F1technical.net

It doesn't really matter, it pulls in any gear. In Jerez Kevin was shifting four or five thousand revs before I was but the exit speeds were the same so the gears don't matter so much these days. They really don't. Strange!

Juzh wrote:From autosport live timing:

"One of the strange sensations of watching Formula 1 cars in action this year is listening to the upshifts of cars. The torque of the new 2014 turbocharged engines means that the timing of gearshifts is not as critical as before, so you get a variety between drivers. According to Jenson Button, a lot of it is down to personal preference."

Button:

It doesn't really matter, it pulls in any gear. In Jerez Kevin was shifting four or five thousand revs before I was but the exit speeds were the same so the gears don't matter so much these days. They really don't. Strange!

autogyro wrote:Over kill with 8 gears by the FIA, in an attempt to make balancing the down shifts to the fly by wire rear brakes and ERS-K systems. If they had a sensible skill level with 6 gears the cars would be spinning all over the place.

piast9 wrote:

autogyro wrote:Over kill with 8 gears by the FIA, in an attempt to make balancing the down shifts to the fly by wire rear brakes and ERS-K systems. If they had a sensible skill level with 6 gears the cars would be spinning all over the place.

I agree. Probably even 6 speed gearboxes would be enough. However I've heard Bernie saying on TV last year that the number of gears was set at 8 for completely another reason - to make sure that the rapid fire of gear changes would still be a trademark of F1.

piast9 wrote:

autogyro wrote:Over kill with 8 gears by the FIA, in an attempt to make balancing the down shifts to the fly by wire rear brakes and ERS-K systems. If they had a sensible skill level with 6 gears the cars would be spinning all over the place.

I agree. Probably even 6 speed gearboxes would be enough. However I've heard Bernie saying on TV last year that the number of gears was set at 8 for completely another reason - to make sure that the rapid fire of gear changes would still be a trademark of F1.

riff_raff wrote:The question actually brings up an interesting possibility with gear ratios. If 8 forward gear ratios are required in the transmission, would there be any benefit to having 4 shift gears and a 2-speed final drive?

autogyro wrote:

riff_raff wrote:The question actually brings up an interesting possibility with gear ratios. If 8 forward gear ratios are required in the transmission, would there be any benefit to having 4 shift gears and a 2-speed final drive?

Interesting suggestion but I think the regulations specify 8 distinct mechanical ratios, not ratio combinations.

I disagree with Bill on the number of gears issue.
The only reason it is better to use less gears than the 8 specified if there was not a rear traction control problem under braking, is because of the ancient 19th century layshaft gear sets used and the time and reliability limitations of the trick shift systems fitted, over 6/7 ratios the layshaft gears set offers no advantages only disadvantage.
Lay shafts are not the only way to achieve stepped ratios and if certain other methods of gearing were used, there would be far less torque loss, a much faster gear shift action and constantly variable ratio changes without a gap in torque transfer.
Even electric motors have an efficiency rpm sweet spot and IC engines all have a lamentably low usable rev range.
Multiple stepped ratios can improve power transfer by a large margin on both prime movers.
CVTs by comparison, would look at first to offer the ideal but they all use too much energy to operate their ratio control systems.
I dispare of F1s current direction in controlled technology, it will get left behind.

piast9 wrote:So if there have to be just 8 pairs of cogs then make 6-speed gearbox with two final drives.

I disagree with Bill on the number of gears issue.
The only reason it is better to use less gears than the 8 specified if there was not a rear traction control problem under braking, is because of the ancient 19th century layshaft gear sets used and the time and reliability limitations of the trick shift systems fitted, over 6/7 ratios the layshaft gears set offers no advantages only disadvantage.
Lay shafts are not the only way to achieve stepped ratios and if certain other methods of gearing were used, there would be far less torque loss, a much faster gear shift action and constantly variable ratio changes without a gap in torque transfer.
Even electric motors have an efficiency rpm sweet spot and IC engines all have a lamentably low usable rev range.
Multiple stepped ratios can improve power transfer by a large margin on both prime movers.
CVTs by comparison, would look at first to offer the ideal but they all use too much energy to operate their ratio control systems.
I dispare of F1s current direction in controlled technology, it will get left behind.

The rules don't actually specify a layshaft type gearbox.

There is a reference to gear pairs, which would imply a lay shaft gearbox, however .

autogyro wrote:

I disagree with Bill on the number of gears issue.
The only reason it is better to use less gears than the 8 specified if there was not a rear traction control problem under braking, is because of the ancient 19th century layshaft gear sets used and the time and reliability limitations of the trick shift systems fitted, over 6/7 ratios the layshaft gears set offers no advantages only disadvantage.
Lay shafts are not the only way to achieve stepped ratios and if certain other methods of gearing were used, there would be far less torque loss, a much faster gear shift action and constantly variable ratio changes without a gap in torque transfer.
Even electric motors have an efficiency rpm sweet spot and IC engines all have a lamentably low usable rev range.
Multiple stepped ratios can improve power transfer by a large margin on both prime movers.
CVTs by comparison, would look at first to offer the ideal but they all use too much energy to operate their ratio control systems.
I dispare of F1s current direction in controlled technology, it will get left behind.

bill shoe wrote:Yea, points taken. But I don't think getting the last couple percent out of driveline efficiency is all that matters. Tradeoffs involving weight and packaging are very important this year, and a direct-drive (no gearbox) system would help those areas a lot. I don't know if any team would actually try that, but the rules makers decided it was a viable enough option that they needed to go out of their way to ban it.

Autogyro and I probably agree that the rules try to carefully foster small bits of innovation within the context of frustratingly traditional requirements.

autogyro wrote:

I disagree with Bill on the number of gears issue.
The only reason it is better to use less gears than the 8 specified if there was not a rear traction control problem under braking, is because of the ancient 19th century layshaft gear sets used and the time and reliability limitations of the trick shift systems fitted, over 6/7 ratios the layshaft gears set offers no advantages only disadvantage.
Lay shafts are not the only way to achieve stepped ratios and if certain other methods of gearing were used, there would be far less torque loss, a much faster gear shift action and constantly variable ratio changes without a gap in torque transfer.
Even electric motors have an efficiency rpm sweet spot and IC engines all have a lamentably low usable rev range.
Multiple stepped ratios can improve power transfer by a large margin on both prime movers.
CVTs by comparison, would look at first to offer the ideal but they all use too much energy to operate their ratio control systems.
I dispare of F1s current direction in controlled technology, it will get left behind.

The rules don't actually specify a layshaft type gearbox.

There is a reference to gear pairs, which would imply a lay shaft gearbox, however .

So the superior design I have available for development might still meet the regulations?
Is that what you are saying Wuzak?

wuzak wrote:

autogyro wrote:So the superior design I have available for development might still meet the regulations?
Is that what you are saying Wuzak?

Not exactly sure what that is autogyro.