Final Design Report - Dalhousie University

Final Design Report
Submitted to
Dr. Darrel Doman
Design Project Supervisor
April 8 th , 2011
Submitted by
Design Group 14
Simren Gill
Philip Hay
Patrick McKenna
Philippe Thibodeau

Table of Contents
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................... i
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. ii
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Background Information ................................................................................................................... 1
3.0 Problem Definition ............................................................................................................................ 1
4.0 Project Scope .................................................................................................................................... 2
5.0 Design Requirements ........................................................................................................................ 2
5.1 Constraints .................................................................................................................................... 2
5.2 Criteria........................................................................................................................................... 3
6.0 Final Design ....................................................................................................................................... 3
7.0 Frame Testing .................................................................................................................................... 4
7.1 Formula SAE Rules ........................................................................................................................ 5
7.2 Driver Ergonomics ......................................................................................................................... 6
7.3 Driver Egress ................................................................................................................................. 7
7.4 Engine Removal ............................................................................................................................. 8
7.5 Torsional Stiffness ......................................................................................................................... 8
8.0 Suspension ...................................................................................................................................... 10
8.1 Hubs ............................................................................................................................................ 11
8.2 Uprights ....................................................................................................................................... 11
8.3 Springs and Dampers .................................................................................................................. 13
8.4 Anti-Roll Bar ................................................................................................................................ 14
8.5 Bellcranks .................................................................................................................................... 14
9.0 Steering ........................................................................................................................................... 15
10.0 Design Requirements Summary ...................................................................................................... 16
11.0 Additional Achievements ................................................................................................................ 17
12.0 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 17
References .................................................................................................................................................. 18
i

List of Figures
Figure 1: Formula SAE Chassis ...................................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Final Frame Design ......................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3: Formula SAE Templates ................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 4: Driver Ergonomics .......................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 5: Head Clearance Ruling ................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 6: Torsional Stiffness Experiment Setup ............................................................................................ 9
Figure 7: Suspension System ....................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 8: Rear Hubs ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 9: Upright Size Comparison .............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 10: Detailed Upright Views .............................................................................................................. 13
Figure 11: Anti-roll bar setup ...................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 12: Rear suspension assembly ......................................................................................................... 15
List of Tables
Table 1: Final Design Summary ..................................................................................................................... 3
Table 2: Driver Egress Results ....................................................................................................................... 8
Table 3: Experiment Results.......................................................................................................................... 9
Table 4: Design Requirements Summary .................................................................................................... 16
ii

1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this report is to provide a final summary of the Formula SAE Chassis Design Group’s
design project. This document will present an overview of the project, the project scope, and the
design requirements for this project, while outlining the selected final design. The design group’s
final design will then be detailed, with a strong focus on testing and unique design features of the
three subsystems. This report will also contain a detailed team budget. The Formula SAE Chassis
Design Group is pleased with the results of the project, and believes that the vehicle chassis will
provide a solid foundation for future Dalhousie Formula SAE cars. Each system has been designed
for maximum adjustability so that systems can be fine-tuned during vehicle testing, with focus on
reliability, weight reduction, manufacturing, and universally compatible parts.
2.0 Background Information
Formula SAE is an international collegiate student design competition organized by the Society of
Automotive Engineers (SAE) International (SAE International, 2010). The competition in Detroit,
Michigan attracts over 1400 students from more than 120 universities and colleges from around
the world (SAE International, 2010). The premise behind Formula SAE is that each student-run
group has been approached by a fictitious manufacturing company to develop a small formula-style
race car (SAE International, 2010). SAE International outlines strict rules and regulations to ensure
competition and vehicle safety.
3.0 Problem Definition
The objective of this project is to design and construct a chassis for the Dalhousie Formula SAE
team. The design group has been approached by the Dalhousie Formula SAE team to complete this
project in time for the upcoming 2011 Formula SAE competition in Detroit, Michigan. There is a
strong need for this project, as the 2011 Formula SAE Rules state that teams wishing to compete on
a yearly basis must have, as a minimum, a new frame for their vehicle each year (Society of
Automotive Engineers, 2011). The design group has enthusiastically accepted this challenge and a
full description of the scope of the project and the components that constitute the chassis can be
found in Section 4.0.
1

