Ferrari SF-25

[FittingMechanics]

Thanks, I appreciate your reply.
Then this makes this reporting method quite useless.
FIA, F1 should change a lot in this regard, show, explain the technology to all the viewers, if it is more than half of the sport... they are basically ignoring it.

They added this so the journalists can have an easier time keeping track and writing technical articles. I think it is a net positive and I am fine with not everything being disclosed.

[FDD]

Is this part about my original post as well?

I think it would be fair to remove the downvote to ringo, he simply posted RB photos to make his point in agreement. I actaully used one of those photos on X to make the same point too

No absolutely nothing about your part at all.

Ringo contributing that push instead of pull completely misses the point and illustration of lacking what is in this Ferrari design. I think its fair to vote on that basis.

Nah, my name is just a lightning rod to you and some others. Ringo = Bad guy!

I think you missed the point. I do not have a cross section of the ground effect Ferrari gearbox, so I used redbull to demonstrate how much more room exists in the upper region of the geabox. Let the red mist settle man.
I could have used any gearbox in fact to show a trapezium with a narrower base.

Mercedes made the same transition to pushrod, for various reasons, both aero and mechanical.
Ultimately Ferrari could have avoided a development conundrum if they had more space to work with. Now they have to consider priorities for the small volume. I would not be surprised if they extended the gearbox longitudinally to find more space, then incorporate new control arms to maintain their wheel base.

As for torsion.. I can assure you Ferrari do not have any torsional problems with their suspension structure.
Let's use the Redbull case again. What we see is a titanium reinforced carbon fiber subframe. Most teams are probably doing this.. and that thing is not going to twist because of wheel loads.

Absolutely right about the torsion.
If they have torsion problem with the suspension structure in which gearbox take a crucial role, they can simply not change the gears with torsion deformations since the tolerance in the gearbox its self is practically non existing.

[Farnborough]

You're clearly, FDD, not aware then that the rear structure is NOT the gearbox on these cars ?

The "gearbox" containing gears, transmission, diff etc is a discreet singular enclosed item and separate from the rear structure we've been discussing on this thread.

[FDD]

You're clearly, FDD, not aware then that the rear structure is NOT the gearbox on these cars ?

The "gearbox" containing gears, transmission, diff etc is a discreet singular enclosed item and separate from the rear structure we've been discussing on this thread.

...but it is part of the rear compartment, not possible to be absolutely independent, so "distortion" must affect it.

[ringo]

You're clearly, FDD, not aware then that the rear structure is NOT the gearbox on these cars ?

The "gearbox" containing gears, transmission, diff etc is a discreet singular enclosed item and separate from the rear structure we've been discussing on this thread.

I think you have a misintepretation of the structure. Maybe you should share some images to support what you are saying.
The suspension is a rigid structure on it's own. It is fixed to the gearbox. If you want to call it a singular enclosed item, it does not change the fact that both are rigidly fixed together. There's also the rear crash structure. That is also rigidly fixed. It may be via bolts or studs. Removable and modular yes, but still fixed.
What is definitenly not this case is some kind of flimsy skin or casing holding all the pickup points and that thin casing is slid over and warping around the gearbox when loads are applied.
They're all rigidly connected and torqued down. And in the Red Bull example, the extent of that whole titanium subframe bonded in carbon pretty much will not twist. The suspension loads are coming through the rockers mounted on that sub frame. This subframe has the engine pick up points right on the outside too. So i am not sure where or how this god-like twisting is going to happen that a team is going to grossly miscalculate or not account for.

[Farnborough]

I'll put the question .... have either of you seen a contemporary design in reality, of these gearbox ? ? ?

I've described it, accurately, again you demand "evidence" when its clear to me you really don't know whats in these things.

I was specifically forbidden from using any camera etc when viewing those components for real. No images will be forwarded to support. I can describe what I saw in front of me, you don't appear to be similarly intimate with detail.

Its amusing that you're so sure of structural performance .... without offering any "evidence" or knowledge of even the area that you proclaim as being beyond torsional absolute performance.

Every structure possess a level at which it performed in design and how the build made successful use or failure of that attribute. Your ignorance of specifics illustrate particular lack of knowledge for this area.

[Farnborough]

You're clearly, FDD, not aware then that the rear structure is NOT the gearbox on these cars ?

The "gearbox" containing gears, transmission, diff etc is a discreet singular enclosed item and separate from the rear structure we've been discussing on this thread.

