Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

University of Washington Formula SAE


Team 24

Suspension Team

Brakes System

Author: Jonathan Pyke Submitted: October 26, 2012

1 Problem Definition

1.1 Need Statement

The brake system generates the necessary force to slow the car, both for racing and for emergency situations. The system must be able to able to easily dissipate heat and handle the energy dissipated by braking without compromising the safety or performance of the car. A powerful and properly balanced brake system will allow the driver to slow to necessary cornering speeds in shorter distances, and better use the full capacity of the braking system.

1.2 Functional



The rules that govern the design of the brake system in the FSAE competition can be found in Article 7 of Section T in the 2013 Formula SAE Rules. Below is a brief summary of the rules that will most affect the brake system design. T7.1.3 The brake system must be capable of locking all four (4) wheels during the brake test specified below. T7.1.8 The brake pedal must be designed to withstand a force of 2000 N without any failure of the brake system or pedal box. This may be tested by pressing the pedal with the maximum force that can be exerted by any official when seated normally. Brake Test T7.2.1 The brake system will be dynamically tested and must demonstrate the capability of locking all four (4) wheels and stopping the vehicle in a straight line at the end of an acceleration run specified by the brake inspectors.

In complying with these rules, the brake system will need to be designed to stop the car at a rate of up to 1.8g’s, with a FoS of 2 in all components being manufactured. Despite efforts to lower the FoS, the inability to accurately model heat transfer with confidence and the importance of a reliable brake system forces the brake system to be designed with extra redundancy to ensure driver safety.

Last updated on October 23, 2012



The brake system design should take into consideration using the option of manufacturing both Stainless Steel and Cast Iron rotors, to explore the performance properties of both with the ultimate goal of weight loss and maximum pad friction. In addition, the implementation of square sided brake buttons should be used to attach the rotors to the inner hats. Implementing a servo motor for driver control of the brake bias will also be implemented in order to provide an easy way to adjust bias while on the track. Work to obtain caliper discounts and/or sponsorship will also be conducted with the goal of losing weight by using nicer calipers.

1.2.3 Assumptions

It is assumed that a conventional race car braking system will be implemented. This will consist of 4 wheel hydraulic disc brakes with independent front and rear circuits operated by one pedal. It is also assumed that we will be using floating rotors attached to the hubs/hats with buttons, because of the stiffer braking they provide.

1.2.4 Constraints

Budget and sponsorship availability will determine the ability to consider alternative calipers. Machining time will limit the options we have in testing Stainless Steel vs. Cast Iron on the rotors.

1.3 Physical

1.3.1 Requirements

The brake system must interface directly with the hubs, uprights, and pedal tray. Parts of the system must fit within the wheels and chassis. The Formula SAE rules also give the following physical requirement:

T7.1.7 In side view no portion of the brake system that is mounted on the sprung part of the car can project below the lower surface of the frame or the monocoque, whichever is applicable.

1.3.2 Opportunities

Because the Team 24 car is expected to be lighter than previous years, there is an opportunity to reevaluate the calipers required. Switching to smaller calipers, if possible, could provide a significant decrease in unsprung weight. Cylinder sizes will be chosen for a better brake bias compared to last years, and may also contribute to caliper sizing. Other opportunities include using Stainless Steel rotors over Cast Iron, and changing the shape of the buttons to decrease stress on the joining areas of the rotors and hats.

1.3.3 Assumptions

It is assumed that the rotor sizes will be similar to last years, for reasons stated below.

1.3.4 Constraints

As mentioned in 1.2.4, time and budget constraints will likely be the largest limiting factor on innovation. Stainless Steel has not been tested on our car, and may not be feasible as a rotor material for the competition.

Last updated on October 23, 2012












Problem Definition




Concept Design


30% Report


Load Analysis


CAD Modeling


Strength Analysis


60% Report



Design Decision


90% Report



CDR Changes


Manufacturing Plan


100% Report


Design Freeze


3 Research

Last year’s UW FSAE team used Brembo p34C calipers with 1.34in diameter pistons on the front, and smaller than normal Ap Racing CP4226 calipers with a 1.00in diameter piston on the rear wheels. Rotors the past two years have been Cast Iron, T23 used 9in front rotors and 7.25 rear rotors. Last year’s rear caliper presented weight savings compared to previous years, however the front calipers could be replaced with lighter ones if we can obtain appropriate sponsorship.

One other focus this year is to decrease the rear hub size, allowing the use of a smaller rear rotor. In alignment with the brake system goals of near-perfect bias, last year’s rear rotor sizing resulted in excessive force on the rear brakes, and uneven braking in several scenarios.

Lighter rotors for the front are commercially available from Brembo, and using Stainless Steel rotors is a common practice on many motorcycles and other FSAE team’s cars. In further researching the option, we will determine if it is feasible to manufacture a set of Stainless Steel rotors for the T24 car.

