Stripped F1 Gearbox

[autogyro]

autogyro - how quickly can a human physically move a shift stick between gears on a manual box? Assuming the clutch isn't used.

The speed will be at least as fast as the so called 'seamless' shift systems.
The absolute speed is dictated by the capability of the engine to reduce rpm during the shift.
This (even with light F1 rotating components) will always take longer that the time it takes to move one gear out of full engagement and another one into full engagement.
A racing gearchange using a dog ring manual gearshift is undertaken with NO lifting of the throttle. One dog ring is disengaged and the next gear dog ring engaged in exactly the time needed to match the (unchangeable) engine rpm decay time between gears.
A modern so called 'seamless' gearbox can only match this or reduce the torque transfer from input to output if its shift components are partialy engaged before the engine rpm establishes at the shift completion point.

[autogyro]

I am confident that the speed of gearshifts shown from the F1 cars of today can also be equaled with a manualy operated dog box [...]

And I'm confident that one day I'll be King of Zamunda.

Perhaps but you need more work on your understanding of layshaft gearboxes.

[bhall]

Lord knows I can't argue with that. Even so, it's not the root of my skepticism.

All things being equal, an F1 transmission will have already shifted well within the time frame required for the muscles in one's arm/hand to act upon the signals sent by the brain to initiate and then halt the movements needed for the shift. Humans simply do not have the capability to react any faster, especially when the reaction is voluntary in nature.

[Pierce89]

autogyro - how quickly can a human physically move a shift stick between gears on a manual box? Assuming the clutch isn't used.

The speed will be at least as fast as the so called 'seamless' shift systems.
The absolute speed is dictated by the capability of the engine to reduce rpm during the shift.
This (even with light F1 rotating components) will always take longer that the time it takes to move one gear out of full engagement and another one into full engagement.
A racing gearchange using a dog ring manual gearshift is undertaken with NO lifting of the throttle. One dog ring is disengaged and the next gear dog ring engaged in exactly the time needed to match the (unchangeable) engine rpm decay time between gears.
A modern so called 'seamless' gearbox can only match this or reduce the torque transfer from input to output if its shift components are partialy engaged before the engine rpm establishes at the shift completion point.

ok, so I'll defer to your gearbox knowledge, but if the above is true why did every F1 team qquit using manual dog boxes, for electro paddle thingies?

[autogyro]

Lord knows I can't argue with that. Even so, it's not the root of my skepticism.

All things being equal, an F1 transmission will have already shifted well within the time frame required for the muscles in one's arm/hand to act upon the signals sent by the brain to initiate and then halt the movements needed for the shift. Humans simply do not have the capability to react any faster, especially when the reaction is voluntary in nature.

There are an endless number of human actions that take place without the human having to think about the action instantly at the time of action.
In the case of changing gear, a skilled racing driver will be thinking of when to change gear many meters and seconds before he does so.
The actual arm movement occurs 'exactly' when the shift is needed, not before or after or reliant on reflexes.
As soon as the lever is moved, the action becomes time controlled by the mechanical system used, not any human capability.

[Richard]

All things being equal, an F1 transmission will have already shifted well within the time frame required for the muscles in one's arm/hand to act upon the signals sent by the brain to initiate and then halt the movements needed for the shift. Humans simply do not have the capability to react any faster, especially when the reaction is voluntary in nature.

Its not about reaction times. Think about the gears, not the peripheral stuff of waving one's arm or fingers before and after the actual change.

Autgyro's point is that the limiting factor in delivering power through the box is engine, not the gear engagement. Hence the method by which the input signal is delivered (hand or computer) is irrelevant.

[Richard]

ok, so I'll defer to your gearbox knowledge, but if the above is true why did every F1 team qquit using manual dog boxes, for electro paddle thingies?

Possilby to eliminate human signal errors? It's much harder to crash or miss gears if there is a computer controlling the input signals. If the driver signals a gear change at the wrong revs, then the computer will sort that out for them. Also, a driver need only say up or down, so that eliminates the possibility of selecting the wrong gear as you can on a manual box.

In the manual days we'd hear about races won and lost on a bad gear change under pressure. That's largely eliminated with a cold blooded computer undertaking thousands of repetitive changes without fail.

[autogyro]

autogyro - how quickly can a human physically move a shift stick between gears on a manual box? Assuming the clutch isn't used.

The speed will be at least as fast as the so called 'seamless' shift systems.
The absolute speed is dictated by the capability of the engine to reduce rpm during the shift.
This (even with light F1 rotating components) will always take longer that the time it takes to move one gear out of full engagement and another one into full engagement.
A racing gearchange using a dog ring manual gearshift is undertaken with NO lifting of the throttle. One dog ring is disengaged and the next gear dog ring engaged in exactly the time needed to match the (unchangeable) engine rpm decay time between gears.
A modern so called 'seamless' gearbox can only match this or reduce the torque transfer from input to output if its shift components are partialy engaged before the engine rpm establishes at the shift completion point.

ok, so I'll defer to your gearbox knowledge, but if the above is true why did every F1 team qquit using manual dog boxes, for electro paddle thingies?

