University of Washington

Formula SAE
2012-2013
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
1.2.1 Requirements
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 1.8gs, 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

1.2.2 Opportunities
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

2 Timeline
Process

1-Oct

8-Oct

15-Oct

22-Oct

29-Oct

5-Nov

12-Nov

19-Nov

Problem Definition
Research
Concept Design
30% Report

12-Oct

Load Analysis
CAD Modeling
Strength Analysis
60% Report

26-Oct

Design Decision
90% Report

9-Nov

CDR Changes
Manufacturing Plan
100% Report

21-Nov

Design Freeze

21-Nov

3 Research
Last years 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 years 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 years 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
teams 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

4 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.

Figure 1
Another promising concept for this years 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

5.1 Concept I
One concept being heavily considered for this years 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 years 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 Figure 5.1
circular percision required for circular buttons.

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

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
Figure 5.3
wear.

5.3.2 Disadvantages
Taking a closer look at the advantages, we find were 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 years 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 years 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).

7 References
1. Brake Calipers." AP Racing. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2012.
<http://www.apracing.com/products/race_car/formula_student/sae/brake_ca
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..\Brakes\...
4. FSAE Rules
5. Romano, Michael. (2000s). Vehicle Brake Information.

Last updated on October 23, 2012

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

Company.
7. Team 24 Brake Worksheet.xlsx. FSAE FTP. \T..24\TTeams\Susp..\Brakes\..
8. Tilton Engineering 775 Installation Instructions. Web.
<http://www.earls.com.au/files/49643b91879a577SERIESMASTERCYLINDERSINSTALLATIONDRAWING.pdf>

8 Appendices
8.1 Table of Components
All weight savings are highlighted in yellow (refer to Team 24 100% Report for
previous weights)
Front

Rear

Brembo P34C

AP Racing CP4226

1.34 in. (34.0 mm)

1.00 in. (25.4 mm)

1.33 lb. (0.61 kg)

0.53 lb. (0.24 kg)

Tilton Engineering 77 series

Tilton Engineering 77 series

5/8 in. (15.88 mm)

5/8 in. (15.88 mm)

0.30 lb. (0.14 kg)

0.30 lb. (0.14 kg)

Tilton 77 Series Balance Bar

N/A

Unknown

N/A

9.00 in. (228.6 mm)

6.5 in. (165.1 mm)

0.138 in. (3.5 mm)

0.118 in. (3.0 mm)

80-55-06 ductile iron

80-55-06 ductile iron

1.29 lb. (0.59 kg)

0.59 lb. (0.267 kg)

7075-T6 aluminum

N/A

0.12 lb.

N/A

0.625 in.

0.625 in.

Cold Rolled Steel

Cold Rolled Steel

0.01 lb

0.01 lb

Caliper
Model
Piston Diameter
Weight per corner
Master Cylinder
Model
Bore Diameter
Weight
Balance Bar
Model
Weight
Rotor
O.D.
Thickness
Material
Weight per corner
Hat
Material
Weight per corner
Buttons
O.D.
Material
Weight per corner

Last updated on October 23, 2012