2014 Gear ratios and Final Drives

[Juzh]

From autosport live timing:

"One of the strange sensations of watching Formula 1 cars in action this year is listening to the upshifts of cars. The torque of the new 2014 turbocharged engines means that the timing of gearshifts is not as critical as before, so you get a variety between drivers. According to Jenson Button, a lot of it is down to personal preference."

Button:

It doesn't really matter, it pulls in any gear. In Jerez Kevin was shifting four or five thousand revs before I was but the exit speeds were the same so the gears don't matter so much these days. They really don't. Strange!

[autogyro]

From autosport live timing:

"One of the strange sensations of watching Formula 1 cars in action this year is listening to the upshifts of cars. The torque of the new 2014 turbocharged engines means that the timing of gearshifts is not as critical as before, so you get a variety between drivers. According to Jenson Button, a lot of it is down to personal preference."

Button:

It doesn't really matter, it pulls in any gear. In Jerez Kevin was shifting four or five thousand revs before I was but the exit speeds were the same so the gears don't matter so much these days. They really don't. Strange!

Over kill with 8 gears by the FIA, in an attempt to make balancing the down shifts to the fly by wire rear brakes and ERS-K systems. If they had a sensible skill level with 6 gears the cars would be spinning all over the place.

[piast9]

Over kill with 8 gears by the FIA, in an attempt to make balancing the down shifts to the fly by wire rear brakes and ERS-K systems. If they had a sensible skill level with 6 gears the cars would be spinning all over the place.

I agree. Probably even 6 speed gearboxes would be enough. However I've heard Bernie saying on TV last year that the number of gears was set at 8 for completely another reason - to make sure that the rapid fire of gear changes would still be a trademark of F1.

[autogyro]

Over kill with 8 gears by the FIA, in an attempt to make balancing the down shifts to the fly by wire rear brakes and ERS-K systems. If they had a sensible skill level with 6 gears the cars would be spinning all over the place.

I agree. Probably even 6 speed gearboxes would be enough. However I've heard Bernie saying on TV last year that the number of gears was set at 8 for completely another reason - to make sure that the rapid fire of gear changes would still be a trademark of F1.

So when did people start believing Bernie?

[bill shoe]

Over kill with 8 gears by the FIA, in an attempt to make balancing the down shifts to the fly by wire rear brakes and ERS-K systems. If they had a sensible skill level with 6 gears the cars would be spinning all over the place.

I agree. Probably even 6 speed gearboxes would be enough. However I've heard Bernie saying on TV last year that the number of gears was set at 8 for completely another reason - to make sure that the rapid fire of gear changes would still be a trademark of F1.

My pet peeve is the con that high performance cars (street and track) need more gears. The math says that as the engine gets stronger relative to the car weight you need fewer gears. This year F1 requires 8 gears and reduces fuel below a certain engine speed (10500 rpm) in an artificial effort to further this con. Because as Bernie says people are familiar with the resulting sound in F1.

I think with all these overweight F1 cars it would be interesting to allow constant-power engines across a broader range of rpm and run direct to the final drive. This would make the cars more relevant competition for the new generation of electric motors with direct-drive as seen on Tesla, etc. Especially since these new F1 cars have strong electric motors that can torque-fill.

[riff_raff]

The question actually brings up an interesting possibility with gear ratios. If 8 forward gear ratios are required in the transmission, would there be any benefit to having 4 shift gears and a 2-speed final drive?

[autogyro]

The question actually brings up an interesting possibility with gear ratios. If 8 forward gear ratios are required in the transmission, would there be any benefit to having 4 shift gears and a 2-speed final drive?

Interesting suggestion but I think the regulations specify 8 distinct mechanical ratios, not ratio combinations.

I disagree with Bill on the number of gears issue.
The only reason it is better to use less gears than the 8 specified if there was not a rear traction control problem under braking, is because of the ancient 19th century layshaft gear sets used and the time and reliability limitations of the trick shift systems fitted, over 6/7 ratios the layshaft gears set offers no advantages only disadvantage.
Lay shafts are not the only way to achieve stepped ratios and if certain other methods of gearing were used, there would be far less torque loss, a much faster gear shift action and constantly variable ratio changes without a gap in torque transfer.
Even electric motors have an efficiency rpm sweet spot and IC engines all have a lamentably low usable rev range.
Multiple stepped ratios can improve power transfer by a large margin on both prime movers.
CVTs by comparison, would look at first to offer the ideal but they all use too much energy to operate their ratio control systems.
I dispare of F1s current direction in controlled technology, it will get left behind.

[wuzak]

The question actually brings up an interesting possibility with gear ratios. If 8 forward gear ratios are required in the transmission, would there be any benefit to having 4 shift gears and a 2-speed final drive?

Interesting suggestion but I think the regulations specify 8 distinct mechanical ratios, not ratio combinations.

