3rd Year Formula Student Frame Project Report

By: Jessica Byrne (C14303401)
Final Report: Comparing a Spaceframe to a
Monocoque Report for a Formula Student
Chassis Design

Page | 1
Table of Contents
Declaration ......................................................................................................................................................................1
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................3
Background .....................................................................................................................................................................3
Chassis ....................................................................................................................................................................3
Spaceframe.............................................................................................................................................................3
Monocoque..............................................................................................................................................................4
Spaceframe.............................................................................................................................................................4
Monocoque..............................................................................................................................................................5
Design ideas ...........................................................................................................................................................6
Chosen ideas ..........................................................................................................................................................8
Templates................................................................................................................................................................9
Engine Mount Design ..........................................................................................................................................11
Suspension............................................................................................................................................................11
FEA analysis .........................................................................................................................................................12
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................15
Bodywork.......................................................................................................................................................................15
Design ideas .........................................................................................................................................................15
Chosen ideas ........................................................................................................................................................16
Body panels and assembly methods.................................................................................................................17
Wheel clearance...................................................................................................................................................18
manufacturing processes....................................................................................................................................18
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................23
Monocoque....................................................................................................................................................................23
Design ideas .........................................................................................................................................................23
Chosen ideas ........................................................................................................................................................24
Connecting monocoque to the main and front roll hoops ..............................................................................26
Engine Mount Design ..........................................................................................................................................27
Suspension............................................................................................................................................................28
Structural integrity Calculation............................................................................................................................28
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................................29
Comparing spaceframe vs monocoque....................................................................................................................30
Bibliography...................................................................................................................................................................36
Declaration
To the best of my knowledge and belief, this report is my own work, all source have been properly acknowledged, and
the report contains no plagiarism. The report contains 5594 words excluding words on pictures, and 72 figures.
Name: ___________________________ Date: _______________________

Page | 2
Table of Figures
Figure 1 Spaceframe.........................................................................................................................................................3
Figure 2 monocoque design..............................................................................................................................................4
Figure 3 Cisitalia D46........................................................................................................................................................4
Figure 4 Type 360 for Cisitalia ..........................................................................................................................................5
Figure 5 Lotus 25 ..............................................................................................................................................................5
Figure 6 McLaren MP4/1...................................................................................................................................................5
Figure 7 ATS team D4 racer .............................................................................................................................................6
Figure 8 complex monocoque mould................................................................................................................................6
Figure 9 Frame design 1 ...................................................................................................................................................6
Figure 10 Frame design 2 .................................................................................................................................................7
Figure 12 Frame design 4 ................................................................................................................................................7
Figure 14 Cockpit Template & Figure 15 Foot well template............................................................................................9
Figure 16 Percy.................................................................................................................................................................9
Figure 17 Helmet clearance between main roll hoop and front roll hoop. ......................................................................10
Figure 18 Helmet clearance between main roll hoop and rear bracing ..........................................................................10
Figure 19 untriangulated box & Figure 20 triangulated box............................................................................................10
Figure 21 Engine mounts with the engine & Figure 22 Engine mounts..........................................................................11
Figure 23 Frame suspension mounts in the rear ............................................................................................................11
Figure 24 Frame suspension mounts in the front ...........................................................................................................11
Figure 25 Frame – Displacement - Main Roll Hoop........................................................................................................13
Figure 26 Frame - Displacement - Front Roll Hoop........................................................................................................13
Figure 27 Frame - Displacement - Side impact ..............................................................................................................14
Figure 28 Frame - Displacement – Front Bulkhead........................................................................................................14
Figure 29 Bodywork design 1..........................................................................................................................................15
Figure 34 how body panels are Split & Figure 35 Dzus Clip ..........................................................................................17
Figure 36 Minimum Attenuator Size................................................................................................................................18
Figure 37 Open wheel.....................................................................................................................................................18
Figure 38 Vacuum Forming.............................................................................................................................................19
Figure 39 Flow Analyses - Front View ............................................................................................................................19
Figure 40 Flow Analyses - Side View .............................................................................................................................20
Figure 41 Surface Pressure Plot.....................................................................................................................................20
Figure 42 Pressure Flow Trajectories .............................................................................................................................21
Figure 43 Velocity Flow Trajectories...............................................................................................................................21
Figure 44 The Lift that is caused as the velocity.............................................................................................................22
Figure 45 The Lift that is caused as the velocity.............................................................................................................22
Figure 46 Monocoque design 1.......................................................................................................................................23
Figure 50 Monocoque Design 4......................................................................................................................................25
Figure 51 Inserts .............................................................................................................................................................26
Figure 52 Rear frame connecting to monocoque rear view............................................................................................26
Figure 53 Rear frame connecting to monocoque............................................................................................................26
Figure 54 Monocoque connecting to front roll hoop .......................................................................................................27
Figure 55 engine mounts with the engine in place & Figure 56 engine mounts .............................................................27
Figure 57 suspension in place in the rear & Figure 58 suspension in place in the front ................................................28
Figure 59 Honeycomb Structure .....................................................................................................................................28

Page | 3
Introduction
This is a report that compares a spaceframe to a monocoque for a formula student car. The report discusses the
history of both the spaceframe and monocoque. The two types of frames will be compared using FEA. Deciding on
which spaceframe and monocoque that is to be compared first a single spaceframe and a single monocoque must be
designed so that they can be compared to one another. When designing a racing car, it is important to know that each
chassis designs have their own strengths and weaknesses. Every chassis is a compromise between weight,
component size, complexity, vehicle intent, and ultimately the cost.
Background
Chassis
It is important to keep in mind when designing a chassis that any good chassis must do several things:
1. The two most important goals in the design of a race car chassis are that it be lightweight and rigid.
 Lightweight is important to get the greatest acceleration for a given engine power.
 Rigidity is important to maintain precise control over the suspension geometry. To keep all four of the
wheels firmly in contact with the ground.
 Unfortunately, weight and rigidity are often in direct conflict. Finding the best compromise between
these two is known as the science of race car engineering.
2. Be structurally sound in every way over the expected life of the car and beyond. This means that nothing will
ever break under normal conditions.
3. Protect the driver from external intrusion.
Spaceframe
A true space frame construction consists of steel or aluminium tubes placed in a triangulated format that are only in
tension or compression. That means that each load-bearing point must be supported in three dimensions. The
suspension, engine, and body panels are attached to a skeletal frame of tubes, and the body panels have little or no
structural function.
A drawback of the spaceframe chassis is that it encloses much of the working volume of the car and can make access
for both the driver and to the engine difficult.
Spaceframes, unlike the monocoque chassis used in modern Formula 1 or CART, are easily repaired and inspected
for damage.
Figure 1 Spaceframe

