Turkey GP 2009 - Istanbul Park

[freedom_honda]

I've heard that the BrawnGP gearbox was over-torqued at the start. Can anyone explain what does it mean by "over-torqued"?

[ISLAMATRON]

Alonso did nothin but make excuses for his inability to outrace a rookie and blame it on the team. It was not politics that made Alonso use his car as a lawnmower in Canada or a pinball in Japan. Alonso could have been in a championship level car last year, but it is more important for him to be the number 1 driver than to have a good car under him. HAmilton & Massa speak their mind... its just that their minds arent full of --- like Alonso's is. We've heard Alonso bad mouth every team & nearly every teammate he's ever had.

I suppose you're supposed to tow the company line and lie like Hammy? Please.

Alonso doesnt need to be told to lie, he does it enough already on his own.

[PlatinumZealot]

People still want to believe Lewis lied all by himself.

Anyway.. I don't mind when Alonso speaks out. He is very insightful most of the time.

On the Vettel thing.. It is true he just never had the cojones to pass Button but at the same time i believe a 2 stop would not bring him up to Button but it would have gave him second place.

Webber was just Lucky. He drove well but Vettel had the speed over him. There is a graph showing this on F1 fanatic. The only question would be; could Vettel Pass Webber?

[ISLAMATRON]

Vettle had more speed because a 3 stop strategy allows for it. Carried less fuel, and had to worry less about overusing the tires, plus he didnt have to run the options for as long either.

We can ever honestly who was "faster" between the two. But I wouldnt call it lucky, he made his strategy work whereas Vettle didnt. Vettle maybe could have won on a 3 stopper, but 2nd was his highest hope on a similar strategy to JB's.

[freedom_honda]

I've heard that the BrawnGP gearbox was over-torqued at the start. Can anyone explain what does it mean by "over-torqued"?

can someone help me with this?

[DaveKillens]

I've heard that the BrawnGP gearbox was over-torqued at the start. Can anyone explain what does it mean by "over-torqued"?

This is just a representative picture, but the components are the same as in a Formula One car. If the output from the engine is at (let's just pick any number at random to make things easy) 500 ft-lbs, and if the gear ratio between the engine output shaft and the layshaft is 1:1, then the torque experienced at the layshaft is also 500 ft-lbs. If the layshaft is geared at half the speed of the engine, then because of mechanical ratios, the torque at the layshaft is (500x2) 1000 ft-lbs.
This mechanical ratio applies to all components in the drivetrain. Now examine first gear, and let's assume the gear ratio between the layshaft and output shaft is 1:4. If the input torque is 500 ft-lbs, then the output torque is (500x4) 2000 ft-lbs. Now let's take a shortcut and examine the 7th (top) gear. For simplicity's sake let's assume the final drive ratio is 2:1. Now, the output torque is (500/2) 250 ft-lbs.
Due to the ratios in the gearbox, the output torque is relative to the ratio. How this applies to the drivetrain is that at lower gears, the torque experienced by the output shaft is high, then progressivley lowers as the gear ratio climbs.

This also applies to driving in slippery conditions, especially snow. I tell all my friends driving manual transmissions to always use one gear higher than normal in the snow to lessen the torque at the rear wheels. That way the drive wheels are less likely to slip and lose traction.

[Shaddock]

In layman’s terms, he revved the nuts off engine, dropped the clutch, and the jolt broke something in the gearbox.

[WhiteBlue]

In layman’s terms, he revved the nuts off engine, dropped the clutch, and the jolt broke something in the gearbox.

That is not what I make of DaveKillens's post. I understand that Rubens (and obviously his race engineer) selected different gear ratios compared to Buttons car. What I do not immediately understand is how the start automatic reacts when you have higher gear ratios to screw your start. Those cars are supposed to start automatically when the driver drops the clutch. Did Rubens have too much wheel spin or did the box lift the clutch again because he did not have enough revs?

[Shaddock]

In layman’s terms, he revved the nuts off engine, dropped the clutch, and the jolt broke something in the gearbox.

That is not what I make of DaveKillens's post. I understand that Rubens (and obviously his race engineer) selected different gear ratios compared to Buttons car. What I do not immediately understand is how the start automatic reacts when you have higher gear ratios to screw your start. Those cars are supposed to start automatically when the driver drops the clutch. Did Rubens have too much wheel spin or did the box lift the clutch again because he did not have enough revs?

That's because Dave explains how a standard gearbox works, not how to over torque a F1 seamless shift box.

A more likely scenerio is that a bullet came away from it's dog.

[WhiteBlue]

If you understand the start mechanism perhaps you can explain how it works to stall a car with over torque? F1 boxes have gear ratios and lets assume they took indeed a ratio too high. If one of the dogs broke I could understand that Rubens lost seventh gear. But how did that also ruin his start?

[Shaddock]

If you understand the start mechanism perhaps you can explain how it works to stall a car with over torque? F1 boxes have gear ratios and lets assume they took indeed a ratio too high. If one of the dogs broke I could understand that Rubens lost seventh gear. But how did that also ruin his start?

I'm not sure he did 'stall or activate the anti-stall' his car. The TV commentators made reference to the anti-stall kicking in; to explain the poor get away with a lack of smoke from the rear tyres. The explanation afterwards from Ross Brawn was that RB over torqued the gearbox. All the teams have lengthened first gear since the TC ban, to help combat wheel spin. Most teams have special engine maps that limit torque in the lower gears for better starts.

My suggestion is that too much torque went through the gear box in first gear, (did he forget to swap engine maps like Lewis in a previous race), and the car effectively jumped out of gear.

This is pure speculation of course......

[DaveKillens]

I am of the opinion the anti-stall software received a high torque value and was fooled into believing the car was going backwards.

[Shaddock]

I am of the opinion the anti-stall software received a high torque value and was fooled into believing the car was going backwards.

That's a possibility, that a sensor detected too much torque in first gear and pulled the clutch to save the gearbox. However, if that happened, why did Rubens complain that the gearbox was damaged later in the race?

Drivers can also over torque and lunch a gearbox by changing gear under load over a rumble strip.

[Scotracer]

You think there's a possibility that Brawn have used the anti-stall to their advantage? When the start procedure is begun if the sensors predict too much torque to the back wheels the anti-stall kicks in so the car doesn't just light up the rear wheels? Obviously it would be a large value as it would count as traction control at lower levels.

Just a postulation...

[Shaddock]

I think the FIA would slap there wrists, as it borders on TC [-X