I don't understand the gearbox penalty

[Valve Bounce]

Can somebody please explain to me the logic behind a penalty being applied for changing a faulty gearbox?

I can understand the need to stamp out specialist engines which were used for quals only, and even the need to increase the reliability of engines.

But gearboxes???? Pour the hell quoi? What does such penalties hope to stamp out? What do they achieve? The worst part here is when a gearbox is damaged by some schmuck running into the back of another guy, and damages his gearbox slightly, which damage comes to light during P3 of the next race.

Somehow, I think the FIA have gone penalty mad and wants to be aligned with parking metre inspectors.

[BTCC2]

I suppose the main reason behind the idea is to increase the reliability which in turn would theoretically drive down the costs during the course of a season. I've always thought the team should receive a fine if anything though, it's hardly a drivers fault if he has an unreliable car.

[Valve Bounce]

I suppose the main reason behind the idea is to increase the reliability which in turn would theoretically drive down the costs during the course of a season. I've always thought the team should receive a fine if anything though, it's hardly a drivers fault if he has an unreliable car.

Especially when such gearbox malfunction is unrelated to reliability, and the driver is penalised through no fault of his own. One can surmise that this penalty may (or may not) affect Hamilton's championship chances. For example, had McLaren been able to dismantle the faulty gearbox and repair it, he may not have lost 3rd gear, and after his superb quals, he could have got a podium for the race.

I don't like it when a guy wins a championship through some bad luck or Mickey Mouse rule infringement of his opponent. I like it when he wins it by beating his opponents fair and square, out racing and outspeeding them.

[DexDexter]

Can somebody please explain to me the logic behind a penalty being applied for changing a faulty gearbox?

I can understand the need to stamp out specialist engines which were used for quals only, and even the need to increase the reliability of engines.

But gearboxes???? Pour the hell quoi? What does such penalties hope to stamp out? What do they achieve? The worst part here is when a gearbox is damaged by some schmuck running into the back of another guy, and damages his gearbox slightly, which damage comes to light during P3 of the next race.

Somehow, I think the FIA have gone penalty mad and wants to be aligned with parking metre inspectors.

If they are allowed only a certain number of gearboxes it will drive the costs down and more importantly, they can supply other teams with gearboxes, for example Red Bull/Lotus, Mclaren/ Force India.

[Valve Bounce]

If they are allowed only a certain number of gearboxes it will drive the costs down and more importantly, they can supply other teams with gearboxes, for example Red Bull/Lotus, Mclaren/ Force India.

How? :confused:

[Koz]

How? :confused:

By not having a new gearbox for every race. Same for engines.

[Valve Bounce]

By not having a new gearbox for every race. Same for engines.

Why would you need a new gearbox for every race? I mean you cannot make a gearbox that powerful that it would only last one race, can you?

[steveaki13]

Why would you need a new gearbox for every race? I mean you cannot make a gearbox that powerful that it would only last one race, can you?

No but I suppose that if money were no object the teams could put a new gearbox in every race or every session there was a risk of a problem. If you can you might as well use a new gear box rather than the one from the last race.
By the end of the season you could have used 20+ gear boxes.
Leaving a team like Hispania using 4 or 5 (or whatever the number is) being even further behind the top teams.
So I assume they do this so every team is as equal as possible.

I don't know if this is the case but it may have something to do with it.
Although I agree the Driver should not be punished, it should maybe be a team fine?

[fandango]

I think it makes sense to make them build components that last, so I agree with the current system. In fact, I think they should go the same way with brakes, as it would probably lengthen braking distances and increase overtaking possibilities.

Although I personally don't believe it, there is this idea that technology on F1 cars should and does trickle down to road cars, so increasing reliability demands is a way of playing into this.