4.0 Project Scope
The chassis is an integral part of a formula-style race car; encompassing the frame, suspension,
steering, and hub and upright assemblies. For this project, the chassis is defined as including all
frame members, with the forward vehicle limit being the front bulkhead, and the rear vehicle limit
being the differential mounts. All mounting tabs other than those for the suspension and the engine
are outside of the scope of this project. With regards to the suspension, wheel and brake selection
are excluded. Steering will also be included as part of the chassis for this project. The project scope
will include design selection, use of modeling tools and simulation, iterative design refinement, and
construction of the final design.
5.0 Design Requirements
In order to select the final design of our project, the group has created several design requirements
which have been divided into constraints and criteria. These design requirements are a
combination of rules and self-set goals to improve upon the chassis of last year’s vehicle and the
success of the design group will be based on being able to effectively meet these requirements.
5.1 Constraints
The following requirements must be followed in the design of the chassis. If any of these
requirements are not met, the design will be considered unsuccessful.
General
� Must meet all Formula SAE requirements, as outlined in the 2011 Formula SAE Rules.
� Must ensure the safety of the driver at all times.
Frame
� Weight of frame must be 75 lbs or less.
� All four design group members must be able to exit from the vehicle in 4.5 seconds.
� Must demonstrate improved driver ergonomics; this will be done by ensuring that the
driver’s hips are 5 inches or less below the ankles while in the cockpit.
Suspension
� 10% reduction in wheelbase length from last year’s design.
� 25% reduction in steering ratio from last year’s design.
� Turning radius must be less than 15 feet.
2

5.2 Criteria
The following requirements should be followed in the design of the chassis. These criteria are not
critical to the success of the chassis, however they will enhance performance.
Frame
� Strengthen the frame by minimizing the number of bends.
� Improve engine packaging to allow for a removal time of less than two hours and eliminate
the need of dismantling the suspension before removing the engine from the frame.
Suspension
� Include anti-roll bars as part of the suspension design.
� Reduce size of uprights to eliminate contact with wheel.
6.0 Final Design
The Formula SAE rules were used as strict guidelines throughout the design process to ensure the
safety and eligibility of the chosen final design. To select the final design, the design group divided
the chassis into subsystems: the frame, the suspension, and the steering. After subjecting each
subsystem to the design process outlined in the Design Selection Report, a final design was chosen
based on the design requirements in Section 5.1 and Section 5.2. Table 1 shows the final design for
each subsystem while Figure 1 shows the final design of the chassis. It is extremely important to
note that all systems were designed simultaneously, as changes in one subsystem can drastically
affect the design of another subsystem. The following sections will further explore each subsystem.
Table 1: Final Design Summary
Subsystem Final Design
Frame
o Construction Steel Spaceframe
o Manufacturing VR3 Engineering Ltd. Cartesian Tube Profiling
o Materials
4130 Cr-Mo
Suspension
o Construction
o Manufacturing
o Materials
Steering
o Construction
o Manufacturing
o Materials
Non-Equal and Non-Parallel Wishbones
Dalhousie University & Velocity Machining
4340/4130/1018 Steel &7075-T6 Aluminum
Front Wheel Steering System with Rack & Pinion
Dalhousie University
4130 Steel
3

Figure 1: Formula SAE Chassis
7.0 Frame Testing
The frame has been constructed using a steel space frame design. The ease of manufacturability,
rigid structural Formula SAE guidelines (eliminating the need for material testing) and the reduced
cost of the steel were the primary benefits that resulted in the selection of the steel space frame. For
a full discussion on the material and manufacturing selections, please see Design Group 14:
December Design Report. Figure 2 shows the constructed frame.
One of the main criteria for the frame was weight. Having a light frame is very important as a
lighter car allows for faster acceleration, better handling and more efficient fuel consumption. The
team aimed for a frame weight of 75 lbs or less and produced a frame weighing 65 lbs. This was
accomplished through careful consideration of member placement and component packaging. The
frame and suspension were designed simultaneously so that reinforced nodes on the frame
corresponded to suspension arm nodes. This ensured that no frame member was put into bending
or compression.
4

