F1technical.net

autogyro wrote: I only mentioned the wheel design, because a spinning steering wheel in a crash can easily break thumbs, I know from personal experience in a 150bhp Mini.
Gripping the wheel with thumbs helps with control so long as the thumbs are removed from behind the wheel in a crash (should be a natural reaction).
Mt preference would be to have the buttons on the inside of the wheel for thumb operation, allowing the fingers to have a continual grip on the outside.

Yeah, I see what you mean. Since the thumbs didn't completely grip the wheel, that wasn't an issue for us.

I'm a little curious what you mean by "buttons on the inside of the wheel for thumb operation." Are you saying that if you were to build a wheel from scratch, you would essentially take what we designed... remove the Al plate and stick the buttons underneath the thumbs as you would grip the wheel if it didn't have the plate. So then you would just have to "squeeze" the wheel to shift?

I have a feeling I'm misinterpreting you, but if that is what you meant then I could see problems with that arrangement.

No, I would place the buttons on the inner rim of the wheel at an angle that was easiest for thumb operation.
About 45 degrees from the plane of the wheel and slightly below the natural thumb grip position.

I can see auotgyro’s point about paddles. A switch requires some travel to be activated, and that travel is magnified due to the lever arm of the paddle.

My recollection of on board cameras is that the F1 drivers have their finger tips resting on the paddle most of the time. They seem to only require a twitch of their fingers to activate them. They do not seem to have to uncurl their fingers from the wheel and then reach for the paddle, and then back to the wheel. The ergonomics and paddle travel distance seem to work for them.

I think other factors such as number of other controls on the front of the wheel also comes into play.

As for roadcars, you have to consider that they often turn the wheel more than 180 degrees, requiring the driver to move their hands around the wheel. So the paddle/button design will be different from an F1 car where the driver’s hands can stay in exactly the same place on a wheel throughout a race.

My SLK has large paddle like buttons on the rear of the wheel. I hate them on tight bends. You spin the wheel to go round a corner and it takes a moment to find the button. I would prefer to have paddles attached to the dash that did not move, each one with a 180 degree arc. . Having said that, I leave the box in auto and only manually override to shift down to overtake or before a bend (when the wheel is straight). I leave the upshifts out of the bends (when the wheel is spinning) to the auto box.

One final aside from a recent SLK meet. A majority of the SLKs had a 7 speed auto, but one of the guys drove a 6 speed manual. He chose that because he wanted to “drive the car, not pilot it”. He didn’t use the clutch when he was doing “proper driving”. The clutch was left for town and “lazy driving”. He’d learnt the skill from track testing for a lubricants company. If you can master that skill then auto boxes seem a bit irrelevant.

Oddly enough, those idiots populating F1, engineers and drivers alike, all seem to agree on paddles, can you believe it?

padles require less strength too. Button pressing can be fatiguing in a 2 hour race. It is also easier to double press a button and accidentally upshift twice.
Concerning road cars, i think a shift ring should be used instead of padles. Having a ring parallel to the plane of the steering wheel makes it so that no matter where your hands are on the wheel any part of the rings surface behind your hand can be flicked to change gear.

About paddle shifts, are the up changes in f1 automatic? I know down changes are manually opperated by the paddle.

My SLK is a six speed stick shift and it is an easy matter to change gear up or down without using the clutch.
I once drove an Austin Healey 3000 from Inverness to North London with no working clutch.
Any driver used to early layshaft gearboxes could do the same.
The best were the drivers of the old crash truck gearboxes.
Just a matter of matching the input and output rpm from neutral.

autogyro wrote: I once drove an Austin Healey 3000 from Inverness to North London with no working clutch.

It's all fun and games until you come to a red light!

I really don't know why they don't teach double declutching, it's a really useful skill to have. A perfectly executed downshift is one of the most satisfying things anyone can do.

McLaren have a good explanation of their paddle shift on the new MP4-12C page:

http://www.mclarenautomotive.com/uk/cha ... ker_paddle

xxChrisxx wrote:

autogyro wrote: I once drove an Austin Healey 3000 from Inverness to North London with no working clutch.

It's all fun and games until you come to a red light!