[jens]

I think they should make a similar rule to gearboxes as they have for engines - limited to a certain amount for the whole season. It would also make more sense from Valve's fairness point of view. That something should last for 2-,3- or 4 straight races, makes it kinda artificial and inflexible IMO. Imagine that instead of a rule, which limits the number of tyre sets for the whole race weekend, they have a rule that one set of tyres should be used for the whole FP1, the next set for FP2, etc. :laugh:

[mstillhere]

I suppose the main reason behind the idea is to increase the reliability which in turn would theoretically drive down the costs during the course of a season. I've always thought the team should receive a fine if anything though, it's hardly a drivers fault if he has an unreliable car.

it bettrer be a big fine

[CNR]

2010 F1 Technical Regulations - published on 23.06.2010


9.5 Gearboxes :
9.5.1 A gearbox is defined as all the parts in the drive line which transfer torque from the engine crankshaft to the
drive shafts (the drive shafts being defined as those components which transfer drive torque from the
sprung mass to the un-sprung mass). It includes all components whose primary purpose is for the
transmission of power or mechanical selection of gears, bearings associated with these components and
the casing in which they are housed.
9.5.2 In this context the following parts are not considered part of the gearbox and may be changed without
incurring a penalty under the F1 Sporting Regulations. If changing any of these parts involves breaking an
FIA applied seal this may be done but must be carried out under FIA supervision :
- the clutch assembly and any shaft connecting the clutch to the crankshaft or first motion shaft of the
gearbox, provided this is located prior to any mechanical speed reduction from the engine ;
- the clutch actuator and clutch release bearing(s) ;
- inboard driveshaft joints and seals but not their housing if that housing is integral with the gearbox
output shaft and therefore part of the sprung mass ;
- the hydraulic system prior to the point at which it produces direct mechanical movement of the gear
selection mechanism by means of hydraulic actuator(s) ;
- oil, oil pumps, oil filters, oil seals, oil coolers and any associated hoses or pipes ;
- electrical sensors, actuators, servo valves and wiring ;
- any parts associated with the suspension or functioning of the sprung suspension that are attached
to the gearbox casing ;
- the rear impact structure provided it can be separated from any gearbox casing ;
- any other component mounted to the casing whose primary purpose is unconnected with the
transmission of power or selection of gears.


q: so wouldn't it be cheaper to recondition (for tazio rebuild) a gearbox

[Valve Bounce]

Let's be real here: what's wrong with permitting a team to strip down a gearbox to check where a component has been found by their monitoring system to be faulty? Is this going to result in a massive expenditure on gearboxes? I just cannot understand the logic.

I am not a Lewis Hamilton fan, but I do find it galling the way he was penalised in Japan. It just defies all logic, and sense of fair play.

[Mia 01]

Doesn´t he have to have a new gearbox for Korea?

[Valve Bounce]

Doesn´t he have to have a new gearbox for Korea?

Don't know - but there will be no penalty if he does.

[airshifter]

I can understand the basic idea of the penalty, but the points brought up by Valve Bouce carry a lot of merit as well.

It's rare to see an engine have problems after contact, unless it's a huge off or something. But quite often drivers take hits from the back or side that could affect the performance or longevity of the gearbox. They should have some way to allow teams to change without penalty or otherwise fix a gearbox if subject to impacts beyond the drivers control.

Of course doing that might open up another complete mess of who was at fault during what most of us would consider a racing incident. And I'm sure at least a couple drivers would intentionally brake early to cause rear end contact, just so they could get a new gearbox for the next race. :s mokin:

[Valve Bounce]

Well, just let them REPAIR gearboxes at all times without penalty. I know it sounds idiotic but let's face it, we are talking about F1 racing here.

[SGWilko]

I can understand the basic idea of the penalty, but the points brought up by Valve Bouce carry a lot of merit as well.

It's rare to see an engine have problems after contact, unless it's a huge off or something. But quite often drivers take hits from the back or side that could affect the performance or longevity of the gearbox. They should have some way to allow teams to change without penalty or otherwise fix a gearbox if subject to impacts beyond the drivers control.

Of course doing that might open up another complete mess of who was at fault during what most of us would consider a racing incident. And I'm sure at least a couple drivers would intentionally brake early to cause rear end contact, just so they could get a new gearbox for the next race. :s mokin:

Indeed. Side impact on rear wheels will either potentially result in;

Driveshafts being shoved into gearbox causing untold mess,

and

Suspension could be pushed thus deforming the gearbox structure. I would hazard this happened to Lewis' gearbox after the Webber collision.

Also, the rear crash structure is bolted onto the rear of the 'box, so hitting a tyre wall square on backwards could damage 'box integrity also.

[Rollo]

Why would you need a new gearbox for every race? I mean you cannot make a gearbox that powerful that it would only last one race, can you?

Not powerful... but weak.

