Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Motorsport
Engineering
Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Oliver de Garston
Student Number: 11005614
Dr. Rohitha Weerasinghe
87 Pages
Module Code: UFMERY-30-M
0|Page
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

I Abstract
In July 2015 UWE Formula Student will attend the Formula Student event at Silverstone. The
Formula Student competition is between Universities that have built race cars according to
Formula SAE rules. Further to my last report where the needs of the suspension system were
analysed and modifications made to an existing design, the aim of this work is to design from
scratch a suspension system for the University’s 2015 Formula Student entry. This design
will suit the needs of the event and its performance analysed through computer simulation.
This design will be one of the key features of this year’s UWE Formula Student entry. The
suspension system will be of a classical unequal length double wishbone design. This
suspension type has the most adjustability in characteristics and should meet all demands.

I|Page
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Table of Contents
I Abstract .............................................................................................................................. I

Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... II

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Project Background ..................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Critical Analysis of Previous Work ............................................................................ 1

1.3 Formula Student Event ................................................................................................ 5

1.4 Suspension Re-design Reasons ................................................................................... 6

1.5 Rule Design Limitations.............................................................................................. 6

2 Resources ........................................................................................................................... 8

2.1 Solidworks 2014.......................................................................................................... 8

2.2 VSusp .......................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 MSC Adams ................................................................................................................ 9

2.4 UWE Formula Student Team ...................................................................................... 9

3 Literature Survey ............................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Formula Student Competition and Events .................................................................. 9

3.1.1 Acceleration ......................................................................................................... 9

3.1.2 Skid-Pan ............................................................................................................. 10

3.1.3 Autocross ........................................................................................................... 11

3.1.4 Endurance .......................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Wheelbase ................................................................................................................. 12

3.3 Track Width............................................................................................................... 13

3.4 Instant Centre and Roll Centre .................................................................................. 14

3.4.1 Short Swing Arm Length ................................................................................... 15

3.4.2 Long Swing Arm Length ................................................................................... 15

3.4.3 Medium Swing Arm Length .............................................................................. 15

3.4.4 Ultra-Long Swing Arm Length .......................................................................... 16

II | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

3.5 Camber ...................................................................................................................... 16

3.6 Toe............................................................................................................................. 16

3.7 Kingpin Axis and Scrub Radius and Spindle Length ................................................ 17

3.8 Caster Angle and Trail .............................................................................................. 18

3.9 Tie Rod Location and Bump Steer ............................................................................ 19

3.10 Anti-Features ............................................................................................................. 20

3.11 Ackermann Steering .................................................................................................. 21

3.12 Spring Rates .............................................................................................................. 22

3.12.1 Wheel Frequency ............................................................................................... 22

3.12.2 The Wheel Rate.................................................................................................. 23

3.12.3 The Coil Rate or Spring Rate ............................................................................. 23

3.12.4 The Fitted Rate ................................................................................................... 23

3.13 Anti-Roll Bars ........................................................................................................... 24

4 New Suspension Design Considerations ......................................................................... 25

4.1 Regulations ................................................................................................................ 26

4.2 Tyres .......................................................................................................................... 26

4.3 Wheels ....................................................................................................................... 27

4.4 Hubs and Uprights ..................................................................................................... 27

4.5 Geometry ................................................................................................................... 28

4.6 Roll Centre ................................................................................................................ 29

4.7 Modelled Swing Arm Length .................................................................................... 29

4.8 Side View Geometry ................................................................................................. 29

4.9 Springs ....................................................................................................................... 30

4.10 Dampers .................................................................................................................... 30

4.11 Anti-roll Bars............................................................................................................. 31

4.12 Steering...................................................................................................................... 31

4.13 New Suspension Aims .............................................................................................. 32

III | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

5 Suspension Geometry Design .......................................................................................... 33

5.1 Wheelbase ................................................................................................................. 33

5.2 Track Width............................................................................................................... 35

5.1 Wheels, Brakes and Offset ........................................................................................ 36

5.2 Upright and Outer Pivot Points ................................................................................. 38

5.3 Wishbone Lengths and Roll Centre .......................................................................... 41

5.4 Inboard Pivot Points and Side View Geometry ........................................................ 45

5.5 Springs, Bell Cranks and Lever Ratios ..................................................................... 51

5.6 Anti-roll Bars............................................................................................................. 61

5.7 Steering Geometry..................................................................................................... 63

6 Initial Analysis ................................................................................................................. 64

6.1 Front Key Parameters ................................................................................................ 64

6.2 Rear Key Parameters ................................................................................................. 64

6.3 Comparison between the Design and the Initial Aims of the Design ....................... 64

6.4 MSC Adams Model................................................................................................... 65

6.5 Camber Gain Due to Bump and Droop ..................................................................... 68

6.6 Camber Gain Due to Roll .......................................................................................... 69

6.7 Roll Centre Movement .............................................................................................. 70

6.8 Final Component Designs for the Formula Student Car ........................................... 72

7 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 74

8 Recommendations for Further Work ............................................................................... 74

Table of Figures ....................................................................................................................... 75

Table of Equations ................................................................................................................... 77

Table of Tables ........................................................................................................................ 78

References ................................................................................................................................ 78

IV | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

1 Introduction

1.1 Project Background

With UWE Formula Student entering their fourth year of competition in the Formula Student
Event with their second Class 1 entry. The team has kept high member numbers from last
year with over 80 team members being involved. With the author being the senior design
specialist for the suspension area, this project is the perfect opportunity to aid the team.
Having undertaken this project last year, my knowledge and experience with suspension
systems and the design of suspension systems has grown massively from just ‘hands on’
knowledge available before. Now knowing not only the basic terminology, but also what
effects changing key parameters will have on the system, and its elements, as well as the key
areas to consider when designing race car suspension. This project still coincides with my
work in Formula Student and it has continued to be a great help towards designing the cars
suspension. The work done previously showed the key short comings of the original design
and found key improvements that could be made and will be used as a base and as a learning
exercise for this report. This report aims to cover the complete re-design of the suspension
system for the new UWE-FS-15 car that will coincide with a new chassis and powertrain.

1.2 Critical Analysis of Previous Work

The starting blocks of this work is to improve upon the work carried out in the previous year.
By identifying project areas that were overlooked or inadequate and aiming to improve upon
them with a new design, thereby contributing to success at the Formula Student Silverstone
event. The following provides a quick rundown of the previous year.
The primary goal last year was to analyse an existing design and make minor theoretical
improvement to understand their effects on the system. Alongside this the original design was
to be manufactured for the 2014 Formula Student entry. It started with an inherited CAD
design from 2013.

1|Page
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 1.2.1 Original Inherited CAD Design

This design was then broken down and transferred into Vsusp a 2D suspension analysis
software.

Figure 1.2.2 Original Design in VSusp

The basic characteristics of the suspension system were then tabulated and compared against
an ideal set of parameters. The suspension system was also analysed in terms of camber
change and some graphs were produced.
Table 1.2.1 Original Design Basic Characteristics
Criteria Front Suspension Rear Suspension
Ideal Parameter
Kingpin Inclination Angle 5.049° 6.711° 0° - 8°
Caster Angle 6.86° 14.27° 3° - 7°
Static Wheel Camber -1.902° -0.374° 0° - -4°
Scrub Radius 28.19mm 0mm – 10mm
-19.513mm
Roll Centre Height 14mm 44mm -25mm – 50mm
Swing Arm Length 977.827mm Front 1778mm – 4572mm
911.531mm
Rear 1016mm – 1778mm
The suspension system was then manufactured by the author and the UWE Formula Student
team for the 2014 car.

2|Page
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 1.2.3 Wishbone Jig Figure 1.2.4 Welded Wishbones

Figure 1.2.5 Completed Car at Silverstone.

It was while manufacturing that a number of problems arose with the suspension, the
inconsideration as far as shocks, pushrods and similar items meant the design was far from
complete. The design was limitedly improved upon using the Vsusp program, but in order to
reduce costs as many original components where kept to reduce potential costs for the team.

3|Page
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Table 1.2.2 Inherited Design Vs the Improved Design

Current Suspension New Suspension Ideal Parameter
Criteria Front Rear Front Rear Front Rear
Suspension Suspension Suspension Suspension Suspension Suspension
Kingpin
Inclination 5.049° 6.711° 5.049° 6.711° 0° - 8° 0° - 8°
Angle
Caster
6.86° 14.27° 6.86° 14.27° 3° - 7° 3° - 7°
Angle
Static
Wheel -1.902° -0.374° -1.959° -1.731° 0° - -4° 0° - -4°
Camber
Scrub 0mm – 0mm –
28.19mm -19.513mm 28.19mm -19.513mm
Radius 10mm 10mm
Roll
-25mm – -15mm –
Centre 14mm 44mm -22mm 3mm
50mm 60mm
Height
Swing
1250mm – 1016mm –
Arm 977.827mm 911.531mm 1464.153mm 1106.97mm
2500mm 1778mm
Length

The new design saw improvements in possible damper mounting positions, camber change in
bump and droop while sacrificing a small amount of camber stability in roll. As only limited
parts of the design could be improved areas such as scrub radius and caster angle could not be
changed. Static camber angles for both front and rear were also improved enabling a greater
range of adjustment. Overall body roll was also improved by lowering both the front and rear
roll centres. This improved design was then converted back into a CAD drawing

4|Page
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 1.2.6 Previous Suspension CAD Geometry

The author feels that the changes made in Part A where beneficial to the original system and
that the goals set out at the start were achieved. Although it would be possible to improve
upon this design this year, with the new knowledge learned the author feels that a better
approach would be to design a new system from scratch. Working on a new design also
allows for improvements to be made to other systems that rely on the suspension, such as the
brakes. This was a key area that the car failed at scrutineering last year, and to enable bigger
brakes to be fitted, complete outboard geometry changes need to be made. As this year’s
budget will be more wisely spent and better controlled, it is expected that a larger portion of
the budget can be spent on a new suspension system. It is for this reason that a complete
redesign is desirable.

1.3 Formula Student Event

“Formula Student (FS) is Europe's most established educational motorsport competition, run
by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Backed by industry and high profile engineers
such as our Patron Ross Brawn OBE, the competition aims to inspire and develop
enterprising and innovative young engineers. Universities from across the globe are
challenged to design and build a single-seat racing car in order to compete in static and
dynamic events, which demonstrate their understanding and test the performance of the

5|Page
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

vehicle.” (IMechE, n.d.) Formula Student cars are Formula style open-wheel single-seater
race cars, all of which operate a form of double wishbone or multilink suspension due to its
easy adjustment ability and that it provides independent control of each wheel.

1.4 Suspension Re-design Reasons

The suspension system on the previous UWE Formula Student car was based on the work of
the author’s predecessor in the team. However due to the nature of the competition and the
rules surrounding it, the design must be changed or modified year on year. As the car
currently under design has a completely new chassis and drivetrain the suspension must be
re-designed alongside this to give the car the best performance characteristics possible. This
re-design will be for all components and geometries

1.5 Rule Design Limitations

The rules that govern the building of a Formula Student car are largely governed by the
regulations set by the FSAE. The ones that directly apply to the suspension geometry itself
are listed below:

“T2.3 Wheelbase
The car must have a wheelbase of at least 1525 mm (60 inches). The wheelbase is measured
from the centre of ground contact of the front and rear tires with the wheels pointed straight
ahead.
T2.4 Vehicle Track
The smaller track of the vehicle (front or rear) must be no less than 75% of the larger track.

T4.2 Cockpit Internal Cross Section:

T4.2.1 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. If the pedals are adjustable, they will be put in their most forward position.

6|Page
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 1.5.1 FSAE Cockpit Internal Cross Section Board (IMechE, 2014)

T4.2.2 The template, with maximum thickness of 7mm (0.275 inch), will be held vertically
and inserted into the cockpit opening rearward of the Front Roll Hoop, as close to the Front
Roll Hoop as the car’s design will allow.

T4.2.3 The only items that may be removed for this test are the steering wheel, and any
padding required by Rule T5.8 “Driver’s Leg Protection” that can be easily removed without
the use of tools with the driver in the seat. The seat may NOT be removed.

T4.2.4 Teams whose cars do not comply with T4.1.1 or T4.2.1will not be given a Technical
Inspection Sticker and will NOT be allowed to compete in the dynamic events.
NOTE: Cables, wires, hoses, tubes, etc. must not impede the passage of the templates
required by T4.1.1 and T4.2.

T6.1 Suspension
T6.1.1 The car must be equipped with a fully operational suspension system with shock
absorbers, front and rear, with usable wheel travel of at least 50.8 mm (2 inches), 25.4 mm (1
inch) jounce and 25.4 mm (1 inch) rebound, with driver seated. The judges reserve the right
to disqualify cars which do not represent a serious attempt at an operational suspension
system or which demonstrate handling inappropriate for an autocross circuit.

T6.1.2 All suspension mounting points must be visible at Technical Inspection, either by
direct view or by removing any covers.

7|Page
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

T6.2 Ground Clearance

Ground clearance must be sufficient to prevent any portion of the car, other than the tires,
from touching the ground during track events. Intentional or excessive ground contact of any
portion of the car other than the tires will forfeit a run or an entire dynamic event.

T6.3 Wheels
T6.3.1 The wheels of the car must be 203.2 mm (8.0 inches) or more in diameter”
(IMechE, 2014)

2 Resources

2.1 Solidworks 2014

Solidworks is a 3D design software package with functions including FEA analysis,
Weldmends, a rendering package as well as surface modelling and basic sketching.

2.2 VSusp
Vsusp is an online two-dimensional simulator assuming ideal conditions. It provides an easy
way to see what happens to a vehicle’s suspension after:
 It goes into bump/droop or roll
 Altering the tyre sizes
 Substituting different length control arms
 Moving control arm pickup locations
 Lowering the vehicle
 Adding spacers at ball joints
 Changing wheel offset or diameter
…. And others
That can be observed under various conditions include:
 Roll centre location and movement
 Tyre camber
 Scrub radius
 Front view swing arm length
…. And others

8|Page
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

2.3 MSC Adams

MSC Software produces a multibody dynamics simulation program called Adams. It is
thought of as the most widely used multibody dynamics software available and can help
engineers to study the dynamics of moving parts, how loads and forces are distributed
throughout mechanical systems. In this report MSC Adams will only be used for simple
analysis of the suspension system as it is deemed that the author does not have enough time
to be comprehensible enough with the software to run complex simulations.

2.4 UWE Formula Student Team

The team will be a great resource to use. They helped the author manufacture the suspension
system for last year’s car and when the design produced in this project gets implemented into
the current car under construction the team will assist in the manufacture and testing as the
team will need to carry out these procedures as well.

3 Literature Survey

3.1 Formula Student Competition and Events

The Formula student event in July is divided into two separate categories, static and dynamic.
The static events consist of:
 Business Presentation
 Cost Analysis
 Engineering Design
These events are designed to evaluate the team’s ability in organisation, design, costing,
delivery and selling their product. The dynamic events are:
 Acceleration
 Skid-Pan
 Autocross
 Endurance

3.1.1 Acceleration
The acceleration event is a fairly simple drag race covering a distance of 75 metres. The cars
start 0.3m behind the start line, when the cars cross the start line the timer starts and it
finishes when they cross the finish line. There are two heats for this event each heat must
utilise a different driver and each driver may make two runs, so four runs in total. This event

9|Page
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

is the least important as far as suspension design is concerned; the ideal characteristics are to
maintain the largest contact patch as possible between the rear tyres and the ground.

