the five dynamic events, the actual performance of the cars is tested. The
acceleration event tests the car's driveline and traction in a straight line drag race from
stopped to a distance of 75 meters. The event is worth 75 points, awarded according to
a scoring formula that weights your time against the fastest time from the event. In
general, each dynamic event is scored in this way. Each team gets two runs for each of
two drivers, totaling four opportunities.
The skid pad event tests the performance of the car's suspension and chassis by
measuring its maximum cornering grip in a constant radius turn on flat ground. The cars
must traverse a figure-8 style course, insuring that the teams do not optimize the car set
up for turning in one direction. Figure 2 below shows a diagram of the course layout.
M Placement of pylons/cones Exit
I OUT 0
* Pylon/cone to be removed for exit
8 IN 0
IN
Entry
Figure 2. Diagram of skid pad event layout
The autocross event consists of a course with both left and right hand turns of varying
radii to test the overall performance of the car over a short distance usually no more
than 800 meters. The cars are run one at a time, and their times recorded.
The culmination of each competition is the endurance and fuel economy event, where
the car must perform over 22 km of racing without suffering a mechanical failure, or
having a single drop of fluid escape the vehicle. The courses are usually more open than
the autocross event, allowing higher average and top speeds. The course designers aim
for an average speed of 35 miles per hour with top speeds reaching roughly 65 miles per
hour. Half way through the 22 km distance, the car is signaled into the pit lane, and a
driver change must occur. The engine must be shut off, and the team is given three
minutes to effect the driver change, during which time no work can be performed on
the car, and event staff look over the vehicle and check to ensure that no fluids are
leaking and the car is still in good mechanical order. After the change is completed, the
car must be restarted by the driver, with no external aid. It is during this period that
many teams are disqualified. Because of the high points value of endurance, and the
low number of teams that successfully complete it each year (only about 35% of teams),
it is considered a great accomplishment, and the ultimate goal for any team. Regardless
of any of the other events, if the car completes the endurance, the competition is
considered a success. The fuel economy event consists of measuring the fuel put into
the car at the start of endurance, and measuring the remainder of fuel left in the tank at
the end, and ranking the teams in order of least consumption.
2. Design Constraints
At the beginning of each year as the team sets out to design and build a brand new
Formula SAE racecar, it is important to have a clear and concrete list of design criteria
and keep these in mind throughout the entire design process. For a Formula SAE car,
the main constraints in general order of importance are:
1) Compliance with rules
2) Meeting functional requirements
2) Stiffness/strength/durability
3) Weight
Each component of the chassis and suspension can be judged by these criteria, though
naturally they differ slightly for each application. The focus of this thesis is the
combined design of the frame and suspension as an entire system, so less emphasis will
be placed on the details of the design of specific components.
2.1 Rule Compliance
The Formula SAE Rules Committee releases a new version of the rules governing the
competitions each year. The document has grown over time to over 100 pages, nearly
40 pages of which govern the technical regulations of the cars themselves. The year
2009 saw some very large and controversial changes, forcing teams to adapt and change
their designs.
2.1.1 Frame
The rules pertaining to the frame are lengthy and sometimes difficult to understand, but
for the year 2009 Formula SAE competitions, several major rule changes were made,
precipitating large changes to the frame design. In this area, the rules deal entirely with
safety and ensuring that teams build structures that can withstand an impact from both
the front and side with the driver sustaining minimal injuries. The structure for the front
and main roll hoops, front bulkhead, and supporting braces are all specified in the rules
as to their general location and minimum material strength. Figure 3 below shows the
requirements for each of these 'Primary Structure' items.
ITEM or APPLICATION
OUTSIDE DIAMETER
X WALL THICKNESS
Main & Front Hoops, 1.0 inch (25.4 mm) x 0.095 inch (2.4 mm)
Shoulder Harness Mounting Bar or 25.0 mm x 2.50 mm metric
Side Impact Structure, Front Bulkhead, 1.0 inch (25.4 mm) x 0.065 inch (1.65 mm)
Roll Hoop Bracing, Driver's Restraint or 25.0 mm x 1.75 mm metric
Harness Attachment (except as noted or 25.4 mm x 1.60 mm metric
above)
Front Bulkhead Support 1.0 inch (25.4 mm) x 0.049 inch (1.25 mm)
or 25.0 mm x 1.5 mm metric
or 26.0 mm x 1.2 mm metric
Figure 3. Table of Minimum Material Requirements for the Primary Structure
If any deviations are made from these materials, an SEF, or Structural Equivalency Form
must be submitted with calculations showing that the substitute is as strong as or
stronger than the minimum in both bending and buckling. In addition to specifying
material minimums, the rules also specify the geometry of the main and front roll hoops
that protect the driver in the event of a rollover. Bracing and load paths must be direct
and intersect with major joints, or 'nodes' on the frame. Despite the depth and breadth
of the rules in this area, innovation is still possible, and many good solutions exist.
Optimizing the frame in terms of packaging and interdependencies with other systems
and components is what separates a good frame from a great frame, and is the major
focus of this thesis.