Page | 4
Monocoque
Monocoque is a one-piece structure which defines the overall shape of the car. Formula 1 has monocoque structure
this is because carbon-fibre monocoque racing cars have a superior rigidity-to-weight ratio and very high price.
Monocoque chassis also benefit crash protection. Because it uses a lot of metal, crumple zone can be built into the
structure.
Monocoque construction techniques that supports structural load by using an object's external skin as opposed to
using an internal frame. Carbon-fibre panels are made by laying up to 12 layers of carbon-fibre mats in either side of
an aluminium or Kevlar paper honeycomb inserts. It is then heated in the autoclave, a giant oven and under negative
pressure, after two and a half hours, the shell is hardened, but still the baking procedure is repeated twice more. Thus,
the monocoque’s are strong enough to protect the drivers even in the most serious of accidents as it provides superior
rigidity yet optimize weight.
Male mould was used to lay up the inner skin directly against the mould, so removing any variance in sandwich
thickness form the final suspension geometry. This resulted in the outer skin being laid up against the honeycomb and
not a mould face, hence the outer finish of these chassis were relatively poor which means these chassis needed a
bodywork over them. Whereas female moulds had a much neater finish which means these chassis did not need any
other bodywork over the chassis.
Figure 2 monocoque design
History
The range of chassis stiffness has varied greatly over the years.
Spaceframe
The first true spaceframe chassis were produced in the 1930s by designers such as Buckminster Fuller and William
Stout (the Dymaxion and the Stout Scarab) who understood the theory of the true spaceframe.
The first racing car to attempt a spaceframe was the Cisitalia D46 of 1946.
Figure 3 Cisitalia D46

Page | 5
In 1947 Porsche designed their Type 360 for Cisitalia. As this included diagonal tubes, it can be considered the first
true spaceframe.
Figure 4 Type 360 for Cisitalia
Monocoque
Monocoque, from Greek for single (mono) and French for shell (coque) (monoshell).
A common shape for 1960s racing cars of monocoque construction was the "cigar". The cylindrical shape helped
reduce Torsional rigidity.
The aluminium alloy monocoque chassis was first used in the 1962 Lotus 25 Formula 1 race car
Figure 5 Lotus 25
Carbon Fibre Monocoque made its debut in Formula 1 1981 with McLaren's MP4/1 Formula One racing car, designed
by John Barnard. McLaren was the first to use carbon-fibre-reinforced polymers to construct the monocoque of the
1981 McLaren MP4/1. In 1992 the McLaren F1 became the first production car with a carbon-fibre monocoque.
Figure 6 McLaren MP4/1

Page | 6
For the 1983 championship, ATS team D4 racer, under the technical direction of Gustav Brunner, made a female
moulded chassis taking advantage of the neater external surface of the moulded chassis, by also making the
monocoques outer skin the primary bodywork for the car and discarding separate bodywork for the large part of the
front of the car.
Figure 7 ATS team D4 racer
Finally moving into the 2000, complex chassis shapes broke the tub up into several sections.
Spaceframe
Design ideas
The following designs were some of the ideas that I came up when designing the space frame. These designs where
drawn in Solidworks.
1 Design 1 – This chassis is Nice and Light weight but this chassis would not be very useful if it got hit, there are
not enough bars to protect the driver. This chassis does not comply with FS rules. The total weight of this
frame is 29kg which is an average weight for a frame.
Figure 9 Frame design 1
Figure 8 complex monocoque mould

Page | 7
2 Design 2 – This chassis has a lot of triangulation which helps strengthen the frame, but this does not fully
comply with FS rules. The total weight of this frame is 45kg which is very heavy for the frame.
3 Design 3 – This chassis design is structurally sound because there is a lot of triangulation it has. This frame
does comply with FS rules. The total weight of this frame is 65kg which is extremely heavy for a frame.
4 Design 4 – This design complies with the FS rules. This chassis has also got some triangulation. The total
weight of this frame is 30kg which is a good weight for a spaceframe for a FS car

Page | 8
Chosen ideas
The reasons for choosing design;
1 Structural Integrity – Meaning that the frame is sturdy and can withstand a reasonable impact so that the
driver will be safe if hit from the side or if the car rolls.
2 Weight – An important factor is the weight of the car as more weight means that the car will accelerate slower
and the top speed will be slower compared to a car with the same engine that is lighter.
3 Ergonomics & Aerodynamics – This is a factor as the car needs to be comfortable to drive. The more strip line
the Car the less drag is created and the faster the car will accelerate, not to mention that the appearance of
the car is part of the judging (marking scheme).
4 Compliance with FS rules.
5 Triangulation – The more triangulation in a frame the stronger the frame will be which may mean less struts
are needed in the frame which will reduce the weight.
6 Engine mounting position - There needs to be room for engine to fit in the rear of the chassis.
7 Templates – All three of the templates need to be able to fit into the chassis.
8 Suspension geometry – The cassis must be able to fit in the give dimensions so that the suspension will fit on
the chassis.
Graded from 1 to 4, 1 being the best meaning the lowest total is best.
Design 3 Design 4 Design 1 Design 2
Structural Integrity 1 2 4 3
Weight 4 2 1 3
Ergonomics 1 2 4 3
Compliance with FS rules 2 1 4 3
Engine mounting 2 1 3 4
Templates 1 2 3 4
Suspension geometry 3 1 2 4
Triangulation 1 2 4 3
Total 15 13 25 27
Table 1 Design criteria grading
The Chosen Design is Design 4.