Figure 2: Final Frame Design
Proper design of the frame and suspension also allowed for the frame to be designed so that the
Formula SAE ruling of minimum ground clearance (1” from ground to frame) was achieved. This
allows for a lower vehicle center of gravity (CG) which is important for handling and turning in
many dynamic vehicle events at the Formula SAE competition. The number of bends was also
minimized to only those required by the main and front roll hoops. This was an improvement over
past Dalhousie Formula SAE vehicles, and this reduction was important as bends weaken the frame.
7.1 Formula SAE Rules
The Formula SAE rules provide strict guidelines which must be adhered to for the frame to be able
to compete in the events. There are several templates which must be able to pass through all points
of the frame to ensure adequate spacing for the driver. Figure 3 shows both the cockpit internal
cross section template and the cockpit opening template being able to pass through the frame.
Another template is used to ensure that the 95 th percentile male will be able to fit inside the cockpit.
5

These templates ensure that the frame is able to fit drivers of all sizes, and ensures that the driver is
comfortable, can easily access controls, and can easily enter and exit the vehicle.
Figure 3: Formula SAE Templates
7.2 Driver Ergonomics
One of the design requirements that the design team implemented was to improve driver
ergonomics. Based on an ergonomics study done by the Formula SAE team, it was determined that
this would be accomplished by ensuring that the driver’s hips are 5 inches or less below the ankles
while in the cockpit. Figure 4 shows how the new frame meets this requirement as the ankles are
nearly in line with the hips with one of the group members in the frame in the driving position.
Figure 4: Driver Ergonomics
6

Another Formula SAE rule that was met was the minimum spacing of the driver’s helmet to the
main roll hoop, which is required to be a minimum of 2 inches. By creating several mock-ups and
using the Dalhousie Formula SAE team’s driver ergonomics data, the team was easily able to meet
this ruling with a 4 inch clearance with the tallest driver on the team. Figure 5 shows the final
frame design with the design group being able to meet this Formula SAE requirement.
Figure 5: Head Clearance Ruling
To further improve driver ergonomics, the Dalhousie Formula SAE team also purchased a Tillett
W3 formula-style racing seat from Tillett Racing Seats in order to provide the driver with a
comfortable position, vehicle feedback, and proper support. The purchase of the racing seat was
taken into consideration when designing the frame and creating frame mock-ups to ensure proper
spacing. The angle of the seat back is approximately 45°, which is within the range of 30° to 50°
that was found to be the most comfortable during the ergonomics study. The frame mock-ups also
helped to ensure that the steering wheel and pedal assembly were positioned appropriately for
drivers with heights between 5’4” and 6’3”.
7.3 Driver Egress
Formula SAE rules state that driver must be able to exit the vehicle in under 5 seconds. The design
team has targeted an egress time of under 4.5 seconds for each group member to exit the vehicle. A
faster egress time is directly linked to driver ergonomics, along with frame design. The side of the
cockpit was designed so that it is lower at the point where the driver would exit the vehicle, making
7

it easier for egress. To test this deliverable, each group member was placed in the vehicle and the
time to exit was recorded. This was done five times for each group member. Table 2 shows the
results.
Table 2: Driver Egress Results
Group Member Average Time (secs)
Simren Gill 2.70
Phil Hay 3.29
Patrick McKenna 3.36
Phil Thibodeau 3.39
As can be seen from Table 2, the design group was able to meet the established time requirement.
However, since the method of egress used by the design group is not identical to that of the actual
vehicle scenario, it has been determined that this design requirement was not fully met. The final
seat location must be determined by the Formula SAE team, and the body side pods will also be
attached to the frame. As an initial test, based on the results listed above, it appears that the
Dalhousie Formula SAE team should have no problem with meeting the 5 second egress time.
7.4 Engine Removal
One of the criteria for this project was to improve engine removal time. Last year’s engine removal
time was over two hours, and this was due mainly to the fact that the suspension needed to be
removed first in order to remove the engine. This year, a sub-frame was created around the engine,
which allows for the engine to be easily removed by unbolting the engine from the frame and lifting
the frame up and out of the way for engine access. The suspension does not have to be removed to
access the frame, which results in quick access to the frame, which is important if quick
adjustments to the frame are required.
7.5 Torsional Stiffness
The torsional stiffness of the frame was experimentally calculated to ensure the frame has the
necessary rigidity to successfully perform in the Formula SAE competition. The torsional stiffness
was calculated by fixing the rear of the frame and placing a weight of 250 Newtons on one end of
the frame. The deflection of the frame under the weight was calculated using digital micrometers
at each side of the frame members. This was done for each side of the frame at two different
locations: the half length (from the main roll hoop to the front roll hoop) and the full length (from
the main roll hoop to the front bulkhead). The experiment was done 5 times to ensure accuracy
8