I really don't know why they don't teach double declutching, it's a really useful skill to have. A perfectly executed downshift is one of the most satisfying things anyone can do.

Turn off engine and use the starter motor to take off as the engine starts, easy peasy.

richard_leeds wrote:McLaren have a good explanation of their paddle shift on the new MP4-12C page:

http://www.mclarenautomotive.com/uk/cha ... ker_paddle

Why is it that I get so over emotional at the sight of silly paddle shifters.
There is absolutely NO reason why a performance car gearbox should be anything other than FULLY AUTOMATIC, absolutely no reason whatsoever.
With the availability of modern computer management systems, why is it still considered to be only in the domain of some macho motor head, to be the only acceptable control method for gear shifting?
F1 only has manually operated gear shifting because of the regulations, nothing else.
Automatic F1 systems would instantly reduce lap times.

autogyro wrote: There is absolutely NO reason why a performance car gearbox should be anything other than FULLY AUTOMATIC, absolutely no reason whatsoever.

There is no reason for a drivers car to have anything but a proper H box. Begause selecting 'D' and pressing a 'go' pedal is qucker... but boring and unsatisfying. The only reason why paddles are popular is becuase you can pretend you are <insert favourite F1 drivers name>.

autogyro wrote: With the availability of modern computer management systems, why is it still considered to be only in the domain of some macho motor head, to be the only acceptable control method for gear shifting?
F1 only has manually operated gear shifting because of the regulations, nothing else.
Automatic F1 systems would instantly reduce lap times.

They have spent nearly the last 15 years trying everything they can to slow that cars down (within reason). It would seem a little silly to then implement something to just make hte lap times drop suddenly.

"There is no reason for a drivers car to have anything but a proper H box. Begause selecting 'D' and pressing a 'go' pedal is qucker... but boring and unsatisfying. The only reason why paddles are popular is becuase you can pretend you are <insert favourite F1 drivers name>".

"Drivers Car"?

What exactly does this mean?

What you are saying then, is that a "driver" does not actually need a car at all, just a computer game with a gear lever, "banana in a bowl of custard" to waggle.
I presume this is sufficient for the 'driver' to go brrrmmm brrrmmm and con the mind deadened plebe's in bars.
Just a shame that the 'driver' will never go as fast as an automatic system.
Still we live in a society of delusion and spin.

If automatic gear boxes had no price, fuel or weight disadvantages we would all be having automatics on our road cars. You have to be a fool not to see the advantage for safety in it. But the situation is rather different and so the majority of road cars have manual transmissions. While that is the case it makes perfect sense for F1 to keep gear changes as a driver's domain. The sport is supposed to be run without avoidable driver aids.

WhiteBlue wrote:If automatic gear boxes had no price, fuel or weight disadvantages we would all be having automatics on our road cars. You have to be a fool not to see the advantage for safety in it. But the situation is rather different and so the majority of road cars have manual transmissions. While that is the case it makes perfect sense for F1 to keep gear changes as a driver's domain. The sport is supposed to be run without avoidable driver aids.

I disagree on a number of your points WhiteBlue.
Modern gearboxes of the layshaft or twin layshaft (so called seamless, are as easy to operate with computer control as with levers, buttons or paddles.
The only main difference in operational capability between these and a 'conventional' epicyclic automatic transmission is the 'torque converter' that goes in place of the dry clutch. If it is just the gear changes under discussion there should be no cost difference in quantity production and no weight difference either over a brrmmm brrmm manual box. A torque converter could easily be used in place of a dry clutch to facilitate full auto operation of layshaft systems on all types and with an internal lock up clutch, as is normal today, there would not be a fuel use difference either. Of course there are also other gear train options for full auto that are potentially far more efficient than either and with the next generation of hybrids becoming essential, these systems will soon come into their own.
Fair enough F1 has to follow the regulations but by doing so it is definitely not leading world technology in gearbox development.
Waggle on with that rubber paddle Button!! vroom vroom

The last time I bought a car (2007) the Beamers and the Audi automatic boxes were heavier and using more fuel. With both companies fighting mightily for fuel efficiency I would not believe that they had passed on an opportunity to sell automatics with on par properties. But perhaps you do know much more than those people do.