You can save weight in all sorts of areas, including strength of bearings, mass of gears, even the composite of the materials all in an effort to reduce flying weight inside the gearbox and thus either increase efficiency and/or save weight.

Case in point was the BMW gearbox and powerplant used in the B186 Benetton. The whole drivetrain (gearbox included) had a total useful life of just four laps. In bench tests the car was throwing out 1750bhp.

[Sonic]

I think it makes sense to make them build components that last, so I agree with the current system. In fact, I think they should go the same way with brakes, as it would probably lengthen braking distances and increase overtaking possibilities.
.

What a great idea! Safety would have to be paramount but in principle I think that's a great way of achieving so many of F1's current objectives.

*ducks*

[Valve Bounce]

Not powerful... but weak.

You can save weight in all sorts of areas, including strength of bearings, mass of gears, even the composite of the materials all in an effort to reduce flying weight inside the gearbox and thus either increase efficiency and/or save weight.

Case in point was the BMW gearbox and powerplant used in the B186 Benetton. The whole drivetrain (gearbox included) had a total useful life of just four laps. In bench tests the car was throwing out 1750bhp.

This is powerful stuff. I must have missed a helluva lot (tho' I can't imagine where) of Professor Shaw's lectures on Applied Mechanics. :(

[Rollo]

Usually in a V12 engine there are seven sets of bearings, between each pair of cylinders in the V and at the ends. Ferrari in their V12 GP engines used only 3 - the ones at the ends and between sets of 6; it gets even crazier with a V10 because they only used them at the ends.

Since F1 is a sport where even minor differences are critical, then saving little bits of weight here and there are de rigueur. I really like the AFL term for making sure you do the little things, the "One Percenter". All of those little 1%s eventually add up to an advantage.

[Sleeper]

Why would you need a new gearbox for every race? I mean you cannot make a gearbox that powerful that it would only last one race, can you?
If you remember back 8 years the fashion was to make them very, very light, wich meant they were very expensive and non too reliable. The 4 consecutive race rule has stamped that out, saving money and freeing up capacity at the big teams to supply the smaller ones.

My only problem is with the penalties, they shouldnt apply to the driver.

[Koz]

My only problem is with the penalties, they shouldnt apply to the driver.

Care to suggest an alternative?

[Valve Bounce]

Usually in a V12 engine there are seven sets of bearings, between each pair of cylinders in the V and at the ends. Ferrari in their V12 GP engines used only 3 - the ones at the ends and between sets of 6; it gets even crazier with a V10 because they only used them at the ends.

Since F1 is a sport where even minor differences are critical, then saving little bits of weight here and there are de rigueur. I really like the AFL term for making sure you do the little things, the "One Percenter". All of those little 1%s eventually add up to an advantage.

I was under the impression that cars are coming in well under weight and they have to use ballast to make up the diference. But, of course, a few spinning bearings and gearwheels might confuse the issue. :confused:

[Valve Bounce]

Care to suggest an alternative?

Well, yeah! just let them repair the damn thing, for goodness sake!!

[Retro Formula 1]

Yes, cars do come in under-weight but that's by design. It's hugely beneficial to be able to distribute tungsten alloy at near ground level where you want it positioned for stability and balance.

There is no problem with having a lasting gearbox and NO, they shouldn't be able to "fix" them at will. All they will do is rebuild all components at every opportunity, using finer tolerances and lighter oils to have a more effective, less draining unit.

[Valve Bounce]

Yes, cars do come in under-weight but that's by design. It's hugely beneficial to be able to distribute tungsten alloy at near ground level where you want it positioned for stability and balance.

There is no problem with having a lasting gearbox and NO, they shouldn't be able to "fix" them at will. All they will do is rebuild all components at every opportunity, using finer tolerances and lighter oils to have a more effective, less draining unit.

Yeah! you're right. Why bother to to strengthen a grearbox when you can have the ballast at near ground level.

Then, of course, if the teams hired midget drivers, they could have more tungsten alloy ballast at near ground level. We can have a new drive for competitive midget drivers for F1.

[Retro Formula 1]

What???

You have ignored the subject completely to make some ridiculous claim about midget drivers?

If you don't understand the performance benefit of weight distribution then ask. If you don't see how reducing energy loss by using finer grades, less oil and reduced tolerances will improve power delivery then I will explain it.