New for the year 2009, are rules governing the driver's cell and cockpit area. These
rules mandate that large templates be able to be passed horizontally through the front
of the frame, where the driver's lower body would be, and vertically through the cockpit
opening. The rules were designed to improve the safety of the vehicles and make them
more comfortable for larger people to drive. Because there is no minimum weight in
Formula SAE, there is a large incentive to make the frames as small and light as possible
and push the envelope in terms of driver comfort and safety. Figure 4 shows the text
outlining the new regulations. While the rules will have the desired effect of increased
safety, they were met with stiff resistance from students and teams. Some teams have
been using the same general designs for several years, and the new rules forced teams
to start over with a new frame design. In addition, because of the increase in size of the
frames, some teams affectionately named the new rules the "Formula Bus" rules
because of the change in the appearance of the cars.
4.1 Cockpit Opening
4.1.1 In order to ensure that the opening giving access to the cockpit is of adequate size, a
template shown in Figure 8 will be inserted into the cockpit opening. It will be held
horizontally and inserted vertically until it has passed below the top bar of the Side Impact
Structure (or until it is 350 mm above the ground for monocoque cars).
4.1.2 During this test, the steering wheel, steering column, seat and all padding may be removed.
4.2 Cockpit Internal Cross Section:
4.2.1 A free vertical cross section, which allows the template shown in Figure 9 to be passed
horizontally through the cockpit to a point 100 mm (4 inches) rearwards of the face of the
rearmost pedal when in the inoperative position, must be maintained over its entire length.
4.2.2 The only things that may encroach on this area are the steering wheel, steering column and
any padding that is required by Rule 5.7 "Driver's Leg Protection".
4.2.3 For 2009, teams whose cars do not comply with 4.1 or 4.2 will have 35 points deducted
from their Design Event score.
Figure 4. New rules governing cockpit size.
To illustrate the large changes necessary to the MIT MY2009 vehicle, Figure 5 below
depicts the MIT Motorsports MY2008 frame design from the side and top view with
solid models of the new templates required superimposed
in red.
Figure 5. Solidworks model of MY2008 Frame showing interference with new 2009 mandated templates.
It is easy to see the front most template intersect the frame in several places. Most
notably, the two diagonal braces for the upper bulkhead supports cross directly through
the red zone. These braces are crucial for proper bracing of suspension loads and
presented a significant challenge in the redesign of the frame. From the top view, the
cockpit-opening
template intersects with almost the entire upper cockpit bracing, in
addition to the steering column support, which is not pictured in the above model.
2.1.2 Suspension
The rules governing the design of everything between the frame and tire contact patch
of the ground is much more open than that of the frame, as there are less safety issues
involved. In general, there are only three main restrictions on the design of the
suspension. It must have a minimum of 50.4 mm of useable travel, 25.4 mm in each
direction, have 25.4 mm or 1 inch of ground clearance at all times, and the wheels must
be a minimum of 203.2 mm or 8 inches in diameter. While the rules are quite open,
because of the heavy interdependencies that exist with the frame, the frame rules place
large design constraints on the performance of the suspension as will be detailed in a
later section.
2.2 Meeting Functional Requirements
Each component of any large assembly must have its functional requirements and
interdependencies identified very early in the design process so that problem areas and
complications can be identified early and mitigated. In designing a frame for Formula
SAE, the most important design constraint besides meeting the rules is the mounting of
the suspension links, anti-roll bars, rockers, and coil-over shocks and springs. The
kinematics of the suspension has the single largest effect on the vehicles dynamics and
handling, and it is crucial that the motions of the wheel and tire assembly throughout
the ride travel be optimized according to data provided by the tire manufacturer.
Therefore, frame design must be determined largely by the design of the suspension. In
itself, the suspension comprises the highest part count of any system on the car and
requires the most time to fabricate. It must connect the wheel and tire with the chassis
through the wishbones, support the braking system, and be easily adjustable to be able
to tune the dynamics of the car for different situations.
The next largest part that must incorporate into the frame is the engine. Besides the
driver, the engine is the single largest mass of any part of the car, weighing roughly 110
Ibs. That means it should be mounted as low in the car as possible to lower the center
of gravity, and in the proper place longitudinally, depending on the desired weight
distribution of the car, the wheelbase, and the angle of the back of the driver seat.
Packaging of the intake, exhaust, and fuel tank must also be given consideration when
designing the engine mounts. Being made of a very stiff block of aluminum, the engine
can also be used to increase the torsional rigidity of the frame, and provide a stiff
location to mount suspension pivot points.
Because it is advantageous to start frame and suspension construction as soon as
possible, the design of other systems is usually not yet finalized and these systems must
be designed around the frame. This includes many of the powertrain ancillary systems
such as electronics, cooling, oiling, and fueling.
2.3 Stiffness, Strength and Durability
In addition to complying with the rules and fulfilling its functional requirement, each
part of the frame and suspension must meet a certain structural target. For the frame,
the most common metric to measure stiffness is its torsional rigidity. This is because as
the car enters a corner, the suspension on the outside of the corner will transmit loads
horizontally through suspension wishbones and vertically through the push rod, which
actuates the shock and spring. For the race engineer, whose job entails diagnosing
handling problems and tuning the car for different track or weather conditions, a vehicle
that is easy to analyze and adjust is much easier to work with. If the chassis is
sufficiently stiff, the engineer can essentially make the assumption of the frame as a
rigid body. That means that the coil springs at each corner of the car are the only
springs in the equations of motion that govern the dynamics of the vehicle except the
tires. The engineer can then be certain that when he or she makes a decision to stiffen
the front springs to reduce the oversteer of the car, that changing the springs will have
the desired effect of reducing the load transfer at the rear of the car, reducing the loads
at the contact patch of the tire, and increasing the amount of tractive effort available to
the rear tires. If the frame is too soft either overall or locally at the suspension mounts,
then it must be modeled as having several springs in series, and changing the coil
springs will not have the desired effect.
