xpensive wrote:Thanks riff_raff, what an ingenious design, for how long has this been around, any patents etc?
So now we have ten F1 teams each individually developing contraptions like this, but I understand that Toyota took the sensible route to utilize the Williams know-how.
All teams now have this kind of gearbox and the majority gets them from the same supplier. It ceased to be a competitive advantage when Force India introduced it at the end of this season as the last team. Now you would just see endless variations in the packaging which would absorb tons of money had the FiA not mandated the standardized gearbox. This will be 5 kg heavier but will cost just 10% of the current price and will last much longer. As the weight disadvantage is the same for all it is fair for all.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
You make a good point about weight. One of the easiest things the FIA could have done to reduce cost and improve safety, would be to increase the minimum weight of the cars and limit the amount of ballast they can carry. That would create a situation where the teams could allocate more of their weight budget towards crash absorbent chassis structures, without a significant increase in cost.
"Q: How do you make a small fortune in racing?
A: Start with a large one!"
Perhaps i misunderstood you rr, but xperience tells me that if an F1 team has excess weight to distribute at their own leisure, it is not very likely that it will end up in the raised nose of the car.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
Weight, slippage, efficiency is all addressed by our technology.
We don't employee any type of frictional CVT method, our technology actually reduces the footprint of the gearbox, it 'integrates' Dual-Drive, Power Regeneration etc into a single, combined package. And best of all... we overcome the Gear-Pair issues in most gearboxes. In essence our technology 'multiplies' gears so a 3-by-3 gear system actually supplies 9 ratios.
We can synchronise any component within the gearbox under software control including clutches & gears, so no need for Synchromesh style selectors or even zeroshift-style ones.
It's just a pity our emails to F1 seem to go unanswered. I'm sure if we were Borg Warner they'd pay attention but small fish don't get a look in.
For IanL:
One way of generating interest in your technology, could be to be more specific on the technical sulutions.
The web-page cited on your first posting didn't explain much, not to me anyway.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
Unfortunately we can't describe the workings of the technologies as this would render the Patent process invalid. We can only describe the 'functionality' & benefits.
Simply imagine taking every gearbox available, combine them all and receive all the benefits but none of the disadvantages. You get perfect seamless transfer (and we mean perfect), constant, perfect ratio matching, continuous drive, combined petrol & electric drive with full software control.
We hope to release our Test software as a software option to allow the driver to set their own power curve settings with the ability to save different personal profiles for their own styles of driving. This allows race teams, enthusiasts to directly 'tinker' to option their 'best fit' for them or the conditions. For example, rallying in hilly terrain with rapid gear changes up & down requires a different gearing protocol to flat racing.
Well, i don't know abot that, every gearbox and benefit stuff wrapped into this or that.
What I do know a thing or two about though is patent-handling, why what you are saying makes no sense whatsoever. Once a patent-application is filed with the authorities (date of priority), your invention is protected in principle, as it is written, until the very day your application runs out of steam and is irrevocably rejected. But until that happens, you can broadcast it if you wish to.
That is how it typically works, you have an idea, file a patent-application in order to be able to market said idea, then hopefully find a way to comercialize it or simply forget about it.
Going around making wild claims about something you don't care to explain will take you nowhere, believe me.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
Ian, you might even find people could pre-empt issues you might suffer productionising it.. This is a good place for getting input. Also you never know which technical directors assistant is evesdroping on forums trying to scope out any juicy titbits. I'm sure there are plenty in the game on here...
If what xpensive reckons is true, and I'm sure you can confirm it with your lawyers etc. I for one would love to hear what's involved, I've a little experience with gearboxes and a little, little bit with production engineering.
Buddy, I feel your pain with regards to getting someone at a large company to take a look at your idea. It's next to impossible. I have a patented traction CVT design (US patent 6,676,560) that I'm trying to market for very large (>2.5MW) wind turbines. I've been plugging away at it for over 5 years now, with very little to show for my efforts.
Good luck to you.
Terry
"Q: How do you make a small fortune in racing?
A: Start with a large one!"
Raff, That's an impresivly simple way of addressing the issue, so simple it makes you wonder how it can't already be in use. Fair play to you, much respect for you efforts.
Have you made a prototype? Would I be right in saying you could add more rollers to up the torque handling, but this would increase losses?
Why wind turbines particularly?
Sorry to tell you I'm not the CEO of a large forward thinking power generator, just really nosy
To the best of my experience, and that's a book I'm afraid, here's how the "Not invented here" rule works;
The best you can hope for when approaching an established company with an independent idea or innovation, is often to meet with the Technical manager or Director. This might seem all very locical and fine, but this guy will have every reason in the book to shoot you down, when he sees little reason to admit to his boss that there's someone smarter than him out there. And if he honestly believes in you, he might try his best to steal the concept, circumvent your patent and launch it as his own idea.
And the VP? He is typically not an engineer anyway, why he will always delegate.
Having said that, there are exceptions to the NIH rule, but most often it takes contacts and references to get anywhere. But for those of us who lives in socialistic countries, if it's green-energy-related, there are alway ways get government funding to develop the idea on your own, thereby also generate some free publicity.
"I spent most of my money on wine and women...I wasted the rest"