3.1.2 Skid-Pan
“The objective of the skid-pad event is to measure the car’s cornering ability on a flat surface
while making a constant-radius turn.” (IMechE, 2014)

The layout of the skid-pan will consist of two rings with and inner diameter of 15.25m with
their centres 18.25m apart. The thickness of the rings will be 3m wide. The layout is shown in
Figure 3.1.1 Skid-pan layout The procedure for the skid-pan event is that the car will start by
entering the right hand circle; it will complete on lap, and then continue on the same circle for
a second lap which will be timed. The driver then immediately enters the left hand circles for
his third lap staying on this circle for the fourth lap which is timed. The driver then has the
option to make an immediate second run. Each team will have two drivers able to do two runs
each. The suspension design is critical for this event as the key is to be able to corner at high
speed and maintain grip levels.

Figure 3.1.1 Skid-pan layout (IMechE, 2014)

10 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

3.1.3 Autocross
“The objective of the autocross event is to evaluate the car's manoeuvrability and handling
qualities on a tight course without the hindrance of competing cars. The autocross course
will combine the performance features of acceleration, braking, and cornering into one
event.” (IMechE, 2014) The layout of the autocross track is unknown until the event but is
designed in a way to keep the speeds from being high, the average speed should be between
25mph and 30mph.The layout is specified as follows:
 Straights: No longer than 60 m (200 feet) with hairpins at both ends (or) no longer
than 45 m (150 feet) with wide turns on the ends.

 Constant Turns: 23 m (75 feet) to 45 m (148 feet) diameter.

 Hairpin Turns: Minimum of 9 m (29.5 feet) outside diameter (of the turn).

 Slaloms: Cones in a straight line with 7.62 m (25 feet) to 12.19 m (40 feet) spacing.

 Miscellaneous: Chicanes, multiple turns, decreasing radius turns, etc. The minimum
track width will be 3.5 m (11.5 feet).
Each team can enter two drivers into this event, each having a maximum of two timed runs,
with the best time from each driver being counted. This event relies heavily on the suspension
and steering geometry, as a well-balanced easy handling car will make it easier for the driver
to push the car to the limit and post competitive times.

3.1.4 Endurance
“The Endurance Event is designed to evaluate the overall performance of the car and to test
the car’s durability and reliability. The car’s efficiency will be measured in conjunction with
the Endurance Event. The efficiency under competition conditions is important in most
vehicle competitions and also shows how well the car has been tuned for the competition.
This is a compromise event because the efficiency score and endurance score will be
calculated from the same heat. No refuelling will be allowed during an endurance heat.”
(IMechE, 2014)
The layout of the endurance track is also unknown until the event but will be designed for an
average speed of 29.8mph with a top speed of 65.2mph. The layout is specified as follows:

11 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

 Straights: No longer than 77.0 m (252.6 feet) with hairpins at both ends (or) no
longer than 61.0 m (200.1 feet) with wide turns on the ends. There will be passing
zones at several locations.

 Constant Turns: 30.0 m (98.4 feet) to 54.0 m (177.2 feet) diameter.

 Hairpin Turns: Minimum of 9.0 m (29.5 feet) outside diameter (of the turn).

 Slaloms: Cones in a straight line with 9.0 m (29.5 feet) to 15.0 m (49.2 feet)
spacing.

 Miscellaneous: Chicanes, multiple turns, decreasing radius turns, etc. The

standard minimum track width is 4.5 m (14.76 feet).
For this event a single 22km heat is made during which the teams will not be permitted to
work on their cars. A driver change must be made during a three minute stop at the half way
stage of the event. With the track layout being similar to the autocross event this is also a key
event where the suspension needs to perform well to get the best results.

3.2 Wheelbase
The wheelbase, l, is the distance between the centre point of the front axle and the centre
point of the rear axle. The wheelbase and centre of gravity position have a great impact on the
wheel loads and axle load distribution. This is shown in Figure 3.2.1. A short wheelbase will
give a greater load transfer between the front and rear axles than a longer wheelbase during
acceleration and braking according to Equations 3.2.1 and Figure 3.2.1 Side view parameters
for longitudinal load transfer calculations.

12 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

ax CG

l
mg
k

Fz1 Fz2
Figure 3.2.1 Side view parameters for longitudinal load transfer calculations.

Equations 3.2.1 Axial Load Distribution

(𝑙 − 𝜆)
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑠 − 𝐹𝑓 = × 𝑚𝑔
𝑙
𝜆
𝐿𝑜𝑎𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙𝑠 − 𝐹𝑟 = × 𝑚𝑔
𝑙
Equations 3.2.2 Longitudinal Load Transfer Under Braking
(𝑙 − 𝜆) 𝑘
𝐹𝑧1 = ( × 𝑚𝑔) + ( × 𝐴𝑥 × 𝑚𝑔)
𝑙 𝑙
𝜆 𝑘
𝐹𝑧2 = ( × 𝑚𝑔) − ( × 𝐴𝑥 × 𝑚𝑔)
𝑙 𝑙
A shorter wheelbase will have the advantage of a smaller turning radius for the same steering
input. A longer wheelbase will be able to be fitted with a softer spring set up to increase
driver comfort. However a car with too small a wheelbase may act nervously in a straight line
and on corner exits. Features to counter this can be built into a suspension setup but these will
also affect the longitudinal load transfer.

3.3 Track Width

The track width is a major feature when designing a vehicle. Its main influence is on a
vehicles tendency to roll and its cornering behaviour. The smaller the track width the larger
the lateral load transfer when cornering and the opposite is true for a larger track. This is
shown for a rear axle in Equation 3.3.1 According to the regulations the smallest width a
dynamic event track can be is 3m. A larger track has the advantage of smaller lateral load
transfer but a disadvantage in that more lateral movement is needed to avoid obstacles. The
amount of lateral load transfer is also affected if the car has anti-roll bars. The amount of
lateral load transfer wanted depends on the tyres that have been chosen.

13 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

ay
CG

mg

h t/2

Figure 3.3.1 Total Lateral Load Transfer

Equation 3.3.1 Lateral Load Transfer
𝑚𝑔 × 𝐴𝑦 × ℎ
Δ𝑊 =
𝑡

3.4 Instant Centre and Roll Centre

The instant Centre is the momentary centre which the suspension linkage pivots around. As
the suspension geometry changes during suspension movement the instant centre also moves.
Instant centres can be constructed in both the front view and the side view of the geometry.
When the instant centre is viewed in the front view a line can be drawn from the instant
centre to the centre of the tyre contact patch. When done on both sides the point at which
these lines intersect is the roll centre of the sprung mass of the car. This means that the instant
centres determine the position of the roll centre, so high instant centres will lead to a high roll
centre. The roll centre establishes the force between the unsprung and the sprung masses of
the car. When the car corners the centrifugal force acting on the centre of gravity can be
translated to the roll centre and down to the tyres where the reactive lateral forces are built
up. The higher the roll centre is the smaller the rolling moment around the roll centre is. This
rolling moment must be restricted by the springs.

Horizontal-vertical coupling effect is another factor. If the roll centre is located above the
ground the lateral force generated by the tyre generates a moment about the instant centre,
which pushes the wheel down and lifts the sprung mass. This effect is called jacking. If the
roll centre is below the ground level the force will push the sprung mass down. The lateral
force will, regarding the position of the roll centre, imply a vertical deflection. If the roll
centre passes through the ground level when the car is rolling there will be a change in the
movement direction of the sprung mass.

14 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Centre of Car

Roll Centre Instant Centre

Roll Centre

Centre of Contact
Patch FVSA length
Figure 3.4.1 Instant Centre and Roll Centre Locations

The camber change rate is a function only of the front view swing arm length, FVSA length.
Front view swing arm length is the length of the line from the wheel centre to the instant
centre when viewed from the front. The amount of camber change achieved per mm of ride
travel is shown in Equation 3.4.1and Figure 3.4.1 Instant Centre and Roll Centre Locations
Equation 3.4.1 Camber Change Per mm of Ride Travel
𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑠 1
= 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 ( )
𝑚𝑚 𝐹𝑆𝑉𝐴 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
The camber change is not constant throughout the whole ride travel since the instant centre
also moves with wheel travel. Varying the swing axel length obviously has a great effect on
roll centre location and how the wheel acts in corners and how it reacts in bump and droop.

3.4.1 Short Swing Arm Length

A short swing arm length of between 508 mm and 1016 mm gives a very good roll centre
location and keeps the outer wheel vertical during cornering, but has bad camber change
effects in bump and droop, going positive in droop and negative in bump.

3.4.2 Long Swing Arm Length

A long swing arm length of between 1778 mm and 4572 mm gives a low roll centre but less
control over their sideways movement, minimal scrub, poor outer wheel control going into
positive camber, but only small camber change in bump and droop.

3.4.3 Medium Swing Arm Length

A medium swing arm length of between 1016 and 1778 mm is the transitional area between
the long and short swing arm lengths and as could be expected is a bit of everything.

15 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

3.4.4 Ultra-Long Swing Arm Length

An ultra-long swing arm length anything above 4572 mm or near parallel wishbones gives
great vertical wheel control with very low roll centres but enormous sideways movement,
wheel camber is virtually unaltered in bump and droop but poor wheel control in roll with
angles being near equivalent to body roll angles.

3.5 Camber
Camber angle is the angle between the vertical plane and the wheel centre plane. Negative
camber is defined as when the wheel is tilted inwards at the top relative to the car. The
camber angle has influences on the tyres ability to generate lateral forces. A cambered rolling
wheel produces a lateral force in the direction of the tilt. This force is referred to as camber
thrust when it occurs at zero slip angles. Camber angle also affects the aligning torque due to
distortion of the tire. The effect of this is rather small and can be cancelled with increasing
slip angle. Camber also leads to a raise in the lateral force produced by the wheel when
cornering. This is true in the linear range of the tyre. If the linear range is exceeded, the
additive effects of the camber angle decreases; this effect is called roll-off. Therefore the
difference in lateral force when comparing a cambered wheel with a non-cambered wheel is
small, around 5-10% at maximum slip angle. The difference is much larger at zero slip angles
due to the camber thrust. The effects of camber on a tyre are bigger for a bias ply tyre than a
radial ply tyre. For radial tyres the camber forces tend to fall off at camber angels above 5˚
while the maximum force due to camber for a bias ply tyre occurs at smaller angles.

3.6 Toe
Toe is the measure of how far inward or outward the leading edge of the tyre is facing, when
viewed from the top. Toe adjustment can be used to overcome handling difficulties. Rear toe
out can improve the turn in of a car. As the car turns in the load transfer adds more load to the
outside wheel and the effect is in and over steer direction. The amount of static toe in the
front will depend on factors that include camber, and Ackermann steering geometry.
However it follows the same pattern as the rear with toe out encouraging turn initiation. This
advantage in steering response provided by toe-out becomes a trade-off with straight-line
stability provided by toe-in at the front. Although in racing situations sacrificing a little
straight line stability for a shaper turn-in is desirable. Minimum static toe is desirable to
reduce rolling resistance and unnecessary tyre heating and tyre wear caused by the tyres
working against each other.

16 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

3.7 Kingpin Axis and Scrub Radius and Spindle Length

The kingpin axis is determined by the positions of the upper and lower joints on the wheel
end of the wishbones. This axis is not necessarily centred on the tyre contact patch. Viewing
from the front the axis is called the kingpin inclination angle and the distance from the centre
of the tyre contact patch to the axle centre is called the scrub radius. The distance from the
kingpin axis to the wheel centre plane is measured horizontally at the axle height and is called
the spindle length. Figure 3.7.1 Kingpin Axis, Scrub Radius and Castorshows the kingpin
geometry.

Kingpin Axis Kingpin Inclination

Wheel Offset
Spindle Length (+)
Upper Joint Upper Joint
Wheel Flange plane

Side View
Kingpin Offset
Lower Joint Lower Joint
Caster (+)

Mechanical Trail
Scrub Radius (-)

Forward
Figure 3.7.1 Kingpin Axis, Scrub Radius and Castor

There are a number of effects that can occur due to the values of these factors.
 If the spindle length is positive, the car will be raised up as the wheels are turned and
this results in an increase of the steering moment at the steering wheel. The larger the
kingpin inclination angle is, the more the car will be raised, regardless of which way
the front wheels are turned. If there is no caster present, this effect is symmetrical
from side to side. The raising of the car has a self-aligning effect on the steering at
low speeds.
 Kingpin inclination affects the steer camber. When a wheel is turned it will lean out at
the top, towards positive camber if the kingpin inclination angle is positive. The
amount of this is small but not to be neglected if the track includes tight turns.
 If the acceleration or braking force is different on the left and right side this will
introduce a steering torque proportional to the scrub radius, which will be felt by the
driver at the steering wheel.

17 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Typical Kingpin angles are between 0° and 10°. Too much king pin angle, and the tyre tends
to flop from side to side as it is steered, this causes the tyre contact patch to run up the edge
of the tyre as it is turned. In regards to scrub radius, the smaller the distance the less kick
back is felt and the less effort is needed to steer the car, however the larger a scrub radius the
more the driver feels bumps, brake pulsations and steering feedback. This is ideal in race cars
or performance cars.
Mark Ortiz of Racecar Engineering states, “I would aim for a scrub radius anywhere from
one to four inches (25 to 100mm) – more for low-speed tracks, less for high-speed.” (Ortiz,
2015)
All three of these factors are interrelated and a compromise is needed. To have a specific
scrub radius the outer ball joints are in fixed positions; this then fixes the kingpin angle
automatically. If a specific kingpin angle is desired then the scrub radius will not necessarily
be what is wanted. As the car is rear wheel drive, a minimum kingpin angle is desired and a
compromise in scrub radius will have to be taken.

3.8 Caster Angle and Trail

When viewing from the side the kingpin inclination is called the castor angle. If the kingpin
axis doesn’t pass through the centre of the wheel then there is a side view kingpin offset
present. The distance from the kingpin axis to the centre of the tyre contact patch is called the
trail or caster offset. See Figure 3.7.1 Kingpin Axis, Scrub Radius and Castorfor the side
view geometry. The caster angle and trail is important when designing the suspension
geometry. With caster present the tyre aligns itself behind the pivot as it travels. More trail
means that the tyre side force has a larger moment arm to act on the kingpin axis; this
produces more self-centring effect and the primary source of self-centring moment about the
kingpin axis. There are a number of effects that can occur due to the values of these factors.
 Caster angle will cause the wheel to rise and fall with steering input. This effect is
opposite from side to side and causes roll and weight transfer, leading to an over
steering effect.
 Caster angle has a positive effect on steer-camber. With positive caster angle the
outside wheel will camber in a negative direction and the inner wheel in a positive
direction, causing both wheels to lean into the turn.
 The size of the mechanical trail due to caster may not be too large compared to the
pneumatic trail from the tyre. The pneumatic trail will approach zero as the tyre
reaches the slip limit. This will result in lowering the self-centring torque that is

18 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

present due to the lever arm between the tyres’ rotation point at the ground and the
point of attack for the lateral force. This will be a signal to the driver that the tyre is
near its breakaway point. This “breakaway signal” may be lost if the mechanical trail
is large compared to the pneumatic trail.

