Post-Space Claim 3 Considerations

Owned by Benjamin Ngo
Last updated: Oct 08, 2024
2 min read

(not a very organized page yet, just me yapping)

Factors emphasized during Space Claim 3 discussions

  • Array area

  • Angle of attack

  • CG

  • Turning radius

properties that can be changed:

  • Aero Design - affects array area, angle of attack at nose

    • MUST satisfy 6m^2 array requirement

    • Pushing canopy forward can extend unobstructed array area

  • Wheel distance from front of car

    • pushing backwards can reduce cantilever

    • pushing forwards can push cg forwards, push canopy forwards

  • Wheelbase

    • max 2200mm

    • reduce cantilever

    • decrease turning radius

    • increase weight

  • Battery

    • Back: move cg backwards

    • front: move cg forwards, aero might have to accommodate

  • Chassis

    • flexible in design, though weight distribution will vary slightly

 

Work order

  • determine aero config first to satisfy array requirements

    • Stuff to know from aero to judge array requirements

    • top plane sketch (roof), canopy dimensions / opening

    • nose angle

  • figure out how flexible canopy position can be

  • battery config

 

 

Default

  • wheel distance = 1000mm

  • occupant cell distance = 1850mm?

  • Battery dimensions: 410mm x 230mm x 710mm

  • Wheel base = 1900mm

  • bounding box = 5.6m (l) x 2.2m (w) x 1.6 (h) (assuming increase in length from 5.0m)

 

image-20241008-154001.png

 

Design options: (will try to put in design matrix later)

  1. Pushing occupant cell as far forward as possible

  • Pros

    • Absolute maximum array area

    • CG pushed forward on the chassis and occupant side

  • Cons

    • Wheelbase will have to be extended to compensate for long tail (turning radius)

    • Battery box has to go to the back, cg will be pushed backwards

    • Aero will have undesirable nose

preliminary observation: This should not be done unless the array area cannot be achieved in other configurations. Even then, it might be a discussion of making aero slightly wider.

 

  1. Pushing occupant cell as far forward as possible, while accommodating for aero’s angle of attack

  • Pros

    • Decent array area

    • CG pushed forward on chassis and occupant side

    • Aero have a somewhat desirable nose

  • Cons

    • Wheelbase will probably still have to be extended (turning radius)

    • Battery box has to go to the back, cg will have be pushed backwards

preliminary observation: This is the good solution to achieve bigger array area. Aero is not optimized but its not the worst case. CG will have to be determined but I imagine a back heavy car

 

  1. Battery box in front, config 1

 

  1. Battery box in front, config 2