In terms of the design of suspension components, stiffness is equally as important. As
mentioned previously, controlling the interaction between the tire and the road surface
is extremely important to maintain the optimal conditions for the tire under all
circumstances. This includes the camber angle of the tire, the toe or slip angle that the
tire assumes in relation to its direction of travel, and location of the roll center. The roll
center is the point about which the chassis rolls when a side force is applied, or in other
words it is the point where if a side load were applied, no roll of the chassis would
occur. Determining the appropriate stiffness of suspension components is much more
complicated than that of the frame. Rather than just being stiff enough to be ignored,
the stiffness, or compliance of each component must be known to ensure that the
suspension remains within an acceptable range of the optimal under all conditions. This
will help to avoid many problems in tuning the car later on. For example, the toe of the
rear wheels in relation to the straight-ahead position is crucial for vehicle stability. If the
rear wheels are toed-out, where the front of the wheels are further apart than the back,
it can lead to a very unstable car that sometimes results in sudden and severe oversteer.
If the car is aligned to have toe-in, but the suspension uprights are not stiff enough,
compliance could cause the rear wheels to toe-out under heavy cornering load. The toe
of the wheel would change as the driver turned into the corner, and would suddenly
become unstable, resulting in a car that is unpredictable and difficult to drive.
Strength and fatigue life of these components that are subjected to oscillating cyclic
loading is also extremely important. In general, if one is designing for stiffness, the part
will be inherently strong enough assuming proper material selection. However, care
must still be taken to minimize stress concentrations and take extreme care in preparing
parts that must be welded.
2.4 Weight
Keeping the weight to a minimum is essential to every aspect of the performance of any
racecar. Not only does additional weight translate into slower acceleration, but it
means that the brakes must be designed to decelerate that mass as well. More weight
is also extremely detrimental to the handling and cornering performance of the car due
to the load sensitive nature of modern pneumatic tires. The coefficient of friction
between the contact patch of the tire and the road surface falls off dramatically as the
load on the tire is increased. Increased weight also raises the center of mass of the car,
which incurs more body roll and the car will have less stability in cornering. In addition,
the polar moment of inertia of the vehicle will be greater, resulting in slower yaw
response of the car to steering input and slower direction changes, which is a huge
disadvantage on the tight autocross courses, which often include one or more slaloms.
To this end, the entire vehicle must be optimized and communication between
designers is paramount. It is easy to make very stiff components that are heavy.
Diligent and clever designers can make parts that fulfill all of their functional
requirements, hit their stiffness and strength targets, and still use material as efficiently
as possible to keep weight to a minimum.
3. Design Methodology
3.1 Material selection
For the frame, the material for the primary structure is mandated to be mild or alloy
steel tubing with the dimensions specified above in Figure 3. Construction of the entire
frame from steel tubing is the most common method in Formula SAE because of the
minimum of tools and equipment required and the low cost of materials. A small
handful of teams attempt alternative constructions such as a carbon fiber monocoque
or aluminum construction, however history has shown no distinct and clear advantage
of one type of chassis over another in the context of Formula SAE. A well-designed steel
tube frame should weigh less than 60 Ibs and be sufficiently stiff. Because of the higher
level of analysis required for the alternate constructions, they are often not optimized
and many weigh more than and are less stiff than a good steel frame. Once the decision
is made to use a steel frame, the only choice left to make is the specific alloy and tubing
sizes. Chrome-Moly steel, or SAE 4130, is a steel alloy that includes higher amounts of
Chromium and Molybdenum. It is stronger than mild steel, has excellent welding
properties, and is available in a very wide range of tubing and sheet sizes due to its wide
use in the aircraft industry. These make it an easy choice for building a Formula SAE
steel space frame.
3.2 Suspension Packaging and Kinematics Analysis
Because the inboard suspension mounting points determine the location of the major
frame structures, simultaneous design is required. In the past, the frame and
suspension were designed by two separate people, each using a different software
package. This meant that every week, the frame designer would receive a new set of
suspension mounting points from the suspension designer, and would have to update
his design accordingly. This leads to a slower design process, more redesigns, and
complications keeping track of revisions. This year, a combined kinematics and frame
model was produced, which allowed some basic level kinematics design to be done in
Solidworks alongside the frame model, with frame structures being driven in the model
directly from the suspension points. Figure 6 below depicts the Solidworks model of the
kinematics used to drive thee frame model.
Figure 6. Student generated kinematics analysis model.
Once the basic layout of the frame and suspension analysis was completed, a more
thorough study of the geometry could be done to fine tune the performance of the
suspension and look at transient effects such as camber gain, bump steer, roll steer, and
track change. This was done using a simple and inexpensive program called WinGeo3.
