Formula 1000 build from Australia

This is something we've been working on for the past 6 weeks. It is far from complete at the moment and is at least 6 months away from getting started on something tangible. We are using it as a design exercise internally and to showcase our design and manufacturing capabilities. We are a small Australian business that has been in operation for only a short amount of time. We are called Motorsport Design Services, or MDS for short. This is out MDS F1000.

We have a blog going about it but I'll update on here as much as possible.

My theory in designing the car was to have a platform that would allow for a healthy amount of aerodynamic development work as well as having a chassis that produced good mechanical grip, so good kinematics and geometry, good chassis stiffness and lots of bodywork area for efficient downforce production.

Although I had been involved with Formula Ford for a number of years I had never raced or run a wings and slicks car before so I started by looking and studying exisiting Formula 1000 vehicles, as well as other junior categories like F3, GP3 etc. I started to rough out a design on paper, and then doing some basic modelling using Solidworks. From here I put some estimated pickup points for a high and low nose to see if there would be any major drawbacks to running a high nose and to my surprise this was a lot less of a compromise than I thought it would be. All the basics signs were there allowing a high nose setup without any major issues.

So that set me off down the path which we've taken. The car took shape in a rough form quite quickly (under 2 weeks) but it was then when the detail work started that progress appeared to slow (well it didn't slow, but design decisions were taking longer as there are so many elements to think about when design any component).

I am slowly working from the front to the rear of the car, finalising as many details as I can. Once this process is finished, it will be down to even more detail work and purchasing the engine and drive train so these can be scanned and incorporated into the chassis design, as well as the wheels (ex F3) so we can design the hubs etc.

The images I am posting here is of the process to date. I know there are many areas that still need attention and happy to hear feedback and comments as this project is a first for me and I still have a lot to learn. I can say I am looking forward to the aerodynamic side of things - something I am only very much a novice at.

And some more screenshots.

Thanks for sharing with us. You'll find this site is a great group of guys with a lot of knowledge - it's not a normal forum. One gentleman (JJ Luedamann I believe - sorry for the spelling) did much what you are doing. He posted and received a lot of guidance from some of the people who have done this before. The shared wisdom is here if you need it.

I have already received a few messages with some advice which has already been undertaken. No doubt there will be more to come and I look forward to it.

Just thought I should add some more thoughts. A few member have mentioned the chassis as a area I should be looking at further, especially when it comes to the stiffness. This will be addressed although I'm waiting for my solidworks upgrade to come through so I can run some FEA. I have added some extra bar work around the cockpit and in the rear but FEA will help me locate these properly. Will also need a dummy engine as I think I mentioned earlier in order to use the engine as a semi-stressed member.

We will be employing a proper aerodynamicist for the bodywork to minimise the drag so that the downforce that is being produced is as efficient as it can be. I think what you see in the screenshots will probably completely change, but I'll do a back to back comparison of what I have designed with my limited aero knowledge compared to what a proper aero person can design with the help of CFD (I have solidworks so will only be using the flow simulation tools).

I'll make a lot of mistakes along the way, but as long as most these mistakes are in the digital realm and not on the real thing!

Please continue to comment.

As a side note, if anyone wants generic CAD models for things like dampers, steering wheels and dummy drivers (as I have used here) I use a website called www.grabcad.com

Hi Brypar,

I assume that you have already looked into the Australian AusF1000 website and Facebook. We will provide any help we can to establish an Australian manufacturer to help reduce costs. As previously mentioned we have received a lot of help and support from our American cousins and UK counterparts but the freight costs and exchange rate kills us.

We have 2 race meetings left for the season and I would suggest that it would be well worth your time to witness a race meeting and talk to the guys who have been running these cars in Oz for the past 4 years.

please PM me to organise if you are able.

Cheers,

Derek,
AUS F1000 President

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brypar

Just thought I should add some more thoughts. A few member have mentioned the chassis as a area I should be looking at further, especially when it comes to the stiffness. This will be addressed although I'm waiting for my solidworks upgrade to come through so I can run some FEA. I have added some extra bar work around the cockpit and in the rear but FEA will help me locate these properly. Will also need a dummy engine as I think I mentioned earlier in order to use the engine as a semi-stressed member.

We will be employing a proper aerodynamicist for the bodywork to minimise the drag so that the downforce that is being produced is as efficient as it can be. I think what you see in the screenshots will probably completely change, but I'll do a back to back comparison of what I have designed with my limited aero knowledge compared to what a proper aero person can design with the help of CFD (I have solidworks so will only be using the flow simulation tools).

I'll make a lot of mistakes along the way, but as long as most these mistakes are in the digital realm and not on the real thin

Please continue to comment.

---

You will find that the motorcycle engines do not like to be stressed either in torsion or bending. One of the challenges in designing an F1000 is getting enough torsional rigidity without stressing the engine.....but it can be done.
Glad to see the interest in F1000 down under.

Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JerryH

You will find that the motorcycle engines do not like to be stressed either in torsion or bending. One of the challenges in designing an F1000 is getting enough torsional rigidity without stressing the engine.....but it can be done.
Glad to see the interest in F1000 down under.

Jerry Hodges
JDR Race Cars

---

Take a good look at the car Brandon Dixon built and the Phoenix F1k.09 through the F1K.14. The Phoenix and the Citation both use the engine as a stressed member with a TON of success. Stressed engines have lasted seasons worth of racing and won championships.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wright D

Take a good look at the car Brandon Dixon built and the Phoenix F1k.09 through the F1K.14. The Phoenix and the Citation both use the engine as a stressed member with a TON of success. Stressed engines have lasted seasons worth of racing and won championships.