Last updated on October 23, 2012


Preliminary Design Considerations

Exploring a new button system for the floating rotors could possibly be the largest improvement made to the T24 brakes system. A preliminary design of a square sided button (see Figure 1) will minimize the high stress pressure points on the rotor and hat under torque, as well as provide easier manufacturability when aligning the three parts. Other geometrical changes to both the rotor and the hat will allow for better manufacturability, and a tighter fitting rotor with minimized torsional play.

and a tighter fitting rotor with minimized torsional play. Figure 1 Another promising concept for this

Figure 1

Another promising concept for this year’s brakes system is the material choice of the rotor, choosing to explore the benefits of Stainless Steel rotors. With the easier manufacturing process of the rotors mentioned above, machining a second set of rotors made from Stainless Steel becomes more feasible, and the materials thermal properties attract the exploration in the rotor.

Additionally, exploring the possibility of using a different front caliper is a concept that would decrease weight and improve brake bias if executed correctly. However it is highly dependent on sponsorship availability, this concept is worth further exploring.

5 Conceptual Development

Overall, the brake system used on the team 23 car had several strengths, and performed fairly well. In developing concepts, I addressed some of the major flaws from last year including uneven front to rear heat levels and unbalance braking bias on the car. Much of the conceptual development was done using a calculated spreadsheet (see Team 24 Brake Worksheet), however there were also physical changes that were conceptualized shown below. The main goal in these concepts is to better balance braking bias while decreasing weight in the system, and using the smallest components while maintaining a conservative Factor of Safety. Another important factor is ease of manufacturability, and several things are being conceptualized this year to reduce manufacturing times and consolidate machining processes.

Last updated on October 23, 2012


Concept I

One concept being heavily considered for this year’s brake system is the introduction of square buttons on the floating rotors. As pictured in detail in Figure 5.1, these square buttons allow vertical play while maintaining rotational rigidity, preventing the rotors from having slop against the hats and hubs when torque is applied during braking. Square slots with rounded corners will be manufactured both in the rotor and the hat, and the buttons have round edges to hold the retaining clips, and square sides to fit in the slots.

5.1.1 Advantages

This extra play allows for less constraints on the system compared to last year’s circular buttons, ultimately allowing manufacturing tolerances to increase. With less constraints, it is likely this rotor will be able to be completely machined on a water-jet, while last years rotors had to be water jetted and milled to get the circular percision required for circular buttons.

to get the circular percision required for circular buttons. Figure 5.1 5.1.2 Disadvantages One foreseeable challenge

Figure 5.1

5.1.2 Disadvantages

One foreseeable challenge with this square button design will be manufacturing the buttons. They will have to be machined on the lathe, and then passed with a milling bit to create the square sides. This mill pass will be an extra step in the machining process, but when compared to the savings in manufacturing the rotors, the extra step pays off.

5.2 Concept II

The second concept explored is a slightly more compact version of the previous, modifying the hub to interface directly with the rotor, eliminating the standalone hat. Shown in Figure 5.2, this concept decreases the number of parts, and works well with small rotors.

5.2.1 Advantages

The advantages of this design are that it eliminates the need for a hat, decreasing the parts that need to be manufactured. Buttons are secured with the use of a single retaining ring around the hub rather than individual retaining rings around the buttons. Also, the rotor is one inch smaller than that from the previous year, and weighs 0.59 lbs compared to .79 lbs.

Figure 5.2
Figure 5.2

5.2.2 Disadvantages

This design requires the hub to be smaller, and produces manufacturing challenges for the hub. It requires the wheel hub to be smaller in diameter while still interfacing with a larger diameter wheel interface from previous years. In looking at tolerances and dimensions, these hurdles are possible to overcome, but will require detailed FEA analysis to ensure part strength.

Last updated on October 23, 2012

5.3 Concept III

Concept III employs a stainless steel rotor mated with the aluminum hat used in the other concepts. The only difference here is a stainless steel rotor rather than cast iron, with the intention of losing weight and gaining a slower-wearing rotor.

5.3.1 Advantages

The advantages of this rotor are simple: less weight (1.42 lbs rather than 1.49 lbs with cast iron), and a longer lasting rotor. With cast iron, the pads wear the rotor down fairly quickly, where stainless steel is more resistant to this wear.

Figure 5.3
Figure 5.3

5.3.2 Disadvantages

Taking a closer look at the advantages, we find we’re not saving that much weight by going to stainless steel for the rotor. Other disadvantages include a weaker material, and a slightly lower coefficient of friction than the cast iron. After we perform the FEA on the stainless steel and cast iron parts, we may find that we need to thicken the rotor in order to get the same strength and braking force.