3.9 Tie Rod Location and Bump Steer

The location of the tie rods is an important factor. The location should be such that bump
steer effects are kept to a minimum. Bump steer is the change in toe angle due to wheel
travel. A car with too much bump steer will have the tendency to change its movement
direction when the front wheels run over an obstacle. The effects of this can be hazardous
when running on a track over the corner curbs. In order to accomplish zero bump steer the tie
rod must fall between an imaginary line that runs from the upper outer ball joint through the
lower outer ball joint and an imaginary line that runs through the upper wishbone pivots and
the lower wishbone pivots. In addition, the centreline of the tie rod must intersect with the
instant centre created by the upper wishbone and the lower wishbone. This layout is shown
below in Figure 3.9.1 Diagram showing ideal tie rod locations. The simplest way to minimise
bump steer is to locate the tie rod in the same plane as either the upper or lower wishbones.
Another factor to look out for is the camber compliance under lateral force. If the tie rods are
located either above and behind or below and in front of the wheel centre the effect on the
steering will be in the understeer direction. If the wishbones are stiff enough the effects will
be small and thereby minimize the risk of over steering effects due to compliance in the
wishbones. The length of the lever arm from the outer tie rod end to the upper joint determine
together with the steering rack ratio the total ratio from the steering wheel’s angle to the
wheels steering angle.

Centre of Car

Instant Centre

FVSA length

Figure 3.9.1 Diagram showing ideal tie rod locations

19 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

3.10 Anti-Features
The anti-effect in a suspension describes the longitudinal to vertical force coupling between
the sprung and unsprung masses. It results from the angle of the side view swing arm. Anti-
features do not change the steady-state load transfer at the tyre contact patch; it is only
present during acceleration and breaking. The longitudinal weight transfer during steady
acceleration or breaking is a function of wheelbase, centre of gravity height and acceleration
or breaking forces as shown in Figure 3.10.2

Braking Force

CG
l

+ΔFz -ΔFz
Figure 3.10.1 Basic Brake Force

Braking Force=W(ax/g) Moment=W(ax/g)(% front braking)(svsa height)

CG
Svsa length

IC

IC θR
Svsa
height
θF

Figure 3.10.2 Anti Force’s

The anti-features changes the amount of load going through the springs and the pitch angle of
the car. Anti-features are measured in percent. A front axle with 100% anti dive will not
deflect during braking, no load will go through the springs, and a front axle with 0% anti dive
will deflect according to the stiffness of the springs fitted; the entire load is going through the
springs. It is possible to have negative anti effects. This will result in a gain of deflection.

20 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Equation 3.10.1 will give the percentage of anti-dive in the front of the car with outboard
brakes.
Equation 3.10.1 Anti-Dive Equation
𝑎 ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡
𝑊 × ( 𝑔𝑥 )(% 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔)(𝑠𝑣𝑠𝑎 − )
𝑠𝑣𝑠𝑎 − 𝑙𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ
% 𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑖 − 𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 =
𝑎 ℎ
𝑊 × ( 𝑔𝑥 ) × ( )
𝑙
𝑙
= (% 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔)(𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃𝐹 )( )
ℎ
By substituting % front braking with % rear braking and tan(θf) with tan(θr) in Equation
3.10.1 the amount of anti-lift can be calculated. Anti-squat is similar however the acceleration
on the centre of gravity position is now in the opposite direction.
Equation 3.10.2 Anti-Squat Equation
𝑡𝑎𝑛𝜃𝑅
% 𝐴𝑛𝑡𝑖 − 𝑠𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡 = × 100
(ℎ⁄𝑙 )
The way in which the suspension reacts to brake and drive torque alters how to calculate the
amount of Anti present. If the control arms react to torque, either from the brakes or from
drive torque, the anti’s are calculated by instant centre location relative to the tyre contact
patch. If the suspension doesn’t react to drive or brake torque, but only the forward or
rearward force, then the “anti’s” are calculated by the instant centre location relative to the
wheel centre. For a rear wheel driven car there are 3 different types of anti-features:
 Anti-dive, which reduces the bump deflection during forward braking.
 Anti-lift, which reduces the droop travel in forward braking.
 Anti-squat, which reduces the bump travel during forward acceleration.

3.11 Ackermann Steering

In low speed turns, where external forces due to acceleration are negligible, the steering angle
needed to make a turn with radius R is called the Ackermann Steering Angle, δa, and can be
calculated by using Equation 3.11.1
Equation 3.11.1 Ackermann Steering
𝑙
𝛿𝑎 =
𝑅

If both front wheels are tangents to concentric circles about the same turning centre, which
lies on a line through the rear axle, the vehicle is said to have Ackermann steering. This
results in the outer wheel having a smaller steering angle than the inner wheel. If the outer
wheel has a larger steering angle this is called reverse Ackermann and if both wheels have the

21 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

same steering angle, the vehicle has parallel steer. Passenger cars have a steering geometry
between Ackermann and parallel steering while it’s common among race cars to use reverse
Ackermann. By using Ackermann steering on passenger cars, or other vehicles exposed to
low lateral accelerations, it is ensured that all wheels roll freely with no slip angles because
the wheels are steered to track a common turn centre. Race cars are often operated at high
lateral accelerations and therefore all tyres operate at significant slip angles and the loads on
the turn’s inner wheels are much less than the turn’s outer wheels due to the cornering force.
Using a low speed steering geometry on a race car would cause the turn’s inner tyre to be
dragged along at a much higher slip angle than needed and this would only result in raises in
tyre temperature and slowing of the car due to slip angle induced drag. Therefore race cars
often use parallel steer or even reverse Ackermann. The different types of Ackermann are
shown in Equation 3.11.1.

Figure 3.11.1 Ackermann Steering (Milliken & Milliken, 1995)

3.12 Spring Rates

3.12.1 Wheel Frequency

The wheel frequency is the natural frequency of the suspension or wheel in either cycles per
minute (CPM) or per second (Hz). An ideal value would be found at around 1.5 – 2.5 Hz or
100 CPM – 150 CPM for racing cars without wings or ground effect. With anything lower
being for road cars and above this for high downforce cars, as this effectively increases the
sprung weight. Tiny ground clearances will mean that even higher frequencies will be
essential, however hard the ride will become, with the tyre taking over more and more of the
spring’s job. Figures of 200 - 300 CPM are needed, with Natural frequency’s reaching as
high as 500 CPM at the peak of the ground effect era. It is usual to find the rear frequency to
be about 10% higher than the front. This is to avoid a nose up nose down oscillation caused

22 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

by the front wheels when rising over a bump first, followed shortly by the rears. For an
inboard mounted coil there are effectively three rates to any spring.
Equation 3.12.1 Wheel Frequency

𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑁⁄𝑚

𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 𝐻𝑧 = √ 2
4𝜋 × 𝑆𝑝𝑟𝑢𝑛𝑔 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑘𝑔

3.12.2 The Wheel Rate

The first rate is the wheel rate or how strong the spring appears to be at the wheel, however
adding 100N of spring rate will not necessarily add 100N to the wheel rate unless the spring
is mounted directly on the axle. Anytime there are linkages such as wishbones and pushrods,
the linkage ratios need to be considered, and for this the calculation involves squaring the
leverage ratios.
Equation 3.12.2 Wheel Rate
𝑁
𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 4𝜋 2 × 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 2 × 𝑆𝑝𝑟𝑢𝑛𝑔 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑘𝑔
𝑚

Equation 3.12.3 Alternative Wheel Rate

𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚
𝑜𝑟 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚 =
𝑆𝑢𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 2

3.12.3 The Coil Rate or Spring Rate

Second is the coil rate, or amount the spring compresses under a given load (in lbs./ in. or N./
mm.) usually this its etched or painted on the springs by the manufacturer. If this is
unavailable or missing, the rate can be determined by measuring the springs and using the
following Equation 3.12.4.
Equation 3.12.4 Measuring Spring Rate
𝐺𝑑 4
𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 =
8𝑁𝐷3
Where G is the average torsional modules of steel, d is the wire diameter in inches, N is the
number of coils and D is the mean coil diameter in inches. The coil rate can also be worked
out from the wheel frequency and motion ratio as seen in Equation 3.12.5
Equation 3.12.5 Coil Rate
𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑁/𝑚
= 4𝜋 2 × 𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑒𝑙 𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 (𝐻𝑧)2 × 𝑆𝑝𝑟𝑢𝑛𝑔 𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 (𝑘𝑔) × 𝑀𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 2

3.12.4 The Fitted Rate

The third is the fitted rate or how strong the spring appears to be on the car, taking into
account the leverage on it exerted by the suspension linkage. A coil mounted to a longer

23 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

suspension linkage will be crushed more than the same coil mounted on a shorter suspension
linkage.
Equation 3.12.6 Fitted Rate
𝐶𝑜𝑖𝑙 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚
𝐹𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑁⁄𝑚𝑚 =
𝑀𝑜𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜

3.13 Anti-Roll Bars

An anti-roll bar, also referred to as a stabilizer or sway bar, is a bar or tube which connects
some part of the left and right sides of the suspension system. The primary function of an
anti-roll bar is to control and limit the body roll of the vehicle during cornering by adding to
the roll resistance of the suspension springs. This is for a higher overall roll resistance, as the
primary purpose of the spring is to maintain maximum contact of the tyre to the road surface
and therefore we must settle for the roll resistance provided, which is rarely enough. The anti-
roll bar adds to the roll resistance without resorting to an overly stiff spring. A properly
selected anti-roll bar will reduce body roll in corners for improved cornering traction, but will
not increase the harshness of the ride, or reduce the effectiveness of the tyre to maintain good
road surface contact. A secondary function is that they can be used to tune the vehicles
handling balance, as the anti-roll rate not only determines the amount the chassis rolls during
cornering, but the relative anti-roll rates front to rear, determine the weight transfer
characteristics of the race car. Many race car engineers refer to the relative roll stiffness as
the “magic number”. Changing the relative anti-roll rate front to rear is the single most
effective way of establishing a balanced race car. By changing the relative anti-roll rate and
hence their relative weight transfer, the overall mechanical grip can be sacrificed at one end
of the race car to improve the other, until a balance is achieved. The following equations are
used to calculate the roll gradient of the ride springs and thus the deficit that the anti-roll bar
needs to deal with.
Equation 3.13.1 Roll Gradient From Ride Springs Equation
𝜑𝑟 −𝑊 × 𝐻
=
𝐴𝑦 𝐾𝜑𝐹 + 𝐾𝜑𝑅
𝜑
Where 𝐴 𝑟 = the roll gradient from the ride springs in deg/g, H = Cg to roll axis distance in m,
𝑦

W is the vehicle weight and 𝐾𝜑𝐹 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐾𝜑𝑅 are the front and rear roll rates respectively in
Nm/deg
Equation 3.13.2 Front Roll Rate Due to Springs Equation
𝜋 × (𝑡𝑓 2 ) × 𝐾𝐿𝐹 × 𝐾𝑅𝐹
𝐾𝜑𝐹 =
180 × (𝐾𝐿𝐹 + 𝐾𝑅𝐹 )

24 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Where 𝑡𝑓 = front track width in m and 𝐾𝐿𝐹 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐾𝑅𝐹 are the front left and right wheel rates
respectively in N/m. This equation is similar for the rear.
Equation 3.13.3 Rear Roll Rate Due to Springs Equation
𝜋 × (𝑡𝑅 2 ) × 𝐾𝐿𝑅 × 𝐾𝑅𝑅
𝐾𝜑𝑅 =
180 × (𝐾𝐿𝑅 + 𝐾𝑅𝑅 )
Next the total anti-roll bar roll rate needed to increase the roll stiffness of the vehicle to the
desired roll gradient should be calculated.
Equation 3.13.4 Total ARB Roll Rate Needed Equation

𝜋 𝐾𝜑𝐷𝐸𝑆 × 𝐾𝑇 × (𝑡 2 /2) 𝜋𝐾𝑊 × (𝑡 2 /2)

𝐾𝜑𝐴 = ×( 𝜋 ) −
180 [𝐾𝑇 × (𝑡 2 /2) × 180 − 𝐾𝜑𝐷𝐸𝑆 ] 180

Where 𝐾𝜑𝐴 = the total ARB roll rate needed in Nm/deg roll, 𝐾𝜑𝐷𝐸𝑆 = the desired total roll
rate in Nm/deg roll. 𝐾𝑊 = the average wheel rate in N/m and 𝐾𝑇 =the Tyre Rate in N/m. t is
the average track width of the vehicle in m.
Equation 3.13.5 Desired Total Roll Gradient Equation
𝜑
𝐾𝜑𝐷𝐸𝑆 = 𝑊 × 𝐻/ ( )
𝐴𝑦
𝜑
Where 𝐴 = the desired total roll gradient, chosen by the user in deg/g.
𝑦

It is then possible to calculate the front and rear anti-roll bar stiffness.
Equation 3.13.6 FARB Stiffness Equation
𝑀𝑅𝐹𝐴 2
𝐾𝜑𝐹𝐴 = 𝐾𝜑𝐴 × 𝑁𝑚𝑎𝑔 ×
100
Where 𝐾𝜑𝐹𝐴 = the Front ARB roll rate in Nm/deg twist, 𝑁𝑚𝑎𝑔 =the roll gradient distribution
in % and 𝑀𝑅𝐹𝐴 = the FARB motion ratio. The roll gradient distribution is 5% more than the
static front load percentage. Again this equation is similar for the rear.
Equation 3.13.7 RARB Stiffness Equation
𝑀𝑅𝑅𝐴 2
𝐾𝜑𝑅𝐴 = 𝐾𝜑𝐴 × (100 − 𝑁𝑚𝑎𝑔 ) ×
100
Now these equations can be used to calculate the anti-roll bar stiffness.

4 New Suspension Design Considerations

Having read much literature on the subject it is clear there are many approaches to designing
a suspension system, the chosen method for this report is what the author believes is the most
effective and follows both the advice in Race Car Vehicle Dynamics (Milliken & Milliken,
1995) and a modified priority list set out in Competition Car Suspension (Staniforth, 1999):
1. Regulations

25 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

2. Track Width
3. Tyres
4. Wheels
5. Hubs and uprights
6. Geometry
7. Roll centre
8. Instantaneous roll centre/ swing arm length
9. Springs
10. Dampers
11. Anti-roll bars
12. Steering

4.1 Regulations
“Reading the regulations is step one. It is no use to arrive in the first scrutineering bay with a
world beater that is just slightly the wrong size.” (Staniforth, 1999)

This sounds like a basic concept but even the best teams get this wrong. The regulations that
govern the design of the suspension for the Formula Student car have been covered earlier in
section 1.5 and can be found in the 2015 Formula SAE Rule book. (IMechE, 2014) In most
cases to get the most out of the regulations they must be stretched to the limit. However
considering the performance of the team last year at Silverstone. The decision has been made
to play reasonably conservative all round to ensure that the scrutineering process goes
without a hitch.