Page | 9
Templates
As part of the criteria of the frame there are three templates that must fit within the frame in order for the frame to be
considered fit to drive. One of the templates is to fit in the cockpit another in the foot well and the final is to show that a
95th percentile male with helmet fit into the frame with the correct safety room.
The Cockpit template as shown below in Fig. (14) must fit in the cockpit within 300mm of the ground in order to pass
this criteria. The foot well template as shown in Fig. (15) must fit in the foot well within 300mm of the front bulkhead in
order to pass this criteria.
Figure 14 Cockpit Template Figure 15 Foot well template
The final template is the template known as Percy which is a template of a 95th percentile male with helmet fit this is
Fig. (16). This template must be able to fit into the frame and leave the correct amount of space between the top of the
main roll hoop and the top of the helmet with respect to both the front roll hoop and the rear bracing of the main roll
hoop as seen in Fig. (17) and Fig. (18).
Figure 16 Percy

Page | 10
Figure 17 Helmet clearance between main roll hoop and front roll hoop.
Figure 18 Helmet clearance between main roll hoop and rear bracing
Triangulation
Triangles are one of the strongest shapes known to man. It is not surprising then that 'triangulation' is used in building
spaceframes. Triangulation basically means breaking a structure into smaller triangles and putting them together in
such a way as to make the desired shape. It can be seen in Fig. (19) and Fig. (20) that a structure that has
triangulation is much stronger than a structure that does not. When a force is applied to the Fig. (19) it begins to
buckle whereas when a force is applied to Fig. (20) it can withstand the force.
Figure 19 untriangulated box Figure 20 triangulated box

Page | 11
Engine Mount Design
The chosen design can be seen in Fig. (21) and Fig. (22) as it can be seen the engine sits perfectly in the space
provided for it. Fig. (21) shows the engine mounts with the engine in place whereas Fig. (22) shows the engine
mounts without the engine in.
Figure 21 Engine mounts with the engine Figure 22 Engine mounts
Suspension
The chosen design can be seen in Fig. (23) and Fig. (24) as it can be seen the suspension sits perfectly in the space
provided for it. Fig. (23) shows the frame with the suspension in place in the rear of the frame whereas Fig. (24) shows
the suspension in the front of the frame.
Figure 24 Frame suspension mounts in the front
Figure 23 Frame suspension mounts in the rear

Page | 12
FEA analysis
Table 3 FEA Solidworks
Model Reference Properties Components
NAME: Plain Carbon Steel
MODEL TYPE: Linear Elastic Isotropic
DEFAULT FAILURE
CRITERION:
Max von Mises Stress
YIELD STRENGTH: 2.20594e+008 N/m^2
TENSILE STRENGTH: 3.99826e+008 N/m^2
ELASTIC MODULUS: 2.1e+011 N/m^2
POISSON'S RATIO: 0.28
MASS DENSITY: 7800 kg/m^3
SHEAR
MODULUS:
7.9e+010 N/m^2
THERMAL EXPANSION
COEFFICIENT:
1.3e-005 /Kelvin
Frame(Pipe 24.5 X 2.5)
Study Properties
Study name FEA on Frame
Analysis type Static
Mesh type Mixed Mesh
Thermal Effect On
Thermal option Include temperature loads
Zero strain temperature 298 Kelvin
Include fluid pressure effects from Flow Simulation Off
Solver type Direct sparse solver
Inplane Effect: Off
Soft Spring: Off
Inertial Relief: Off
Incompatible bonding options Automatic
Large displacement Off
Compute free body forces On
Friction Off
Use Adaptive Method: Off
Table 2 Critical information on FEA of frame

Page | 13
Main Roll Hoop
This test is applying a force on the main roll hoop of the chassis.
Reaction Forces
Selection set Units Sum X Sum Y Sum Z Resultant
Entire Model N -6000 9000 5000 11916.4
Name Type Min Max
Displacement URES: Resultant Displacement 0 mm Node: 20315 4.15904 mm Node: 20525
Figure 25 Frame – Displacement - Main Roll Hoop
As it can be seen from the Fig. (25) the deflection does not pass the maximum allowable deflection of 25mm the
maximum deflection that occurs when a force: Fx = 6.0 kN, Fy=5.0 kN, Fz=-9.0 kN is applied is 4.15904 mm. This
means that the frame has passed this parameter.
Front Roll Hoop
Reaction Forces
Entire Model N -5999.99 9000 5000 11916.4
Name Type Min Max
Figure 26 Frame - Displacement - Front Roll Hoop

Page | 14
maximum deflection that occurs when a force: Fx = 6.0 kN, Fy=5.0 kN, Fz=-9.0 kN is applied is 5.22231 mm. Which
again means that the frame has passed this parameter.
Side Impact
Reaction Forces
Entire Model N 0 0 7000 7000
Name Type Min Max
Figure 27 Frame - Displacement - Side impact
As it can be seen from the Fig. (27) the deflection in the frame does not pass the maximum allowable deflection of
25mm the maximum deflection that occurs when a force: Fx = 0 kN, Fy=7 kN, Fz=0 kN is applied is 18.9678 mm.
Which again means that the frame has passed this parameter.
Front Bulk Head
Reaction Forces
Entire Model N -96026.4 0.170654 -0.050293 96026.4
Name Type Min Max
Figure 28 Frame - Displacement – Front Bulkhead

Page | 15
maximum deflection that occurs when a force: Fx = 120 kN, Fy=0 kN, Fz 0 kN is applied is 5.91989 mm. This means
that the frame has passed this parameter.
Conclusion
It should be noted that all A4 and A3 orthographic drawings are at the end of the report, for this section the drawing
include are;
1. The frame with the templates that are required to fit in the frame as part of the FS rules.
2. The frame with the templates of a person known as Percy that is required to fit in the frame as part of the FS rules.
3. The frame with the suspension and engine mounted.
4. An A3 drawing of the frame with the cut list.
5. An A3 fully dimensioned orthographic drawing of frame.
To conclude the space frame that has been designed is very strong, durable and of a reasonable weight. The chassis
has also the criteria set by the rules in terms of the FEA analysis. One major advantages of this frame is that this
chassis would be fairly easy to repair any problem caused by small crashes or if any small adjustment need to be
make on the day of the competition.
Bodywork
Design ideas
The following designs were some of the ideas that I came up when designing the space frame. These designs where
hand drawn.
1 Design 1 – This design is very light and simple however because of the simplicity the bodywork is not very
aerodynamic. The design would be easy to remove in different parts.
Figure 29 Bodywork design 1
2 Design 2 – This design is very aerodynamic but quite large. the size of the bodywork means that it does not fit
into the requirement in the FS rules.

