Gearbox Penalties

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
User avatar
Phil
421
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:22 pm

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

In 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.
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

Jolle
Jolle
186
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:27 pm
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.
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.

Looking at the why and how we have to look a bit to the past and how engineering progressed through the years.

In let’s say the eighties engines and gearboxes where build to last and just needed an overhaul between races. For example: Porsche build only 28 TAG engines for McLaren which they used for 4 seasons. gearboxes were over engineers as well (also because the manual shifting meant more stress because of mistakes) and they were rebuilt regularly.

These days there is the engineering lower to have very small tolerances and after it’s calculated use (5GP’s for a PU or 6 for a GB) they are finished.

Because of the robotic shifting, the wear and stress is something you can manage and calculate. I also believe that GB of today have quakifying settings with more stress and shorter (true seamless) shift times and less stress settings for when you have a gap. There even might be a good chance that some of the box failures come from drivers who use the seamless setting too much....

maybe one “get out of a penalty” free card a year is a good idea to filter out the odd production failure. Then a gearbox goes after a few races, good chance the driver himself had it in a too aggressive setting too long.

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

According 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.

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:18 am
According 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.
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.

He also said that the drive to the rear wheels is never interrupted during a shift.

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

I thought that .07s was the minimum time to count as a change? Otherwise, it qualifies as CVT?

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Define the start and end point of this measurement?

Brian

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

The moment the metal in the casing starts the movement path, to the moment it is completed.

I remember this was a big deal around those 07/08 they talked about it a lot. To be honest with the 8-speed gearbox change they may have gotten rid of that concept however, as it inherently limits efficiency, and that was the 2014 goal.

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 4:52 pm
The moment the metal in the casing starts the movement path, to the moment it is completed.
I believe the start f the time is when it is signaled by the shift paddle.

User avatar
henry
268
Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2004 7:49 pm
Location: England

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

It's always worth consulting the regulations.

This is from this year's published march 2017.
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.
Fortune favours the prepared; she has no favourites and takes no sides.
Truth is confirmed by inspection and delay; falsehood by haste and uncertainty : Tacitus

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Phil wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:42 pm
In 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.
The question that the teams should answer is:

Exactly how many gearboxes are destroyed on the dyno per season? How much is spent to test/ inspect each of the 4 between races? What is the total cost between the 2 methods?

If x + 4 >20, then just blow them up each weekend. They could go back to 2008 gearboxes design methodology for single weekend reliability.

The limitations always bring their own expense, just like aero. And the concept of a saved € will just be spent in other areas doesn't hold water.

If you want true cost reductions in F1, put total design sharing into the next concorde. Each part and all design/ test data needs to be shared with the FIA during scrutineering. That data is then given to the commercial rights holder for fan exposure, team sharing.

This would limit obscene spending as the teams would know they have to share, so there is no long term competitive value for investing outrageous sums for a 2 race advantage.

And imaging the machines that would take the grid after the first complete data share... top 10 separated by .10s, AND NO MORE CHEATING!

I would love to see what a bit more of an open-source environment in F1 would be like... But only if they opened up the regulations for design scope.

gruntguru
gruntguru
455
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:43 am

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Zynerji wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:27 pm
I thought that .07s was the minimum time to count as a change? Otherwise, it qualifies as CVT?
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.)

Not sure if the engine torque is reduced to help allow the shift.
je suis charlie

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
91
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Also the multiplicity of gears used over a lower rpm range - as dictated by the current engines = torque level variation is less extreme..
..ergo the peak strain on each shift - is closer to a basic level too..
Dr Moreau sez..
"Who breaks the law... goes back to the House of Pain!"

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

J.A.W. wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:55 am
Also the multiplicity of gears used over a lower rpm range - as dictated by the current engines = torque level variation is less extreme..
..ergo the peak strain on each shift - is closer to a basic level too..
The 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.

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
91
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2014 4:10 am
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

wuzak wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:47 am
J.A.W. wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2017 3:55 am
Also the multiplicity of gears used over a lower rpm range - as dictated by the current engines = torque level variation is less extreme..
..ergo the peak strain on each shift - is closer to a basic level too..
The 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.
The FIM F1 'rules' rather than "engines" as such - do dictate using a fixed spec gearbox, gg, as you correctly point out..
.. both in numbers of ratios & proscription on ratio variability..

I am in agreement too, that insisting on 8 - seems a wee bit like overkill.. perhaps a rare FIM 'economy' measure that worked..
..as intended.. for some teams, at least..
Dr Moreau sez..
"Who breaks the law... goes back to the House of Pain!"

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

FIM = motorcycles