4.2 Tyres
13 inch diameter tyres are likely to be the first choice, whether new or “slightly scuffed” due
to their enormous availability and variety. A larger diameter is usually employed only
because vehicle size or power forces this option, which is not a factor with the UWE Formula
Student car. The smaller 10 inch mini size tyre suffers from a lack of choice in width,
construction and tread compounds which also rules out this option. The most desirable from a
weight and inertia point of view is the 12 inch tyre however this is a very rare size and can be
extremely expensive and hard to find. As tyre sizes are usually limited by the sanctioning
body rules, the general rule is to use all the tyre that the rules will let you get away with. So
for these reasons the 13 inch tyre is to be chosen. Avon manufacture a range of suitable tyres

26 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

for the FSAE competition. For various reasons the tyre choice is out of the authors control,
due to the team budget and last year’s lack of tyre usage it has been decided that the previous
year’s tyres will be recycled. To this end the tyre choice is therefore the Avon FSAE
7.2x20x13. This has a width of 183 mm and an outside diameter of 521 mm.

4.3 Wheels
Although wheels are not really part of the suspension, except as tyre carriers, wheels are
nonetheless the vital link between the geometry and the tyre contact patch and as such need to
have properties of strength, lightness and reliability. The wheel size will totally depend on the
tyre size and the desired PCD or type of stud pattern of the hub flange. It is far easier to
obtain a wheel with the correct offset and PCD than to alter a hub and flange to suit the
wrong wheel. The specific wheel manufacturer also needs to be known and a cross section of
the wheel is desired to be able to optimise full usage of the space inside the wheel. At this
stage the brake calliper placement and wheel offset are worked out together to make sure that
the calliper clears the inside surface of the wheel. Once the calliper is located this then
automatically positions the brake rotor.

4.4 Hubs and Uprights

Although technically these are two separate items, together with their bearings, spacers and
seals, they are so closely inter-related as to be considered a single component. The key design
areas are the wheel and brake attachment points and the positions of the upper and lower
outboard suspension pickups and later the steering pickup. The lower suspension point
should be positioned first, as close to the brake disc as possible and as low as possible
without contacting the wheel rim in the full range of movement for the suspension. The upper
suspension point should then be positioned to give the desired king pin inclination angle,
caster angle and as far away from the lower suspension mount as possible to reduce loading.
This will however dictate the scrub radius. The two main criteria for the outboard pickup
points are that;
a) They do not contact the wheel rim
b) The further outboard they can be positioned the more the leverage of the wheel
against links can be reduced.

Some ideal characteristics that are needed from the outboard suspension pickup points are a
kingpin inclination angle of between 0° and 8°, a scrub radius lower than 40 mm but not

27 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

negative. A caster angle between 3° and 7°, with a static camber angle around -2° with
adjustment between 0° and -4°. However due to the relationship between kingpin angle and
scrub radius there may need to be some compromise between the two values.

4.5 Geometry
Any decision on springs, anti-roll bars, weight transfer or wheel frequency cannot be made
until the lengths, angles and pick up positions of the wishbones have been finalised. But the
basic concept of stay low where centre of gravity and roll centre are concerned is a vital one.
“You have to have at least one firm base on which to begin creating your suspension design,
and nothing I have been involved with over some years has shaken my conviction that the
best, and possibly the only, reliable starting point is the roll centre. You have to cling onto
something” (Staniforth, 1999)
Where the roll centre is located statically in various designs of suspension, this can most
clearly be seen in drawings rather than attempting an explanation in words. See section 3.4
for a clearer definition of roll centre. As this point will dictate how the chassis suspension
pick up points move, and hence what the wheel and tyre will then do, the importance of
controlling its position in space, should this be possible is paramount. The trouble with
theoretical concepts compared to reality is that they alter once cornering and other forces
come into play, because the static data on which they are based alters. The dynamic roll
centre can and does move up, down and side to side. With roll itself being a function of an
equally invisible point, the centre of gravity, it can be seen how variations and uncertainties
rapidly multiply. Leverages alter, the car’s attitude alters, weight transfer from inner to outer
wheels alters, and at the end of the line, the tyre contact patches start distorting under
complex and varying series of loads. This is where wishbone lengths, wishbone angles and
chassis mounts are all chosen as well as pushrod and bell crank positions. There are four
options to make a start finding a suitable geometry:
1. Copy exactly a successful design already running, this is obviously only if you have
access and permission to do this. To make this work every point that moves must be
reproduced precisely in space as once you diverge from the original shortcoming
begin to creep in. this is obviously not an option in this report as the basis of it is to
design a suspension system.
2. Draw the proposed layout, then re-draw and re-draw with gradual movements of
wheel and chassis bump, roll and droop. This is not a practical application as one
drawing soon turns into hundreds as you go through variation after variation.

28 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

3. Use a computer program to vary a mathematical model of your idea. This is by far the
most practical as a computer has the ability to do millions of repetitive calculations at
high speed in search of your solution. The computer does all the repetitive drawing
for you it is just up to the engineer to analyse the results and decide what works and
what doesn’t.
4. Use of the string computer, by making a working model of the unequal wishbone
design to scale and to giving it freedom to move, and using string as a way of
indicating in small increments what the roll centre might be doing.

4.6 Roll Centre

Racing cars have roll centres located around an area within 25 mm below the ground and 50
mm above the ground. Low roll centres give less weight transfer to the outer wheel, smaller
or no jacking effect but high potential roll angles. Front and rear roll centres are
conventionally at different heights to give a tilted roll axis with the lowest centre at the lowest
or lightest end of the vehicle. So for this application the front roll centre will be positioned
lower than the rear.

4.7 Modelled Swing Arm Length

The swing arm length that is believed to be best for the front of this application is in the range
between the longer end of a medium swing arm length and the shorter end of a long swing
arm length. This equates to a desired region of around between 1500 mm and 2500 mm as
this can give camber gain of between 0.05° per mm and 0.02° per mm, which over the full
range of suspension travel should give a camber change due to roll of between 0.3° and 0.7°.
At the rear medium swing arm length of between 1016 mm and 1778 mm will give a camber
change of between 0.03° per mm and 0.05° per mm, which over the full range of rear
suspension travel should give a camber gain due to roll of between 0.5° and 0.9°.

4.8 Side View Geometry

The side view geometry involves any anti systems present, due to the nature of the event and
the weight of the car it is deemed that no anti-dive is necessary. A small amount of anti-squat
however is a preferred choice. To this end it is viewed that 30% anti-squat is a good amount,
this will be designed into the rear of the suspension system.

29 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

4.9 Springs
For this report the aim is to have the natural frequency in the 1.5 – 2.5 Hz or 100 – 150 CPM
boundary. With the rear being about 10% higher than the front. So if we say the rear has the
maximum frequency of 150 CPM or 2.5 Hz, 90% of this value is 135 CPM or 2.25 Hz. These
will be the desired natural frequencies of the car. As the car has yet to be designed the
leverage ratios are yet to be known so spring and coil rates cannot be deduced until such time.

4.10 Dampers
“The precise relationship between a damper, the coil surrounding it and the rest of the car is
an extremely subtle and sensitive one, even in this day and age often being fine-tuned by
testing and “seat of the pants” feel once the car is running.” (Staniforth, 1999)

So long as the leverages are the same within the damper coil system, in terms of the actual
rate or strength of that coil, ignoring inclinations, wheel rate, etc. The bump resistance of a
damper is always less than the rebound, by a ratio for a circuit racing car of around 2:1 or
even 1.5:1 compared to an average road car of about 3:1. This figure has come about as a
result of the sacrifice of comfort in search of grip with travel being contained to around 2
inches or less for circuit vehicles with instantaneous loads from bumps or kerbing being
many times higher. With the team saving money by reusing existing dampers from last year
provided by Protec Shocks there is little that can be changed in this area. However the data
for the bump and rebound of the dampers is available and both fully adjustable for that “seat
of the pants” adjustment once the car is running. The bump and rebound graphs are shown
below in Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found.

30 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 4.10.1 Front Damper Bump and Rebound Figure 4.10.2 Rear Damper Bump and Rebound
Graph Graph

4.11 Anti-roll Bars

This is another area where working backward towards what is wanted is the best route, by
first finding the roll moment of the whole car. It then must be assessed how much the springs
contribute to roll stiffness. Using these two figures it will then be possible to decide what
further roll stiffness is required to limit roll with a target of around 1°for a single seater at 1G
cornering force as a maximum. Before any calculating can be done it needs to be decided
how and where they are best fitted. Criteria are that they do not interfere with the chassis
clearance board or drivetrain components, they must be accessible for change or adjustment
with freedom to move full travel without fouling. The standard link from bar to suspension
makes use of rod ends at each joint with left/right hand threads to allow accurate setting of
length without totally dismantling the unit. The mounting location will decide the length of
bar and maximum and minimum space for any adjustable lever arm. After this is done then
length and lever arm dimensions are now known and a given stiffness requirement can at last
be calculated, to determine the bars diameter and wall thickness.

4.12 Steering
We must now decide where to locate the rack and pinion, there are two factors to consider,
making sure not to foul on the chassis clearance board and the avoidance of excessive bump
steer. Bump steer is the phenomena in which either or both front wheels will start pointing
themselves in varying directions as they rise and fall without the driver turning the steering
wheel. This is as bad as it sounds and at its worst can introduce straight line instability and

31 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

highly unwanted uncertainty in cornering feel. Only after the location of all inboard and
outboard suspension pickup points has been finalised can the rack position and its required
length be determined. The best solution is usually with rack end pivots coinciding exactly
with the top wishbone pickup point, although with this the track rod end must also match the
vertical height of the top outboard pickup point, however due to the clearance boards this is
not generally feasible unless the inboard suspension mountings are mounted sufficiently far
apart. To this end rack placement and reducing bump steer becomes trickier. Minimising
bump steer is a priority when it comes to steering so this will be the aim of the steering joint
locations. Parallel or more Ackermann steering geometry is also the desired aim although in
reality this is of little importance.

4.13 New Suspension Aims

The aims the author wants to achieve with a new suspension design are as follows:
 A kingpin inclination angle of between 0° and 8°
 A scrub radius between 0 mm and 100 mm
 A caster angle between 3° and 7°
 Static camber of around -2° but adjustable between 0°and -4°
 Camber gain of between 0.2° and 0.5° at the front axle
 Camber gain of between 0.5° and 0.8° at the rear axle
 A maximum roll of about 2°
 A roll centre height between 25 mm below ground and 50 mm above ground at the
front and marginally higher at the rear
 Controlled and predictable movement of the roll axis
 A swing arm length of between 1250 mm and 2500 mm at the front
 A swing arm length of between 1016 mm and 1778 mm at the rear
 Minimal bump steer
 50% - 65% of the roll stiffness on the rear axle
This ideal setup has come about through reading of reference material and talking to people
in the motorsport industry.

32 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

5 Suspension Geometry Design

5.1 Wheelbase
The first key parameters that set the overall size of the system are the wheelbase and the front
and rear track. As discussed previously these play a great part in the load transfer and the
cornering ability of the vehicle. The rules state the smallest wheelbase maybe 1525 mm,
getting as close to this as possible is the ideal target however many factors play into this. A
key one is the chassis obviously needs to accommodate the driver, engine, drivetrain and
ancillaries, this therefore makes the chassis a certain length, the rear wheels are ideally set in
line with the drivetrain to make transferring power as stable as possible without loading up
the CV joints to much under extreme angles. Working forward from this enough space must
be provided for the engine and engine ancillaries, the main roll hoop will come after this
point along with the fuel tank, firewall, driver’s seat and the driver. The cockpit must have a
certain opening size so this dictates a minimum cockpit size. This and an allowable driver’s
arm length then places the front roll hoop. It’s at this point we think of a front wheel centre
point. Another thing to consider is the length of the driver’s legs as well as room for pedals,
as depending on where the front suspension is located changes the amount of overhang of the
front bodywork and nosecone. Too much overhang means the nose has a large sweeping
radius in a turn where as too little means the driver does not have enough room or the
wheelbase is too long. The key here is to strike a perfect balance between them. Table 5.1.1
shows the estimated lengths of the assemblies within the car, this is to give an idea of where
the front suspension should be located.
Table 5.1.1 Estimated Assembly Lengths
Assembly Length (mm)
Drivetrain 250
Engine 330
Ancillaries 150
Cockpit 730
Driver’s Legs 500
Pedals 290
Crash Structure 250
Total 2500

Going off the values in Table 5.1.1 the estimated total length of vehicle is 2500 mm or 2.5
metres. As the rear suspension ideally sits in line with the middle of the drivetrain assembly
this value can be halved to 125 mm. This makes the total length from rear driveline to tip of

33 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

the nose as 2375 mm. From this value we can work out our wheel base on percentage
overhang. Table 5.1.2 below shows the wheelbase in mm for different percentage nose
overhangs, the table starts at 15% as any less than this and the suspension would be floating
ahead of the chassis, and it does not go past 40% because as you can see this value is smaller
than the allowed wheelbase as described in the rules in Section 1.5. For this reason and to
make the numbers easier to work with, adjusted values have been produced also seen in Table
5.1.2.
Table 5.1.2 Wheelbase for Percentage Nose Overhang
Adjusted
Percentage Nose Overhang (%) Wheelbase (mm) Wheelbase
Values (mm)
15 2018.75 2025
20 1900 1900
25 1781.25 1780
30 1662.5 1675
35 1543.75 1550
40 1425 1525

From these values and a rough centre of gravity location it is possible to then do some simple
calculations to determine rough axial and wheel loads and longitudinal weight transfer from
Equations 3.2.1 and Equations 3.2.2. The centre of gravity location is taken to be roughly a
quarter of the way into the cockpit forward of the rear roll hoop or 800 mm in front of the
rear axle line and 400 mm off the floor. The braking G is taken to be 1.5G.
Table 5.1.3 Axial Wheel Loads at Rest and Under 1.25G Braking
Wheelbase Front Load Rear Load Front Load Under Rear Load Under
(m) (N) (N) Braking (N) Braking (N)
2.025 1356.444 2077.056 2373.778 1059.722
1.900 1445.684 1987.816 2529.947 903.553
1.780 1543.146 1890.354 2700.506 732.994
1.675 1639.881 1793.619 2869.791 563.709
1.550 1772.129 1661.371 3101.226 332.274
1.525 1801.180 1632.320 3152.066 281.434

34 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

3500.000

3000.000

2500.000 Front Load

2000.000 Rear Load

Load (N)

1500.000 Front Weight

Under 1.25G
Braking
1000.000 Rear Weight
Under 1.25
500.000 Braking

0.000
1.500 1.600 1.700 1.800 1.900 2.000
Wheelbase (m)

Figure 5.1.1 Graph of Wheelbase vs Loads and Braking Loads

From Table 5.1.3 it is obvious that the longer the wheelbase is the less load transfer from the
rear to the front axle occurs under braking. This would suggest that a longer wheelbase is
better, however longer wheelbases naturally have a larger turning radius. Looking at the static
wheel loads, there is a clear spread and correlation as expected, an idea weight spread for a
Formula Student car is around 50/50 front to rear, with excess weight being towards the rear,
if there does happen to be a spread this will help with traction on the drive wheels. For this
reason a wheelbase of 1.675 metres or 1675 mm is the chosen wheelbase because it produces
a near 50/50 weight split, with approximately 47.5% to the front and therefore 52.5% to the
rear. The load transfer for this wheelbase is a little worse than expected but is within an
acceptable range.