Page | 16
3 Design 3 - This design is very streamline which will help reduce air resistance as the car is moving. The
bodywork also complies with all the FS rule.
4 Design 4 –Another simple Design.
Chosen ideas
1 Ease of Manufacture – How easily it is to manufacture the shell.
2 Ease of Assembly – How easily the shell can be removed and put back onto the frame.
3 Ergonomics & Aerodynamics – This is a factor as the car needs to be comfortable to drive. The more
streamline the car the less drag is created and the faster the car will accelerate, not to mention that the
appearance of the car is part of the judging (marking scheme).
5 Engine mounting position- Needs to be room for engine.
6 Suspension geometry – Able to fix give dimensions

Page | 17
Ease of Manufacture 1 3 4 2
Ease of Assembly 4 3 1 2
Ergonomics 4 2 1 2
Compliance with FS Rules 2 3 1 4
Engine Mounting 4 3 2 1
Suspension Geometry 2 4 1 3
Total 17 18 10 14
Table 4 Design Criteria
The chosen design is design number 3.
Body panels and assembly methods
Fig. (34) shows how the front of the car is split into two separate panels. The black line shows this. Fig. (35) shows
how the different body panels where held together, using Dzus clips
Figure 34 how body panels are Split Figure 35 Dzus Clip

Page | 18
Attenuator size
The attenuator must be directly before the bulkhead. There is a minimum size that the attenuator must be 200mm
long, 100mm high and 200mm wide. Fig. (36) shows how the minimum attenuator looks.
Figure 36 Minimum Attenuator Size
Wheel clearance
As this competition is open wheel the vehicle must pass the open wheel criteria. The criteria is a following:
1. “The top 180 degrees of the wheels/tires must be unobstructed when viewed from vertically above the wheel.
2. The wheels/tires must be unobstructed when viewed from the side.
3. No part of the vehicle may enter a keep-out-zone defined by two lines extending vertically from positions 75mm in
front of and 75mm behind, the outer diameter of the front and rear tires in the side view elevation of the vehicle, with
tires steered straight ahead. This keep out zone will extend laterally from the outside plane of the wheel/tire to the
inboard plane of the wheel/tire.
4. Must also comply with the dimensions/requirements of Article 9 Aerodynamic devices” [ 2015 Formula SAE® Rules]
The rules for open wheel basically means from the Fig. (37) below no part of the bodywork is allowed in the green
sections
Figure 37 Open wheel
manufacturing processes
the manufacturing process that would be best for the shell would be vacuum forming. Vacuum forming is
accomplished through heating Acrylic or Polyethylene to a specific temperature that allows it to conform to the shape
you require. Forming your plastics around a mould will give you the perfect fit every time. Vacuum forming would be
the ideal manufacturing process this is because once the mould is made and the machine is bought it is very easy to
make multiple shells in case there are any crashes that result in damaged bodywork. The use of vacuum forming
would reduce the weight as the thickness of the bodywork is very thin and lightweight. Fig. (38) shows how the
vacuum forming process is accomplished.

Page | 19
Figure 38 Vacuum Forming
FEA Analysis
External Flow Analyses
Below is a side view and front view to show the pressure points in the external flow analyses. As it can be seen the
pressure is very similar around the whole shell.
Figure 39 Flow Analyses - Front View

Page | 20
Figure 40 Flow Analyses - Side View
Surface pressure plot
Figure 41 Surface Pressure Plot
As it can be seen in the Fig. (41) most of the surface of the shell is the same colour meaning it is at the same pressure
but there are a few different colored patches the darker blue meaning it is under a lower pressure concentration in
those places where as the green patches are under a higher-pressure concentration.

Page | 21
Pressure flow Trajectories
Figure 42 Pressure Flow Trajectories
As it can be seen from the Fig. (42) the pressure flow around the shell is uniform with small areas under a higher-
pressure concentration.
Velocity flow Trajectories
Figure 43 Velocity Flow Trajectories
As it can be seen from the Fig. (43) the velocity flow around the shell is uniform with areas under a high velocity
concentration and other areas under a lower velocity concentration.

Page | 22
Flow Simulation
Below is a summary of the values recorded while doing the flow simulation
Analysis interval: 21 Iterations [ ]: 63
In Fig. (44) is a graph that is plotting the lift created as the iterations increased. As it can be seen the lift does not go
below -0.4 or above +0.4 which shows the lift is resonalbly small. Also in Fig. (45) is a graph that is plotting the drag
created as the iterations increased. As it can be seen the drag starts quite high but as the iterations increase the drag
decreases.
Goal
Name
Unit Value Averaged
Value
Minimum
Value
Maximum
Value
Progress
[%]
Use in
Convergence
Delta Criteria
Drag mile/h -51.340 -51.438 -51.675 -51.340 100 Yes 0.335 0.372
Lift mile/h 0.375 0.364 0.356 0.375 100 Yes 0.018 0.106
Table 2 Flow Simulation Table
Figure 44 The Lift that is caused as the velocity
Figure 45 The Lift that is caused as the velocity

Page | 23
Conclusion
include are;
1. The bodywork with the clips and showing how body panels go together.
2. An A3 fully dimensioned orthographic drawing of the bodywork showing compliance with FS rules.
To conclude the Bodywork that has been designed is very streamline, creates a reasonable amount of drag and lift.
The bodywork has also met all the criteria set. One major advantages of this bodywork is that the engine is covered
which helps with the aerodynamics of the vehicle. The appearance of the vehicle also looks well which will help for
judging as it is one important aspect looked at.
Monocoque
Design ideas
The following designs were some of the ideas that I came up when designing the monocoque. The thickness of the
design is not taken into account when choosing the design. These designs where drawn in Solidworks.
1 Design 1 – This design is very simply. There I a lot of space that could be saved if the chassis was adjusted.
Figure 46 Monocoque design 1
2 Design 2 – This design is quite large and does not meet all design criteria.

Page | 24
3 Design 3 – Very small design.
4 Design 4 – Simple design that meets all design criteria.
Chosen ideas
1 Structural Integrity – Meaning that the monocoque is sturdy and can withstand a reasonable impact so that
the driver will be safe if hit from the side or if the car rolls, must also be able to stand up against the frame.
2 Ergonomics & Aerodynamics – This is a factor as the car needs to be comfortable to drive. The more strip line
the Car the less drag is created and the faster the car will accelerate, not to mention that the appearance of
the car is part of the judging (marking scheme).
4 Engine mounting position - There needs to be room for engine to fit in the rear of the chassis.
5 Templates – All three of the templates need to be able to fit into the chassis.