It is a geometric solver with parameterized models of many different types of
suspension layouts that can be modified to suit almost any need. As both the front and
rear suspension on the car are dual-wishbone and push-rod actuated, geometric
analysis is straightforward. Figure 7 below shows a screen shot of the MY2009 front
suspension in WinGeo3. A dual-wishbone set up was chosen over other designs as it is
allows the designer the greatest degree of flexibility in choosing the kinematics with the
fewest compromises. On road cars, many compromises have to be made for cost and
packaging reasons, especially in front-wheel drive cars with transversely mounted
engines, as they leave the least amount of room for mounting of the suspension.
.-
.. ...... .
Figure 7. WinGeo3 analysis of the front suspension kinematics.
The best suspension modeling software in the world will not get you very far however if
you do not know what targets you are trying to hit. That is why the field of tire
modeling and tire testing has grown substantially in the last several decades as vehicle
dynamics models have grown more complex. A modern pneumatic racing tire produces
varying amounts of side force or traction under different operating conditions. Large
tire testing machines exists which vary all parameters relevant to tire operation and
record the performance of the tire. This data can then be used to extract specific pieces
of information, or to create a more general mathematical model for the tire.
Parameters affecting the maximum grip of the tire are its slip angle, or angle between
the direction of heading of the tire and the trajectory of the vehicle, the camber of the
tire, and the load on the tire, the inflation pressure, and the temperature of the rubber.
It is the job of the suspension designer to make sure that the tire operates as close to its
optimal point at all times. This requires complex knowledge of the types of courses the
car will be running on with typical cornering radii, the weight of the vehicle, and the
location of the center of mass.
3.3 Vehicle Dynamics Modeling
In addition to optimizing the kinematics for maximum tire potential, significant effort
needs to be applied to modeling the dynamics of the vehicle as a whole. As stated
previously, the load transfer from the inside wheel to the outside wheel in cornering is
the driving physical phenomenon. Because only a certain amount of traction is available
at the tire, in order to maximize the overall cornering ability of the vehicle, the usable
traction should be spread over each of the four tires as evenly as possible. In general,
the traction available at the tire is available for any combination of braking, turning, or
accelerating. A graphical depiction of this is commonly known as the 'traction circle'
where the radius of the circle is the maximum coefficient of friction available. Figure 8
shows a typical traction circle.
Accelerating
Sliding
Left turn
Limit of
adhesion
Current
acceleration
of the tire
ight turn
l50g
Figure 8. A typical traction circle.
Because of this phenomenon, the front tires are often tasked with doing more of the
turning work so that more traction is available at the rear tires for accelerating the car
well out of the corner, which is essential to overall speed of the car.
In order to calculate just how much roll stiffness each end of the car should provide,
Milliken's Race Car Vehicle Dynamics, or RCVD as it is commonly referred to, was an
excellent reference. RCVD is colloquially known as the 'Bible' on vehicle dynamics.
Chapter 5 on simplified steady-state stability and control and Chapter 16 on ride and roll
rate calculation are the two most important chapters for developing most of the vehicle
dynamics analysis required for a racecar at this level of competition.
4. Manufacturing
4.1 Timeline
Tasking a group of students to design and build a new racecar from scratch within the
timeframe of two semesters is a very ambitious goal and requires precise scheduling
and a clear timeline to ensure that the car is completed with enough time for testing
and repair of any unforeseen issues. A trade-off must be made between leaving enough
time for thorough design, and leaving enough time for thorough testing and verification.
This year the team has opted out of the normal Virginia and Michigan competitions in
favor of the California competition for this reason. The Michigan competition is in May
each year, and always conflicts directly with MIT final examinations. The California
competition takes place in late June, giving an extra month to work on the car without
the burden of schoolwork. Before being incorporated into the curriculum this year
through the sophomore 2.007 design class, each member of the team worked strictly as
a volunteer, receiving no class credit. Other challenges unique to college organizations
include very high turnover of people and difficulty with continuity.
4.2 Frame Manufacturing
Because it provides the main structure for the entire vehicle, the frame must be built as
early and as quickly as possible. In addition, it is a great opportunity for new members
to get involved, become familiar with the team and the car, and become comfortable
with the machine tools. In previous years, this team has usually started frame
construction no later than October 1. However, this year the team was severely
handicapped as we were forced to move out of our old facility and could not move into
our current workshop location until after January 1. This meant we had to start
construction of the new car with a three-month deficit, meaning quick construction was
more important than ever. See figure 9 below for a diagram of the MY2009 frame with
important structures labeled.
Side Impact
Bracing
Engine
Figure 9. Labeled frame diagram.