5.2 Track Width

The track width of the front and rear axle are key parameters in the cornering performance of
the vehicle, looking back to Section 3.1.3 it tells us the minimum circuit width is 3.5m, and
minimum outer corner diameter is 9m. Too narrow a track will result in high lateral load
transfer as given by Equation 3.3.1 Lateral Load TransferAlthough too large a track will
result in the Formula Student car having to move more lateral distance to negotiate obstacles.
Figure 5.2.1 Weight Transfer during Cornering For Different Track Widths the linear
relationship between track width and weight transfer.

35 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

250.000
Weight Transferred (N)
200.000
0.9m Track Width
150.000
1m Track Width
1.1m Track Width
100.000
1.2m Track Width
50.000 1.3m Track Width
1.4m Track Width
0.000
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
Lateral Acceleration Force

Figure 5.2.1 Weight Transfer during Cornering For Different Track Widths

As revealed earlier in Section 1.5, “The smaller track of the vehicle (front or rear) must be no
less than 75% of the larger track.” (IMechE, 2014) To prevent corner exit understeer it is
desirable to have a smaller rear track, as this reduces the push on effect induced by the rear
tyres under acceleration. Another advantage to a smaller rear track although not related to the
performance of the vehicle, is that with a smaller rear track there is less chance of the driver
hitting the course cones trying to negotiate a corner with his rear wheels once they are past
his field of view. For these reasons the middle range of track widths has been chosen, it is
believed that 1.4m and 1.3m wide are slightly too wide leaving minimal room either side to
manoeuvre around the course. For this reason 1.2m or 1200m has been chosen for the front
track, and 1.1 m or 1100 mm chosen for the rear track. A smaller rear track could be chosen
but the author believes that closer to a square profile is the slightly better option.

5.1 Wheels, Brakes and Offset

Now that overall dimensions for the vehicle have been decided, the process can start to move
inboard. The next components that need to be decided upon and constrained together are the
wheels, the brake calliper and disk, and then the wheel offset. Although this year the team has
greater use of the budget than previous year, it has been decided to be smarter with the money
and spend it in key areas, this means that wheels and tyres are being reused from last year.
This sets the geometry of the wheels, their diameter and tyre size. Figure 5.1.1 shows the
CAD geometry of the chosen wheels, they are the Team Dynamics Pro Race 1.2 13” wheels.
They were originally chosen for their lightness, price and the fact that they are easily
obtainable.

36 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 5.1.1 Wheel CAD Geometry

These wheels can come in a range of offsets, however the offset brought forward from last
year is 35 mm. Although the specific offset of the wheel is not adjustable, it is possible to
include a spacer to decrease this offset value.

Figure 5.1.2 Front Wheel with Brake Calliper and Figure 5.1.3 Rear Wheel with Brake Calliper and
Disc Disc
Figure 5.1.2 and Figure 5.1.3 show the front and rear wheel with corresponding brake
callipers inserted. Both brake callipers are supplied by AP Racing as well as their
corresponding discs. The front callipers are 2 piston radial mounted callipers from there Pro
5000+ range, they are the smallest in this range but should provide significant stopping
power. As the rear wheel will take less load under braking smaller callipers are needed to
induce wheel locking. For this reason, smaller lug callipers from the 2 piston range are being
used on the rear of the vehicle. To minimise the size of the hubs and the weight of the hubs a
20 mm spacer will be used on each wheel to bring the offset down to 15 mm. Figure 5.1.4
shows the wheel with the offset spacer.

37 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 5.1.4 Wheel with Spacer to Reduce Offset

5.2 Upright and Outer Pivot Points

The next stage in the design involves placing the lower pivot point as close to the brake rotor
as possible. This involves selecting spherical bearings, estimating a clearance distance and
estimating a minimum upright thickness. The spherical bearings are being supplied by
Autosport Bearings, they are a miniature 5/16th high misalignment spherical bearing perfect
for motorsport applications. The reason for using imperial measurements for some motorsport
components is due to the grade of bolt that is used. All key critical components will use
N.A.S Bolts. These, as the name will reveal are made to National Aviation Standard this is an
American marking of quality and standard, (hence the imperial measurements), and are the
premium bolt on the market and a motorsport staple. The size of the bearing then dictates the
holder. The bearing holder has an outer diameter of 28 mm so half this value to get the
minimum distance to the wishbone bracket inner face, adding a 10 mm minimum thickness to
the upright makes a minimum distance so far of 24 mm. It must be remembered that the
medium camber value is -2° but the maximum value is -4, because of this the suspension
system must be designed to -4° and then shimmed out on the outer mountings to achieve a
value of -2°. Adding 5 mm for the wishbone bracket wall thickness makes 29 mm. Adding an
extra 4mm clearance for shims, makes a total maximum distance of around 33 mm. To this
the distance from the inside edge of the brake disc to the wheel/hub flange is added and
rounded up with extra disc clearance, this makes a minimum distance of 70 mm. This is near

38 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

enough the same for the rear suspension, the distance from wheel/hub flange to the inside
face of the disc is about 1 mm less, so these values will also be used.

Figure 5.2.1 Distance from Wheel/Hub Flange to Inside Face of Disc.

Now their lateral position is sorted out the next step is their vertical position.
On race cars it should be made as low as possible for structural reasons. (Milliken &
Milliken, 1995)
Following this advice the lower pivot point shall be placed a comfortably close distance to
the lower edge of the wheel rim. The maximum inside diameter of the wheel rim is 322 mm,
so if we round this to 320 mm, we have 160 mm either side of the centre to play with.
According to Section 1.5 the wheel must have a minimum suspension travel of at least 50.8
mm travel. As this is technically 25.4 mm in each direction, and if a degree of safety is inbuilt
we can say that we have a minimum clearance of 30 mm. Although this seems extreme, a
major aim of the team this year is to pass scrutineering first time so everything is being
designed with an added safety factor. To this end the lower ball joint is to be located 120 mm
outward of the centre.

39 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 5.2.2 Lower Pivot Point

For the upper pivot point there is more to consider. For the rear the tie-rods will be located in
the same plane as the upper wishbones to eliminated bump steer. This is easily done as there
is no steering rack across the internals of the car to dictate the location of the inner pivots.
The front however is slightly different; the ideal situation would see the tie-rods in the same
plane as the upper front wishbone. Although this may not be feasible due to the clearance
board in Figure 1.5.1, we can still design the possibility into the outer geometry. With an
ideal distance from the centre for each of the upper pivots as around 100 mm two different
pivot heights were looked at to give some clearance indications. Figure 5.2.3 and Figure 5.2.4
show the horizontal clearance on the inside of the wheel rim and different vertical heights,
120 mm gives an even spread between the centre and the upper and lower pivots but it
doesn’t leave much horizontal room for the potential two upper pivot points. 110 mm was
tried and this gave what is deemed to be sufficient clearance for the pivots not to contact the
sides of the wheel centre. This value of 110 mm is used from here onwards for the upper
pivots vertical height.

40 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 5.2.3 Upper Pivot Point Clearance 1 Figure 5.2.4 Upper Pivot Point Clearance 2
To ease the manufacture of the uprights and to make them cheaper, and to reduce the costs of
the build the kingpin inclination angle must be similar to the middle camber angle, there is
some tolerance to this value, but it means that out kingpin inclination needs to be around the -
2° area. To keep the numbers even, an upper pivot point distance to the hub flange of 80 mm
was trialled and this gave a KPI value of -2.49°. As this value is within the desired range of
values it is acceptable, however this limited KPI value means that the scrub radius is going to
be higher. Figure 5.2.5 and Figure 5.2.6 shows the KPI angle and a scrub radius of 48.89 mm
at 0° camber.

Figure 5.2.5 Upper Pivot Point and KPI Angle. Figure 5.2.6 Scrub Radius at 0° Camber

5.3 Wishbone Lengths and Roll Centre

Although this section is about wishbone lengths and roll centre, the wishbone lengths aren’t
so much chosen, as worked out. In our instance it is more a case of working out the minimum
chassis width, dictated somewhat by Figure 1.5.1. Picking front view inboard pickup points

41 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

from there that, give a desired roll centre. Playing around with the wishbone lengths enables
us to dial in to our desired track width and maximum camber angles.
To gauge the minimum chassis distance to the centre line for the front of car the width of the
profile board was halved and then multiplied by a factor of 1.2 to give a safety value. To this
was then added to the outside diameter of the chassis tubing and this value was rounded up to
give a whole number with some extra clearance for wishbone brackets. Equation 5.3.1
Distance from Centre Line to Chassis Outer Calculation that this value was 240 mm. This
value is to be used for the bottom inner wishbone pickup point.
Equation 5.3.1 Distance from Centre Line to Chassis Outer Calculation
350
× 1.2 = 210
2
210 + 25.4 = 235.4 = 240
To calculate the rear value, an estimated transmission and engine size was found and a safety
value added to this to ensure that there was no chance of interference. This minimum value
was found to be 225 mm.
It’s at this stage that we move over from Solidworks to using VSusp, this is because this
piece of software calculates the roll centre and other characteristics for us. By inputting all
the values we have so far into the software we can find out the values that we have missing.
These are the ride heights, front and rear, the distance from chassis centre to the upper
inboard pivot point, and the vertical heights from the bottom of the chassis for both the top
and bottom inboard pivot points.
The first box to fill out is the front and rear ride heights. The rear ride height wants to be
higher than the front, this doesn’t just marginally help with the longitudinal roll centre
gradient, it has also been requested by the Aerodynamics section of the team to help with
under body flow and make possible space for a rear diffuser. The suspension must have a
minimum travel distance of 25.4 mm in each direction, and as the underside of the car is not
allowed to scrape along the ground at any point the ride height must be higher than this. The
value chosen was 40 mm for the front and 60 mm for the rear. This gives a rake gradient of
0.68°.
Last year there was minimal vertical height between the wishbones. This led to build
problems when it became time to install the spring and damper system, as there was not
enough room or the desired angles to install pushrods for an inboard system and a less than
ideal location for an outboard spring and damper assembly. To this end the installed shock
length was used as a guide to ensure sufficient room, this is around 225 mm. This however is

42 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

perfectly vertical, as the pushrods will be angled, this value is shortened to around 190 mm.
This value was taken as the minimum vertical wishbone distance.
If at this point we consider the chassis as square, and have chassis outer to centre line equal
for the top and bottom mounting points, this enables us to get a baseline wishbone length for
our desired track value. We can now play around with a few values to get ball park roll centre
and swing arm length values. These values are; the chassis bottom to lower wishbone
distance, chassis centre line to upper wishbone mount distance and the two wishbone lengths.
These values will also dictate our baseline camber.
For the front suspension the height from the bottom of the chassis to the top wishbone
mounting was increased to 270 mm. This gave a greater height for the top longitudinal
chassis bar, this is thought to make bell crank and push rod positioning easier. The rear was
raised slightly to 240 mm. This is due to differential size and position, making driveline
design easier and shaft inputs to the wheels more linear. This corresponded with moving the
lower wishbone mounting point up 75 mm and 60 mm, front and rear respectively.

Figure 5.3.1 Front Suspension Unrefined Figure 5.3.3 Front Suspension Refined

Figure 5.3.2 Rear Suspension Unrefined Figure 5.3.4 Rear Suspension Refined
The centre line to upper wishbone mounting point and wishbone lengths were then refined to
give the desired roll centres, instant centres, front view swing arm lengths and camber angles.
This change can be seen in Figure 5.3.1, Figure 5.3.2, Figure 5.3.3 Figure 5.3.4. With the

43 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

refined design complete we can produce a table of the parameters and the outputs produced.
Table 5.3.1 shows these parameters.
Table 5.3.1 Output Parameters
Lower Upper Upper Wishbone Front View Camber Final
Wishbone Wishbone Mounting Swing Arm Angle Track
Length Length Horizontal Length (°) Width
(mm) (mm) Distance from the (mm) (mm)
Centre Line (mm)
Front 295 252.5 260 1629 -4.424 1199.85
Rear 260 225 237.5 1316 -4.669 1101.52

Some of these parameters plus the roll centre and instant centre locations can be seen in the
whole views for both the front and rear suspension shown in Figure 5.3.5 and Figure 5.3.6.

Figure 5.3.5 Whole Front Suspension Front View

Figure 5.3.6 Whole Rear Suspension Front View

As can be seen from Figure 5.3.5 and Figure 5.3.6 both roll centres are quite low with 9 mm
and 25 mm, shown in the green boxes. The instant centre locations are shown in the pink

44 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

boxes with swing arm length shown as well. The exact track width is also shown, this
however will change slightly with camber changes.

5.4 Inboard Pivot Points and Side View Geometry

Now we know all the outboard pivot point locations, wishbone lengths and inboard pivot
point locations. We can now build a more detailed cad drawing, this is then used to produce
the final inboard pivot locations. As long as the inner pivots for each wishbone are collinear
through the designed centre from Section 5.3. It’s at this stage that any anti-dive or anti-squat
can be introduced.
Starting with the front suspension the front view of the wishbone and hub pivot points is
drawn.

Figure 5.4.1 Front Geometry Front View Drawing

This is then repeated for the opposite side.

45 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 5.4.2 Whole Front View Geometry Drawing

Now that the initial wishbone geometry is drawn out its time to decide how far apart the inner
pivot parts for each wishbone will be. This can be decided by thinking how much space
between the points is needed, and also by ideal chassis structure distances. The distances
were 150 mm from the centre line, so a total wishbone width of 300 mm. At this point any
desired caster can be introduced as well. By moving the lower wishbone outer pivot point
forward 20 mm from the centre line a caster angle of 5.55° was achieved. This was in the
range of values that was considered to be good, and near enough in the middle of the range.

Figure 5.4.3 Initial Front Suspension Wishbone Layout Drawing

46 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

This was then transferred to the opposite side. The next step is to create some construction
lines to define the horizontal position of the pivot points. This was done to give a forward
taper to the geometry which would then transfer to the chassis, oversized bulkhead
dimensions were used for this which can be seen in Figure 5.4.4. This allows for the nose to
taper down to the size needed to attach the standard impact attenuator. Lines then extended
out towards the rear, these will act as markers for the front roll hoop sizing.

Figure 5.4.4 Front Suspension Drawing with Front Bulkhead Dimensions

Lines are then drawn between these markers to act as locating points for the chassis drawing
when designing the front roll hoop. As no anti-dive is to be designed into the system the
wishbone pivot points will remain parallel to the ground plane.