Page | 25
6 Suspension geometry – The cassis must be able to fit in the give dimensions so that the suspension will fit on
the chassis.
Structural Integrity 4 2 3 1
Ergonomics 4 3 2 1
Compliance with FS rules 2 4 1 3
Engine mounting 1 3 4 2
templates 4 2 3 1
Suspension geometry 2 4 3 1
Total 17 18 16 9
Table 3 Design Criteria
The Chosen Design is Design 4.
Figure 50 Monocoque Design 4
Templates
As with the spaceframe a part of the criteria of the monocoque the same three templates that must fit within the
chassis in order for the monocoque to be considered fit to drive.

Page | 26
Connecting monocoque to the main and front roll hoops
In Fig. (51) is the inserts used to connect the monocoque to the rear frame and any other attachments need such as
suspension as it cannot be welded onto the monocoque.
Figure 51 Inserts
Fig. (52), Fig. (53) shows how and where the inserts are used to connect the monocoque to the rear frame.
Figure 52 Rear frame connecting to monocoque rear view
Figure 53 Rear frame connecting to monocoque

Page | 27
Fig. (54) shows how and where the inserts are used to connect the monocoque to the front roll hope.
Figure 54 Monocoque connecting to front roll hoop
Engine Mount Design
The chosen design can be seen in Fig. (55) and Fig. (56) as it can be seen the engine sits perfectly in the space
provided for it. Fig. (55) shows the engine mounts with the engine in place whereas Fig. (56) shows the engine
mounts without the engine in.
Figure 55 engine mounts with the engine in place Figure 56 engine mounts

Page | 28
Suspension
The chosen design can be seen in Fig. (57) and Fig. (58) as it can be seen the suspension sits perfectly in the space
provided for it. Fig. (57) shows the frame with the suspension in place in the rear of the monocoque whereas Fig. (58)
shows the suspension in the front of the monocoque.
Figure 57 suspension in place in the rear Figure 58 suspension in place in the front
Tests on monocoque
Some of the test that should be conducted on the honeycomb to ensure that the monocoques is safe in the case of a
crash; Joint tests, fold tests, insert tests
Structural integrity Calculation
B= inner skin – 0.1mm
D= Outer skin – 0.1mm
C= Honeycomb core – 15.8mm
A= overall thickness – 16mm
A=B+C+D
D
Figure 59 Honeycomb Structure

Page | 29
Front bulkhead-pipes
OD = Outer Diameter = 25mm, ID = Inner Diameter = 21.5 Youngs Modulas for Steel E = 200000
N
mm2
Moment of Inerita of 1 tube Itube =
π
64(OD4 − ID4)
=
π
64(254 − 21.54)
= 8686mm4
for Itube
Structural integrity of 6 tubes = 6EItube = 6×200 000×8686 = 10.423×109
Nmm2
Front bulkhead-panels
Youngs Modulas for Aluminium E = 70300
N
mm2
Moment of Inerita I =
[(h + b)(A3
− (A − (B + D))
3
]
12
=
[(
409.98 + 409.99
4
)(163
− (0.1 + 0.1))
3
]
12
= 69962.9567mm4
Flexural rigidity of whole bulkhead = 4EI = 4×70300×69962.9567 = 19.67×109
Nmm2
Side Impact-pipes
OD = Outer Diameter = 25mm, ID = Inner Diameter = 21.5 Youngs Modulas for Steel E = 200000
N
mm2
Moment of Inerita of 1 tube Itube =
π
64(OD4 − ID4)
=
π
64(254 − 21.54)
= 8686mm4
for Itube
Structural integrity of 6 tubes = 3EItube = 3×200 000×8686 = 5.2116×109
Nmm2
Side Impact-panels
Youngs Modulas for Aluminium E = 70300
N
mm2
Moment of Inerita I =
[(h)(A3
− (A − (B + D))
3
]
12
=
[(333.45)(163
− (0.1 + 0.1))
3
]
12
= 113817.38mm4
Flexural rigidity of whole bulkhead = 4EI = 4×70300×113817.38 = 32×109
Nmm2
Conclusion
include are;
1. The Monocoque with the templates that are required to fit in the chassis as part of the FS rules.
2. The Monocoque with the templates of a person known as Percy that is required to fit in the chassis as part of the
FS rules.
3. The Monocoque with the suspension and engine mounted.
4. An A3 fully dimensioned orthographic drawing of monocoque.
To conclude the monocoque that has been designed is very strong, durable and of a reasonable weight. The chassis
has also the criteria set by the rules in terms of the FEA analysis.

Page | 30
Comparing spaceframe vs monocoque
Front bulkhead-pipes vs panels
Structural integrity of pipes = 10.423×109
Nmm2
Structural integrity of panels = 19.67×109
Nmm2
As it can be seen from the results above a monocoque is almost twice as stronger s the spaceframe. Therefore, the
monocoque is a better choice.
Side Impact-pipes vs panels
Structural integrity of pipes = 5.2116×109
Nmm2
Structural integrity of panels = 32×109
Nmm2
As it can be seen from the results above a monocoque is over 100 times as stronger than a spaceframe. Therefore,
the monocoque is a better choice.
The monocoque is a stronger option. It is quite expensive to make a monocoque in terms of time and money. The
spaceframe however is cheaper easier to make and will take less time to make and as said before the spaceframe is
a lot easier to repair.
Structural Integrity
Main Roll Hoop – Pipes
Table 4 Main Roll Hoop – Pipes
Material Property Baseline Your Tube
Material type Steel Steel
Tube shape Round Round
Material name /grade Steel Steel
Youngs Modulus, E 2.00E+11 2.00E+11
Yield strength, Pa 3.05E+08 3.05E+08
UTS, Pa 3.65E+08 3.65E+08
Yield strength, welded, Pa 1.80E+08 1.80E+08
UTS welded, Pa 3.00E+08 3.00E+08
Tube OD, mm 25 25
Wall, mm 2.5 2.5
Baseline Your Tube
OD, m 0.025 0.025
Wall, m 0.0025 0.0025
I, m^4 1.1322E-08 1.13222E-08
EI 2.26E+03 2.26E+03 100.0
Area, mm^2 176.7 176.7 100.0
Yield tensile strength, N 5.39E+04 5.39E+04 100.0
UTS, N 6.45E+04 6.45E+04 100.0
Yield tensile strength, N as welded 3.18E+04 3.18E+04 100.0
UTS, N as welded 5.30E+04 5.30E+04 100.0
Max load at mid span to give UTS for 1m long tube, N 1.32E+03 1.32E+03 100.0
Max deflection at baseline load for 1m long tube, m 1.22E-02 1.22E-02 100.0
Energy absorbed up to UTS, J 8.04E+00 8.04E+00 100.0

