I couldn't help noticing the rather solid-looking mounting brackets on the CA2010 valvecovers.
Does anyone know more about engine mounting practices and stiffness in F1 cars? Scarbs?
It used to be a big issue for engines prior to the present minimum weight and CoG rule. Now you have to be dumb to screw up from the engine side. The tubs usually have inherent stiffness but the big opening templates and the high fuel loads may give reason to look at those figures as well. They have been given 15 kg more to cope with that and again they would be dumb to fail the rigidity requirements considering carbon fibre properties in honeycomb design. Designing for deflection targets is the most basic CAD task.xpensive wrote:Does anyone know more about mounting practices and stiffness in F1 cars? Scarbs?
To map the thermal expansion of the engine is a straightforward job ,given you have one of the lumps in real ....xpensive wrote:All this makes a lot of much sense rr, but bolting to the valve cover still seems somewhat...I don't know.
Would be interesting to learn more about the lower attachements though, where most of the loads are likely to be?
Anyway that thermal xpansion is not to be played around with, if you imagine the distance between upper and lower boltings is 400 mm, Alu from 20 to 120 C will xpand roughly one millimeter.
riff_raff wrote:xpensive,
To give you an idea of how much of a problem chassis-induced loads are in an F1 engine structure, take a look at this picture of a Cosworth TJ V10 cylinder head. It vividly illustrates the difficulties in designing a long engine cylinder head structure for a stressed engine chassis like in F1:
Notice the big hollow beam section running the length of the cylinder head? And the vertical split lines for the cam journals? This engine was designed to take bending loads thru the head structure and not thru the cam covers.
Regards,
riff_raff