47 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 5.4.5 Front Wishbone Drawing with Front Roll Hoop Dimensions
The first part of this process was then repeated with the rear front view geometry. However
the upper wishbone outer pivot was shifted forward 75 mm. This was to enable the rear toe
arm to sit an equal distance behind the wheel centre. This means that the lower wishbone rear
leg is only 75 mm behind the wishbone centre line.

.
Figure 5.4.6 Initial Rear Wishbone Layout Drawing
To make the chassis simpler the rear wishbone needs to taper out towards the main roll hoop,
to this end more construction lines were added to constrain the inner pivot points. The sizing

48 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

for the main roll hoop can be seen in Figure 5.4.7. Along with the longitudinal distances from
the rear of the chassis and the front. Also included is an estimated centre of gravity point.

Figure 5.4.7 Rear Wishbone Drawing with Main Roll Hoop Dimensions
Lines are then extended from the wishbones through the main roll hoop guide and beyond
until they meet in the vertical axis. This is the starting point to dial in some of the anti-squat
feature.

Figure 5.4.8 Rear Wishbone Drawing with Anti-Squat Lines

49 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Viewing this drawing from the side view, the anti-squat lines make a bit more sense. If we
look back to Section 3.10 we will remember that the % anti-squat if defined by the point at
which the line from the side view instant centre and the contact patch intersect the vertical
line for the centre of gravity. As the desired amount of anti-squat is 30% the lines must
intersect at 1/3.33 of the way up the centre of gravity line. The angle of the wishbones can
then be adjusted by altering the forward most distance value seen in Figure 5.4.9. 2800m
gave a desired amount of upward slope but not excessive. By changing the angle and taper of
the rear wishbones we change the shape of the rear of the chassis so this needs to be double
checked to make sure that there is still enough room for the drivetrain systems to fit within
the leftover space.

Figure 5.4.9 Rear Wishbone Drawing with Anti-Squat Dimensions

These two drawings are then combined to create a whole suspension drawing shown in
Figure 5.4.10 Whole Wishbone Geometry Drawing

Figure 5.4.10 Whole Wishbone Geometry Drawing

It’s at this point that the chassis can be designed fully around the wishbone geometry.

50 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 5.4.11 Wishbone Geometry with Chassis

5.5 Springs, Bell Cranks and Lever Ratios

Now that the chassis has been designed shock placement and bell crank ratios can be worked
out, but first a pushrod mounting point on the lower wishbones should be decided. This will
give us our pushrod lever ratio as well as a rough idea of where the upper end of the pushrod
will be located. This point needs to clear the bearing housing and any upright or mounting
bracket. It should be fairly close to the pivot point to aid in the transfer of forces. This
distance is to be 50 mm as this will allow 28 mm for the wishbone pivot housing and an
additional 22 mm for the pushrod mount and bearing. The mounting point is also elevated 15
mm above the top of the wishbone this is to give clearance for a rose joint spherical bearing
and mount. The initial front pushrod is shown in Figure 5.5.1 Initial Front PushrodThe top
pivot point is initially situated 40 mm forward of the centre line of the upper wishbone, this is
to aid with bell crank rotation and also increase space for bell crank itself.

51 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 5.5.1 Initial Front Pushrod

The same strategy is used for the rear pushrod. However the lower pushrod bearing is not
only offset 50 mm laterally, it is also offset 20 mm longitudinally forward this is to give
clearance room around a 20 mm diameter driveshaft that sits along the centre line of the
lower wishbone, with the pushrod being 12 mm diameter, 4 mm clearance is deemed to be
sufficient.

52 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 5.5.2 Initial Rear Pushrod

Whilst matching the initial front design to the chassis it became obvious that any design
would encroach on the cockpit internal cross section seen in Figure 1.5.1. For this reason a
new point higher up on the chassis was then chosen and a new chassis bar installed for this
purpose. As seen in Figure 5.5.3, Figure 5.5.4. This increased the angle of the pushrod to
48.83° above the horizontal. This not only increased the amount of space in the chassis for
the shock and bell crank, it also increases the direct load path, as the pushrod is more vertical.

53 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 5.5.3 Extended Front Pushrod

Figure 5.5.4 Extended Front Pushrod with Chassis

To work out the lever ratio for the wishbone we start with a free body diagram.

48.83°

245mm 50mm
Figure 5.5.5 Front Wishbone Free Body Diagram
From this diagram we can then deduct the equation to work out our wishbone ratio.

54 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Equation 5.5.1 Front Wishbone Ratio Equation

245
𝑊𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = × cos(41.17) = 0.6252
295
So if we want 60 mm of total vertical travel, the pushrod will have a total of 37.512 mm of
movement. This will then need to be translated into shock movement via the bell crank. The
shock has a maximum travel of 50 mm, and full advantage of this distance should be used.
The rear pushrod was then lined up with the chassis and its fit was good so there were no
changes made at this point.

Figure 5.5.6 Rear Pushrod with Chassis

Using the same free body diagram technique the wishbone lever ration can be found for the
rear.

50.23°

210mm 50mm
Figure 5.5.7 Rear Wishbone Free Body Diagram
From this diagram we can then deduct the equation to work out our wishbone ratio.

55 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Equation 5.5.2 Rear Wishbone Ratio Equation

210
𝑊𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = × cos(39.77) = 0.621
260
So this time 60 mm of wheel travel will equate to 37.26 mm of pushrod travel. Again a bell
crank will have to transfer this movement to the shock absorber.
The next order is to sort out a shock mount on the chassis and to know the ‘at rest shock
length’, this length is 225 mm. The front shocks will mount in the corner of the chassis where
the front roll hoop meets the new chassis bar that the bell crank will mount to. The rear
shocks will mount to the top of the differential assembly between the rear legs of the chassis.

Figure 5.5.8 Front Rough Shock Placement Figure 5.5.9 Rear Rough Shock Placement
Now the shock is roughly positioned, a bell crank pivot point can be set out for both the front
and the rear. The pivot points are located in line with the centre of the upper wishbone for the
front and in line with the pushrod mount on the rear. The reason the front pivot is staggered
behind the pushrod point is to help the rotation of the bell crank, because the shock is
longitudinal rather than lateral the motion of the pushrod needs to be rotated, this extra offset
ensures that there is greater ability to rotate. A rough bell crank shape was then drawn around
the pivot point, connecting the shock and pushrod. Initial dimensions were then chosen to
give a starting ratio. This was then drawn out in a separate Solidworks drawing, these would
act as bell crank “calculators” to assist with working out the ratios. Figure 5.5.10 and Figure
5.5.11 show the final bell crank ratios for both front and rear respectively, they also show the
final pushrod lengths.

56 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 5.5.10 Front Bellcrank Ratio Calulator

Figure 5.5.11 Rear Bellcrank Ratio Calculator

The front and rear bell crank calculators were then put through their range of motion with the
output shock length being recorded to confirm the desired motion ratios for each. As will be
seen the motion ratio is not quite constant so an average motion ratio will be used over the
whole range.

57 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Table 5.5.1 Front Bell Crank Motion Table

Pushrod Pushrod Shock length Shock Shock Motion
Offset Change Difference Change Ratio
-18.75 2 251.07 26.07 2.93 1.465
-16.75 2 248.14 23.14 2.88 1.44
-14.75 2 245.26 20.26 2.85 1.425
-12.75 2 242.41 17.41 2.81 1.405
-10.75 2 239.6 14.6 2.78 1.39
-8.75 2 236.82 11.82 2.75 1.375
-6.75 2 234.07 9.07 2.73 1.365
-4.75 2 231.34 6.34 2.69 1.345
-2.75 2 228.65 3.65 2.66 1.33
-0.75 0.75 225.99 0.99 0.99 1.32
0 0 225 0 0 0
0.75 0.75 224.01 -0.99 0.99 1.32
2.75 2 221.4 -3.6 2.61 1.305
4.75 2 218.81 -6.19 2.59 1.295
6.75 2 216.26 -8.74 2.55 1.275
8.75 2 213.73 -11.27 2.53 1.265
10.75 2 211.24 -13.76 2.49 1.245
12.75 2 208.78 -16.22 2.46 1.23
14.75 2 206.35 -18.65 2.43 1.215
16.75 2 203.97 -21.03 2.38 1.19
18.75 2 201.62 -23.38 2.35 1.175
30 300

20 250

10 200

Shock Difference
0 150 Shock Change
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Shock Length

-10 100

-20 50

-30 0

Figure 5.5.12 Front Bell Crank Motion Chart

The table and the graph show that the motion ratio is not a perfectly linear relationship
therefore an average motion ratio is used for the front bell crank. This was found to be 1.32:1.

58 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Table 5.5.2Rear Bell Crank Motion Table

Pushrod Pushrod Shock length Shock Difference Shock Change Motion
Offset Change Ratio
-18.63 2 248.91 23.91 3.25 1.625
-16.63 2 245.66 20.66 2.91 1.455
-14.63 2 242.75 17.75 2.7 1.35
-12.63 2 240.05 15.05 2.57 1.285
-10.63 2 237.48 12.48 2.47 1.235
-8.63 2 235.01 10.01 2.4 1.2
-6.63 2 232.61 7.61 2.34 1.17
-4.63 2 230.27 5.27 2.3 1.15
-2.63 2 227.97 2.97 2.26 1.13
-0.63 0.63 225.71 0.71 0.71 1.127
0 0 225 0 0 0
0.63 0.63 224.29 -0.71 0.71 1.127
2.63 2 222.07 -2.93 2.22 1.11
4.63 2 219.86 -5.14 2.21 1.105
6.63 2 217.67 -7.33 2.19 1.095
8.63 2 215.48 -9.52 2.19 1.095
10.63 2 213.31 -11.69 2.17 1.085
12.63 2 211.14 -13.86 2.17 1.085
14.63 2 208.97 -16.03 2.17 1.085
16.63 2 206.8 -18.2 2.17 1.085
18.63 2 204.63 -20.37 2.17 1.085
25 300

20
250
15

10
200
5
Shock Difference
0 150
Shock Change
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-5 Shock Length
100
-10

-15
50
-20

-25 0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25

Figure 5.5.13 Rear Bell Crank Motion Chart

59 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Again the Motion Ratio is not linear, but this time it is less linear. The ratio for the rear bell
crank is 1.18:1
The two bell crank profiles for the front and rear can then be designed for the system. They
must be able to take a bearing at the pivot and be strong enough to withstand the forces
exerted on the suspension.

Figure 5.5.14 Finalised Front Bell Crank

Figure 5.5.15 Finalised Rear Bell Crank

60 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Now that the front and rear bell crank ratios are known they can be combined with the
wishbone ratios to give the suspension leverage ratio.
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑆𝑢𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = 0.625 × 1.32 = 0.825
𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑢𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 = 0.621 × 1.18 =0.732
Now that we know the leverage ratios we can work out the coil rate and the fitted rate for the
front and rear springs using equations in Section 3.12.
Desired wheel frequencies were decided in Section 4.9, so it is also possible to work out the
rough corner masses from the longitudinal loads splits in Section 5.1. An estimated unsprung
mass for the front and rear was also included to give the sprung mass for each corner.
Table 5.5.3 Spring Rate Variables Table
Front Rear
Wheel Frequency (Hz) 2.25 2.5
Corner Mass (Kg) 83.58 91.41
Corner Unsprung Mass (Kg) 12.5 15
Corner Sprung Mass (Kg) 71.04 76.41
Motion Ratio 0.825 0.732
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝑆𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 4𝜋 × 2.25 × 71.04 × 0.8252
2 2

= 9663.53 𝑁/𝑚 = 9.664 𝑁/𝑚𝑚

𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑆𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒 = 4𝜋 2 × 2.52 × 76.41 × 0.7322
= 10102.11 𝑁/𝑚 = 10.10 𝑁/𝑚𝑚

5.6 Anti-roll Bars

Now the ride frequencies for bump travel are set, the roll gradient for the desired springs can
be calculated. Using the equations from Section 3.13 the anti-roll bar stiffness that is needed
can be calculated. First solving for 𝐾𝜑𝐹 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐾𝜑𝑅 .
𝜋 × (𝑡𝑓 2 ) × 𝐾𝐿𝐹 × 𝐾𝑅𝐹
𝐾𝜑𝐹 =
180 × (𝐾𝐿𝐹 + 𝐾𝑅𝐹 )
𝜋 × (𝑡𝑅 2 ) × 𝐾𝐿𝑅 × 𝐾𝑅𝑅
𝐾𝜑𝑅 =
180 × (𝐾𝐿𝑅 + 𝐾𝑅𝑅 )
For these two equations we need to know the wheel rates front and rear. Equation 3.12.3
Alternative Wheel Rateis used here.
9663.53
𝐾𝐹 = = 14198 𝑁/𝑚
0.8252
10102.11
𝐾𝑅 = = 18853 𝑁/𝑚
0.7322

61 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Inserting these values into the front and rear roll rate equations.
𝜋 × (1.22 ) × 14198 × 14198
𝐾𝜑𝐹 = = 178.42 𝑁𝑚/ deg 𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙
180 × (14198 + 14198)
𝜋 × (1.12 ) × 18853 × 18853
𝐾𝜑𝑅 = = 199.08 𝑁𝑚/ deg 𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙
180 × (18853 + 18853)
Now the total roll gradient of the ride springs is worked out.
𝜑𝑟 −𝑊 × 𝐻
=
𝐴𝑦 𝐾𝜑𝐹 + 𝐾𝜑𝑅
−3433.5 × 0.37
= = 3.365 𝑑𝑒𝑔/𝑔
178.42 + 199.08
Now the desired total roll rate needs to be equated.
𝜑
𝐾𝜑𝐷𝐸𝑆 = 𝑊 × 𝐻/ ( )
𝐴𝑦
3433.5 × 0.37
= = 1270 𝑁𝑚/ deg 𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙
1
This is used to work out the total ARB roll rate needed to increase the roll stiffness of the
vehicle to the desired roll gradient.