Page | 31
Front Roll Hoop - Pipes
Table 5 Front Roll Hoop - Pipes
Main Roll Hoop Bracing - Pipes
UTS, Pa 3.65E+08 3.65E+08
Tube OD, mm 25 25
Wall, mm 1.75 2
Baseline Your Tube
OD, m 0.025 0.025
Wall, m 0.00175 0.002
I, m^4 8.69E-09 9.63E-09
EI 1.74E+03 1.93E+03 110.8
Area, mm^2 127.8 144.5 113.1
UTS, N 4.67E+04 5.27E+04 113.1
UTS, N as welded 3.83E+04 4.34E+04 113.1
Table 6 Main Roll Hoop Bracing - Pipes
UTS, Pa 3.65E+08 3.65E+08
Tube OD, mm 25 25
Wall, mm 2.5 2.5
Baseline Your Tube
OD, m 0.025 0.025
Wall, m 0.0025 0.0025
I, m^4 1.1322E-08 1.13222E-08
EI 2.26E+03 2.26E+03 100.0
Area, mm^2 176.7 176.7 100.0
UTS, N 6.45E+04 6.45E+04 100.0
UTS, N as welded 5.30E+04 5.30E+04 100.0

Page | 32
Front Bulkhead - Monocoques
Table 7 Front Bulkhead - Monocoque
Front Bulkhead Support - Monocoques
Table 8 Front Bulkhead Support - Monocoque
Material Property Baseline Your Tube Your Composite Your Total Monocoque Bulkhead Dimensions BH FBHS
Material type Steel Steel Composite 1 b (m) 0.05499 0.0001 b3 (m)
Tubing Type Round Round NA h1 (m) 0.0001 0.0001 b4 (m)
Material name /grade Steel Steel T3.31_Laminate h2 (m) 0.0001 0.0254 h (m)
Youngs Modulus, E 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 #REF! A1 (m^2) 5.50E-06 I1 (m^4) 4.58E-15
Yield strength, Pa 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 #REF! A2 (m^2) 5.50E-06 I2 (m^4) 4.58E-15
UTS, Pa 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 #REF! A3 (m^2) 2.54E-06 I3 (m^4) 1.37E-10
Yield strength, welded, Pa 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 N/A Cutout Width A4 (m^2) 2.54E-06 I4 (m^4) 1.37E-10
UTS welded, Pa 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 N/A x1 (m) 0.00005 Ic1 (m^4) 1.15E-09
UTS shear, Pa 2.19E+08 #REF! x2 (m) 0.01595 Ic2 (m^4) 1.09E-11
Number of tubes 2 4 x3 (m) 0.0287 Ic3 (m^4) 6.46E-10
Tube OD, mm 25.4 25 Bulkhead Width, mm x4 (m) 0.0287 Ic4 (m^4) 6.46E-10
Wall, mm 1.6 2 Bulkhead Height, mm Centroid (m) 0.0145
Cutout Width, mm Ic12 (m^4) 1.17E-09
Thickness of panel, mm 16 Cutout Height, mm Ic34 (m^4) 1.29E-09
Thickness of core, mm 15.8 E34 #REF!
Thickness of inner skin, mm 0.1
Thickness of outer skin, mm 0.1
Panel height,mm 109.98
OD, m 0.0254 0.025
Wall, m 0.0016 0.002
I, m^4 8.51E-09 9.63E-09 Tubing Only 9.63E-09
EI 3.40E+03 7.70E+03 7.70E+03 226.3
Area, mm^2 239.3 578.1 578.1 241.6
Yield tensile strength, N 7.30E+04 1.76E+05 1.76E+05 241.6
UTS, N 8.73E+04 2.11E+05 2.11E+05 241.6
Yield tensile strength, N as welded 4.31E+04 1.04E+05 1.04E+05 241.6
UTS, N as welded 7.18E+04 1.73E+05 1.73E+05 241.6
Max load at mid span to give UTS for 1m long tube, N 1.96E+03 4.50E+03 4.50E+03 229.9
Max deflection at baseline load for 1m long tube, m 1.20E-02 5.29E-03 5.29E-03 44.2
Energy absorbed up to UTS, J 1.17E+01 2.74E+01 2.74E+01 233.6
Perimeter shear, N (monocoques only) 5.39E+05 N/A N/A NA
Enter construction type Tubing only
CutoutHeight
Bulkhead Width
BulkheadHeight
409.99
300
300
409.98
Material Property Baseline
Your Tube
type 1
Your Tube
type 2
Your Tube
type 3
Your Tubes
Total
Your
Composite Your Total Outer Inner
Material type Steel Steel Steel Steel Composite 1 b (m) 0.3 0.3
Tubing Type Round Round Round Round NA h (m) 0.0001 0.0001
Material name /grade Steel Steel Steel Steel T3.31_Laminate
Youngs Modulus, E 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 #REF! A1 (m^2) 3.00E-05 I1 (m^4) 2.50E-14
Yield strength, Pa 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 #REF! A2 (m^2) 3.00E-05 I2 (m^4) 2.50E-14
UTS, Pa 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 #REF! x1 (m) 0.00005 Ic1 (m^4) 1.90E-09
Yield strength, welded, Pa 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 N/A x2 (m) 0.01595 Ic2 (m^4) 1.90E-09
UTS welded, Pa 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 N/A Centroid (m) 0.0080 Ic12 (m^4) 3.79E-09
Number of tubes 3 4 0 0
Tube OD, mm 25.4 24 25.4 25.4
Wall, mm 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.2
Baseline design? NO
Thickness of panel, mm NO N/A N/A 16
Thickness of core, mm 15.8
Panel height,mm 300
OD, m 0.0254 0.024 No tubes No tubes
Wall, m 0.0012 0.0015
I, m^4 6.70E-09 6.74E-09 6.74E-09 Tubing Only 6.74E-09
EI 4.02E+03 5.39E+03 5.39E+03 5.39E+03 134.2
Area, mm^2 273.7 424.1 424.1 424.1 155.0
Yield tensile strength, N 8.35E+04 1.29E+05 1.29E+05 1.29E+05 155.0
UTS, N 9.99E+04 1.55E+05 1.55E+05 1.55E+05 155.0
Yield tensile strength, N as welded 4.93E+04 7.63E+04 7.63E+04 7.63E+04 155.0
UTS, N as welded 8.21E+04 1.27E+05 1.27E+05 1.27E+05 155.0
Max load at mid span to give UTS for 1m long tube, N 2.31E+03 3.28E+03 3.28E+03 3.28E+03 142.0
Max deflection at baseline load for 1m long tube, m 1.20E-02 8.92E-03 8.92E-03 8.92E-03 74.5
Energy absorbed up to UTS, J 1.38E+01 2.08E+01 2.08E+01 2.08E+01 150.3