Because with the stupidly high developing levels of downforce, the braking distances became so short that it became impossible for a driver to manualy shift down on corner entry without almost certainly missing shifts.
The development of semi and fully automatic layshaft gearboxes allowed this 'problem' to be overcome but the FIA needed a way to structure things to continue the 'illusion' of full driver control and skill. The answer was to regulate the auto shift systems to be sequential, only seven gears and to make the driver operate at least the upshifts. This with the pre-program clutch bite point, gives us the arcade game powertain control we have today.
If downforce levels were reduced by 50% as they should be, the current drivetrains would completely unsettle the cars, mostly under braking. Therefore we are stuck with gearboxes from the 1890,s brakes closer to throwing out an anchor than modern technology and a completely neutered KERS technology that might as well be the same for everyone for what sense it makes to development in the real world.

[bhall]

The actual arm movement occurs 'exactly' when the shift is needed, not before or after or reliant on reflexes.

EDIT: I'm going to need to reword later what I wrote here so that it makes sense.

Its not about reaction times.

I only mention the following for the sake of clarity. I did not factor in reaction times at all, because it's the same whether one is depressing a paddle or operating a more traditional lever. It's everything that happens after the reaction time that matters in this case.

[autogyro]

What happens between the brain and the hand moving the gear lever has no bearing on the shift, either the start of the shift process or the actual shift speed.
The driver knows a shift is needed and he will naturaly time the moving of his hand to meet the exact time for the shift to start.
The actual shift is then limited by the mechanical shift components.

If this was not the case footballers would never kick a ball, they would always be milliseconds behind the act.

[andylaurence]

I looked back through my shift times last year. A sequential manual dog 'box and my changes varied from 80ms to 120ms (longer if I really made a mistake). If I were to fit a flat-shifter, then I could bring all of my shifts to 80ms, but I don't think that's really worth it! The changes are limited by how quickly the engine can move from max RPM to the RPM needed for the same speed at the next gear.

[bhall]

If this was not the case footballers would never kick a ball, they would always be milliseconds behind the act.

In a manner of speaking, they are. But, I can see that I missed the point of the conversation and took it somewhere that it didn't quite need to go.

My apologies.

[hardingfv32]

Because with the stupidly high developing levels of downforce, the braking distances became so short that it became impossible for a driver to manualy shift down on corner entry without almost certainly missing shifts.
The development of semi and fully automatic layshaft gearboxes allowed this 'problem' to be overcome

The drivers can make reliable shifts if they choose to. They have to slow down the shift sequence.
There is a compromise to be made if the is driver manually shifting. Does he risk reliability issues with attempts to shift fast or play it say and shift slower. The teams clearly feel the drivers are not capable of establishing the correct compromise AND maintaining it. They do take additional risks when they get excited.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

The first semi/ auto shift gearbox in F1 was in Mansels Ferrari.
I was a consultant on the project.

Was the system you worked on on the same theme as the C.F. Zeroshift?

So then these systems are robust enough for F1?

Brian

[autogyro]

Because with the stupidly high developing levels of downforce, the braking distances became so short that it became impossible for a driver to manualy shift down on corner entry without almost certainly missing shifts.
The development of semi and fully automatic layshaft gearboxes allowed this 'problem' to be overcome

The drivers can make reliable shifts if they choose to. They have to slow down the shift sequence.
There is a compromise to be made if the is driver manually shifting. Does he risk reliability issues with attempts to shift fast or play it say and shift slower. The teams clearly feel the drivers are not capable of establishing the correct compromise AND maintaining it. They do take additional risks when they get excited.Brian

It is not what the teams think the drivers are capable of, or anything to do with the shift speed, it is the FIA regulations. The gears have to be sequential 12345677654321.
It is common practice with a manual box to short shift on downshifts, i.e change from say 7th down to 4th down to 2nd at corner entry. With sensible downforce levels and rate of deceleration this would allow proper gearbox control by the driver. With the enforced sequential operation it becomes impossible in a manual gearbox to achieve with any reliability and without tireing the driver out in one lap. Therefore the GOD of aero is appeased and it becomes no longer possible to reduce downforce with the current so called 'seamless' gearboxes, because they would unbalance the car to much at lower DF levels.
The teams retain their expensive wind tunnels and aero experts and all other aspects of chassis and powertrain development stagnates in an illusion of cost saving and level playing field marketing requirements.
F1 today is big kids playing with model aeroplanes supported by media magnates.