ECAM Formula Student Team

Define an accumulator architecture compatible with endurance requirements, the vehicle envelope, manufacturing constraints and Formula Student rules.

As Battery Team Leader, I worked on the initial electrical and energy sizing, module definition and mechanical packaging, then organised CAD work, manufacturing and assembly within the team. The selected architecture was 120s4p, reaching 504 V when fully charged.

I favoured a conservative endurance approach because the vehicle mass and initial performance assumptions introduced uncertainty. The work linked energy requirements, available volume, enclosure design, BMS and wiring architecture, thermal considerations and practical assembly. Regenerative braking was not included in the selected architecture.

The battery was mechanically assembled. At the stage documented here, electrical integration and commissioning were still unfinished. This project developed my ability to connect electrical sizing, mechanical design and team coordination.

Guide the technical choices across all departments and bring the subsystems together in a consistent vehicle CAD assembly.

As Technical Director and CAD Lead, I guided technical choices across the departments and managed the shared Fusion 360 vehicle assembly to check the compatibility of parts and subsystems. I also contributed to the static-event presentations, particularly battery design and Cost & Manufacturing.

A battery-packaging conflict required a chassis-level response. Reviewing assumptions and the rules with the team revealed an opportunity to adjust the lower main-hoop geometry and recover battery space. The decision connected regulation review, CAD interfaces and manufacturing implications, rather than treating the battery in isolation.

At Formula Student France 2025 Concept Class, the team presented CAD models and a 3D-printed demonstrator. The full-size vehicle had not yet been built. My contribution combined coordination across the technical departments, vehicle integration and presentation of design decisions.

Define an initial layout of the wishbone mounting points on the chassis to enable the team to progress with the overall vehicle design. These shared interfaces allowed chassis and running-gear design, including wishbones and uprights, to advance together.

When I joined the newly established club in 2023, the team had no specialist software and was still learning how to approach potential sponsors. In the running gear department, I created and parameterised a GeoGebra model as a practical first step with the resources available.

I learned basic suspension geometry principles from educational YouTube videos, then translated them into geometric constructions and parameter relationships in GeoGebra. Combining front and side views gave the mounting points’ 3D coordinates. The chassis geometry could then be refined alongside the packaging of the other systems.

The model provided an initial set of pickup-point coordinates from the chosen parameters, giving the team a starting point for further vehicle design. This was a preliminary geometric approach, without complete kinematic validation. I did not have time to investigate it further; another team member subsequently developed a more detailed Excel model.