Page | 33
Side Impact Structure - Monocoques
Table 9 Side Impact Structure - Monocoque
Main Hoop Bracing Support – Monocoques
Table 10 Main Hoop Bracing Support – Monocoque
Material Property Baseline
Your Tube
type 1
Your Tube
type 2
Your Tube
type 3
Your Tubes
Total
Composite Side
(Vertical)
Composite Floor
(Horizontal) Your Total Side Outer Inner
Material type Steel Steel Steel Steel Composite 1 Composite 1 b (m) 0.3 0.3
Tubing Type Round Round Square Round NA NA h (m) 0.0001 0.0001
Material name /grade Steel Steel Steel Steel T3.31_Laminate T3.31_Laminate
Youngs Modulus, E 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 #REF! #REF! A1 (m^2) 3.00E-05 I1 (m^4) 2.50E-14
Yield strength, Pa 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 #REF! #REF! A2 (m^2) 3.00E-05 I2 (m^4) 2.50E-14
UTS, Pa 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 #REF! #REF! x1 (m) 0.00005 Ic1 (m^4) 1.94E-09
Yield strength, welded, Pa 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 N/A N/A x2 (m) 0.01615 Ic2 (m^4) 1.94E-09
UTS welded, Pa 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 N/A N/A Centroid (m) 0.0081 Ic12 (m^4) 3.89E-09
Number of tubes 3 4 0 0 Floor Outer Inner
Tube OD, mm 25.4 25 25.4 25.4 b (m) 0.0001 0.0001
Wall, mm 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 h (m) 0.2 0.2
Baseline design? YES
Thickness of panel, mm YES N/A N/A 16.2 16.2 A1 (m^2) 2.00E-05 I1 (m^4) 1.67E-14
Thickness of core, mm 16 16 A2 (m^2) 2.00E-05 I2 (m^4) 1.67E-14
Thickness of inner skin, mm 0.1 0.1 y1 (m) 0.00005 Ic1 (m^4) 1.30E-09
Thickness of outer skin, mm 0.1 0.1 y2 (m) 0.01615 Ic2 (m^4) 1.30E-09
Panel height (Vertical Side)/width (Horiz. Floor),mm 300 200 Centroid (m) 0.0081 Ic12 (m^4) 2.59E-09
OD, m 0.0254 0.025 No tubes No tubes
Wall, m 0.0016 0.0018
I, m^4 8.51E-09 8.88E-09 8.88E-09 Tubing Only Tubing Only 8.88E-09
EI 5.11E+03 7.10E+03 7.10E+03 7.10E+03 139.1
Area, mm^2 358.9 524.8 524.8 5.25E+02 146.2
Yield tensile strength, N 1.09E+05 1.60E+05 1.60E+05 1.60E+05 146.2
UTS, N 1.31E+05 1.92E+05 1.92E+05 1.92E+05 146.2
Yield tensile strength, N as welded 6.46E+04 9.45E+04 9.45E+04 9.45E+04 146.2
UTS, N as welded 1.08E+05 1.57E+05 1.57E+05 1.57E+05 146.2
Max load at mid span to give UTS for 1m long tube, N 2.93E+03 4.15E+03 4.15E+03 4.15E+03 141.4
Energy absorbed up to UTS, J 1.76E+01 2.52E+01 2.52E+01 2.52E+01 143.6
Material Property Baseline Your Tube Your Composite Your Total Outer Inner
Material type Steel Steel Composite 1 b (m) 0.25 0.25
Tubing Type Round Round NA h (m) 0.0003 0.0005
Material name /grade Steel Steel T3.31_Laminate
Youngs Modulus, E 2.00E+11 2.00E+11 #REF! A1 (m^2) 7.50E-05 I1 (m^4) 5.63E-13
Yield strength, Pa 3.05E+08 3.05E+08 #REF! A2 (m^2) 1.25E-04 I2 (m^4) 2.60E-12
UTS, Pa 3.65E+08 3.65E+08 #REF! x1 (m) 0.00015 Ic1 (m^4) 6.95E-09
Yield strength, welded, Pa 1.80E+08 1.80E+08 N/A x2 (m) 0.01555 Ic2 (m^4) 4.17E-09
UTS welded, Pa 3.00E+08 3.00E+08 N/A Centroid (m) 0.0098 Ic12 (m^4) 1.11E-08
Number of tubes 2 2
Tube OD, mm 25.4 25
Wall, mm 1.20 1.5
Thickness of panel, mm 15.8
Thickness of core, mm 15
Panel height,mm 250
OD, m 0.0254 0.025
Wall, m 0.0012 0.0015
I, m^4 6.70E-09 7.68E-09 Tubing Only 7.68E-09
EI 2.68E+03 3.07E+03 3.07E+03 114.6
Area, mm^2 182.5 221.5 221.5 121.4
Yield tensile strength, N 5.57E+04 6.76E+04 6.76E+04 121.4
UTS, N 6.66E+04 8.08E+04 8.08E+04 121.4
Yield tensile strength, N as welded 3.28E+04 3.99E+04 3.99E+04 121.4
UTS, N as welded 5.47E+04 6.64E+04 6.64E+04 121.4
Max load at mid span to give UTS for 1m long tube, N 1.54E+03 1.79E+03 1.79E+03 116.5
Energy absorbed up to UTS, J 9.22E+00 1.09E+01 1.09E+01 118.3