---

This is good to know. There will definitely be some elements stressed just is the nature of mounting the engine. Updates have been slow as I'm busy making a living designing uprights and brakes, but have had a look at the chassis and added some bar work and done some initial FEA. I'm going to optimise the chassis further and get rid of the messy roll hoop bulkhead area.

Couldn't help having a play around with the new rendering software...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wright D

Take a good look at the car Brandon Dixon built and the Phoenix F1k.09 through the F1K.14. The Phoenix and the Citation both use the engine as a stressed member with a TON of success. Stressed engines have lasted seasons worth of racing and won championships.

---

I did not design the engine to be stressed in the Citation. I did, however, design the oil pan to be a fully stressed member of the chassis but the engine itself and the block especially are definitely not stressed. The upper engine mounts are carefully designed to not allow any of the torque loads from the frame to be transmitted to the engine block or head.

In post #10, how are you applying the loads to you chassis and how are you fixing the chassis?

Where the rear of the chassis is mounted to the aluminium diff casing is a fixed point. Loads are then applied via a remote truss about the front axle (twisting motion).

I will be redesigning the chassis to incorporate more box section tube for mounting clevis and other pickup points, as well as simplifying the rollover bulkhead further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brypar

This is good to know. There will definitely be some elements stressed just is the nature of mounting the engine. Updates have been slow as I'm busy making a living designing uprights and brakes, but have had a look at the chassis and added some bar work and done some initial FEA. I'm going to optimise the chassis further and get rid of the messy roll hoop bulkhead area.

---

Have you ran an FEA with nodes further back where the suspension pick ups would be.
Awesome looking car, but IMO I think a little more diagonal bracing would give a bit more rigidity. What dimension tube are you planning on using?
Linz

Welcome to the club my brother from another mother

Listen to the guys telling you to design from the tires in. Much more difficult to change things around once you are set on a chaise design.

Completely agree. I actually started from max overall dimensions which gave me approximate overhangs and wheelbase / track. Kinematic so are done although there is room for adjustment. Brakes, uprights etc are all designed. Chassis is an area I don't have much experience, which is why I'm listening to you guys. Stay tuned for more updates soon.

As usual work has been keeping me away from this but it's been bubbling in my head for a while. I wasn't ever really happy with my chassis design/layout although I think from a rigidity stand point was probably okay. I am not much of a welder so I have been thinking about ways to build a chassis (especially if it's a one-off) without jigs. It occurred to me (and I have seen similar ideas elsewhere) that I could use the chassis itself as the jig and so I've set about designing the core of the chassis as folded sheet with machined bulkheads. The idea is that the whole lot can be bolted together (bulkheads with threaded bosses machined in) so the chassis can be assembled in a couple of hours. It can then be bolted down to a build table and extra tubing and bracing can be welded in as well as the bulkheads and sheet sides also welded in place. I am concerned about the weight and the amount of bars I'll be adding to bring up the stiffness....

Lastly I've gotten rid of the rear casting that was to house the diff....

http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...id=71270&stc=1

If you are using SolidWorks to draw your frame, I would do an FEA analysis of your design.

Here is a project I have been working on. It is a motorcycle powered car using a 1000 cc engine. This is the model of the chassis I used to do the FEA analysis. This chassis has a torsional spring rate over 5000 ft. pounds per degree. That is the minimum I would consider for any car. As a comparison, the Zink Z16 FF from 1978 was just under 2000 ft. pounds per degree. That is when I started testing the cars I built.

This particular car is intended to have FF performance and engine power of 125 HP.

In the real car ( Citation F1000), the engine bay detaches from the back of the frame in two halves. Instead of a frame to hold the rear drive and suspension, I have an aluminum box that bolts directly to the back of the engine, much like a bell housing on most modern formula cars.

It's been a little while since I had time to work on this project but I've slowly been getting back onto it again. As I'm not a welder I wanted to try and minimise chassis jigs and welding as much as I could which is why I wanted to try and design the frame in sheet metal and use simple bulkheads to use as the jigs themselves. Initially the bulkheads were going to be machined from solid with holes tapped at various points to allow the sheet metal to screw into place (floor, sides etc). The idea being that this would give enough rigidity in the frame to then start welding in bars to add stiffness where needed. While this would be expensive it would save a lot of time in manufacture. I've since changed this again to use bulkheads made from tube. I might still bolt/screw everything in place (weld tabs onto the bulkheads which I can then screw the sheet metal onto).

Still have the rear section to finish off and then some FEA and design changes more than likely, but I feel this could be a good work around to avoid making jigs and using the design itself as the jig.
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/atta...id=72428&stc=1

To get a nice handling car and one that is responsive to changes in setup, you need to pay special attention to the torsional rigidity of your chassis.

The frame in the model I posted above calculates at well over 5000 ft. pounds per degree. When I tested the actual cars, I have found that the simulation and the actual car are very close to the same numbers. I have a system to test the torsional strength of a complete car as raced. When I have a handling problem with a car, I run this test to see if I might have a problem with the chassis. This test easily shows if the belly pan is loose or I have a cracked frame member.

The section of the frame that has the cockpit opening is the weakest portion of the frame. Following that comes the engine bay. From the dash forward is usually the strongest. Ideally you want to strive for a chassis that is equally strong over the full length of the frame. In short all the frame sections have the same torsional strength.

As I have been able to increase the torsional stiffness of my chassis, I have been able to reduce the stiffness of the sway bars that are necessary to give the handling balance I want. That in turn means that I can lower the wheel rate of the sway bas and as a result increase the mechanical grip of the car and still have responsive handling characteristics. This is a long winded way of saying that a stiffer chassis will have better mechanical grip.