Gearbox Penalties

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
wuzak
wuzak
356
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

J.A.W. wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:55 am
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..
The teams were using 7 speed (maximum number) gearboxes in the V8 era. The logic was probably if they add a gear they could do the whole season on those 8 ratios - which includes the final driver.

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 5:06 am
J.A.W. wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:55 am
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..
The teams were using 7 speed (maximum number) gearboxes in the V8 era. The logic was probably if they add a gear they could do the whole season on those 8 ratios - which includes the final driver.
Sounds reasonable.. & as a matter of interest Wayne, since they don't have an actual 'rev-limiter' as such..
..how many circuits feature a straight long enough to require a top-gear rpm 'reach' - beyond top 'efficiency' rpm?

Or is there a general team agreement - to run a drag-limited top-end aero-spec - at those tracks,instead?
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 5:13 am
wuzak wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2017 5:06 am
J.A.W. wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2017 4:55 am
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..
The teams were using 7 speed (maximum number) gearboxes in the V8 era. The logic was probably if they add a gear they could do the whole season on those 8 ratios - which includes the final driver.
Sounds reasonable.. & as a matter of interest Wayne, since they don't have an actual 'rev-limiter' as such..
..how many circuits feature a straight long enough to require a top-gear rpm 'reach' - beyond top 'efficiency' rpm?

Or is there a general team agreement - to run a drag-limited top-end aero-spec - at those tracks,instead?
There was a thread in here which showed the calculated gearing based on on-board telemetry.

Some of the teams had 8th such that it would give them over 400km/h top speeds at 15,000rpm. Not going to happen.

I assume, since I haven't looked at that lately, that the gearing has reduced since the extra drag of these cars will slow them down.

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Ta for that.
Is it possible that part of Honda's (& long-held traditional approach, I note) running of deliberately higher rpm..
..is to attempt to gain some top-end speed via slightly shorter final drive gearing at the tracks which might reward it?
( with the overall lower gearing also - possibly - assisting with 'overrev' between certain corners, acceleration-wise)

Or does the 'zero-sum' finite fuel efficiency deal - effectively make that a ' fool's errand'?

( & kindly - forgive me, if this has already been dealt with elsewhere).
Dr Moreau sez..
"Who breaks the law... goes back to the House of Pain!"

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
535
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

[quote=gruntguru]
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.[/quote]

surely on upshifts the 'engine' (PU) torque must be repidly reduced (by a timed cut in fuelling) ? as a rapid reduction in rpm is required
otherwise a huge amount of energy must temporarily accumulate elastically and then be dumped or re-emerge
if this capability is present the where, when and how of this would be conspicuous

also the MGU-K system's substantial inertia (at 3x engine rpm) would further degrade the shifting (if the K was passive)
so it is activated into full regeneration during upshifts to make its contribution to the quickest PU torque reduction
the Honda data clearly shows this being done (as a brief K generation spike on every upshift)
an active K's response is probably worse than a bare ICE's would be - but overall still a lot better than leaving the K passive
consistent with this, someone did say that the shifts are known to have been less rapid than they were with the NA units

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

I would be surprised at this point if the MGUK wasn't used dynamically to help the shift points. It can be used to instantly add a load directly to the crank, and it can be used to instantly add torque to the crank. I imagine that any crank vibrations or shocks could be smoothed out with the proper MGUK strategy.

Now, setting things to specifically always be using the MGUK load during shift points throughout the lap may add a small percentage to energy harvesting as well, but I guess I just always assumed this was happening.

Tommy Cookers
Tommy Cookers
535
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

the important designed crankshaft torsional cycle is at about 4 millisec
the best equivalent behaviour available from the K is more like 40 millisec
the electromagnetic spring (the K) with its inertia cannot be as fast cycling as the mechanical spring (the crankshaft) with its inertia

the ICE step-response 'time constant' (in engine action) might well be 40 millisec
at best the K can only be neutral to this action

RETRO-EDIT - it can produce torque without significant motion in a few millisec 'the electrical time constant'
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Come on man! With deep learning, you don't think they can run a predictive algorithm to send the signal 36 milliseconds early? I think almost any fpga on the planet could handle that task.

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Truth they could set it so the pilot would touch the paddle the K would start is work and synch it to the gear a bit later. You don't need the shift to happen as soon as possible, a delay of lets say 100ms is good enough. The important part is just to never lose drive so you can have that hypothetical 100ms delay is you have drive the whole time.

The problem is that you are limited with the rules i guess
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.
So I guess in this case you only have 80ms for the K to work is magic. But if that 40ms estimative is correct it could work, no?

I guess that is also the reason for that rule.

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Does another rule stipulate a - minimum shift timing - period?
Dr Moreau sez..
"Who breaks the law... goes back to the House of Pain!"

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

J.A.W. wrote:
Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:25 am
Does another rule stipulate a - minimum shift timing - period?
I refer the learned gentleman to my earlier answer:
henry wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:55 am
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

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Ta Henry..
So, unless my reading comprehension fails me..
..my minimum shift speed query - is not regulated by a specific rule.. & is a (rare) possible area of innovation..
..or is it - in fact - noted - elsewhere?
Dr Moreau sez..
"Who breaks the law... goes back to the House of Pain!"

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

J.A.W. wrote:
Tue Jul 25, 2017 9:48 am
Ta Henry..
So, unless my reading comprehension fails me..
..my minimum shift speed query - is not regulated by a specific rule.. & is a (rare) possible area of innovation..
..or is it - in fact - noted - elsewhere?
There is no rule for a minimum shift time, there is however a rule that there may only be one gear engaged at all times, which makes DCT etc impossible.

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

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Is there a precise definition of 'engaged' as used in this section of the rules? Something like 100% torque transfer?

We know two gears are engaged at the same time during the shift sequence for a very brief time period.

Brian