HYROLLERS HYBRID FSAE DRIVETRAIN

1. Initial Design Review for: HYROLLERSHYBRID FSAE DRIVETRAIN

2. 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

3. Competition highlights:

4. 2008 Competition

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. What will we be designing? Design #1: Complex Parallel based on Jason Sagen’sThesis • Advantages: • Lightweight – smaller motors than series, no transmission • Compact – does not require large accumulator system • Can be designed for good mid-to-high range acceleration • More innovative design = More design points and prestige • Plays very well to the University of Idaho’s strengths • Disadvantages/possible quagmires: • More complicated design and analysis – uncertain outcome • Complicated power distribution/management system required • Low end launch-torque not as high as other options • Hardest to understand and explain to future groups

10. TORQUE MOTOR I.S.G YZ250F I.C.E TRANSMISSION DIFFERENTIAL ACCUMULATOR What will we be designing? Design #2: Parallel with added complexities (Launch Assist!!) • Advantages: • KISS principle • Compact – does not require large accumulator system • Can be designed for good acceleration in all ranges • Launch Assist (sounds cool!!) • Incorporates existing automotive parts, less manufacturing • Plays very well to the University of Idaho’s strengths • Still an innovative design • Disadvantages/possible quagmires: • Will be heavier than Design #1 • Will be more expensive ?? • Parts suppliers may be more difficult to locate.

11. Database Organization

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

13. 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

14. Cost * Note $32 000 max cost for entries • Motors 3-5k • Accumulators 2-5k • Controllers 1-2k • YZ250 2k • Frame 2-4k • Suspension 2-4k • HyRollers’ Drivetrain 3-4k Total: 15 – 26k

15. 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