I disagree with Bill on the number of gears issue.
The only reason it is better to use less gears than the 8 specified if there was not a rear traction control problem under braking, is because of the ancient 19th century layshaft gear sets used and the time and reliability limitations of the trick shift systems fitted, over 6/7 ratios the layshaft gears set offers no advantages only disadvantage.
Lay shafts are not the only way to achieve stepped ratios and if certain other methods of gearing were used, there would be far less torque loss, a much faster gear shift action and constantly variable ratio changes without a gap in torque transfer.
Even electric motors have an efficiency rpm sweet spot and IC engines all have a lamentably low usable rev range.
Multiple stepped ratios can improve power transfer by a large margin on both prime movers.
CVTs by comparison, would look at first to offer the ideal but they all use too much energy to operate their ratio control systems.
I dispare of F1s current direction in controlled technology, it will get left behind.

The rules don't actually specify a layshaft type gearbox.

There is a reference to gear pairs, which would imply a lay shaft gearbox, however.

[piast9]

So if there have to be just 8 pairs of cogs then make 6-speed gearbox with two final drives.

[autogyro]

So if there have to be just 8 pairs of cogs then make 6-speed gearbox with two final drives.

It would not transfer torque efficiently enough.

[autogyro]

I disagree with Bill on the number of gears issue.
The only reason it is better to use less gears than the 8 specified if there was not a rear traction control problem under braking, is because of the ancient 19th century layshaft gear sets used and the time and reliability limitations of the trick shift systems fitted, over 6/7 ratios the layshaft gears set offers no advantages only disadvantage.
Lay shafts are not the only way to achieve stepped ratios and if certain other methods of gearing were used, there would be far less torque loss, a much faster gear shift action and constantly variable ratio changes without a gap in torque transfer.
Even electric motors have an efficiency rpm sweet spot and IC engines all have a lamentably low usable rev range.
Multiple stepped ratios can improve power transfer by a large margin on both prime movers.
CVTs by comparison, would look at first to offer the ideal but they all use too much energy to operate their ratio control systems.
I dispare of F1s current direction in controlled technology, it will get left behind.

The rules don't actually specify a layshaft type gearbox.

There is a reference to gear pairs, which would imply a lay shaft gearbox, however .

So the superior design I have available for development might still meet the regulations?
Is that what you are saying Wuzak?

[bill shoe]

I disagree with Bill on the number of gears issue.
The only reason it is better to use less gears than the 8 specified if there was not a rear traction control problem under braking, is because of the ancient 19th century layshaft gear sets used and the time and reliability limitations of the trick shift systems fitted, over 6/7 ratios the layshaft gears set offers no advantages only disadvantage.
Lay shafts are not the only way to achieve stepped ratios and if certain other methods of gearing were used, there would be far less torque loss, a much faster gear shift action and constantly variable ratio changes without a gap in torque transfer.
Even electric motors have an efficiency rpm sweet spot and IC engines all have a lamentably low usable rev range.
Multiple stepped ratios can improve power transfer by a large margin on both prime movers.
CVTs by comparison, would look at first to offer the ideal but they all use too much energy to operate their ratio control systems.
I dispare of F1s current direction in controlled technology, it will get left behind.

Yea, points taken. But I don't think getting the last couple percent out of driveline efficiency is all that matters. Tradeoffs involving weight and packaging are very important this year, and a direct-drive (no gearbox) system would help those areas a lot. I don't know if any team would actually try that, but the rules makers decided it was a viable enough option that they needed to go out of their way to ban it.

Autogyro and I probably agree that the rules try to carefully foster small bits of innovation within the context of frustratingly traditional requirements.

[wuzak]

Yea, points taken. But I don't think getting the last couple percent out of driveline efficiency is all that matters. Tradeoffs involving weight and packaging are very important this year, and a direct-drive (no gearbox) system would help those areas a lot. I don't know if any team would actually try that, but the rules makers decided it was a viable enough option that they needed to go out of their way to ban it.

Autogyro and I probably agree that the rules try to carefully foster small bits of innovation within the context of frustratingly traditional requirements.

Single speed wouldn't give the speed range required.

[wuzak]

I disagree with Bill on the number of gears issue.
The only reason it is better to use less gears than the 8 specified if there was not a rear traction control problem under braking, is because of the ancient 19th century layshaft gear sets used and the time and reliability limitations of the trick shift systems fitted, over 6/7 ratios the layshaft gears set offers no advantages only disadvantage.
Lay shafts are not the only way to achieve stepped ratios and if certain other methods of gearing were used, there would be far less torque loss, a much faster gear shift action and constantly variable ratio changes without a gap in torque transfer.
Even electric motors have an efficiency rpm sweet spot and IC engines all have a lamentably low usable rev range.
Multiple stepped ratios can improve power transfer by a large margin on both prime movers.
CVTs by comparison, would look at first to offer the ideal but they all use too much energy to operate their ratio control systems.
I dispare of F1s current direction in controlled technology, it will get left behind.

The rules don't actually specify a layshaft type gearbox.

There is a reference to gear pairs, which would imply a lay shaft gearbox, however .

So the superior design I have available for development might still meet the regulations?
Is that what you are saying Wuzak?

Not exactly sure what that is autogyro.

[autogyro]

So the superior design I have available for development might still meet the regulations?
Is that what you are saying Wuzak?

Not exactly sure what that is autogyro.

More in this thread http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... 87#p444387