4.3 Roll hoop bending
Each year the construction of the frame begins with bending the radii for the front and
main roll hoops. The most efficient design of the roll hoops requires large bend radii,
usually greater than 200 mm or 8 inches. No machine exists on MIT campus to bend
tubing with such large geometry, so custom dies had to be built. A full-size plot of the
each roll hoop was made and traced onto sheets of 4" marine-grade plywood. The
contours were then carefully cut out, allowing for the thickness of a strip of metal to act
as a heat shield, and checked against the plots for accuracy. The metal strip makes sure
the red-hot tube does not burn the wood as it is pulled and stretched against the die. It
is essential that the tube maintains its profile throughout the bend and no buckling or
kinking of the tube occurs which will ruin its strength and be unable to pass the
technical inspection. Therefore, the ends of each length of tube are sealed with wood
after it is filled with fine sand. The metal is heated gradually section by section to a dull
cherry-red color with an oxy-acetylene torch to reduce the force required to bend it and
increase the ductility of the metal. It is important not to overheat the metal, and to
heat the tube uniformly. This process takes some time and requires a minimum of four
people, as the tube must be removed from the jig after each section is bent in order to
heat the next section. Quick placement and securing of the tube in the jig is necessary
so the tube does not cool down too much before it can be bent. The person on the end
of the tube should be careful to pull the tube as well as bend it to make sure it stays in
contact with the jig, does not kink or wrinkle, and stays in plane.
4.4 Tube Preparation and Jigging
Besides the two roll hoops, each of the other frame members are straight and need only
to be cut to length and have their ends cut to the correct profiles. Last year each joint
was modeled and the correct profile was cut using a CNC laser cutter by an outside
contractor. Each of the frame members then only needed minimal preparation before
being welded into place. Several problems were encountered with the method that
were determined to be detrimental enough for it not to be used again this year. The
first was the large initial time commitment required in preparing the CAD model and
extracting each of the tube profiles in a form readable by the CNC machine. The second
was that it took almost a month of lead-time after this before we had the tubes in the
shop and could commence building the frame. Because our construction timeline was
truncated with a later start time, the extra development time could not be justified. In
addition, because the design of the frame was significantly different for this year over
last year, it was advantageous to retain flexibility and the ability to make last minute
adjustments if the cockpit templates did not fit.
This means that each of the tubes had to be either cut using a one-inch hole saw for
simple fits, and hand ground on a bench grinder for more complex joints. This might
seem more time consuming, but with each tube made confidence and skill increases,
and so does productivity. In addition, once one tube is made, the profile can easily be
mirrored by making a paper template and copying it over to the equivalent tube for the
other side of the car.
Jigging is the term used to describe the method by which frame members are held in
place before and during welding. Jigging can be accomplished by many different
methods, each differing in cost, time, and accuracy. In general, more accuracy is paid
for with more money and more time. Taking into account that a Formula SAE team
builds only one car each year, and time is a crucial factor, a balance is struck between
accuracy and speed. A full-size plot of the frame is made and secured to an ultra-flat
granite table on which the frame is built. Any sections of the frame that involve a
structure that is in-plane are built first as they are the easiest to make accurately.
Wooden blocks are screwed down to the table on top of the plot to place the tubing
accurately, and they are clamped in place as they are welded. The front bulkhead and
the rear box are made in this way. After these two sections are made, the front
bulkhead can be connected with the front roll hoop. A digital level accurate to 0.1
degrees is used to set the angle of the bulkhead and roll hoop, and the bottom of the
roll hoop is placed using the frame plot. Supporting struts are then tack welded in place
to hold the two sections fixed while other frame members can be placed. The frame
members in between need only to "connect the dots" and precise jigging is not
required.
The frame members which are the most crucial to place accurately are the suspension
runners. Any slight variation in the height or width of these runners from side to side
would change the location of suspension mounting points and could cause the car to
handle differently in right and left hand turns, which is highly undesirable for an
autocross car. Therefore, precise jigs are manufactured from steel tubing, welded, and
faced to a precise height using a milling machine. These jigs are used to set the height
of these runners in relation to the rest of the frame, which is crucial to the roll center
location. Likewise, similar jigs are made to accurately set the width of these runners in
relation to the centerline of the car.
Next, the main roll hoop is jigged in place in a similar manner to the front roll hoop. The
bottoms of the tubes are located using the plot, and the angle is set using a digital level.
The side impact and upper cockpit bracing can then be easily fit in place and welded.
The rear box is then put in place and connected to the main roll hoop via the main roll
hoop braces. The engine mounts are the last major part of the frame to be completed.
An empty engine block is placed on the plot according to the design and specifications
of the powertrain and secured in place. The engine mount tubes are then ground to fit
and welded in place. It is important to make aluminum spacers to fit between the
engine block and the frame mounts to allow side-to-side movement of the engine that
greatly simplifies the task of removing and replacing the engine later on. Once this is
done, the frame is largely completed, with only minor braces and mounting tabs left.
This year with the help of several excellent new members, a dedicated welder and a lot
of caffeine, the frame was completed to this stage in only 13 days, which is a new record
for this organization.
4.5 Welding
Each weld on any component on the car is done using a TIG, or Tungsten-Inert-Gas
welding process. It uses a Tungsten electrode that is shielded with Argon gas to heat
the metal using electric current. Filler material is added separately by hand. TIG
welding is much preferred over other methods because of the quality of welds
produced. Because of the highly focused electrode, shielding gas, and the large degree
of control the welder has over the heat intensity, very strong and consistent welds can
be produced. Unfortunately, this method takes a long time to master and takes
significantly longer than other methods. Care must also be taken to clean, debur, and
degrease each of the pieces to be welded to minimize the amount of contaminants in
the weld and reduce the amount of smoke created which can increase the fatigue of the
welder.
