RC Car Project Report

Dr. Cullinan
ME 338
May 15, 2020

Group 4:
Saideep Vollala (sv23838)
Sachin Kasetti (sk44883)
Vishrudh Sriramprasad (vs9468)
Eric Marek (em39259)
Matthew Leggett (mrl2846)
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents 1

Introduction 2

Calculation of an Estimate of Top End Speed 2

Top Speed Calculation 2
Max Acceleration Calculations 3
Max Acceleration vs. Top End Speed 3

Calculation of Impact Forces 4

Simulation of the Stresses and Deflections During Impact 5

Fatigue Analysis from FEA or Analytical Modeling 5

RC Car Lifespan 5
Parts likely to fail 6

Steering Mechanism Design 6

Steering Mechanism Overview 6
Turn Radius Calculations 7

Joint Design 8

Concluding Statements and Lessons Learned 9

Response to Peer Review Comments 9

Appendix 10
Chassis Design 10
Drivetrain Design 12
Steering Design 14

1
Introduction
When we met as a group for the first time, all of us had similar visions of how we wanted our RC
Car to function and look like. We wanted our car to be simple, yet effective. Given the open
ended project, we defined some key goals that we wanted to achieve with our car. The car
should be able to travel around the car with a quick torque. We predicted that we would run into
other cars and have mishaps, and so focused on the car’s ability to get back up and keep going.
In this report, we will discuss technical calculations as well as how they led us to making the
decisions that we made in the design process of our RC Car.

Calculation of an Estimate of Top End Speed

Top Speed Calculation

1) Drag Force:
Initial Velocity Guess = 5.3 m/s → Reference Area = 0.00217 → Cd = 38 → Drag force = 1.42N
F D = (C D A⍴V 2 )/2

2) Friction Force in Bearing:

Friction in the Bearing = 0.002 → Load on the Bearing = 5.684 → Friction Force = 0.011368N
FB = Pμ

3) Friction Force of Car:

Friction in the Bearing = 0.002 → Load on the Bearing = 5.684 → Friction Force = 0.011368N
FF = Pμ

4) Velocity of Car:
Total Force = 1.45 N → Wheel Radius = 0.056896 → Torque on wheel = 0.0829N → Output
Torque → 0.1659
FD + FB + FF = F
= 2(F x r)

From the torque vs Speed Diagram, we can estimate the motor speed to be 2500. Running this
through unit conversions in the DriveTrain ratio and angular velocity, we can get our final top
speed to be around 8.977 m/s

2
 Figure 1. Excel Sheet showing the top speed calculations

We iterated this design until our guessed velocity resembled our final velocity as close as
possible. The excel sheet was useful in getting rough estimates for guesses as close as
possible.

Max Acceleration Calculations

1) Theoretical Torque:​
Stall Torque = 0.196 N · m → Gear Ratio of 2:1 → Theoretical Torque-to-Wheels =​ ​0.392 N · m

2) Losses:
Rolling Resistance → F S = c · W = (0.001)(m)(9.81)
μ·P ·dm (0.0015)(mg)(0.00635)
Bearing Friction → T f riction = 2 = 2

3) Adjustment for Losses:

(Theoretical Torque-to-Wheels) - (Bearing Friction Torque) = Adjusted Torque
(Adjusted Torque) / (Tire Radius) = Force-to Wheels
(Force-to-Wheels) - (Rolling Resistance) = Adjusted Force-to-Wheels

4) Newton’s Second Law:

Adjusted F orce−to−W heels
amax = M ass of Car

Max Acceleration = 5.8463 m/s^2

Max Acceleration vs. Top End Speed

When evaluating the performance of a car, two questions always come up: how fast does it go
and how quick does it get there? Of course, these questions refer to the top speed and max
acceleration of the car, respectively. When racing down a long, straight portion of track, top

3
speed is highly desirable. On the other hand, the start of the race, coming off of a turn, and
recovering from a crash are all situations where punchy acceleration can really benefit your car.

Like most design choices, a tradeoff must be made. In this case, the gear ratio will ultimately
dictate how much of each of these qualities your car will possess. Larger gear ratios will provide
more of the torque necessary for quick get-up, whereas a ratio closer to unity will increase the
top speed that the car is able to reach. When making this decision for our buggy, we primarily
considered the nature of the race and what was practical from a design & build standpoint.

As for race conditions, we realized that a crowded track with only short straight-aways would
probably lessen the importance of a top speed. Rather, with crashes assumed to be abundant
and tight turns bountiful, our team surmised that quick acceleration would be the kingpin. In
other words, the name of the game would be to get the car going again as quickly as possible.
As such, we planned for a high gear ratio. Of course, when the practicality of building comes
into play, initial plans are compromised for the sake of feasibility. For us, this meant reducing
the gear ratio just a tad to 2:1 for space considerations in the underbelly of the car.