Only problem is that you are producing a unit that needs near constant rebuilding and significantly increases costs with practically zero improvement to the racing.

If you want to know more about how to best place midgets then try here.

http://www.freeonlinegames.com/game/midget-tossing.html

[SGWilko]

What???

You have ignored the subject completely to make some ridiculous claim about midget drivers?

If you don't understand the performance benefit of weight distribution then ask. If you don't see how reducing energy loss by using finer grades, less oil and reduced tolerances will improve power delivery then I will explain it.

Only problem is that you are producing a unit that needs near constant rebuilding and significantly increases costs with practically zero improvement to the racing.

If you want to know more about how to best place midgets then try here.

http://www.freeonlinegames.com/game/midget-tossing.html

Rather than risk reliability by 'thinning down' all key stressed components, why not employ a very light driver?

You don't see many bat fastards winning at Aintree or Ascot, do you..........???

[Retro Formula 1]

Rather than risk reliability by 'thinning down' all key stressed components, why not employ a very light driver?

You don't see many bat fastards winning at Aintree or Ascot, do you..........???

You don't see many bat fastards in a F1 car either :rolleyes:

Webber is the tallest of the current crop at 6ft 1inch and weighs about 75kg (<12 stone)

:)

[SGWilko]

You don't see many bat fastards in a F1 car either :rolleyes:

Webber is the tallest of the current crop at 6ft 1inch and weighs about 75kg (<12 stone)

:)

Indeed, but a short ar53 would weigh less than a lanky git, init? ;)

[Dave B]

But - and I can't believe I'm entering into this discussion - would a short driver have the strength necessary to work the brakes? Remember they're not servo-assisted like on a road car!

Has any figures ever been published as to whether limiting quantites of gearboxes (and engines) actually saves any money - or do the teams just spend the cash elsewhere, such as R&D on these longlife components?

[Valve Bounce]

You don't see many bat fastards in a F1 car either :rolleyes:

Webber is the tallest of the current crop at 6ft 1inch and weighs about 75kg (<12 stone)

:)

Well, Glen Boss only weighs 47KG. Now if we can get Glen to drive as well as he can ride, then just imagine we can strategically place, heck what is 75 minus 47 somebody?, yeah! that many kg down at a beneficial location and then beef up the gearboxes so they will never fail. What do ya say? And the cars will go round corners faster. That would be a great idea, don't ya think?

[Valve Bounce]

But - and I can't believe I'm entering into this discussion - would a short driver have the strength necessary to work the brakes? ?

Yeah! Glen can stand up over a two mile race and win it. Think Mark Webber is strong enough to do that?

[Retro Formula 1]

But would dwarfs be able to reach the pedals? Wouldn't we be better using anorexics or even ghosts?

Surely a spectre would be better behind the wheel.

[Dave B]

But would dwarfs be able to reach the pedals? Wouldn't we be better using anorexics or even ghosts?
I've been a member here for nearly a decade and that's the first post that's made my spit my drink out with laughter. Nice work :D

[Valve Bounce]

But would dwarfs be able to reach the pedals? Wouldn't we be better using anorexics or even ghosts?

Surely a spectre would be better behind the wheel.

So you think someone of the size of Glen Boss cannot reach the pedals? and if he can ride 8 or 9 races a day, then surely he would be strong enough to do better than an anorexic or a ghost?

[Valve Bounce]

I've been a member here for nearly a decade and that's the first post that's made my spit my drink out with laughter. Nice work :D

What about this guy? he's laughing all the way to the bank! http://www.glenboss.com.au/

[SGWilko]

But would dwarfs be able to reach the pedals?

Have you stopped to consider that pehaps the pedals are tailored to suit individual drivers.......

[V12]

I think they should make a similar rule to gearboxes as they have for engines - limited to a certain amount for the whole season. It would also make more sense from Valve's fairness point of view. That something should last for 2-,3- or 4 straight races, makes it kinda artificial and inflexible IMO. Imagine that instead of a rule, which limits the number of tyre sets for the whole race weekend, they have a rule that one set of tyres should be used for the whole FP1, the next set for FP2, etc. :laugh:

Don't give them ideas!!!

Actually sod it, they're halfway there already, having to start on the tyres you qualify on them and change them for a different type at some point in the race.