Page | 34
Main Hoop Attachment - Monocoques
Table 11 Main Hoop Attachment - Monocoque
Front Hoop Attachment - Monocoques
Table 12 Front Hoop Attachment - Monocoque
Hoop Bracing Attach - Monocoques
No. of attachment points per side 2
Attachment 1 Attachment 2
Attachment Status
Fastener dia., mm 10 PASS 10 PASS
No. of fasteners 2 PASS 2 PASS
Bracket to hoop weld length, mm 80 PASS 80 PASS
Bracket thickness, mm 2 PASS 2 PASS
Bracket perimeter, mm 220 220
Skin thickness, mm 0 0
Insert Perimeter, mm 47 47
Backing plate thickness, mm 2 PASS 2 PASS
Backing plate perimeter, mm 0 0
Skin shear strength, MPa #REF! #REF!
Perimeter shear strength, kN #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!
#REF! #REF!
No. of attachment points per side 2
Front hoop material Steel
Side Impact or Frt B'Head S'port SIS
Attachment 1 Attachment 2
Attachment Status
Fastener dia., mm 10 PASS 10 PASS
Bracket to hoop weld length, mm 80 PASS 80 PASS
#REF! #REF!

Page | 35
Table 13 Hoop Bracing Attach - Monocoque
Conclusion
From the research done and the funds available for competing in a FS competition I believe that the monocoque is the
better choice. However, in order to take advantage of the serious advantage that monocoques there is a lot more
work, money and time needed to make it and the best monocoque are made of carbon-fibre and Kevlar whereas the
monocoques made in the formula student completion tend to be aluminium which is not as good, so the weight and
strength gained is significantly reduce. Even with this reduction it can be concluded that a monocoque chassis is still
the better option.
Front Hoop Brace to Monocoque? NO
Front Hoop Brace Material? Steel
Main Hoop Brace to Monocoque? NO
Side Impact or Frt B'Head S'port SIS
Front Hoop Main Hoop
Attachment Status
Fastener dia., mm 10.0 PASS 10.0 PASS
Bracket to brace weld length, mm 80 PASS 80 PASS
N/A N/A

Page | 36
Bibliography
[Monocoque] http://www.whyhighend.com/monocoque-vs-ladder-chassis.html
[carbon fiber] http://www.pitt.edu/~awd16/ConferencePaper.pdf
[Spaceframe] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-unibody-monocoque-and-space-frame-in-cars
[SFsMono] https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-a-space-frame-and-body-on-frame-car-designs
[Evolution] http://www.f1scarlet.com/evolution_f1car.html
[History] http://www.mclaren.com/formula1/heritage/cars/
[F1] http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/g4457/photos-evolution-of-f1-cars/?
[vacuum Forming] http://www.technologystudent.com/equip1/vacform1.htm
[2015 Formula SAE® Rules] 2015 Formula SAE® Rules part 2 ARTICLE 2: GENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
T2.1 Vehicle Configuration Page 24

A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
Jessica
DWG NO.
SCALE:1:50 SHEET 1 OF 1
A4
Frame with TemplatesSOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

R150
R100
R100
816.13
292.26
31.88
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
Q.A
TITLE:
DWG NO.
A4
Frame
Percy Template
SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
Jessica
DWG NO.
A3Frame And
AttachmentsSOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

217.11 200 695.06 243.39
1395.06
254.34 153.68
184.09 487.21 700
515.26
255.57
209.27
670.78
280.46
271.30
436.40
238.19
246.61
650
365.63
407.33
351.12
353.16
397.39
681.42
355.05
142.82°
239.41°
247.65°
131.46°
274.36578.15
657.14
R88.35
R160.65
0
512.30
251.18
251.18
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
Jessica
DWG NO.
A3
Frame2.0SOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

12 32 23 24 31 6 30 64 28 9 8 29 74 81 ? 82 53 65 56 51
54
52
80
79
75
76
78
77
60
11
10
50
59
66
?
7
45
57
16
11749313385846721544626719477321486114
22
20
18
37
36
34
70
39
5
43
68
69
42
41
4
33
26
2
25
ITEM
NO. QTY. DESCRIPTION LENGTH
1 2 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 126.65
2 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 235.62
3 3 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 273.82
4 6 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 93.68
5 4 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 268.82
6 2 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 312.3
7 2 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 512.3
8 2 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 667.58
9 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 167.55
10 2 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 90.65
11 2 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 316.8
12 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 200
13 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 512.66
14 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 266.55
15 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 376.51
16 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 513.62
17 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 382.5
18 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 197.89
19 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 353.16
20 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 21.06
21 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 236.74
22 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 237.8
23 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 360.56
24 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 215.41
25 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 519.36
26 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 315.45
27 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 262.28
28 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 233.66
29 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 796.33
30 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 261.41
31 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 180.28
32 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 179.07
33 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 576.97
34 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 240.2
35 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 113.09
36 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 162.63
37 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 704.57
38 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 521.58
39 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 259.47
40 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 699.31
41 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 715.95
42 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 715.95
43 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 699.31
44 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 525.78
45 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 521.97
46 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 221.83
47 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 162.54
48 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 704.92
49 1 PIPE 21.30 X 2.3 577.06
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
Jessica
DWG NO.
A3
Frame CutlistSOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
Jessica
DWG NO.
A3
Frame AssemblySOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

699.21397.98 200 499.95
141.55
143.42
200.78
272.43
R10.65
774.07
699.55
447.05
271.30
246.61
392.42
237.25
509.05
700.16
543.03
200
529
356.23
807.63
R90.65
135°
663.56
665.50
135°
260
260
60
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
Jessica
DWG NO.
A3
MonocoqueSOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

936.22 969.51
968.11 1131.18
604.01
A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
TITLE:
A3
WEIGHT:
Full FrameSOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
DWG NO.
A4
Jessica
Monocoque with TeplatesSOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
DWG NO.
A4
Jessica
Monocoque with PercySOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

A A
B B
C C
D D
E E
F F
8
8
7
7
6
6
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
Jessica
DWG NO.
A3
Monocoque AssemblySOLIDWORKS Educational Product. For Instructional Use Only

3rd Year Formula Student Frame Project Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 3rd Year Formula Student Frame Project Report

Similar to 3rd Year Formula Student Frame Project Report (20)

3rd Year Formula Student Frame Project Report