4.6 Finishing
In order to provide a frame, which is clean in appearance and protected from the
elements, dirt, and grease, the bare metal must be finished in some way. Powder
coating is typically the paint of choice because of its extreme durability. The frame must
first be cleaned of all dirt, grease or oxidation, and then is charged electro statically.
The powder, which is typically a thermoset or thermoplastic polymer, is attracted to the
charged frame and clings to it. The frame is then placed in an oven and baked at
temperatures of roughly 200 degrees Celsius. The powder melts and 'flows' forming a
very smooth and tough coating.
4.7 Suspension Manufacturing
The A-arms are typically the first parts of the suspension to be fabricated, as they are
very time intensive to make. Functionally, the A-arms are very simple and must connect
the outboard suspension pivot point with the inboard mounts on the frame. A typical
suspension A-arm or wishbone consists of a bearing pocket on the outboard side, two
steel tubes welded to the bearing pocket, two threaded inserts welded to the ends of
each tube, and rod-ends installed in the threaded inserts. A spherical bearing is
installed in the outboard bearing pocket via a process called V-groove staking. In order
to increase the stiffness and strength of the A-arms, slight deviations were made in part
design and manufacturing. In 2008, a cylindrical bearing pocket was turned on a lathe
and the tubes had to be deformed on the ends and ground to fit up to the circular
bearing pocket as seen below in Figure 10.
Figure 10. Completed front upper A-arm from the MY2008 vehicle.
There are several problems with this design. The first is that jigging to make sure the
bearing pocket stays in plane with the tubes throughout final welding is very difficult.
The second is that there is a minimum of weld area between the tubes and the bearing
pocket that could lead to a catastrophic fatigue failure, most likely to occur under heavy
braking. For MY2009, bearing pockets were cut on a CNC OMAX water jet machine from
steel plate stock. This allowed the geometry to extend several inches into the tube,
providing a much stiffer and stronger connection for the bearing pocket, and
quadrupling the weld area. Rather than being hand ground, simple slots were cut in the
tubes using the proper size end-mill on a milling machine. Figures 11 and 12 below
show a bearing pocket before final machining and a new completed A-arm. The raw
bearing pocket is marked "BAD" as the plate stock was not properly secured, and it
shifted during cutting resulting in an unusable part. Luckily, two simple clamps fixed the
problem and new pockets were cut very quickly. Each pocket was then fly-cut on a
milling machine to the correct thickness, and the ends were then ground round on a belt
sander. The final inner diameter of the bearing pocket itself was left undersized, as final
reaming must be done after all welding is completed and any deformation due to
uneven heating and cooling has occurred, which makes sure the bearing fit will be as
good as possible.
Figure 11. Waterjet cut A-arm bearing pocket.
Figure 12. Completed front upper A-arm
New Hampshire Ball Bearings graciously supplied the spherical bearings used on the
outboard of the A-arms to the team. Each bearing has a small V-groove in each side,
which must be swaged or staked into a corresponding chamfer in the bearing pocket
using a specific die. Figure 13 below shows a diagram of the staking set-up. The staking
force must be precisely applied to ensure that the bearing is not too loose or becomes
bound up due to excessive force. The bearings were installed using an Instron machine
in one of MIT's materials processing labs where the force could be measured exactly.
Using bearings of this type is advantageous because it eliminates the need for snap rings
or other methods of bearing retention, which allows the bearing pockets to be made
smaller, further simplifying upright design.
Bearing
S HousFing
- Guide Pin
Set Screw
Bottom Anvil
Figure 13. Diagram of V-groove staking procedure.
The rockers or bell cranks were designed such that they could be rapidly produced. For
the front rockers, which had to use a two-piece design for packaging reasons, the
structure of the rocker (for which four identical pieces were required) was simply cut on
a water jet machine. Four identical bearing pockets were turned on a lathe, and then
the two pieces could be welded together. The most time consuming process involved
setting up the welded pieces in the lathe using a four-jaw chuck so that the final
diameter on the bearing pocket could be machined. The same process was repeated for
the rear rockers, except that the rear rockers were designed to be one piece, and only
two bearing pockets needed to be machined.
Because of the uprights new design utilizing tubular 4130 steel rather than sheet,
manufacturing was simplified greatly. Previous methods required cutting large amount
of steel sheet on a water jet, which then needed to be bent into shape on a sheet metal
break. This created problems with imperfect fit-up and difficulties in precise jigging.
This year, the spindles for the front uprights and the bearing pockets for the rear
uprights were machined on a Hass CNC lathe. Next, the tubing that makes up the main
structure of the uprights was cut using an EZ-Trak milling machine to cut the final profile
to be certain of perfect fit up which will increase the strength of the welded joints. The
machined parts were then carefully fit together and bolted down before welding. See
figure 14 below for pictures of the completed and assembled front and rear uprights.
Figure 14. Completed front and rear uprights.