𝜋 𝐾𝜑𝐷𝐸𝑆 × 𝐾𝑇 × (𝑡 2 /2) 𝜋𝐾𝑊 × (𝑡 2 /2)

𝐾𝜑𝐴 = ×( 𝜋 )−
180 [𝐾𝑇 × (𝑡 2 /2) × 180 − 𝐾𝜑𝐷𝐸𝑆 ] 180

𝜋 1270 × 185409 × (1.152 /2) 𝜋16525.5 × (1.152 /2)

𝐾𝜑𝐴 = ×( 𝜋 ) −
180 [185409 × (1.152 /2) × 180 − 1270] 180

𝐾𝜑𝐴 = 2933.61 𝑁𝑚/ deg 𝑟𝑜𝑙𝑙

Lastly the front and rear ARB stiffness’s can be calculated.
𝑀𝑅𝐹𝐴 2
𝐾𝜑𝐹𝐴 = 𝐾𝜑𝐴 × 𝑁𝑚𝑎𝑔 ×
100
𝑀𝑅𝑅𝐴 2
𝐾𝜑𝑅𝐴 = 𝐾𝜑𝐴 × (100 − 𝑁𝑚𝑎𝑔 ) ×
100
0.6252
𝐾𝜑𝐹𝐴 = 2933.61 × 52.5 × = 601.62 𝑁𝑚/𝑑𝑒𝑔
100
0.46352
𝐾𝜑𝑅𝐴 = 2933.61 × (100 − 52.5) × = 299.36 𝑁𝑚/𝑑𝑒𝑔
100

62 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

5.7 Steering Geometry

The last design step is the positioning of the steering arms and steering rack. Looking back at
Section 3.9 we know the ideal position is to have the steering arm inclined towards the instant
centre. So to start, the instant centre is drawn into the CAD model. The steering rack then
needs to be chosen and roughly positioned so it doesn’t interfere with the cockpit internal
cross section board. Last year’s steering rack is to be used to save costs for the team. The
steering rack length is known already and unchangeable. The length from pivot to pivot on
the steering rack is 498.27 mm. After assessing a few positions, it became clear that the only
area that would work would be in front of the lower wishbone centre line, and just above the
wishbone itself. This gave clearance to the steering arm during suspension travel and also
kept the steering rack out the way of the cockpit internal cross section board. This also meant
the steering pivot on the upright would be in one of the two preferred understeer areas for
camber compliance under lateral force, also talked about in Section 3.9. Then to bring the
steering pivot on the upright forward, away from the wheel centre the steering rack was
moved forward as close to the pedals as comfortably possible, this distance was found to be
80 mm. Now this was set, a line was drawn from the instant centre through the steering rack
pivot and out to a line intersecting the upper and lower wishbone pivots. Now the height from
the lower pivot to the steering pivot is adjusted until the steering rack is as low as possible.
This distance was found to be 30 mm. Figure 5.7.1 shows this drawing, the steering rack is
shown as the horizontal dotted line in the centre and the two steering arms are the solid black
lines. This position is designed to give minimal bump steer effect.

Figure 5.7.1 Steering Arm Location

63 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

6 Initial Analysis
In this first analysis the key parameters of the basic geometry for the front and rear
suspension has been compared to the ideal parameters in Section 4.13.

6.1 Front Key Parameters

Having done the initial analysis of the front suspension system a number of key values can be
noted to compare against the ideal conditions, these are:
 A kingpin inclination angle of 2.49°
 A camber angle of -4.424°
 A scrub radius of 49.183 mm
 An instant centre inclination angle of 0.837°
 A roll centre height of 9 mm
 An instant centre length of 1032 mm and a height of 24 mm
 A swing arm length of 1629 mm
 A front track of 1199.852mm
 A caster angle of 4.97°
 A kingpin offset of 10 mm

6.2 Rear Key Parameters

Having done the design of the rear suspension system a number of key values can be noted to
compare against the ideal parameters, these are:
 A kingpin inclination angle of 2.49°
 A camber angle of -4.669°
 A scrub radius of 49.173 mm
 An instant centre inclination angle of 2.537°
 A roll centre height of 25 mm
 An instant centre length of 771 mm and a height of -59 mm
 A swing arm length of 1316.01 mm
 A front track of 1101.552 mm

6.3 Comparison between the Design and the Initial Aims of the Design
The new design parameters were then compared to the initial aims of the design.

64 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

To compare the new suspension design to the initial parameters set as aims discussed earlier
in Section 4.13 a table was drawn up showing the values for the main parameters that were
found from the 2D simulation software and 3D CAD drawings.
Table 6.3.1 Comparison Table
Current Suspension Ideal Parameter
Criteria Front Rear Front Rear
Suspension Suspension Suspension Suspension
Kingpin
Inclination 2.49° 2.49° 0° - 8° 0° - 8°
Angle
Caster
4.97° - 3° - 7° -
Angle
Static
Wheel -4.424° -4.669° 0° - -4° 0° - -4°
Camber
Scrub 0mm – 0mm –
49.183 mm 49.173 mm
Radius 100mm 100mm
Roll
-25mm – -15mm –
Centre 9 mm 25 mm
50mm 60mm
Height
Swing
1250mm – 1016mm –
Arm 1629 mm 1316 mm
2500mm 1778mm
Length
From this initial table it is clear to see that all the values are within the desired limits other
than the static wheel camber. This value is higher to enable the camber of the suspension
system to be dialled in with adjustable top upright mount spacers.

6.4 MSC Adams Model

In order to analyse the suspension system, it was transferred to the MSC Adams software
package. As stated earlier in Section 2.3, MSC Adams is a multibody dynamics software
package. A basic assembly was downloaded from the MSC Software website, each individual
subsystem was then modified using the hard point adjustment tool to give the required
geometry. The dynamic parameters such as spring and damper rates were also adjusted; a
standard Formula Student tyre model was also used with this system. The front suspension
assembly can be seen in Figure 6.4.1.

65 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 6.4.1 MSC Adams Front Suspension Assembly

The upper and lower wishbone can be seen in light blue and red respectively, while the
pushrod is in black and the steering arm in white. The anti-roll bar is in grey across the back,
while the shocks are in yellow longitudinally at the top.
This same process and colour scheme were used for the rear suspension assembly seen in
Figure 6.4.2. Except this time the driveline is also in grey.

66 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 6.4.2 MSC Adams Rear Suspension Assembly

Once the suspension assemblies for both front and rear were created, a centre of gravity and
relative sprung mass were positioned and defined within the full assembly. This full assembly
can be seen in Figure 6.4.3. This assembly along with the Vsusp model from the suspension
design stage where used to do some analysis to the suspension geometry, and its performance
characteristics.

Figure 6.4.3 MSC Adams Full Suspension Assembly

67 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

6.5 Camber Gain Due to Bump and Droop

A graph of camber change due to bump and droop of the front and rear wheels can be
produced to aid vehicle analysis. For this graph the static camber value has been adjusted to
simulate the adjustment on the actual product, so static camber is now set to -2° for both the
front and rear. For the front we have a swing arm length of 1629 mm, from this we would
expect the camber change to be fairly average. The graph in Figure 6.5.1 Error! Reference
source not found.Error! Reference source not found.shows a camber change of 1.75° for a
suspension travel of 50 mm which is roughly the full travel of the suspension system. The
camber angle of the wheel stays within the desired static camber range of 0° to -4°. This
result can be verified using a simple equation noted earlier, Equation 3.4.1
Equation 6.5.1 Front Camber Change per mm of Travel
𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑠 1
= 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 ( )
𝑚𝑚 1629
= 0.0352° 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑚𝑚
And from the graph we can work out that the camber change per mm of travel is equal to
0.0350°. This value is very close to the value from Equation 6.5.1. For the rear the swing arm
length is 1316 mm and we would expect the camber change to similar to the front. The graph
in Figure 6.5.1 shows a camber change of 2.19° for a suspension travel of 50 mm which is
roughly the full travel of the suspension system. Again this result can be verified using a
simple equation noted earlier in Equation 3.4.1.
Equation 6.5.2 Rear Camber Change per mm of Travel
𝑑𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒𝑠 1
= 𝑡𝑎𝑛−1 ( )
𝑚𝑚 1316
= 0.0435° 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑚𝑚
And from the graph we can work out that the camber change per mm of travel is equal to
0.0438°. This value is again very close to the value from Equation 6.5.2.
-0.5 5
Front
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 4
-1
Camber Change (deg/mm)

3 Rear
2
-1.5
Camber (deg)

1 Front
-2 0 Difference

-1 Rear
-2.5 Difference
-2
Linear
-3
-3 (Front)
-4
Linear (Rear)
-3.5 -5
Bump (mm)

Figure 6.5.1 Graph of Camber Change for the Front and Rear Suspension.

68 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

6.6 Camber Gain Due to Roll

The initial suspension aims targeted a camber gain due to roll angle of between 0.2°-0.5° per
degree at the front axle and 0.5°-0.8° per degree at the rear axle. Figure 6.6.1 shows the
camber change due to roll angle for the front and rear suspension geometry.
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-0.5

-1
Camber Angle (deg)

-1.5

-2 Front Camber
Rear Camber
-2.5

-3

-3.5

-4
Roll Angle (deg)

Figure 6.6.1 Camber Change Due to Roll Angle

From the graph it is obvious to see that both camber changes are very similar. It is also
noticeable that the front camber change is more than that of the rear. This instantly suggests
that one of these parameters will not sit in the required area. By calculating the camber
change per degree of roll we can find out which camber change is outside its ideal
parameters.
The front camber change has a range of 3.14° over the 5° of roll angle.
Equation 6.6.1 Front Camber Change per Degree of Roll
3.14
𝐹𝑟𝑜𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑜𝑙𝑙 = = 0.628°
5
The rear camber change has a range of 2.88° over the 5° of roll angle.
Equation 6.6.2 Rear Camber Change per Degree of Roll
2.88
𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝐶𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝐷𝑒𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑅𝑜𝑙𝑙 = = 0.576°
5
From these simple calculations we can see that the front camber change due to roll is outside
its ideal parameter of between 0.2°-0.5° per degree of body roll. The rear however is within
the desired range of between 0.5°-0.8° per degree of body roll

69 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

6.7 Roll Centre Movement

A key feature of the suspension aims was controlled and predictable movement of the roll
axis. To look to see if this was achieved the effects of bump/droop and roll on the roll centre
was investigated. The effects of roll angle on the X and Y location of the roll axis was looked
at first.
30 1500
Front Roll
Centre
20 1000 Height

Roll Cnentre X Location (mm)

Roll Centre Height (mm)

10 500 Rear Roll

Centre
Height
0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Front Roll
Centre X
-10 -500 Location

-20 -1000 Rear Roll

Centre X
Location
-30 -1500
Roll Angle (deg)

Figure 6.7.1 Roll Centre Location Due to Roll Angle

From the graph we can see that the effects of roll have a stable and controlled movement. The
roll centre height has a nice symmetrical arc for both the front and the rear. The roll centre
moves a maximum of 36 mm at the front and 13 mm at the rear over a 5° roll motion, this
equates to very little movement for both the front and the rear.
Table 6.7.1 Roll Axis Vertical Movement Due to Roll Angle
Front Rear
Total Movement (mm) 36 13
Movement per Degree (mm) 7.2 2.6

The X location of the roll axis however has a greater range of movement; this is due to the
shallow instant centre inclination angle of the geometry. Although the movements are large,
they are reasonably linear, this means that the motion of the roll axis is predictable, and
expected.
Table 6.7.2 Roll Axis X Location Due to Roll Angle
Front Rear
Total Movement (mm) 2398 800
Movement per Degree (mm) 479.2 160

70 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

The movement of the roll centre due to single wheel bump was then investigated, for this the
left wheel was moved vertically 25 mm in each direction to simulate the full movement of the
suspension system. Figure 6.7.2 shows the roll centre height and X location of the roll centre
during the suspension movement.
100 1500
Front
80 Roll
Centre
1000
60 Height

Roll Cnentre X Location (mm)

40 Rear Roll
Roll Centre Height (mm)

500 Centre
20 Height

0 0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 Front
-20 Roll
Centre X
-500
-40 Location

-60 Rear Roll

-1000 Centre X
-80 Location

-100 -1500
Bump (mm)

Figure 6.7.2 Roll Centre Location Due to Bump

Looking at the graph we can see some big movements of the roll centre. The more controlled
of the two is the rear roll centre, as this just starts to ramp up at the limit of the suspension
travel meaning that a majority of the movement is fairly linear, and only starts to increase
after 10 mm of bump. Again the X location movement is quite large.
The front roll centre movement is more erratic, this is due again to the shallow instant centre
inclination angle. In droop, both the vertical movement and the X location of the front roll
centre are linear and quite controlled, it’s when the wheel goes into bump that things start to
get irregular. The roll centre X location is the most unstable with the roll centre moving out to
52714 mm from the centre, while the vertical movement travels to -716 mm. this movement
is not very desirable, but is a compromise that is traded off to get the small amount of camber
change due to bump and droop that we see in Section 6.5. This erratic behaviour is not so as
important as it might seem, due to the nature of the Formula Student competition, and the use
of inexperienced drivers. This large roll centre movement could appear as a slight change is
driving characteristics and may go unnoticed by an inexperienced driver, as they are not in
tune with the system.

71 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

6.8 Final Component Designs for the Formula Student Car

During the writing of this report, a vast majority of the main components for the system were
designed by the author. These included the front and rear uprights, the bell cranks as seen in
Section 5.5, the wishbones, wishbone mounting brackets, hubs, brake disc bells, as well as
selecting all the bearings for the system to enable to UWE Formula Student Team to build the
current design in May of 2015 to be part of the 2015 UWE Formula Student entry at
Silverstone. Below are a few images of the completed system to give an idea of the whole
design.

Figure 6.8.1 Full Suspension CAD Assembly

Figure 6.8.2 Full Front CAD Assembly Figure 6.8.3 Full Rear CAD Assembly

72 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 6.8.4 Whole CAD Assembly without Chassis

Figure 6.8.5 Front Suspension Corner Figure 6.8.6 Rear Suspension Corner

73 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

7 Conclusion
Having learnt previously that a good suspension system on paper does not always equate to a
good system in reality. This year the author believes although the system on paper might have
slightly worse off characteristics in some areas compared to previous years designs, it is a
more complete system with every aspect being considered, from shock placement to brake
clearance. This system should be practical and possible for the UWE Formula Student team
to manufacture and construct, to within reasonable tolerances therefore enabling the team to
compete at Silverstone with a complete and accurate suspension system that complies with all
the rules.

The author believes that the basic geometry of the system is good, with space for all the
vehicle’s other subsystems. The author believes the rear system is better than the front in
terms of overall characteristics but also feels that this is due to the lower top wishbone height
at the rear. The minimal amount of camber gain due to bump within the system is exactly
what was targeted. A minimum amount of bump steer was also able to be integrated into the
system with the help of Solidworks. Compared to the previous report this report has come
along much better, with the author believing this comes from a much greater understanding
of the project topic and the amount of work required. Hopefully this report will be useful as a
reference document for future UWE Formula Student suspension designs. If the author had
the chance to do this project again more time would be taken to learn thoroughly the MSC
Adams software, so as to take full advantage of the software’s capability. Unfortunately time
constraints combined with the time taken to design components and understand the
theoretical side meant that time on MCS Adams software was limited and therefore other
simpler methods were used for the initial design stage.

8 Recommendations for Further Work

Further work could be conducted on this project by becoming extremely competent in MSC
Adams and running the suspension design through a number of dynamic tests, this would
give a greater understanding of the advanced characteristics of the system and offer more
solutions to enable possibly more control over the roll centre movement in bump and droop.
It would also enable greater analysis of bump steers, and the effects possible caster angle
changes on the turning characteristics of the vehicle. The software could also be used to

74 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

simulate the vehicle through Formula Student dynamic tests to give baseline performance
readings, and could be used to simulate setup changes to the suspension system to try to find
a perfect setup arrangement.

