EDIT:

I'm removing all of this for my personal sake. Thanks for the input guys.

*snip deleted as per Minacchio's request.

Haha. All this is minor semantics. The fact is that this is the tranny o tha future.

Vibration damper for connection of crankshaft to input.
Take a look at a conventional clutch center plate.
I used this damping when I built a clutch onto an AP bevel epicyclic four speed automatic mini gearbox, to replace the torque converter in 1976. I also converted the four speed auto into a five speed, simply by modifying the valving and removing a sprag clutch. That unit also had no gears rotating relative to one another in direct top gear. Far better torque transfer than a toroidal unit.
I cobbled up an electro/magnetic/valve shift that worked the selector valve from a simple switch in place of the gear lever. Sequential of course. Could call it seamless if I felt like it.
It also had a cable detented centrifugally operated shift speed/kick down valve, which I modified with a cable quadrant, to allow full automatic shifting but with pre set shift points relative to rpm.
The diff ratio was 5.7:1 giving a max speed of 87mph at max revs.
A racing mini with a 1445cc engine, 0 to 60 in 3.2 seconds anyone, in 1976.
Been there done that.

Oh yes and the geartrain I modified for that mini, would have taken the power of F1 at the time, with very little modification.
I did a few sums but mainly, I put it together with a nitro burning 5 liter V8 and drag raced it with absolutely no problems, apart from one time blowing the clutch into fragments behind my head but then math rules doesnt it.

Rather than follow this route,Ferrari and others used the concept of electronic shift control I had and applied it to the inferior layshaft gearbox.
Over 30 years of development has hardly brought them any further.

Like I said before, the layshaft concept has hardly changed since the 19th century, hardly something for the pinnacle of technology is it. Others struggle on with torque draining CVT's and TVT's, or double the torque loss with twin shaft/clutch ideas. They call them seamless and other untrue definitions but it proves nothing, other than that the marketing men are listened to far more than engineers.
I no longer give a damn now that I am retired.

My ESERU is way ahead of the gearboxes I designed, built and raced back in the 1970's and streets ahead of the obsolete current systems and no I am not giving any more details.

Very cool and clever, Minnaciol. I understand you taking the posts out. Well, in the end this was one very worthy thread. Thanks to almost all of you...

I don't think that you can really argue that F1 teams aren't racing your gearbox (or any other) because of marketing people. Winning the world championship is far better for marketing than seamless shift, and so the team will do anything they can to be faster. I'd suggest there's another reason that they aren't running different solutions.

It may be budgetary concerns - not really to be dismissed, as an engineer's job is to build solutions in the real world (otherwise we'd be called physicists).

bazanaius wrote:I don't think that you can really argue that F1 teams aren't racing your gearbox (or any other) because of marketing people. Winning the world championship is far better for marketing than seamless shift, and so the team will do anything they can to be faster. I'd suggest there's another reason that they aren't running different solutions.

It may be budgetary concerns - not really to be dismissed, as an engineer's job is to build solutions in the real world (otherwise we'd be called physicists).

Two reasons, one is budget restrictions, the other is the dogged retaining of the layshaft concept that dominates performance gearbox use, both through regulations and lack of lateral thinking.
I was not criticizing the ideas posted here by any other posters either.
I welcome such things.
Including all sensible criticism. There were some interesting ideas, some close to my ESERU.
It is a shame in the present world culture that many give up so easily.

This thread makes me wonder about F1T, how can a "concept" which is yet to be credibly xplained generate 14 pages of posts?

Ciro?

xpensive wrote:This thread makes me wonder about F1T, how can a "concept" which is yet to be credibly xplained generate 14 pages of posts?

Ciro?

Surely if a concept is not credibly explained or sensibly discredited, then it is worth consideration?

Or is F1 so narrow focused that it cannot deal with the future?

xpensive wrote:This thread makes me wonder about F1T, how can a "concept" which is yet to be credibly xplained generate 14 pages of posts?

Ciro?

In my expert opinion, after being in forums for 12 years and not without pondering all the theory of human interaction, group thinking, collective behaviour and communications theory plus history of engineering, I can say to you with total confidence that I don't know.

Why did you post?

I'd say that one sure fire way to get exposure is to make outrageous claims. That's part of the best traditions in engineering, if not the most literary and poetic part of our profession.

Should I give you examples? From the top of my head:

"Give me a place to stand and I will move the Earth"


"I will weave algebraic patterns like a loom weaves flowers and and leaves" (that has a good alliteration, don't you think?)


"I am going to design a Station after my own fancy, that is, with engineering roofs"


"Man is only a reed, the weakest in nature, but it's a reed that thinks". If you find that compostion a little weak (I do), what about: "Our dignity is in our thougt"?


"Hmm..that doesn’t make any sense! Excellent…”


"And so you touch this limit, something happens and you suddenly can go a little bit further. With your mind power, your determination, your instinct, and the experience as well, you can fly very high."

I think it's time to lock this thread, and put this entire subject to sleep.

It's generated 14 pages and is clearly going nowhere.

My ESERU is way ahead of the gearboxes I designed, built and raced back in the 1970's and streets ahead of the obsolete current systems and no I am not giving any more details.

He's given all the information he is willing to. There simply isn't enough hard data to discuss sensibly.

Apart from 1 gem, being the idea that MinacciolMotors came up with, this thread has produced nothing.

Well, Chris, I would add that this thread has made me smile several times, so, from my point of view isn't entirely worthless... From now on I will refer to it, like in: "Oh, no, another mystery invention! Remember autogyro's thread?" or like in "Where's Minacciol? This regulation is as complicated as trying to understand autogyro's claims" or "Don't pull another autogyro on me, please!".

The more I go into details, the more this concept gets complicated...

I did a little more thinking about geometry. Very narrow gear ratio range is the greatest problem for now with given dimensions (and I'm still working only with gear diameters).

The main characteristic of F1 gearbox is simplicity. Gear ratio change must be easy and quick. Additional plus is that gear ratio range can, relatively easy, be widen or shorten. With this concept that Minnaciol suggested, this aspect gets quite complicated.

And the thing that "drives me nuts" is gear shifting mechanism. That is the key. It's got to be elegant...

Ciro Pabón wrote:Well, Chris, I would add that this thread has made me smile several times, so, from my point of view isn't entirely worthless...

Fair enough

I'm going to try to avoid it, I was originally very interested in the concept as new and clever things excite me. But the constant bragging of a peice of technology that is neither built nor proven to work irritates me immensly.

It's infuriating for someone to say 'Oh I don't want to talk about this' and then proceed to continue talking about it, and even bump their own thread after noone has responded for a while.

I thought the idea of this being a tehcnical forum was to discuss technical issues. Ok with a new peice of tech you have to be cryptic, but you can at elast answer simple engineering questions.


This thread has gone along the lines of.

Forum: "So what efficiencys do you expect to see"
Autogyro: "Much better than this 19th centruy layshaft box tech. Did I ever tell you of the time that..... (and to quote Rubens) "Blah blah blah blah"

Forum: "Can you please tell us something vital about the new idea"
Autogyro: "It's a wonderfl shade of battleship grey"

Forum: "Ok so no numbers. Can you tell me how you excepct the bearings to handle the increased load"
Autogyro: "I except them to handle it very well thank you."