6 Design Synthesis

6.1 Front Rotor and Hat

The front rotor for this year’s car will be similar to 5.3, but with a cast iron rotor (Figure 6.1). The inside pattern on the hat shown above is based on the design last year, and could change based on the hub design, but will either stay the same or change to be easier to manufacture and decreased constraints. The cast iron rotor will be made around 0.125 inches thick, and with a diameter of 9.00 inches. The aluminum hat and the rotor will interface with square buttons and external retaining rings, and the change in material will act as a heat barrier to prevent heat from transferring from the rotor to the hat. Overall, this design is closely based on that of last years, and is improved by using square buttons that provide easier manufacturability to the rotor. This year, the front rotor should be able to be manufactured completely (with the exception of the surface grooves) on a water jet in one setup.

6.2 Front Caliper

The caliper planned for the front rotor is the Brembo P34, the same component used on the 2012 car. Other options such as the AP Racing CP4227 were considered for their lighter weight, but were ultimately decided against due to their inability to fit well with available master cylinder sizes. The AP Racing caliper is a 4 piston caliper that provides a stronger braking force, and weighs less (0.5kg compared to .62kg). The reason this was decided against is because when mated with the rear caliper and master cylinder sizes, it provides over 20% extra force on the front, that ultimately limits the cars braking power. The master cylinder sizes, rotors, and/or rear calipers could have been changed to accommodate the weight savings, but the only feasible

Last updated on October 23, 2012

way to balance these components would be decreasing the front rotor size, which would lead to a bigger gap in front/rear rotor temperature; a characteristic to fix for this year.

6.3 Rear Rotor and Hat

In the 2012 car, the rear rotor was oversized due to the large wheel bearings and hubs. This resulted in an excess front bias, and a lack of using the full braking potential. This year, the car will have a smaller rear master cylinder, which will increase the force to the rear rotors. In addition to this, the rear rotor diameter is shrinking from 7.5 inches to 6.5 inches, allowing it to heat up at a more similar rate to the front rotor. As the temperature difference between the front rotor and rear rotor decreases, the friction coefficient between the pads and respective rotors are closer together, maintaining the original designed brake bias. The rear rotor will be attached directly to the hub, which will be designed with an interface similar to that in Figure 5.2. The inner diameter for the rotor is 3.375 inches, and it will be attached using square buttons and one large external retaining clip. Final design of this is pending on the design of the hub and bearing selection, but these dimensions are very probable. One other design feature that is not visible in the figure above is the rear buttons, which will have to be different than those in the front to accommodate the single retaining ring.

6.4 Rear Caliper

The rear caliper will be the same as the one used last year, the AP Racing CP4226. This rotor has a piston diameter of 1 inch, and weighs .542 lbs. This caliper is expensive compared to competitors, but offers weight savings that justify its choice. Mated with the 5/8 inch bore master cylinder and the 6.5 inch rotor, this will provide more than adequate braking force in all situations, and work nicely with the front rotor to provide an optimal 72% front braking bias.

6.5 Master Cylinders & Bias

The master cylinders on the 2013 car will both have a bore of 0.625 inches, and be mated with the Tilton Racing 775 series balance bar to provide a full range of 18% adjustment of the bias. One of the big problems in last year’s car was the front bias being too large (at 78%), and the rear brakes not ever coming close to locking up. By adjusting the brake bias to 72% on the 2013 car, the balance bar will be able to provide balanced braking force that will lock up all four wheels nearly simultaneously, the front just before the rear, in all modeled driving cases (see Team 24 Brake Worksheet on FTP).



1. Brake Calipers." AP Racing. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2012.

< lipers.aspx>

2. EbenKieh_100%Brakes.doc. FSAE FTP. \Team23\T Teams\Susp…\Brakes\

3. EbenKieh_60%Brakes.doc. FSAE FTP. \Team23\T Teams\Susp

4. FSAE Rules

5. Romano, Michael. (2000’s). Vehicle Brake Information.


Last updated on October 23, 2012


Smith, Carroll. (1984). Engineer to Win. Osceola, WI: MBI Publishing Company.

7. Team 24 Brake Worksheet.xlsx. FSAE FTP. \T 24\T…Teams\Susp

8. Tilton Engineering 775 Installation Instructions. Web.






8.1 Table of Components

All weight savings are highlighted in yellow (refer to Team 24 100% Report for previous weights)







Brembo P34C


AP Racing CP4226


Piston Diameter


in. (34.0 mm)


in. (25.4 mm)

Weight per corner


lb. (0.61 kg)


lb. (0.24 kg)

Master Cylinder


Tilton Engineering 77 series

Tilton Engineering 77 series

Bore Diameter

5/8 in. (15.88 mm)

5/8 in. (15.88 mm)




lb. (0.14 kg)


lb. (0.14 kg)

Balance Bar


Tilton 77 Series Balance Bar









in. (228.6 mm)

6.5 in. (165.1 mm)




in. (3.5 mm)


in. (3.0 mm)


80-55-06 ductile iron

80-55-06 ductile iron

Weight per corner


lb. (0.59 kg)



lb. (0.267 kg)




7075-T6 aluminum



Weight per corner

0.12 lb.









Cold Rolled Steel


Cold Rolled Steel


Weight per corner

0.01 lb
0.01 lb

Last updated on October 23, 2012