Mass Properties & Advanced Automotive Design

MASS PROPERTIES & ADVANCED

AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN

Brian Paul Wiegand, PE74TH SAWE International Conference on Mass Properties Engineering

Alexandria, VA, 18-22 May 2015

2

ADVANCED AUTOMOTIVE DESIGNS…

…USUALLY BEAR THE STAMP OF A GREAT INDIVIDUAL: H ENRY ROYCE – QUALITY PAUL JARAY – AERODYNAMICS ENZO FERRARI – ENGINE POWEL CROSLEY – COST PRESTON TUCKER – SAFETY ALEC ISSIGONIS – SMALL SIZE COLIN CHAPMAN – MASS PROPERTIES

74th SAWE International Conference

3

WHY CHAPMAN FOCUSSED ON MASS PROPERTIES

THE LOTUS ENGINEERING COMPANY WAS FOUNDED BY CHAPMAN ON 1 JANUARY 1952 WITH VIRUALLY NO CAPITAL. ENGINES, GUAGES, TRANSMISSIONS, DIFFERENTIALS, AND MOST OTHER COMPONENTS WERE PURCHASED. THE ONLY WAY THAT LOTUS VEHICLES COULD BE DIFFERENTIATTED FROM OTHER VEHICLES AND GAIN A COMPETITIVE EDGE WAS THROUGH MASS PROPERTIES, AND IN PARTICULAR THE RUTHLESS PURSUIT OF MINIMUM WEIGHT.



4

LOTUS HAD EXTRAORDINARY SUCCESS, BUT AT A COST…

…IN LACK OF RELIABILITY AND IN INJURY & DEATH. CHAPMAN OPTIMIZED MASS PROPERTIES, BUT DID NOT DO SO IN THE WAY A PROFESSIONAL MASS PROPERTIES ENGINEER WOULD HAVE. HE WOULD OVERRIDE THE JUDGEMENT OF HIS STRESS ENGINEERS AND REDUCE THE WEIGHT OF STRUCTURE AND SUSPENSION IN LOTUS RACE CARS TO THE POINT THAT FAILURE IN USE WAS INEVITABLE.


5

CHAPMAN EXPLAINED HIS SUCCESS AS THE RESULT OF

RETURNING TO “FIRST PRINCIPLES”…

…AND RE-ENGINEERING EVERTHING UPWARD FROM THOSE PRINCIPLES TO ACHIEVE TOTALLY NEW AND SUPERIOR

DESIGNS. ACTUALLY, NOTHING COULD HAVE BEEN FURTHER FROM THE

TRUTH…


6

THE TRUTH WAS… “Colin was extremely sharp, clever and

quick-witted, and very charismatic, but not a really great engineer or designer. He had a few principles which he pursued to great effect, such as light weight…but he never had a really close grasp of fundamental principles. Perhaps he might have had if he had more time to learn. But in his hectic and unscrupulous life it was quicker to rely on other people to whom he gave minimum credit.”

Charles Bulmer


7

FROM ALL THIS A QUESTION ARISES…

…WHAT WOULD BE THE RESULT IF SOMEONE WERE TO RETURN

TO FIRST PRINCIPLES AND DESIGN AN AUTOMOBILE

FROM A PROFESSIONAL MASS PROPERTIES ENGINEER’S

VIEWPOINT ?!?

8

FIRST PRINCIPLE

NEWTON’S SECOND LAW:

F = m a


74h SAWE International Conference

9

FOR AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN “F = ma” SHOULD…

…INCLUDE THE CONCEPT OF “EFFECTIVE

MASS”:

F = me a


10

EFFECTIVE MASSTEXT

Wt = Weight of the vehicle (lb).g = Gravitational constant, “g” = 32.174 ft/s2.I1 = Rotational inertia about front axle line (lb-ft2).I2 = Rotational inertia about the crankshaft axis (lb-ft2).I3 = Rotational inertia about transmission 3rd motion axis (lb-ft2).

