BAR007: If its not CVT what is it?

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
v10motorhead
v10motorhead
0
Joined: 11 Aug 2003, 17:26
Location: Australia

BAR007: If its not CVT what is it?

Post

BAR Honda insist they are not using a continuous variable transmisson gearbox..... But they do say its a seamless gearshift.... Seamless gearshifts to me is uninterupted power transmission to the wheels, so that makes it a continuous drive gearbox.... Kinda contradictory......

CVT is banned in F1 & if the FIA deem the 007's gearbox illegal BAR are gonna go from 2nd spot to god knows where depending on how quick they develop an alternate solution.....

Any ideas as to what's in this new gearbox :?:

Monstrobolaxa
Monstrobolaxa
1
Joined: 28 Dec 2002, 23:36
Location: Covilhã, Portugal (and sometimes in Évora)

Post

We've had a discussion on this a few weeks back....here is the link:

viewtopic.php?t=1088

User avatar
joseff
11
Joined: 24 Sep 2002, 11:53

Post

But if it doesn't hold up in a cerbera...

Timstr
Timstr
8
Joined: 25 Jan 2004, 12:09

Post

I tried to listen to the upshifts from the launch video [url]mms://195.219.160.200/mcp?chid=25&pid=196&vid=1774881&br=800&tid=1&void=2410[/url]
Unfortunately the footage mostly shows the car at corner entry so you mostly hear downshifts. But towards the middle and the end of the video you can hear a few upshifts and it does sound quicker. But definately not a CVT!
I think the mentioned fact (by Autosport) that Charlie Whiting is against it is a fabrication.

KJM3
KJM3
0
Joined: 14 Jun 2004, 22:19

Post

I was always under the impression that a CVT was a transmission where a chain or belt was used to physically change the gear ratio's on a car irrespective of the gear it was in.

For example, if driving hard, the gear ratio's would shorten up in every gear and improve acceleration.

On the other hand, if the driver was taking it easy on the highway, the gear ratios would go longer and improve gas mileage.

I personally don't consider a seamless gearshift a CVT, and would be tremendously dissapointed if the FIA banned BAR's device for having seamless gearshifts.

From what I've heard though, there IS a gap between shifts in BAR's new tranny (maybe BAR did that on purpose to get it approved by the FIA), but it's much less of a gap than the other cars. If their system is approved for use, BAR could very well win the Constructor's title, because that would lead to A LOT of time gained over a race distance. The kind of time that aero and tires just wouldn't be able to come up with to compete!!!

- KJ

User avatar
Scuderia_Russ
0
Joined: 17 Jan 2004, 22:24
Location: Motorsport Valley, England.

Post

Whether it's considered c.v.t. or not i don't believe is the point.The point is that the rules state that here must be 300 milliseconds between gearchanges (i think it's 300 milliseconds anyway) and this B.A.R. gearbox with seamless shift, doesn't have that.Talking of gearboxes, does anyone know if McLaren have broken their silence over their gearbox yet because it is rumoured that they have succeeded with their full carbon fibre 'box?
"Whether you think you can or can't, either way you are right."
-Henry Ford-

KJM3
KJM3
0
Joined: 14 Jun 2004, 22:19

Post

The rules state that there must be 300 milliseconds between shifts? (that's a whopping 0.3 seconds between each shift!!!).

What a stupid rule, I don't see how a constraint like that could benefit F1.

I would personally prefer it if the FIA allowed teams to develop things like this to the point where it was "perfect". i.e. a "seamless" gearchange.

It would allow cars to go faster around a track, with very little downside in terms of saftey, cornering speed etc.

I find the discovery and development of such technology one of the fascinations of F1. It is things like these that make F1 special.

- KJ

Mclaren11
Mclaren11
0
Joined: 13 May 2003, 22:54
Location: Columbus, Indiana, USA

Post

Where do you find the 300 ms rule? i didnt think that there was a time limit. Anyway, a cvt is a "Continuously VARIABLE Gearbox" not a "Continuous DRIVE Gearbox" so even if they could have seamless shifts (assuming there is no 300 ms rule) it should be legal.

Guest
Guest
0

re:

Post

I think there was a rule when traction controls were banned or reinstated that said the max. length of a gearchange could be 300 milliseconds.

