Gearbox Penalties

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
rdbozz99
rdbozz99
-1
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:37 pm

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

OK !!! Finally some discussion as to where I was headed. My fault for sure. But "aggressive shifting" was what I was looking for. On the other hand - that is what good race drivers do. Seems illogical to penalize a driver for doing what we fans what to see. Let's change it to 10 boxes. Maybe more aggressive driving all around? But yes there is the ever present cost factor. Thanks to all.

User avatar
Big Mangalhit
63
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 2:39 pm

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

When they say aggressive shifting is regarded as the way the gears change inside the box. Not related to how "aggressively" the driver changes gears. All the drivers will change gears the most "aggressive" they can in the way to produce the faster lap time. No driver will avoid reducing a gear to save gearbox life in normal conditions. It is just to prevent teams to make the gearboxes more brittle in a way they are lighter but can only handle one race for instance, that would bring an advantage in terms of weight but they would have to face many penalties.

hardingfv32
hardingfv32
30
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:42 pm

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Maybe you are putting too much enfaces on the performance of the drivers. I see the driver's performance directly related to the car's performance. Bad car… bad driver performance.

This is a 'team' sport. The drivers are part of the team. The teams agreed to the transmission limitations as a cost reduction measure. F1 rules are not designed to isolate individual driver performance. You need to accept that fact or find another sport to follow.

Brian

ESPImperium
ESPImperium
121
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 11:08 pm
Location: Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

I have always said that gearbox pooling is what should happen. 5 for the year, however when it comes to ratios, each gearbox can have a different ratio for each from a select of 50 that the team can run. However, when those ratios are in they are in, no change, apart from a single final drive joker on each gearbox. If there is internal damage, the team looses that gearbox, if the case is damaged, the team can change the casing? Would that be a good idea?

However, for a gearbox change, id also consider doing it at the first pit stop, screw grid penalties, how would a 5 second stop-go at the first pit stop?

Whilst I'm at it, id change the engine component penalties to a 2 place for each component with a 2 second stop-go at the first pit stop?

However, i have always said there should be extra components for teams who have not won a race in the past 5 years, so any team that won a race in 2013 would be limited to 5 components of each. Any team in the top 3 of the constructors last year would be limited to 4 components of each. Also, any engine supplier or team that is new to the sport in the past 5 years, meaning didn't compete in F1 from 2013 onwards, would get an extra 2 components without penalty. This would mean Haas would be able to run more aggressive engine modes and Honda, well thats Honda...

However, id also allow any new entry team or engine supplier to run a test car after 12 events (for 3 days) and any official F1 test for a year before they enter, their only limitation is that it would have to be done by a test driver and a young driver and the fact that they would be limited to running 100 sets of current Pirelli dry tyres and up to 50 sets of dry Pirelli Test Tyres with a Pirelli Test Driver on board for 6 days. They would be limited to 20,000km in total distance as well.

F1 needs to have a look at penalties across all mechanical components of the power unit and gearbox, pooling for all would be good. Also having a mechanism for teams who have not won in past 5 years would be great to have more allocation and allowing a proper test program to allow any new entries of engine suppliers and teams before they enter to make sure they are mechanically and technically sound to do so.

wuzak
wuzak
356
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

ESPImperium wrote:
Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:10 pm
However, for a gearbox change, id also consider doing it at the first pit stop, screw grid penalties, how would a 5 second stop-go at the first pit stop?

Whilst I'm at it, id change the engine component penalties to a 2 place for each component with a 2 second stop-go at the first pit stop?
They tried a similar thing a couple of years ago.

Any part of a grid drop penalty for engine or gearbox would be converted into a stop-go penalty during the race.

It confuses the race more than a straight grid drop.

Cold Fussion
Cold Fussion
138
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 3:51 am

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

I think gearboxes should be pooled like they are for power unit components so you can swap them out as you wish. I don't understand why people feel a driver should not be penalised but rather the team for engine changes etc. The total package performance is probably in the realm of 90% car and 10% driver so why should the driver no take the pain as well?

User avatar
godlameroso
407
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

What I can't believe no one has mentioned is that the rear suspension is attached to the transmission. If you change the rear suspension, then you must change the transmission as well.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

User avatar
Phil
421
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:22 pm

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

If there were regulations without punishment, every team would make a gearbox, an engine, pretty much everything to last one race for maximum performance and minimum endurance.

This would mean that the team with the most resources wins.

To make the sport feasable and attractive, there are regulations to keep them in check. The endurance aspect is important also as a measure to create a challenge and limit uncontrolled costs in those areas.

Therefore; a gearbox is expected to last a certain amount of races, just as the PU and other components are.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II
#Team44 supporter

Zynerji
Zynerji
78
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Phil wrote:
Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:45 pm
If there were regulations without punishment, every team would make a gearbox, an engine, pretty much everything to last one race for maximum performance and minimum endurance.

This would mean that the team with the most resources wins.

