First of all, the manufacturers are in on these rules, if they can make 20 gearboxes cheaper then 4, we wouldn’t have this rule.Zynerji wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:27 pmThis 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.Phil wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:21 pmAnd a gearbox designed to last x races less doesn't?
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)
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.
I think he said that the mechanism that transfers torque from one gear to another has to be accelerated during the change. How quickly that transfer occurs has a bearing on the stress in the gearbox. Mercedes have been running that very aggressively in the first part of the season to keep up with/keep ahead of Ferrari.Zynerji wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:18 amAccording to the James Allison article that I recently read the seamless shift literally just slams the next gear into place. He points out that that alone is what causes most failures. The high pressure hydraulic actuation with the moog valves does more damage to a gearbox in anything the driver can do.
And I believe economies of scale with mass production has been a proven thing in almost all products in today's world.
9.8.3 The minimum possible gear the driver is able to select must remain fixed whilst the car is moving.
Each individual gear change must be separately initiated by the driver and, within the mechanical constraints of the gearbox; the requested gear must be engaged immediately unless over-rev protection is used to reject the gear shift request. Once a gear change request has been accepted no further requests may be accepted until the first gear change has been completed.
Multiple gear changes may only be made under Article 5.22 or when a shift to gearbox neutral is made following a request from the driver.
If an over-rev protection strategy is used this may only prevent engagement of the target gear, it must not induce a delay greater than 50ms. If a gear change is refused in this way, engagement may only follow a new and separate request made by the driver.
Any de-bounce time used to condition driver gear change requests must be fixed.
9.8.4 The maximum permitted duration for down changes and up changes is 300ms and 200ms respectively. The maximum permitted delay for the latter is 80ms from the time of the driver request to the original gear being disengaged.
The duration of a gear change is defined as the time from the request being made to the point at which all gear change processes are terminated. If for any reason the gear change cannot be completed in that time the car must be left in neutral or the original gear.
The question that the teams should answer is:Phil wrote: ↑Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:42 pmIn a sport where every tenth counts, i dont believe that for a second.
I am yet to see a compelling argument that a gearbox designed for one race weekend will require significantly less R&D opposed to one that should last 6. As i already said, both will be optimized and engineered to last exactly what is expected for them at a) the least amount of weight b) the best amount of performance and c) maximum reliability for the expected lifespan.
As per your analogy, we are not comparing a cheap lighter to a zippo, but one zippo with another zippo.
As i said, i dont doubt that one designed to last longer will not be more expensive, but i am very, very certain that over a span of 20 races, 4 longer lasting gearboxes will be cheaper and more cost efficient to a customer than 20 shorter lasting ones in a sport where every tenth counts for the reasons noted above.
Shifts can be performed so quickly that torque transfer is uninterrupted - the previous gear being progressively unloaded at the same time as the new gear is being progressively loaded. (If the materials were inelastic the transfer of load would be step-wise rather than progressive.)
The current engines do not dictate the 8 speed gearbox.
The FIM F1 'rules' rather than "engines" as such - do dictate using a fixed spec gearbox, gg, as you correctly point out..wuzak wrote: ↑Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:47 amThe current engines do not dictate the 8 speed gearbox.
The idea was to use the same ratios across all circuit types.
But I doubt the current engines need 8 gears, or even 7, as was the case with the V8s. They could probably get away with 5 or 6 for the whole season.