I'm pretty sure I saw an article in Autosport a few years ago saying the Ferrari were WELL under that. I hope that this gearbox lasts until at least the USGP so I can hear it run and see it during the pitwalk

KJM3
KJM3
0
Joined: 14 Jun 2004, 22:19

Post

Mclaren11 wrote:Where do you find the 300 ms rule? i didnt think that there was a time limit. Anyway, a cvt is a "Continuously VARIABLE Gearbox" not a "Continuous DRIVE Gearbox" so even if they could have seamless shifts (assuming there is no 300 ms rule) it should be legal.
This article states that BAR said that there was a "break in power" to make the gearbox legal (at least in BAR's opinion).

It also said that the FIA may clarify a rule that would deem a seamless shift gearbox to be a form of a CVT.

http://www.f1racing.net/en/news.php?newsID=75989

- KJ

User avatar
Scuderia_Russ
0
Joined: 17 Jan 2004, 22:24
Location: Motorsport Valley, England.

Post

It's probably 30 milliseconds then.I've found a quote from Autosport here.
"In our system there is a break in power so it does not breach the F.I.A. regulations.The system is a lot quicker than before, but it's not a c.v.t."
-Honda Racing Vice President Otmar Szanfnauer-
"Whether you think you can or can't, either way you are right."
-Henry Ford-

Mclaren11
Mclaren11
0
Joined: 13 May 2003, 22:54
Location: Columbus, Indiana, USA

Post

It Still dosn't make sense to me that it would be a cvt. There are a defined number of ratios so it cant be continuously variaable. I guess if you interpreted the rule as saying that a cvt is a gearbox where the car can always be in the optimal avalable gear then it could be a cvt, but i think thats a strech.

-shr3d-
-shr3d-
0
Joined: 27 May 2003, 07:52
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post

Yeah I'm with you Mclaren11 and it looks like a major F1mag agrees as well. I havent come across this 300msec rule and I do remember Ferrari redesigning their gearbox which allowed them to change gear much faster than before but will look back and check because they did list a time for gear changes.
Not sure about Mclarens box yet, will keep u posted.

ReubenG
ReubenG
0
Joined: 21 Apr 2004, 15:31

Post

A continuously variable transmission is a device which changes drive ratio continuously as opposed to changing between discrete, different gear ratios. CVTs generally use chain or belt drives with variable diameter drive pulleys or cams rollings against profiled sheaves to achieve changes in drive ratio. Not sure why the FIA rushed to ban CVTs (back with the Williams in the early 90s?) as most CVTs require an element of transmission slip to work and hence have a lower effiiciency that a gearbox. With a 7 ratio gearbox and shift times measued in milliseconds, I'm not sure that a CVT would have an advantage over a conventional gearbox.

Reca
Reca
93
Joined: 21 Dec 2003, 18:22
Location: Monza, Italy

Post

McLaren wrote: Anyway, a cvt is a "Continuously VARIABLE Gearbox" not a "Continuous DRIVE Gearbox" so even if they could have seamless shifts (assuming there is no 300 ms rule) it should be legal.
With a continuous drive you are necessarily having also a continuous variation of the gear ratio, being it for the whole time or just during the engine rpm variation while passing between two different, fixed, gear ratios. Speed is almost constant in that situation so if the power is transmitted also during the engine rpm drop (that is obviously continuous and requires a finite time) caused by the upshift, the gear ratio in that interval must be continuously varying, how it’s achieved isn’t important (for example via clutch slippage), in that situation you are mimicking a CVT.
Also at the car’s launch you are de facto using a CVT, via the clutch slippage, that’s obviously allowed but there’s a set of rules governing the launch, to do the same thing during the shifting is a different matter. It’s probably the same thing that makes non legal the twin clutch gearbox. But we can’t be sure, that’s one of the many obscure (for us) parts of the rules, you’ll find little on the document you can download from the FIA website because that one isn’t complete, it doesn’t include the several clarifications that are made during the year(s) to give more precise indications about many different details.

As for the rule on the 300 ms, it wasn’t a time required for the shift, it was the maximum time allowed for the automatic shift (and clutch control). The discussion about it was in 2001 when people suspected that Ferrari was already using the TC before it was made legal in Spain, and AFAIK, it resulted to be just the clutch control during the shift, the actual shift time was a lot shorter than the maximum time allowed (I don’t remember if it was exactly 300 ms though) so for the remaining part it was all about automatic clutch control, the effect was basically a TC but in a legal way. If now things are the same or not I don’t know, as I said these details are mainly a matter of clarifications and discussions between FIA and the teams’ technical directors.
On the FIA rules we can discuss about bodywork dimensions and general things because these are pretty clear, but when the discussion is about for example transmission system or torque transfer in the differential or anything involving an electronic control, things are lot more intricate and only FIA and teams know all the details about what is allowed and what is not.