Lewis Hamiltons gearbox

[chiefwiggum2k]

can anyone tell me what Mclarens theory has been with Lewis Hamiltons gearbox? He changed it on schedule at Spa, then after he crashed at Monza he could have changed again(without penalty) but didn't; also could have changed it post Singapore(without penalty) but chose not too.

Surely they should change for a new one at every possible opportunity. I heard that they didn't want to finish the season with a gearbox that was on its last legs, but that really doesn't make any sense in an unpredictable sport like F1. You surely have to take your chances as they are presented to you and not gamble on what you hope might happen!

[philgarraway]

The situation is similar to the engines, they only have a certain amount for the season (i think . and each one has to do 4 races. they are only aloud to change it if it is broken in some way, for example as he lost 3rd gear in today's race he will most likely have a new one for Korea, that takes him to the limit of 8so this last one has to do 3 races.

[chiefwiggum2k]

they can change gearbox if they failed to finish previous race, without penalty..see below. Can't find anywhere in tech regs that limits the number of gearboxes; which is why I am baffled.

"Unless the driver fails to finish the race the gearbox fitted to the car at the end of the Event must remain in it for three further Events. Any driver who failed to finish the race at the first, second or third of the four Events for reasons which the technical delegate accepts as being beyond the control of the team or driver, may start the following Event with a different gearbox without a penalty being incurred."

[deus1066]

As mentioned here:
viewtopic.php?p=203662&f=13&sid=d3d808c ... e6#p203662

It didn't make any sense to me either.

[speedsense]

IMHO, if contact occurs, the FIA should allow the sealed diff and gearbox to be opened for inspection. To penalize a car twice (in Hamilton's case) for A) Loss of points for DNF due to contact and B) having to change a gearbox,diff at the next track when a problem shows itself and suffering another penalty (5 places after qualify) for results from the same incident.

Not withstanding Mclaren's choice not to switch out the diff and gearbox after Shanghi..

[chiefwiggum2k]

IMHO, if contact occurs, the FIA should allow the sealed diff and gearbox to be opened for inspection. To penalize a car twice (in Hamilton's case) for A) Loss of points for DNF due to contact and B) having to change a gearbox,diff at the next track when a problem shows itself and suffering another penalty (5 places after qualify) for results from the same incident.

Not withstanding Mclaren's choice not to switch out the diff and gearbox after Shanghi..

I see your point from a cost point of view. From Mclarens side tho, why not change(after a DNF) anyway to eliminate the risk in the first place, as they were entitled to do?

[mep]

Never change a running system.
In previous years we have seen especially on McLaren that a completely new engine failed after just a couple laps whereas a old one kept running.
Same thing we see here with the gearbox. It was new and broke.
So I can imagine they prefer to keep one in the car when it proved to work perfectly. Changing some part can always cause some kind of finger trouble.

[chiefwiggum2k]

could it be that they didn't want to get the engine and gearbox's out of sync, meaning they could dump a complete (and new) engine/gearbox unit(factory prepared) into the car after Korea; rather than having to faff around trackside mating new gearbox to old engine for Japan only to have to split them again after Korea, to install new engine to older(2races) gearbox? hmm. Been baffling me all weekend, sorry if I am boring anyone.

[marcush.]

whitmarchs comment on how they check a sealed gearbox was obviously hinting at the
weakness in their process.as they had no idea there was a malfunction in the box until they put it back into the car for FP3 only to find a clogged filter ...hinting at a defective Diff component..my dear..what a risk...
there is lots of room for improvement for all teams to get better in quality assurance....but of course with reducing workforce you need slim organisation but perfect control mechanism in place.
the real answer is of course to have a proper FMEA system installed to avoid faults and failures before they can happen.this sort of concept is at first very time consuming to install but being there it is amazing how you get on top of your issues and learn how to concentrate on the real risks and solve(get rid of)them.