HYROLLERS HYBRID FSAE DRIVETRAIN

Initial Design Review for:

Why H-FSAE

University of Idaho wants to lead in “Green” technologies.

Hybrid Technologies can improve performance

Concepts developed at the Hybrid FSAE competition will provide experienced young engineers to this emerging field

Competition highlights:Static Events Points

Presentation 100Engineering Design 200

Dynamic EventsAcceleration (Electric only) 75Acceleration (Unrestricted) 75

Autocross 150Efficiency and Endurance 400

Total points 1000

2008 Competition

Track Layout

Vague Competition to date has had high-

speed corners. Track will be modified to allow “Regen

Braking” and Hybrid system to have bigger impact on the race.

We need a drivetrain that has a moderate top speed, with good mid-range acceleration

Our Main Deliverables(by the End of the Project)

A Final Design and a Working Drive-train Prototype

A mathematical model of the above design and comparison/benchmark.

Outline for future teams of where we left off and where we saw them picking up

Well documented, concise report of our team’s decisions and milestones & Database

Track Modeling

PSAT Odom’s TK solver Our team’s Simulink model

Impossible to create a relevant road-loading model without a preliminary design of each configuraton

What will we be designing?Design #1: Complex Parallel based on Jason Sagen’s Thesis

Advantages:

Lightweight – smaller motors than series, no transmissionCompact – does not require large accumulator systemCan be designed for good mid-to-high range accelerationMore innovative design = More design points and prestigePlays very well to the University of Idaho’s strengths

Disadvantages/possible quagmires:

More complicated design and analysis – uncertain outcomeComplicated power distribution/management system requiredLow end launch-torque not as high as other optionsHardest to understand and explain to future groups

What will we be designing?Design #2: Parallel with added complexities (Launch Assist!!)

Advantages:

KISS principleCompact – does not require large accumulator systemCan be designed for good acceleration in all rangesLaunch Assist (sounds cool!!)Incorporates existing automotive parts, less manufacturingPlays very well to the University of Idaho’s strengthsStill an innovative design

Disadvantages/possible quagmires:

Will be heavier than Design #1Will be more expensive ??Parts suppliers may be more difficult to locate.

YZ250F

I.C.E

YZ250F

I.C.ETRANSMISSIONTRANSMISSION

DIFFERENTIALDIFFERENTIAL

ACCUMULATORACCUMULATOR

TORQUE MOTORI.S.G

Database Organization

What have we de-coupled? Engine purchase and setup Motor selection Power systems management system Accumulator selection Frame Design Suspension Design

Timeline

•Learn PSAT better•Create conventional math model of both designs•Create PSAT model of both designs•Compare designs on “Virtual Tracks”•Select which design we will pursue

This will include a more detailed outline and budget than we have now•Final design and component ordering•Assembly of prototype / final documentation for handoff

Cost

Motors 3-5k Accumulators 2-5k Controllers 1-2k YZ250 2k Frame 2-4k Suspension 2-4k HyRollers’ Drivetrain 3-4k

Total: 15 – 26k

* Note $32 000 max cost for entries

Questions / Comments

A Final Design and a Working Drive-train Prototype

A mathematical model of the above design and comparison/benchmark.

Outline for future teams of where we left off and where we saw them picking up

Well documented, concise report of our team’s decisions and milestones & Database