Calculation of Impact Forces

The formula for the impact force was given as:

F​i​=v​i √Ƞmk

Where:
F​i​ = impact force
v​i​ = max velocity of car = estimated at 15 m/s
Ƞ = elasticity of collision = 1
m = mass of the car = 1.67 kg
k = stiffness = 3361.11 N/m

In order to determine the stiffness of the car we first had to perform an FEA on the car with an
estimated force and then find the max displacement of the car. Then using F = kx we
10 N
determined the stiffness of the car to be 0.002975 m = 3361.11 N/m . After determining the stiffness
we were able to determine the max impact force that the car would receive using the formula
above. The max impact force on the car was 1123.8 N.

4
Simulation of the Stresses and Deflections During
Impact

Figure 2. Figure showing the Stress Simulation in CAD during Impact

We applied the impact force, determined in the previous section., to the back of the chassis to
determine whether it would break. The chassis itself was very stable however the axles seemed
to take the brunt of the force. To counteract this effect we increased the diameter of the axles
which increased their strength. This adjustment brought the deflection within acceptable limits.

Fatigue Analysis from FEA or Analytical Modeling

RC Car Lifespan
After doing an FEA in Solidworks with the torque that the rear axle will see, the results show that
the life cycle of the axle is (at least) 10^6 cycles. The reason that the entire shaft has the same
life cycle is because the load that was added to the shaft is under the endurance limit of steel.
Because of this, Solidworks shows that the shaft won’t fail for at least 10^6 cycles. This is
reasonable since the rear axle sees a low amount of torque and the axle is 0.25” in diameter.

5
 Figure 3. Fatigue FEA on the rear axle

Parts likely to fail

Based on the fatigue FEA conducted, we don’t believe that any of our parts will fail due to
fatigue. We think the most likely part to fail on our RC car is the epoxied joint between the rear
axle bearing housings and the wood chassis. Epoxy is not the best material to hold two pieces
together, and with sudden forces being applied to the joint, there is a chance that it could break
off from the wood.

Steering Mechanism Design

Steering Mechanism Overview

To begin, our front wheel mounts were both anchored to the chassis by two 3D-printed
L-shaped pieces. These pieces were able to pivot at its corner. The short end of this piece
connected to the wheel, while the longer end connected to another pivoting rod that connected
to the servo, which would ultimately control the movement of this L-shaped piece.

The two pivoting rods that connected to the L-shaped pieces and the servo had to be on pivots
at both ends. This piece would likely be machined since it is an integral part of the car. The
image below depicts the steering mechanism better than a written description. In practice, the
motion of the servo arm from side to side would push one rod out while pulling the other rod.
This linear motion would rotate the L-shaped pieces about an axis. In doing so, the angle of the
wheels would change as the L-shaped piece rotated.

6
As pictured below, the servo was encased by a housing that would likely have been 3D printed.
The remainder of the components would have been machined except for the L-shaped pieces,
which would have been easier to CAD and 3D print.

Figure 4. ​Image of Servo Steering Mechanism

Turn Radius Calculations

Measured Values:
- Distance between middle of front and back wheel: 8.5”
- Distance from edge to the center of the car: 3.315”
- Angle of wheel turn (from CAD): 35.3​o

To determine the turn radius of the car we first draw a perpendicular line to the front wheel when
it is at its maximum angle of turn. Next we draw a perpendicular line from the straight back
wheel such that a triangle is formed between the front wheel, back wheel and the point of
intersection between the two lines which we will not call the center of rotation as shown below.

Figure 5. ​Diagram portraying the derivation of the turn radius calculations

Now, as shown in the diagram above, since the wheels turned by 35.3​o​ we determine that the
angle between the front wheel and the side of the car is 54.7​o​. We can then calculate the length
between the center of rotation and the rear wheel using trigonometry.
tan(54.7) = CoR to RW
F W to RW => 8.5 * tan(57.7) = CoR to RW = 12.005"

7
Then we simply add 12.005” to the distance to the center of the car which is 3.315” to get
15.320”. Therefore we have our car’s turn radius as 15.32”.

Joint Design

The majority of our design is held by a combination of epoxy and pins/screws.

Axles
The axle mounts are held together by epoxy. After a probing analysis in Solidworks, it became
apparent that the entire weight of the car rested in the front bar and the back two axle mounts.
We revised our design to include tolerancing of putting the axle mounts into the wood so that
the total area experiencing the force would increase, thereby decreasing the shear and normal
stress felt by these joints.