and repeatability of the results. Figure 6 shows the experiment setup while Table 3 shows the
results of the test.
Figure 6: Torsional Stiffness Experiment Setup
Table 3: Experiment Results
Weight Location Average Stiffness Value (N/m)
Half Length 2060
Full Length 1675
These results compare favourably with most Formula SAE vehicle results and vehicle of this size,
along with the design team’s computer simulation results. Typical values for torsional stiffness are
in the range of 1500 – 2500 N/m, therefore the frame is within this range and it can be concluded
that the frame is a bit soft (SAE International, 2010). The Formula SAE team is pleased with these
results and it is believed that it is strong enough to effectively perform at the competition, while at
the same time being able to absorb vibrations.
9

8.0 Suspension
A pushrod suspension was selected based on the wide range of adjustability and packaging options
that it provides. The suspension arms incorporate threaded rod ends, which allows for fine tuning
of the arms. In addition, the ability to adjust ride height and vehicle stance without affecting the
spring preload and the wide range of potential motion ratios are advantages of this suspension
type. An iterative design process was used such that the suspension mounts corresponded to nodes
on the frame, establishing properly triangulated load paths. Figure 7 shows the full suspension
assembly.
Figure 7: Suspension System
The final wheelbase was determined to be 1545 mm (61 in) which proves to be an 11% reduction
from the 2010 Dalhousie Formula SAE car. This exceeds the design team’s constraint of having a
10% reduction in wheelbase. The final front track width is 1200 mm (47 in), while the rear track
width is 1155 mm (45.5 in), both of which are reductions from the 2010 vehicle. It is anticipated
that the relatively short wheelbase and wide front track width will result in a vehicle that is well
suited for the tight corners seen in the autocross and endurance events. The ride height of the
vehicle was chosen to be 1¼” as this provides a low CG and accommodates any track irregularities.
10

8.1 Hubs
The hubs needed to be redesigned as the Formula SAE team purchased new 13” OZ racing wheels
and the new hubs have been designed to mate with these wheels. A floating hub design was
selected over a fixed hub design as this allowed for more design freedom and eliminated the need
for splines, simplifying and reducing the overall weight of the design. Finite Element Analysis was
used to confirm the hub material as 4340 steel and to ensure the design could withstand the torque
applied by both the wheels and the brakes. The hubs are attached to the wheel using a single
anodized lock nut. A C-V joint is integrated with the rear hub as this reduces the overall number of
parts for the vehicle. Figure 8 shows a picture of the rear hubs.
Figure 8: Rear Hubs
8.2 Uprights
Based on the finite element analysis conducted last semester, it was determined that the uprights
could be reduced in weight and overall size compared to the uprights of last semester (Gill, 2010)
(McKenna, 2010). The design team was able to successfully incorporate these changes and Figure 9
shows a comparison between the new and old upright in the wheel. With the new upright design,
the design team is confident that interference between the upright and the wheel will not be an
issue.
11

Figure 9: Upright Size Comparison
One of the main features of the new upright design is that they have been designed to be universally
compatible. This is a design departure from former Formula SAE teams. In the past, due to the
Formula SAE rules that the frame must be redesigned each year, every component of the vehicle
was being redesigned year after year. These uprights have been designed so that they can be
reused year after year, saving the Formula SAE team time, money, and manufacturing, as the
uprights are a very complex part.
To make the uprights universally compatible, adapter plates were designed to be attached to the
uprights. These adapter plates are the only component that requires redesigning year after year as
the adapter plates dictate the location of the suspension mounting points on the upright. Due to the
Formula SAE ruling that the frame must be redesigned year after year, this means that the
suspension geometry will change as well, resulting in the location of only the adapter plate needing
to be redesigned each year, with the upright being able to be reused year after year. Figure 10
shows four different views of the uprights. On the left is the upright by itself, while the next two
images show the front and rear uprights with their respective adapter plates. The final image on
the right is a side view of the upright. As can be seen, shims were designed and added in between
the upright and the adapter plates. By adding or removing the number of shims, the amount of
camber can be adjusted, which allows the camber to be quickly fine tuned during full vehicle
12