I4 = Rotational inertia about rear axle line (lb-ft2). TR = Transmission gear ratio (dimensionless). AR = Axle gear ratio (dimensionless). RD = Dynamic rolling radius at drive wheels (ft).


11

“KILL THREE BIRDS WITH ONE STONE”

A REDUCTION OF “I1” AND “I4”:

1) REDUCES WEIGHT MASS2) REDUCES EFFECTIVE MASS3) REDUCES UNSPRUNG MASS


12

HOW TO ACHIEVE THIS? HALF SIZE THE RADIUS!

ONE FOURTH THE WEIGHT:

Whalf / Wfull = ( π R2 t / 4) / π R2 t = ¼

ONE SIXTEENTH THE ROTATIONAL INERTIA:

Ihalf / Ifull = ( π R4 t / 32) / ( π R4 t / 2) = 1/16


13

BUT, SMALL TIRES HAVE SMALL LOAD CAPACITY…


14

SO, DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF TIRES!!


15

BUT, WHEN THE NUMBER OF HALF SIZE TIRES IS DOUBLED…

WEIGHT OF TIRES, WHEELS, ETC. IS NOW:

8W8 / 4W4 = (8 π R2 t / 4) / 4 π R2 t = 1/2

AND THE ROTATIONAL INERTIA IS NOW:

8I8 / 4I4 = (8 π R4 t / 32) / (4 π R4 t / 2) = 1/8


16

SOME “HISTORICAL VECTORS” POINTING TOWARD THE ADVANCED CONCEPT:

REEVES OCTOAUTIO – 1911 PANZERSPAHWAGEN – 1942 PAT CLANCY SPECIAL – 1948 AVS SHADOW – 1970 ELF TYRRELL P34 – 1975 MARCH 2-4-0 – 1976 WILLIAMS FW08B – 1982 COVINI C6W – 2004 KEIO UNIVERSITY ELIICA - 2004


17

REEVES OCTOAUTIO – 1911


18

PANZERSPAHWAGEN – 1942


19

AVS SHADOW MKI- 1970

20

ELF TYRRELL P34 - 1975


21

COVINI C6W - 2004


22

KEIO UNIVERSITY ELIICA - 2004



23

“VALIDATION” OF CONCEPT

PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF:

BASELINE VEHICLE – KNOWN ENTITY

WITH:

“ADVANCED CONCEPT” – DEVELOPED FROM BASELINE


24

“VALIDATION” OF CONCEPTTRIED TO AVOID ANY CHANGES NOT ESSENTIAL TO

TRANSITION FROM 4 FULL SIZE TIRES TO 8 HALF SIZE TIRES.

HOWEVER:

1) HAD TO REDUCE SPRING STIFFNESS BY HALF AND RESIZE SUSPENSION, 1 INCH LOWER.

2) HAD TO KEEP FULL SIZE BRAKES AND INCREASED NUMBER TO EIGHT & MOVED INBOARD.

3) HAD TO MAKE BOTH REAR AXLES DRIVE (“LIVE”) AXLES.

4) HAD TO CHANGE ORIENTATION OF ENGINE FROM LONGITUDINAL TO TRANSVERSE.


25

“VALIDATION” COMPARISON 1) WEIGHT: -0.3% 2) EFFECTIVE WEIGHT: -1.5%

3) ROLL RESIST: -55.1% 4) LOAD CAP: -17.7% 5) TRACTION: +5.1% 6) AERO DRAG: -14.6% 7) AERO LIFT: +15.0% 8) HYDROPLANING: Vc : -14.5%, Ls: -51.6% 9) TIRE LIFE: -49.8% 10) STANDING WAVE: -9.4% 11) SSF (OVERTURN RESISTENCE): +13.9% 12) ROLL GAIN: -8.9% 13) LAT ACCEL: +44.1% 14) DIRECTIONAL STABILITY: Kus = 6.85 vs. 0.20 deg, Vchar = 32.6 vs. 188.3 mph, SM = 0.09 vs.

