F1technical.net

xpensive wrote:It suddenly struck me is that next years gearboxes has to be very different than today's as, input torque will be coming up.

This is how I figure; Say that the Power through the clutch will be same, some 750 Hp (550 kW), but while the V8 will scream at 18 000 Rpm, next years turbos will be able to give the same power at 10 500, that's 300 vs 500 Nm, 66% up.

As a gearbox is all about gears and bearings, those units simply have to be wider and heavier, the way I can see things?

Well the lower speeds may mean less rotational stress and also less fatigue cycling.
But I feel the reliability on the gearbox will be more or less the same, as the overall power transmitted is the real issue. I could be wrong though.

Gearboxes are usually speed and toque limited. Lowering speed does not necessarily increase the torque tolerance. I would think that a total re design is required.

WhiteBlue wrote:The specification of he power train is very narrow and some crucial pieces like injection systems and software are going to be controlled by the FiA. It makes me think that performance wise we will see relatively small differences. But there is also reliability which will play a role at least in the first year. My money for the best engine would be on Merc because they would have the deepest pockets and most resources of the three.

Honda can test their engine in LMP1 or in an F1 car for next year, but that is not going to be much of an advantage. The other guys will get a steady stream of competition data to improve their design and all four have limited time under the freeze scheme to optimize things. I don't believe it will be an advantage for Honda.

Reading their recent press release it doesn't seem like their engine would be ready to do so until halfway through next year anyway. You're right, manufacturers running with teams throughout the season will have opportunity for far more data than Honda to develop their engines.

I'm pretty sure Honda will get a lot of data through McLaren in 2014. Of course they will not get the same amount of engine data as Mercedes for instance. But I'm pretty sure they will get a lot of useful data from McLaren.

ringo wrote:

xpensive wrote:It suddenly struck me is that next years gearboxes has to be very different than today's as, input torque will be coming up.

This is how I figure; Say that the Power through the clutch will be same, some 750 Hp (550 kW), but while the V8 will scream at 18 000 Rpm, next years turbos will be able to give the same power at 10 500, that's 300 vs 500 Nm, 66% up.

As a gearbox is all about gears and bearings, those units simply have to be wider and heavier, the way I can see things?

Well the lower speeds may mean less rotational stress and also less fatigue cycling.
But I feel the reliability on the gearbox will be more or less the same, as the overall power transmitted is the real issue. I could be wrong though.

A traditional 2 shaft spur gear design will not benefit from the lower rotational speeds. In fact it will be worse for them.

As WB says, gearboxes are rated for torque. That is becuase the spur gears meshing while transmitting torque produce a separating force, which is proportional to the torque input. Thus, if you have 50% higher torque there is 50% greater loading. It is true that there will be a lowering of the frequency which will help on the fatigue side of things.

xpensive wrote:

pgfpro wrote: ...
The turbine shafts will probably have to be larger then normal to run closer to "Shaft Critical Speed" that these turbos will be running at to maintain the high load for efficiency the MGUH will require.

A very good point, while I'm also considering the extended length of the shaft for torsional critical speed, bearing size, plus pure torque transfer of course. I doubt if a standard turbo would do for all this.

Which turbo-manufacturers are involved here, the usual suspects plus IHI perhaps?

It is interesting that Mercedes showed a turbo with the MGUH between the turbine and compressor whereas Renault had the MGUH on the inlet side of the compressor.

The latter makes more sense to me, since the MGUH can be tucked in under the intake, inside the vee.

The Mercedes solution requires a long shaft to connect the turbine and compressor - Renault's doesn't. I also believe that the regs require that the MGUH be coaxial with the turbo's shaft, but not on the same shaft - since the MGUH can be geared and clutched.

The Mercedes unit is probably only for testing and would change substantially come racetime. I guess it has advantages for testing, they can swap out parts easier.

Today many teams builds their own gearboxes. What about next year?? Will all gearboxes be supplied by the engine manufacturer to begin with?? It must be difficult to build a gearbox if you don't have the engine to test it with.

Holm86 wrote:Today many teams builds their own gearboxes. What about next year?? Will all gearboxes be supplied by the engine manufacturer to begin with?? It must be difficult to build a gearbox if you don't have the engine to test it with.

I think the engine manufacturer will provide torque and power maps the teams can use on their gear box dynos.

Scheme from Ferrari site following the Marussia power unit deal announcment Motori porpulsori Ferrari per Marussia Team

How many build their own gearbox?

Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes, Mclaren? Or do they use Xtrac?

SectorOne wrote:How many build their own gearbox?

Ferrari, Red Bull, Mercedes, Mclaren? Or do they use Xtrac?

They all build their own. And Williams does as well. Don't know about Lotus but I also think they build their own. There's only Caterham, Marussia and possible Force India who doesn't build their own boxes.

Deleted

Deleted

Here are some thoughts from Ross Brawn regarding next year's regulations:

Brawn expecting many engine failures in 2014


Ross Brawn is expecting the 2014 season to be characterised by failures. After years of engine regulation stability, the sport is undergoing an enormous technical shakeup at present ahead of next year's radical switch to turbo V6 power.

"We will go back to a time such as 20 years ago," Mercedes team boss Brawn is quoted by Auto Motor und Sport. "The technology is so complex that I expect a lot of failures. So there will be a new element of surprise," he predicted.

Brawn said the challenge will be intensified yet further by the tightening of F1's long-life engine rules, with each driver to be allocated just 5 units next year, rather than 8 at present. "And the failures will be not just the engines, but the individual components," he said. For instance, if turbochargers or batteries fail next year, replacing the component will attract the same penalty of a ten-place grid demotion, once the drivers' engine allocation has run out.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I have a question. Don't the teams get to approve or disapprove changes to the technical regulations? Why do they constantly agree to things that are contrary to their best interests?

Perhaps reverse order starting grids will become commonplace in our beloved sport thanks to all the top boys getting pushed back 10 grid spots every race.....