Fastest gearchanges were pre-1990's

[autogyro]

Sorry Machin, your link doesnt work.

In anycase, just because Toyota (who no longer compete) state a lap time improvement for their gearbox shift system it does not make it so.
Where are the comparisons?
Was the system installed in a later car with other differences?

Until the gearbox shift system manufacturers supply verifiable data that compares different shift systems in cars where everything else is equal, lap time differences will remain a guess.

The thread states 'Fastest gearchanges were pre-1990's'
So lets see them prove otherwise.

[Richard]

This thread has been interesting especially with the technical data from machin. Its also interesting to see the speed of a manual shift.

However, I'm sensing it is getting a bit repetitive now. We'll never get data comparing technologies that are 20-30 years apart. As autogyro says, without data this whole topic is just a guess.

So if the only argument is "I think it's quicker" and "No it's not", then lets draw this to a close until there is more evidence to lay on the table (either data or quotes from F1 engineers)

[autogyro]

I agree Richard.
I should also like to thank Machin for his brilliant data.

[machin]

Link on my previous post now fixed:

http://formula-one.speedtv.com/article/ ... gearboxes/

EDIT; I wrote the response below before Auto's message above got through the moderators. whilst it now makes me look a bit of a d*ck I've decided to leave it as my concluding remark on this topic.

The thread states 'Fastest gearchanges were pre-1990's'
So lets see them prove otherwise.

So far we have had posts/data from people who are currently competing in various forms of motorsport, and also quotes from those currently competing in F1 which are in direct contradiction of your statement. The very first post on the subject by one of our moderators requested that you prove your claim. Something that in 8 pages you have been unable to provide.

I'm happy to leave this discussion here, and I implore people reading through this to look at the data provided and read the various links that have been posted so that you can make your own minds up.

[autogyro]

I have noticed that on a number of other technicaly based forums, there appears to be an incorrect belief that during racing gearchanges in race and performance vehicles prior to the current 'seamless' systems, the engine had its ignition cut during the shifts.
This practise was only used experimentaly until after the late 1980's.
All racing gerchanges in main competition including F1 before this time were undertaken without any artificial control over any part of the powertrain.
Control was solely under the drivers control.

Full throttle 'power on' upshifts were undertaken with no disengagement of the clutch or engine control.
The 'manual' shifting was so skilled and so fast that NO artificial control was needed.
The dog rings in the shift mechanism were moved so fast from one gear engagement to the next highest, there was NO perceived increase in engine rpm.
Heel and toe downshifts sometimes also with no clutch use were equaly as fast.

Sadly almost all of this driver skill has been lost today.
Back then it constituted at least half of the skill and stamina needed for a proper fully rounded racing driver.

As I stated for this first post, fastest gearchanges were pr-1990's so prove otherwise.
The responsibility is to disprove my statement not play word semantics or videos about scientific concept theory.
Technical proof please.

[pitlaneimmigrant]

Firstly, although I haven't read the entire thread through, it appears the argument is that the gearboxes used in the 80's could shift more quickly than the current incarnations, and that it's up to everyone else to prove that claim wrong.

I struggle to believe that McLaren, Ferrari, Benetton/Renault/Lotus and the others who have been around since that time have all gone down the same path of making their gearshifts slower. Even allowing for limitations introduced by the standardised electronics (which didn't reduce shift speed anyway), this is a... weak argument.
Renault ran a seamless shift system on the R26 mid-season and ran it back to back on the same car to validate the performance gains which were seen on the dynos. If the shifts had been slower, the system would have gone no further.

Given that reducing gearchange time (and for the sake of argument let's say the shift duration is the time from being on power in one gear to on power in the next) reduces lap time, your argument is that all the teams have gone down a path which increases their lap times for the last 20 years. Yes, certain technologies have been banned along the way (e.g. CVT), but I find it difficult to believe the zenith of motorsport transmission systems occurred in the 1980s.

If you can show me your numbers, I'll show you mine.

PS, if you're claiming something, YOU need the data to back it up.

[Paul]

I can believe autogyro's claim that a one-off gear change can be faster with a manual stick, but over all the gear range and multiple iterations I am sure current system will beat any driver hands (or, rather, actuators) down.

[autogyro]

I can believe autogyro's claim that a one-off gear change can be faster with a manual stick, but over all the gear range and multiple iterations I am sure current system will beat any driver hands (or, rather, actuators) down.

Thank you Paul.

I have never said that modern gearshift systems are not more reliable or that they do not work better in terms of lap times with the current over all car package.

A simple dog shift system thrown across the hub slidder will always be faster manualy or automaticaly instigated, all elase being equal however.
Modern shift systems are more complex and have more than strait line geometry.
Manual dog mechanisms also allow driver control over both speed and modulation.
Automatic shift modulation slows the shift.

My main point was in my first post.
The loss of driver skill from the modern so called seamless systems forced by the continued and now essential use of high levels of downforce.
This artificial state negates much of the drivers input.

Unfortunately, it is not in the interests of the teams to join the discusion and most people today cannot make the comparison anyway, prefering to rely on the ease of use of modern shift systems.

[Nando]

So basically we have gone backwards in evolution according to this thread.

[machin]

So basically we have gone backwards in evolution according to this thread.

According to one person in this thread...

However... The data suggests otherwise...

[strad]

Thanks machin...

[autogyro]

Thanks machin...

Yes, thanks machin, some great graphs.
However, as far as manual shift capability shown, they only show a manual shift speed of 0.35 seconds, which can be achieved in a 1930s London bus gearbox.

The problem is that measuring manual shift times was not undertaken when such gearboxes were in use, because accurate electronics to do so was not available.

[Nando]

I´m going to go on a limb here and say that a modern F1 gearbox will complete it´s gearchange in a shorter time span then what it would take Senna´s brain to tell his muscles to pull the lever.

I have no numbers on that but for the fun of it i will do some research when i get home.

[autogyro]

I´m going to go on a limb here and say that a modern F1 gearbox will complete it´s gearchange in a shorter time span then what it would take Senna´s brain to tell his muscles to pull the lever.

I have no numbers on that but for the fun of it i will do some research when i get home.

The driver decides in advance when the gearshift will begin just as he does today with the latest actuating systems.

The 'brain' decision takes the same time.

The speed of the actual shift is limited by the rotational moment of inertia of the powertrain components fitted before the shift mechanism in the torque path.
Leverage designed into the manual gear lever mechanism easily achieves a movement potential speed in the lever components fitted before the actual shift mechanism that will match any other system.

The manual dog engagement geometry allows the shift to be faster.

Other systems work with more complex geometry that take longer to work.

In a dog shift box the driver can also modulate (slow) the shift to help balance the car in real time far better than modern computer systems with limited ranges of operation and a reliance on high downforce to smooth shifts.

[autogyro]

I´m going to go on a limb here and say that a modern F1 gearbox will complete it´s gearchange in a shorter time span then what it would take Senna´s brain to tell his muscles to pull the lever.

I have no numbers on that but for the fun of it i will do some research when i get home.

You would be comparing the wrong things.
The driver decision to undertake a gearshift and when is decided before the act.
IT is exactly the same for ANY gearshift other than a fully automatic one.