Table of Figures
Figure 1.2.1 Original Inherited CAD Design............................................................................. 2
Figure 1.2.2 Original Design in VSusp ...................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.2.3 Wishbone Jig ......................................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.2.4 Welded Wishbones ................................................................................................ 3
Figure 1.2.5 Completed Car at Silverstone. ............................................................................... 3
Figure 1.2.6 Previous Suspension CAD Geometry ................................................................... 5
Figure 1.5.1 FSAE Cockpit Internal Cross Section Board (IMechE, 2014) .............................. 7
Figure 3.1.1 Skid-pan layout (IMechE, 2014) ......................................................................... 10
Figure 3.2.1 Side view parameters for longitudinal load transfer calculations. ...................... 13
Figure 3.3.1 Total Lateral Load Transfer................................................................................. 14
Figure 3.4.1 Instant Centre and Roll Centre Locations ........................................................... 15
Figure 3.7.1 Kingpin Axis, Scrub Radius and Castor .............................................................. 17
Figure 3.9.1 Diagram showing ideal tie rod locations ............................................................. 19
Figure 3.10.1 Basic Brake Force.............................................................................................. 20
Figure 3.10.2 Anti Force’s ....................................................................................................... 20
Figure 3.11.1 Ackermann Steering (Milliken & Milliken, 1995) ............................................ 22
Figure 4.10.1 Front Damper Bump and Rebound Graph......................................................... 31
Figure 4.10.2 Rear Damper Bump and Rebound Graph .......................................................... 31
Figure 5.1.1 Graph of Wheelbase vs Loads and Braking Loads ............................................. 35
Figure 5.2.1 Weight Transfer during Cornering For Different Track Widths ......................... 36
Figure 5.1.1 Wheel CAD Geometry ........................................................................................ 37
Figure 5.1.2 Front Wheel with Brake Calliper and Disc ......................................................... 37
Figure 5.1.3 Rear Wheel with Brake Calliper and Disc .......................................................... 37
Figure 5.1.4 Wheel with Spacer to Reduce Offset................................................................... 38
Figure 5.2.1 Distance from Wheel/Hub Flange to Inside Face of Disc. .................................. 39
Figure 5.2.2 Lower Pivot Point ................................................................................................ 40
Figure 5.2.3 Upper Pivot Point Clearance 1 ............................................................................ 41
Figure 5.2.4 Upper Pivot Point Clearance 2 ............................................................................ 41

75 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 5.2.5 Upper Pivot Point and KPI Angle. ...................................................................... 41

Figure 5.2.6 Scrub Radius at 0° Camber ................................................................................. 41
Figure 5.3.1 Front Suspension Unrefined ................................................................................ 43
Figure 5.3.2 Rear Suspension Unrefined ................................................................................. 43
Figure 5.3.3 Front Suspension Refined.................................................................................... 43
Figure 5.3.4 Rear Suspension Refined ..................................................................................... 43
Figure 5.3.5 Whole Front Suspension Front View .................................................................. 44
Figure 5.3.6 Whole Rear Suspension Front View ................................................................... 44
Figure 5.4.1 Front Geometry Front View Drawing ................................................................. 45
Figure 5.4.2 Whole Front View Geometry Drawing ............................................................... 46
Figure 5.4.3 Initial Front Suspension Wishbone Layout Drawing .......................................... 46
Figure 5.4.4 Front Suspension Drawing with Front Bulkhead Dimensions ............................ 47
Figure 5.4.5 Front Wishbone Drawing with Front Roll Hoop Dimensions............................. 48
Figure 5.4.6 Initial Rear Wishbone Layout Drawing .............................................................. 48
Figure 5.4.7 Rear Wishbone Drawing with Main Roll Hoop Dimensions .............................. 49
Figure 5.4.8 Rear Wishbone Drawing with Anti-Squat Lines ................................................. 49
Figure 5.4.9 Rear Wishbone Drawing with Anti-Squat Dimensions....................................... 50
Figure 5.4.10 Whole Wishbone Geometry Drawing ............................................................... 50
Figure 5.4.11 Wishbone Geometry with Chassis..................................................................... 51
Figure 5.5.1 Initial Front Pushrod ............................................................................................ 52
Figure 5.5.2 Initial Rear Pushrod ............................................................................................ 53
Figure 5.5.3 Extended Front Pushrod ...................................................................................... 54
Figure 5.5.4 Extended Front Pushrod with Chassis ................................................................. 54
Figure 5.5.5 Front Wishbone Free Body Diagram .................................................................. 54
Figure 5.5.6 Rear Pushrod with Chassis .................................................................................. 55
Figure 5.5.7 Rear Wishbone Free Body Diagram.................................................................... 55
Figure 5.5.8 Front Rough Shock Placement ............................................................................ 56
Figure 5.5.9 Rear Rough Shock Placement ............................................................................. 56
Figure 5.5.10 Front Bellcrank Ratio Calulator ........................................................................ 57
Figure 5.5.11 Rear Bellcrank Ratio Calculator ........................................................................ 57
Figure 5.5.12 Front Bell Crank Motion Chart ......................................................................... 58
Figure 5.5.13 Rear Bell Crank Motion Chart .......................................................................... 59
Figure 5.5.14 Finalised Front Bell Crank ................................................................................ 60
Figure 5.5.15 Finalised Rear Bell Crank ................................................................................. 60
76 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Figure 5.7.1 Steering Arm Location ........................................................................................ 63

Figure 6.4.1 MSC Adams Front Suspension Assembly .......................................................... 66
Figure 6.4.2 MSC Adams Rear Suspension Assembly ........................................................... 67
Figure 6.4.3 MSC Adams Full Suspension Assembly............................................................. 67
Figure 6.5.1 Graph of Camber Change for the Front and Rear Suspension. ........................... 68
Figure 6.6.1 Camber Change Due to Roll Angle ..................................................................... 69
Figure 6.7.1 Roll Centre Location Due to Roll Angle ............................................................. 70
Figure 6.7.2 Roll Centre Location Due to Bump ..................................................................... 71
Figure 6.8.1 Full Suspension CAD Assembly ......................................................................... 72
Figure 6.8.2 Full Front CAD Assembly................................................................................... 72
Figure 6.8.3 Full Rear CAD Assembly.................................................................................... 72
Figure 6.8.4 Whole CAD Assembly without Chassis ............................................................. 73
Figure 6.8.5 Front Suspension Corner ..................................................................................... 73
Figure 6.8.6 Rear Suspension Corner ...................................................................................... 73

Table of Equations
Equations 3.2.1 Axial Load Distribution ................................................................................. 13
Equations 3.2.2 Longitudinal Load Transfer Under Braking .................................................. 13
Equation 3.3.1 Lateral Load Transfer ...................................................................................... 14
Equation 3.4.1 Camber Change Per mm of Ride Travel ......................................................... 15
Equation 3.10.1 Anti-Dive Equation ....................................................................................... 21
Equation 3.10.2 Anti-Squat Equation ...................................................................................... 21
Equation 3.11.1 Ackermann Steering ...................................................................................... 21
Equation 3.12.1 Wheel Frequency ........................................................................................... 23
Equation 3.12.2 Wheel Rate .................................................................................................... 23
Equation 3.12.3 Alternative Wheel Rate ................................................................................. 23
Equation 3.12.4 Measuring Spring Rate .................................................................................. 23
Equation 3.12.5 Coil Rate ........................................................................................................ 23
Equation 3.12.6 Fitted Rate ..................................................................................................... 24
Equation 3.13.1 Roll Gradient From Ride Springs Equation .................................................. 24
Equation 3.13.2 Front Roll Rate Due to Springs Equation ...................................................... 24
Equation 3.13.3 Rear Roll Rate Due to Springs Equation ....................................................... 25

77 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Equation 3.13.4 Total ARB Roll Rate Needed Equation......................................................... 25

Equation 3.13.5 Desired Total Roll Gradient Equation ........................................................... 25
Equation 3.13.6 FARB Stiffness Equation .............................................................................. 25
Equation 3.13.7 RARB Stiffness Equation .............................................................................. 25
Equation 5.3.1 Distance from Centre Line to Chassis Outer Calculation ............................... 42
Equation 5.5.1 Front Wishbone Ratio Equation ...................................................................... 55
Equation 5.5.2 Rear Wishbone Ratio Equation ....................................................................... 56
Equation 6.5.1 Front Camber Change per mm of Travel ........................................................ 68
Equation 6.5.2 Rear Camber Change per mm of Travel.......................................................... 68
Equation 6.6.1 Front Camber Change per Degree of Roll ....................................................... 69
Equation 6.6.2 Rear Camber Change per Degree of Roll ........................................................ 69

Table of Tables
Table 1.2.1 Original Design Basic Characteristics .................................................................... 2
Table 1.2.2 Inherited Design Vs the Improved Design ............................................................. 4
Table 5.1.1 Estimated Assembly Lengths................................................................................ 33
Table 5.1.2 Wheelbase for Percentage Nose Overhang ........................................................... 34
Table 5.1.3 Axial Wheel Loads at Rest and Under 1.25G Braking ......................................... 34
Table 5.3.1 Output Parameters................................................................................................. 44
Table 5.5.1 Front Bell Crank Motion Table ............................................................................ 58
Table 5.5.2Rear Bell Crank Motion Table............................................................................... 59
Table 5.5.3 Spring Rate Variables Table ................................................................................. 61
Table 6.3.1 Comparison Table ................................................................................................. 65
Table 6.7.1 Roll Axis Vertical Movement Due to Roll Angle ................................................ 70
Table 6.7.2 Roll Axis X Location Due to Roll Angle ............................................................. 70

References
Adams, H., 1992. Chassis Engineering. 1st ed. s.l.:Penguin Books Ltd..
Archive, T., n.d. Solstice Rear Caster. [Online]
Available at: http://www.archivedsites.com/techlink/2006/01/
Autopedia, n.d. 1997 Q45 Suspension Detail. [Online]
Available at: http://autopedia.com/Infin/97Q45suspcut.html

78 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Blachford, C., 2013. In a state of suspense. [Online]

Available at: https://sidepodcast.com/feature/tech-spec/in-a-state-of-suspense-peek-inside-f1-
suspensions
Burtonshaw, J., 2013. [Interview] 2013.
Car Bibles , n.d. The Suspension Bible. [Online]
Available at: http://www.carbibles.com/suspension_bible.html
Car Bibles, n.d. Steering Bible. [Online]
Available at: http://www.carbibles.com/steering_bible.html
de Garston, C., 2013-2014. [Interview] 2013-2014.
de Garston, J., 2013-2014. [Interview] 2013-2014.
De Groote, S., 2002. The Importance of Ride Height. [Online]
Available at: http://www.f1technical.net/features/10682
Dixon, J. C., n.d. Tires, Suspension and Handling. s.l.:s.n.
Dynamics, C. C. V., n.d. Vehicle Roll Centers and Roll Axis Examined. s.l.:s.n.
Giaraffa, M., 2012. Tech Tip: Springs & Dampers, Part One. [Online]
Available at: http://www.optimumg.com/docs/Springs&Dampers_Tech_Tip_1.pdf
Giaraffa, M., 2012. Tech Tip: Springs & Dampers, Part Two. [Online]
Available at: http://www.optimumg.com/docs/Springs&Dampers_Tech_Tip_2.pdf
Hansford, A., 2013-2014. [Interview] 2013-2014.
Holloway, T., 2014-2015. [Interview] 2014-2015.
How Stuff Works, 2000. How do Stabilizer Bars Work. [Online]
Available at: http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question432.htm
IMechE, 2014. 2014 Formula SAE Rules. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.fsaeonline.com/content/2014%20FSAE%20Rules%20Final%208192013.pdf
[Accessed January 2014].
IMechE, n.d. About Us. [Online]
Available at: http://www.formulastudent.com/formula-student/about-us
[Accessed January 2014].
Jannis D.G., v. K., 2008. Design of a Formula Student Race Car Chassis, s.l.: s.n.
Jarratt, S., 2012-2013. Design of a Formula Student Front Suspension System, s.l.: s.n.
KHi, n.d. Car Parts. [Online]
Available at: http://www.automotive-stock-images.com/car-parts.html

79 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Kojima, M., n.d. The Ultimate Guide to Suspension and Handling Parts 1-8. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticles/articleType/Search.aspx?Search=ultimate+guide+t
o+suspension
Lyman, S., n.d. Suspension 101, s.l.: s.n.
Maybach, 2012. MacPherson Struts and Strut Damper. [Online]
Available at: http://maybach300c.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/mcpherson-struts-and-strut-
damper.html
Maybach, 2012. Semi Rigid Crank Axle. [Online]
Available at: http://maybach300c.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/semi-rigid-crank-axle.html
Miles, C., 2013. Formula Student Suspension Geometry Design, s.l.: s.n.
Milliken, W. F. & Milliken, D. L., 1995. Race Car Vehicle Dynamics. s.l.:SAE.
Multiple, 2011. Sway Bar Spring Rate Formula. [Online]
Available at: http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=294330
Multiple, 2014. The Official 2015 Ford Mustang Thread. [Online]
Available at: http://www.m3forum.net/m3forum/showthread.php?t=459837&page=24
Multiple, n.d. Ride Heights. [Online]
Available at: http://iracing.wikidot.com/components:ride-heights
Ortiz, M., 2014. Shocks, Suspension and a Trade-off. Racecar Engineering, December, pp.
37-38.
Ortiz, M., 2015. A Bit More About Scrub Radius. Racecar Engineering, April, p. 39.
Ortiz, M., 2015. FSAE/Formula Student Ideas. Racecar Enginering, February, p. 46.
Ortiz, M., 2015. How Big are Wheels Going to Get. Racecar Engineering, April, p. 40.
Ortiz, M., 2015. It's More Complicated Than Scaling. Racecar Engineering, February, pp.
45-46.
Ortiz, M., 2015. Spindle and Steering Axis Inclination. Racecar Engineering, January, p. 41.
Ortiz, M., 2015. Upright Geometry and Related Considerations. Racecar Engineering,
March, pp. 43-44.
Peck, J., 2013-2014. [Interview] 2013-2014.
RapidRacer, n.d. Suspension Tuning. [Online]
Available at: http://www.rapid-racer.com/suspension-tuning.php
Smith, C., n.d. Tune to Win. s.l.:s.n.
Smith, J., 2013. Smith's Fundamentals of Motorsport Engineering. 1st ed. s.l.:Nelson
Thornes.
80 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614
 Formula Student Car Suspension Design

Staniforth, A., 1993. Race and Rally Car Source Book. s.l.:Haynes.
Staniforth, A., 1999. Competition Car Suspension. Third Edition ed. s.l.:Haynes.
Team, S. S. D., 2009. Formula SAE Interchangeable Independent Rear Suspension Design,
s.l.: s.n.
Tech Archive, 2006. Solstice Rear Castor. [Online]
Available at: http://www.archivedsites.com/techlink/2006/01/
Thede, P., n.d. The Leverage Ratio Concept. [Online]
Available at: http://www.racetech.com/page/id/44
Turn Fast, n.d. Anti-roll Bars. [Online]
Available at: http://www.turnfast.com/tech_handling/handling_antiroll
UWE Formula Student, 2013 - 2014. General Discussions and Documents. s.l.:s.n.
Zapletal, E., 2001. To Toe-In or to Toe-Out, s.l.: s.n.

81 | P a g e
Oliver de Garston - 11005614