testing. To date, the uprights have been set with a static camber of 1.5 degrees, which was the set
target to achieve during the initial design.
Figure 10: Detailed Upright Views
8.3 Springs and Dampers
Spring rates were calculated based on a target roll rate of 1.1 degree/g. This was done by
determining the lateral acceleration of the vehicle during cornering, the weight distribution of the
vehicle, and with the use of motion ratios (wheel to spring travel) (Milliken & Milliken, 1995).
From these calculations, 250 lb/in springs were required in the front of the vehicle, and 350 lb/in
springs were required in the rear. The difference in spring stiffness between the front and rear of
the vehicle is due to weight distribution, as the bulk of the weight is in the rear of the vehicle
(engine and related components).
With regards to dampers, Penske 7800 double adjustable dampers were selected. These dampers
were valved according to the calculated damping curve, based on vehicle parameters. These
dampers can also be easily adjusted to fine tune the suspension system, which will be extremely
useful during full vehicle testing.
13

8.4 Anti-Roll Bar
One of the design constraints was to incorporate an anti-roll bar in the suspension system. This
was accomplished as an anti-roll bar was able to be installed in the rear of the vehicle. The anti-roll
bar was designed to provide the additional stiffness required to achieve the target roll rate of 1.1
degrees/g (Milliken & Milliken, 1995). Moment arm lengths were calculated based on the
maximum bending force applied and the stiffness of the anti-roll bar. The moment arms were made
with slots so that the moment arm length can be adjusted and tuned for peak performance and
handling. The anti-roll bar is attached to the bellcranks and is packaged in the rear of the vehicle
with no interference with any of the other suspension components. Figure 11 shows the anti-roll
bar.
Figure 11: Anti-roll bar setup
8.5 Bellcranks
The bellcrank transmit the forces from the tires to the springs, dampers, and anti-roll bar through
the pushrods. These pushrods have a left hand rod end on one end, and a right hand rod end on the
other, which allows the height of the pushrods to be easily adjusted. This is important as it allows
for easy changing of the vehicle ride height. The bellcrank design allows for all these components
to be attached to the bellcrank, with the bellcrank rotating about a fixed axis to provide the transfer
of forces. Figure 12 shows the rear suspension setup of the vehicle with the major components
labelled.
Anti-Roll Bar
Moment Arm
14

Pushrod
Figure 12: Rear suspension assembly
9.0 Steering
The steering system has been designed to allow for maximum adjustability with the steering arm.
The easily replaced steering arm allows the team to test and tune the Ackermann, steering effort,
and total steering ratio.
One of the design constraints of the steering system was to reduce the turning radius to less than 15
feet. The design group performed a low speed turning test, measuring the turning radius by
moving the vehicle in a circular path. This experiment was repeated five times for repeatability and
reliability purposes and the average turning radius obtained was 13.4 feet. This low turning radius
will allow the vehicle to handle much better and take corners much better in the dynamic racing
events at the Formula SAE competition.
Shocks
Bellcranks
Anti-Roll Bar Assembly
The other main design goal with regards to the steering is reduce the steering ratio by 25% from
last year’s vehicle. The lock-to-lock steering wheel motion was measured to be 235 degrees, which
results in a 35% reduction in steering ratio. This improved steering ratio is desirable, as it
15

eliminates the driver performing hand-over-hand driving, which can be troublesome during quick
turning events.
10.0 Design Requirements Summary
Table 4 summarizes the design group’s design requirements and the success in meeting these
requirements.
Table 4: Design Requirements Summary
CONSTRAINTS
System Requirement Requirement Met
Frame Weight must be under 75 lbs YES
Improved egress NO
Improved ergonomics YES
Suspension 10% reduction in wheelbase YES
25% reduction in steering ratio YES
Turning radius of under 15 feet YES
CRITERIA
Frame Minimize bends YES
Improve engine packaging YES
Better integration of suspension
nodes
YES
Suspension Incorporate anti-roll bar YES
Reduce overall upright size YES
As can be seen, 10 of the 11 design requirements have been met. With regards to the driver egress,
all team members were able to exit the vehicle in under 4.5 seconds; however since the seat mounts
and harness were not installed in time by the Formula SAE team, testing method was not identical
to the real case scenario. Based on the results obtained, the design group is confident that full
egress tests will yield results of under 4.5 seconds.
16