5. Testing and Verification
5.1 Frame
Physical torsion testing can be done to validate the calculations made with FEA. The
torsion tester should be designed such that it mimics the real-world loading conditions
as much as possible so a good understanding of where and how much the frame flex is
occurring can be achieved. This means that the shock/spring assembly should be
replaced by a rigid link, and the loads should be applied through the wheels or hubs,
through the suspension, and transmitted to the frame through the A-arm mounting
points and the shock and spring mount. The opposite end of the car should then be
fixed rigidly so it cannot be rotated, and the degree of twist measured at the loaded
end. Because of the use of COSMOSWorks for the FEA of the frame, perfectly realistic
loading of the frame was not possible in the model due to the limitations of the
software. Each frame member is considered a beam element, and analysis of the entire
suspension at once is not possible. The frame was then loaded in a manner similar to
real world, and the analysis was used to provide relative comparisons between different
frame configurations. Figures 15 and 16 show the meshing of the frame model and the
subsequent results of the FEA.
Figure 15. Meshing of the frame model in COSMOSWorks.
Figure 16. Color-coded plot of displacement in the frame model.
It was determined that the next best course of action for physical testing was to try to
replicate the COSMOSWorks as close as possible to get a feel for how well the FEA
correlated to the actual frame. Figure 17 below shows a picture of this year's torsion
tester fixed to the frame. You can see the mounts fixed rigidly to the rear, and a
pivoting beam attached rigidly to the front of the frame.
Figure 17. Frame torsion testing apparatus.
45-pound weights were subsequently added to the lever arm on the front pivoting
beam and the angle of torsion was measured with a digital level. Figure 18 shows a plot
of the results comparing the physical frame with and without the engine in place and
the FEA prediction.
2500
2000
E
1500
8 1000
I

500
0 - - - -- T- - - -~~-~1~~1~'~1~
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
With Motor E No Motor - FEA Prediction
Figure 18. Results of physical torsion testing.
Because it is not possible to do FEA on the frame with the engine in place, the only way
to determine its effect on the rigidity of the frame is to physically test it. As can be seen
above, the engine contributed significantly to the stiffness of the frame, adding roughly
30% to its rigidity. It can also be seen that the FEA overestimates the stiffness of the
frame by a large margin. This is to be expected to some degree, as the torsion testing
equipment is not 100% rigid and the welded joints in the frame do not behave exactly as
they do in the model. What is important is obtaining a calibration factor in order to
correlate the FEA with the physical testing. This lets one design iteratively and have a
sense of the actual torsional rigidity that can be expected from the real frame and
choose an appropriate factor of safety.
5.2 Suspension
Ideally, the same care in physical testing taken with the frame would be taken with each
component of the suspension in order to properly correlate theory with reality.
However, due to time and resource constraints, and because the loading of the
suspension components is much more straightforward than that of the frame and more
care is taken in manufacturing to maintain tolerances, it was assumed that the FEA
would correlate much better, and no physical compliance testing was done.
The suspension cannot be considered fully tested until it is run on the track and the car
is pushed to its limits by the driver(s). While a huge amount of effort and analysis was
put into the suspension design, there are always factors that either were overlooked or
are otherwise unknown and the car is not always manufactured exactly on specification.
That means that no matter who you are or how many racing cars you have designed, a
new car will never ever handle perfectly right out of the box. Much time must be spent
in tuning the new chassis from baseline spring and toe changes to fine-tuning of the
shock absorbers. At the time of this writing, the MY2009 vehicle has not yet been
driven on track. Previous vehicles have never been far off, but that cannot be used as a
metric to conjecture about the performance of the new car, especially given that we are
running on brand new Continental tires of a different construction with which we have
no experience.
6. Future Developments and Recommendations
6.1 Technical Improvements
This year for the first time since 2006, upright design deviated from tradition and new
and novel design was conceived. This involved the use of steel tubes rather than bent
and welded sheet metal. The uprights were stiffer than previous uprights but there was
very little measurable difference in weight. The move was made in 2006 to steel
uprights from machined aluminum uprights because of the time saved in machining and
the difficult access to CNC machines. With our new facility and in-house EZ-Trak
machine, this problem no longer exists. Because the steel uprights rely heavily on
welded joints, factors of safety must be increased due to uncertainty about the weld
beads and local weakening of the metal. With proper heat-treating, this issue would be
mitigated, but heat-treating is often an afterthought with the heavy time constraints.
With a machined aluminum upright, FEA analysis will correlate directly with the finished
product and the uncertainty is reduced or eliminated. This means that factors of safety
can be reduced and a more efficient design can be produced. It is my recommendation
that a thorough study be done to quantify the benefits and rewards of one design over
the other and a more educated decision can be made.
Packaging of the spring and shock and rocker is always one of the most difficult parts of
designing a Formula SAE car. Because these parts support the full weight of the car and
large cornering forces, the load paths must be as direct as possible and feed into major
structural nodes in the frame. In addition, the push or pull rod must actuate the rocker
while staying as close to in-plane as possible to minimize bending loads on the rocker.
For 2009, the front shocks were placed very high up on the frame and were actuated
with a push rod so that an anti-roll bar could be easily packaged near the front
bulkhead. While successful, this design requires that the links that actuate the anti-roll
bar be placed outside of the frame. For next year, a pull rod design should be pursued
which will yield many benefits. First, it will place the shocks and springs much lower on
the car, reducing the center of gravity. The anti roll bar and all links could be packaged
such that they do not interfere with the bodywork and provide a more aesthetic looking
vehicle. While it is more complicated to design and care will have to be taken to ensure
nothing interferes with the cockpit templates, the benefits are worth the extra care in
design.