0.02 15) TRANSIENT RESPONSE: DIY = 0.74 vs. 0.75, AYR/ω = 1.185 vs. 1.003 16) ROAD SHOCK: -49.3% 17) ROAD CONTACT: BUMP -6.0%, DIP +34.6% 20) GYROSCOPIC REACTIONS: -80.5% front, -64.0% rear 21) FUEL ECONOMY: HIGHWAY +6.3% / CITY +3.3%


26

ACCELERATION


27

BRAKING


28

VIBRATION TRANSMISSIBILITY


29

RIDE FREQUENCIES & NODES


30

CRASH SAFETY


31

PRODUCIBILITY & MARKETIBILITY

1) PRODUCIBILITY a) TIRE

PROCUREMENT 2) MARKETIBILITYa) STYLING

32

Q&A

FIVE MINUTES ARE ALLOCATED FOR ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE AUTHOR

74TH SAWE International Conference on Mass Properties EngineeringAlexandria, VA, 18-22 May 2015

33

Q&A


Lastly, it should be noted that the “advanced concept” as presented herein does not represent the pinnacle of achievement, and would seem even more compelling when subjected to further development. The “distributed traction” characteristic of the “advanced concept” lends itself naturally to take best advantage of the benefits of “distributed drive” as proposed by Hao, Chen, and Wang in their paper, and as demonstrated by Keio University with their Eliica. That the automobile of the future will have complete electronic control over braking, drive, roll, pitch, ride, and stability seems certain, and the mass properties driven configuration of the “advanced concept” represents a complementary means to physically employ that new technology to greatest advantage. Many have gone a part of the way to this goal, but at present it still remains a place “where none have gone before.”

FURTHER DEVELOPMENT ?

34

Q&A: WEIGHT ACCOUNTING


35

Q&A: BRAKING PROGRAM OUTPUT


36

Q&A: INDUSTRY OPINION


“…friction would be off the chart when the thing turns......or tries to! And the weight of four more tires, wheels and related suspension and steering bits would so negatively impact fuel economy that it would more than offset the reduction in rolling resistance. "Rolling resistance"

is just one small variable in the overall “…friction would be off the chart when the thing turns......or tries to! And the weight of four more tires, wheels and related suspension and steering bits would so negatively impact fuel economy that it would more than offset the reduction in rolling resistance. "Rolling resistance" is just one small variable in the overall efficiency equation...”

Bob Lutz...” [1] 14 June 2014

[1] Robert Anthony Lutz (1932- ) has served as Executive Vice President for BMW, Executive Vice President of Ford Motor Company, Head of Chrysler Global Product Development, and Vice Chairman of Global Product Development at GM. He retired from GM on 2 May 2010, and now heads his own consulting firm. In an E-mail exchange this author made reference to the advantages of the “advanced concept”, and thereby received the comment as quoted.

37

Q&A: STYLING


“…friction would be off the chart when the thing turns......or tries to! And the weight of four more tires, wheels and related suspension and steering bits would so negatively impact fuel economy that it would more than offset the reduction in rolling resistance. "Rolling resistance" is

The Edsel may have failed for insubstantial reasons, but reasons which are significant in the marketplace. For the “advanced concept” to be marketable reasons of that type have to be addressed. As noted in Chapter 2, simply mating conventional automotive architecture with such small wheels (not to mention an unusual number of them to boot) results in an appearance certain to found “silly” and reminiscent of a “kiddie car” or “small trailer”. Present day styling trends emphasize large wheels and tires, even to the point of decreasing performance, as demonstrated by the Car and Driver “plus-sizing” study. The styling has to be of “an all new car design” paradigm in accord with the all new configuration paradigm, and it has to appeal to the emotions; an emotional commitment generally has to precede (or supersede) the rational for mass appeal to be attained.