11.0 Additional Achievements
The following is a summary of features that were not design requirements but were included in the
overall design of the chassis which have helped to enhance the overall design:
� Universally compatible uprights
� Adjustable camber with shims
� Integrated C-V joints in rear hubs
� Adjustable anti-roll bar
� Adjustable steering arms
� Can fit inside a standard pickup truck
12.0 Conclusion
In conclusion the design team met 10 of the 11 constraints. The one constraint that was not met
was that for egress, as the Formula SAE team had not finalized their mounting for the seat. With
this design, the team is confident that the egress target can be met once the seat is installed. The
chassis will be integrated with the powertrain and other vehicle components and the whole vehicle
will be tested in the upcoming weeks. The chassis is competition ready, and the vehicle will be
competing in Detroit, Michigan this summer.
17

References
Auto-ware. (2010). Retrieved 9 2010, from Auto-Ware's Racing and Performance Tech Site:
www.auto-ware.com
Blundell, M., & Harty, D. (2004). Multibody Systems Approach to Vehicle Dynamics. New York:
Elsevier.
Car Theory. (2010). Car Theory. Retrieved October 16, 2010, from RC Car Seminar:
http://www.rccarseminar.com/index.php?menutopic=Home&submenu=Home&hmenustr=Car%2
0Theory
Cartesian. (2010). Retrieved September 11, 2010, from Cartesian Tube Profiling:
www.cartesiantube.com
Crolla, D. A. (2009). Automotive Engineering: Powertrain, Chassis and Vehicle Body. Burlington:
Elsevier.
Design Group 14. (2010). Design Requirements Memo. Halifax.
Formula Student. (2010). Public Relations. Retrieved October 22, 2010, from News:
http://www.formulastudent.de/public-relations/fsg-news/news-details/article/steves-box-oftricks/
Fox, S. (2010). Cockpit Control Forces. Warrendale: Chief Design Judge - Formula SAE.
Gill, S. (2010). 2010-2011 Formula SAE Upright Analysis. Halifax.
Gillespie, T. G. (1992). Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics. Warrendale: SAE International.
Harris, W. (2010). How Car Suspensions Work. Retrieved October 18, 2010, from HowStuffWorks:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/car-suspension4.htm
Matweb. (2010). Retrieved September 12, 2010, from Online Materials Information Resource:
www.matweb.com
McKenna, P. (2010). 2009-2010 Formula SAE Upright Analysis. Halifax.
Milliken, W. F., & Milliken, D. L. (1995). Race Car Vehicle Dynamics. Warrendale: SAE International.
Motor Era. (2010). Retrieved November 9, 2010, from http://www.motorera.com/
OptimumK. (2010). Retrieved October 14, 2010, from www.optimumg.com
Rack and Pinions. (2010). Retrieved 10 20, 2010, from Woodward Steering:
http://www.woodwardsteering.com/
Reimpell, J., Stoll, H., & Betzler, J. (2001). The Automotive Chassis: Engineering Principles.
Warrendale: SAE International.
18

SAE International. (2010). About Formula SAE. Retrieved October 22, 2010, from SAE Collegiate
Design Series: http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/about.htm
Smith, C. (2004). Engineer to Win. Minneapolis: MBI Publishing Company.
Smith, C. (1978). Tune to Win. Fallbrook: Aero Publishers.
Smith, W. F. (2003). Structure and Properties of Engineering Alloys. McGraw-Hill.
Society of Automotive Engineers. (2011). Formula SAE. Retrieved Oct 22, 2010, from SAE
International: http://students.sae.org/competitions/formulaseries/
Staniforth, A. (1999). Competition Car Suspension. London: G. T. Foulis & Company.
Warkentin, A., Hubbard, T., & Militzer, J. (2011). MECH 4010 / 4020 Design Project Handbook.
Halifax: Dalhousie University.
19