To make the sport feasable and attractive, there are regulations to keep them in check. The endurance aspect is important also as a measure to create a challenge and limit uncontrolled costs in those areas.

Therefore; a gearbox is expected to last a certain amount of races, just as the PU and other components are.
The R&D cost of making them last so long is far more than the manufacturing cost of 3 times the units..

wuzak
wuzak
356
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

godlameroso wrote:
Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:44 pm
What I can't believe no one has mentioned is that the rear suspension is attached to the transmission. If you change the rear suspension, then you must change the transmission as well.
As in the rear suspension design?

Mercedes came up with the cartridge type gearbox. Ferrari have since followed suit - not sure about RBR, Renault, McLaren and Toro Rosso (others that make gearboxes).

Essentially the outer part, to which all the suspension components fit, is not part of the gearbox but a support structure. The gearbox proper sits inside that.

So geometry can be changed without affecting the gearbox being used.

User avatar
Phil
421
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:22 pm

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:25 pm
The R&D cost of making them last so long is far more than the manufacturing cost of 3 times the units..
That "R&D cost" is long accounted for. Its not as if every single season every gearbox manufacturer starts from scratch with that R&D. I'd say the knowhow to make them last longer is quite simple in this case.
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II
#Team44 supporter

Zynerji
Zynerji
78
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Phil wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 6:17 am
Zynerji wrote:
Thu Jul 20, 2017 11:25 pm
The R&D cost of making them last so long is far more than the manufacturing cost of 3 times the units..
That "R&D cost" is long accounted for. Its not as if every single season every gearbox manufacturer starts from scratch with that R&D. I'd say the knowhow to make them last longer is quite simple in this case.
I'm sure every gearbox generation spends a thousand hours on the dyno for durability testing more than operating testing.

How many more gearboxes could be built with that yearly sunk cost? 16? More?

It's about total cost. Not unit cost.

User avatar
Phil
421
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:22 pm

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:02 pm
I'm sure every gearbox generation spends a thousand hours on the dyno for durability testing more than operating testing.
And a gearbox designed to last x races less doesn't? :wink:

R&D is there for sure, but not to the point you are making it sound. And more importantly, R&D is done, you learn and that investment pays off. Like you don't need any R&D to create the perfect round wheel. It's already invented. Someone bared that investment, that cost and now that know-how is there already. In the sense of a gearbox, the main objective is probably weight and speed as well as reliability/durability.

But if a gearbox has to last 4 or 6 or 12 races doesn't change the fact that the manufacturer has to do extensive durability testing, regardless of how long it needs to last. In any case, I'd be quite interested to hear an argument why a gearbox that has to last 6 races should be 3 times more expensive than one that only has to last 1.

Even if this were true, by your own math:

3x*4 < x*20 (meaning that the 3 times more expensive product still ends up being cheaper)
Not for nothing, Rosberg's Championship is the only thing that lends credibility to Hamilton's recent success. Otherwise, he'd just be the guy who's had the best car. — bhall II
#Team44 supporter

User avatar
godlameroso
407
Joined: Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:27 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

At the very least the manufacturing practices can be scaled to road cars. New cars are much more reliable than their 80's counterparts, where applicable.
The height of cultivation is really nothing special. It is merely simplicity; the ability to express the utmost with the minimum. Mr.Lee

Zynerji
Zynerji
78
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Phil wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:21 pm
Zynerji wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:02 pm
I'm sure every gearbox generation spends a thousand hours on the dyno for durability testing more than operating testing.
And a gearbox designed to last x races less doesn't? :wink:

R&D is there for sure, but not to the point you are making it sound. And more importantly, R&D is done, you learn and that investment pays off. Like you don't need any R&D to create the perfect round wheel. It's already invented. Someone bared that investment, that cost and now that know-how is there already. In the sense of a gearbox, the main objective is probably weight and speed as well as reliability/durability.

But if a gearbox has to last 4 or 6 or 12 races doesn't change the fact that the manufacturer has to do extensive durability testing, regardless of how long it needs to last. In any case, I'd be quite interested to hear an argument why a gearbox that has to last 6 races should be 3 times more expensive than one that only has to last 1.

Even if this were true, by your own math:

3x*4 < x*20 (meaning that the 3 times more expensive product still ends up being cheaper)
This is where the Extreme Measures come in. The whole point is to not need Extreme Engineering built into these gearboxes in the first place by not requiring them to run a quarter of a season. If they were allowed to have 20 per season, they would each get less expensive because they would not have to be as durable. It's like the difference between a Zippo lighter and a Bic lighter. They both light the flame, but only one of them will last forever, while the disposable one is exponentially cheaper to manufacture.

Single weekend gearboxes can skip the expensive outsourced specialized coating, it could skip the mesh tolerances as galling would only be for concern for a single weekend, the hydraulics can be lighter because their fatigue strength can be lower...

There's an entire processing branch they could completely eliminate, and that's where I personally believe true cost savings can be found.