Bolts

To select our bolts, we ran calculated many different variations of steel bolts to use to get the
appropriate safety factor desired by us. These calculations were made easy with excel. We
ended up using bolts to keep the rod in the front functioning well. The desired bolt was an SAE
grade 3 steel bolt of 0.073 inch bolt of length 0.8 inches. From this, we went with a standard bolt
size of 0.125 inches and a length of 1 inch.

The rest of the design was up to design specifications.

Figure 6. ​Excel Sheet showing joint design calculations

8
Concluding Statements and Lessons Learned

Our group stayed in contact with each other by meeting every one to two weeks, depending on
deadlines. We maintained a group chat through GroupMe to schedule meetings and delegated
tasks in our in person meetings. In addition, all of us kept our responsibilities in our design
notebooks so that when we broke off into our groups, we would have hard evidence of what we
were planning to do. We dedicated Solid Works CAD modeling to one to two people so that we
wouldn’t have to keep shifting around files and come into software conflict, calculations to two to
three people, and updating the powerpoint that we made for each review session to one person.

Given the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, our group had to overcome
logistical challenges which made working together cumbersome. Since we could not meet
physically, it was difficult to communicate specifics about parts, such as layout or design
changes. We would need to sketch out a part by hand and have a video call to explain to others
what we were trying to say. We learned that working online can prove to be a hassle and would
test our group spirit. Since each of us had different course loads, translating to different
schedules, finding times to meet and work together was complicated as well. We overcome this
by regularly communicating any schedule blocks and keeping our schedule as flexible as
possible.

It is unfortunate that we were not able to physically build our RC car and race it against other
teams. However, because of our meticulous design and thoroughness in calculations, we
believe that our design would have been effective in winning the race.

Response to Peer Review Comments

● I noticed while watching this video that the finalized Stress analysis wasn't included, I
was wondering what the values for your safety factor and YS were and whether or not
they would survive an impact. This question will come up since in your initial evaluation
of the vehicle your axles were not constrained properly and hence absorbed the total
impact of the force leaving your Car untouched. I believe that the wooden base may fail
given the proper loading criteria. Additionally the pivot point right next to your steering
servo seems to have a geometry that may fail as I cant see it properly in the video,
however if you add a degree of freedom it may free up your steering mechanism.
○ After conducting our final stress analysis, we saw that the car would be able to
withstand the estimated impact forces well. With regards to the geometric
pivoting point, we calculated the turn radius accordingly and have shown in the
presentation how the mechanism functions. We believe that there is enough

9
 space and range of motion for the car to turn. We did have the concern of the
turning aid pieces not able to withstand impact forces from the front, and to
accomodate for that, we are open to changing the material that we use and
making the pieces thicker and more durable.
● [Be sure to add an introduction on the video! I really loved the inclusion of aerodynamic
properties in your design. I'd say to make sure that the talking and slide switching is
consistent. I loved all the CAD and FEA you did and how it changed over time. Great job
showing the iterations over time!]
○ Our design definitely did change a lot from the original design. One advantage
that our group possessed was that we were very flexible and open to change. In
a design process where iteration is necessary, this serviced our end goal very
well.
● The car looks good, I like the way y'all set up the steering system. That being said, the
linkages in the steering system look rather thin, I wonder if they would hold up to a
collision from the side. The 3d printed pieces that hold the rear axle to the frame look
tiny, and are attached with glue. I don't think that will stay attached due to the
acceleration force from the wheels and the tension in the pulley. I think it needs to be
considerably beefed up. I believe the steering servo turns 180 degrees total, not 90.
Your steering angle will be considerably higher than you have calculated and may not be
able to go full-right/left
○ Thanks for the comment! Looking at the design, we were also concerned about
the steering system looking thin. We think a good solution for this is to make print
these pieces a bit thicker and change the design a little to accomodate for it. In
terms of the servo, since we didn’t have the servo in hand, we estimated that it
would turn 45 degrees in each direction. I also believe that the remote controller
had a dial to turn down the sensitivity of the turning. Albeit, if we had them in
hands we would be able to know for sure.

10
Appendix

Chassis Design

Figure 7. ​Chassis Initial Sketch

Figure 8.Chassis CAD Model Isometric View

11
Figure 9. Chassis CAD Model Top View

12
Drivetrain Design

Figure 10. Drivetrain Sketch

Figure 11. Drivetrain CAD Top View

13
 Figure 12. Drivetrain CAD Isometric View

Steering Design

Figure 13. Steering Design Sketch

14
 Figure 14. Steering Sketch 2

Figure 15. Steering Design CAD

15
Figure 16. Steering CAD Model Isometric View

16