2. Initial Design Review for:

3. 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

4. Competition highlights: Static EventsPoints Presentation100 Engineering Design200 Dynamic Events Acceleration (Electric only)75 Acceleration (Unrestricted)75 Autocross150 Efficiency and Endurance400 Total points1000

5. 2008 Competition

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

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

11. 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. YZ250F I.C.E YZ250F I.C.E TRANSMISSION DIFFERENTIAL ACCUMULATOR TORQUE MOTOR I.S.G

12. Database Organization

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

14. 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

15. Cost  Motors3-5k  Accumulators2-5k  Controllers1-2k  YZ2502k  Frame2-4k  Suspension2-4k  HyRollers’ Drivetrain3-4k Total: 15 – 26k * Note $32 000 max cost for entries

16. 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