I think you have a misintepretation of the structure. Maybe you should share some images to support what you are saying.
The suspension is a rigid structure on it's own. It is fixed to the gearbox. If you want to call it a singular enclosed item, it does not change the fact that both are rigidly fixed together. There's also the rear crash structure. That is also rigidly fixed. It may be via bolts or studs. Removable and modular yes, but still fixed.
What is definitenly not this case is some kind of flimsy skin or casing holding all the pickup points and that thin casing is slid over and warping around the gearbox when loads are applied.
They're all rigidly connected and torqued down. And in the Red Bull example, the extent of that whole titanium subframe bonded in carbon pretty much will not twist. The suspension loads are coming through the rockers mounted on that sub frame. This subframe has the engine pick up points right on the outside too. So i am not sure where or how this god-like twisting is going to happen that a team is going to grossly miscalculate or not account for.

This statement Illustrates clearly that you really don't have any real experience of current practice, you're offering lack of that knowledge as proof ? Really, this "evidence" of yours isn't sufficient for you to judge what really is in those design.

[Farnborough]

This "What is definitenly not this case is some kind of flimsy skin or casing holding all the pickup points and that thin casing is slid over and warping around the gearbox when loads are applied." presented in some considerable false gravity as to it's provenance, could not be more diametrically opposed in reality to existing and contemporary designs used in F1.

You've used the word "flimsy" not me, is that method to denigrate the technical overview I've given ?

Each and every component on these design is pared down to the minimum for ability to meet the performance envelope expected of it. Each addition mass, space, overcapacity is to the negative, with everything examined through their process to meet the absolute "cross section" of performance against waste, cut back to the absolute pinnacle AS THEY VIEW IT in deliverance of the task.

Whether the design criteria is sufficient, or the manufacturing process and materials are able to meet that level, without excessive capacity is exactly the task faced by the team.

Since gearbox lifing and penalties were established, most/all of the teams moved to "exoskeleton" type rear structure ..... which can be changed in design and for accident damage eventuality .... without incurring gearbox penalties to facilitate this practice.
If you've no knowledge of this (clearly you've not as the quote above illustrates) brings the question of, are you fit to offer judgement in this discussion while lacking basic insight as to the design ?

[ringo]

You're clearly, FDD, not aware then that the rear structure is NOT the gearbox on these cars ?

The "gearbox" containing gears, transmission, diff etc is a discreet singular enclosed item and separate from the rear structure we've been discussing on this thread.

I think you have a misintepretation of the structure. Maybe you should share some images to support what you are saying.
The suspension is a rigid structure on it's own. It is fixed to the gearbox. If you want to call it a singular enclosed item, it does not change the fact that both are rigidly fixed together. There's also the rear crash structure. That is also rigidly fixed. It may be via bolts or studs. Removable and modular yes, but still fixed.
What is definitenly not this case is some kind of flimsy skin or casing holding all the pickup points and that thin casing is slid over and warping around the gearbox when loads are applied.
They're all rigidly connected and torqued down. And in the Red Bull example, the extent of that whole titanium subframe bonded in carbon pretty much will not twist. The suspension loads are coming through the rockers mounted on that sub frame. This subframe has the engine pick up points right on the outside too. So i am not sure where or how this god-like twisting is going to happen that a team is going to grossly miscalculate or not account for.

This statement Illustrates clearly that you really don't have any real experience of current practice, you're offering lack of that knowledge as proof ? Really, this "evidence" of yours isn't sufficient for you to judge what really is in those design.

You do not know what you are talking about. I respectfully disagree with you and will not respond to anymore on this subject.

[vorticism]

Sutton

[FDD]

I think you have a misintepretation of the structure. Maybe you should share some images to support what you are saying.
The suspension is a rigid structure on it's own. It is fixed to the gearbox. If you want to call it a singular enclosed item, it does not change the fact that both are rigidly fixed together. There's also the rear crash structure. That is also rigidly fixed. It may be via bolts or studs. Removable and modular yes, but still fixed.
What is definitenly not this case is some kind of flimsy skin or casing holding all the pickup points and that thin casing is slid over and warping around the gearbox when loads are applied.
They're all rigidly connected and torqued down. And in the Red Bull example, the extent of that whole titanium subframe bonded in carbon pretty much will not twist. The suspension loads are coming through the rockers mounted on that sub frame. This subframe has the engine pick up points right on the outside too. So i am not sure where or how this god-like twisting is going to happen that a team is going to grossly miscalculate or not account for.

This statement Illustrates clearly that you really don't have any real experience of current practice, you're offering lack of that knowledge as proof ? Really, this "evidence" of yours isn't sufficient for you to judge what really is in those design.

You do not know what you are talking about. I respectfully disagree with you and will not respond to anymore on this subject.

Some engineers from the highest categories of autosport describe essentially what you said.
One of them (expert for materials) is working for F1 indirectly.
Yes, You do not have to respond on this