Because design of the suspension was completed in December of 2008 and the team's
new sponsorship agreement with Continental was not concluded until February, it was
not possible to optimize the car for the new tires. An intensive study of the force and
moment data provided by Continental should be done followed by a thorough redesign
of the suspension kinematics to make sure the tires are operating under optimal
circumstances at all times.
6.2 Organizational Improvements
The team was placed under extreme circumstance during this past school year, which
severely handicapped our ability to produce the best vehicle we can. Now that the
move into the new shop is completed, and our access to machine tools is greater than
ever before, efforts should be made to return to a normal design cycle comprising of
summer design of frame and suspension, commencement of frame and suspension
fabrication in September, and finalizing of all other component design before the
Thanksgiving holiday break. Complete parts lists should be made listing each part of an
assembly and any stock, raw materials and special tooling needed in order to
manufacture it. After designs are finalized, between the Thanksgiving holiday and the
Christmas break, these lists can be compiled and all orders should be placed. This would
put everything in place to begin large-scale fabrication and assembly during MIT's IAP or
Independent Activities Period and make an early March car completion date possible.
This year for the first time the team was successfully integrated into the Mechanical
Engineering Curriculum through the 2.007 Design and Manufacturing I course. This gave
the team much greater exposure to the Institute, valuable new members, and potential
opportunities for more course credit. This must be pursued at all costs, as the single
largest factor limiting the time available for students to work on the car is that they
previously received no class credit for it.
7. Conclusions
The year 2009 was a revolutionary year for the MIT Motorsports Formula SAE team.
Large challenges were met head on, including a very small number of returning
members from 2008, a fall semester spent without access to a workshop, and creating
and running a design course lab section while simultaneously meeting internal deadlines
and keeping progress on track. In addition, the rules changes for 2009 were greater
than any one-year change effected in the last 5 years. Despite these challenges, due to
the hard work and dedication of its members, the team was able to develop and
manufacture
a vehicle that will be highly competitive when it competes at the 2009
Formula SAE West event from June 17-20. The frame is larger and heavier due to the
new rules, but also stiffer than previous frames. Suspension components
exhibit an
attention to detail and quality of manufacturing
never before seen on an MIT
Motorsports vehicle. Significant room for improvement
remains and the team should
use the 2009 vehicle as a stepping-stone
to take the program to the next level,
continually increasing the quality of analysis and design and pushing them to learn more
and delve deeper. The program developments
that occurred this year have given MIT
Motorsports the resources it needs to become one of the top-level Formula SAE
programs in the country and help it to create the next generation of great engineers.
Figure 19. Completed Full Car Assembly Model.
8. References
Milliken, Douglas. Race Car Vehicle Dynamics. Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive
Engineers, Inc., 1995.
Series, SAE Collegiate Design. Formula SAE Rules 2009. June 1, 2008.
http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/rules/2009rules.pdf (accessed
March 1, 2008).
Smith, Carrol. Tune to Win. Callbrook, CA: Aero Publishers, Inc., 1978.
Smith, Carroll. Engineer to Win. Osceola, WI: MBI Publishing Company, 1984.
9. Suppliers
Aircraft Spruce & Specialty Co.
452 Dividend Drive
Peachtree City, GA 30269
(770) 487-2310
www.aircraftspruce.com
Continental AG
Vahrenwalder Str. 9
30165 Hanover
Germany
www.conti-online.com
Keizer Aluminum Wheels, Inc.
3981 Jackson Avenue
Orange City, Iowa 51041
(712) 737-3053
www.keizerwheels.com
McMaster Carr
473 Ridge Rd.
Dayton, NJ 08810-0317
(732) 329-3200
www.mcmaster.com
Motorsports Spares International Inc.
101 North Gasoline Alley
Indianapolis, IN 46222
(317) 241-7500
www.motorsportsspares.com
New Hampshire Ball Bearings, Inc.
155 Lexington Drive
Laconia, NH 03246
(603) 524-0004
www.nhbb.com
Pegasus Auto Racing Supplies, Inc.
2475 S179th Street
New Berlin WI 53146 USA
(800) 688-6946
www.pegasusautoracing.com
50
10. Acknowledgements
Formula SAE is a tremendous team effort and the following people deserve special
thanks for their role in helping this years Formula SAE car succeed.
Eric Correll, for providing excellent overall team leadership and taking charge of building
the frame torsion tester.
Carson Darling, for being a willing apprentice in the area of suspension design and taking
charge of the detailed design of the anti-roll bars.
Josh Dittrich, for his never-ending commitment and enthusiasm and the countless hours
spent with his welding helmet on.
Keith Durand, for being an excellent teacher and showing me some of the finer points of
machine design.
Dan Frey, for being a great thesis advisor, a great faculty advisor to the team, and
providing the team with its first real opportunity for integration into the Mechanical
Engineering curriculum.
Sandra Lipnoski, for keeping track of logistics and team finances.
Justin Negrete, for expertise on the water jet.
Zac Nelson, for being a willing apprentice in the area of frame design and spending
weeks in front of the bench grinder preparing tubes.