The F1 Technical Developments Thread

Engines off in the pitlane = pretty much the same hybrid homologation test as the ACO imposed on LMP cars, which was travelling the length of the pitlane, at the pitlane speed limit, on electrical power only. As for the V6 angle... 90 degrees would throw it off balance, the balanced V6 configurations are at 60 and 120 degrees of V afaik.

Ok, haven't checked ACO's upcoming rules closely. What comes to the V6s, 90 degrees is not the optimal angle, but since these engines aren't stretched to the max, it'll do. Obviously it's reliable enough if it's the mandatory angle. Then again, on closer thought, I don't know if the 90 or 120 degree angle would be the best choice if it wasn't forced by the rules. 120 has a lower centre of gravity but I'm not sure which is best for packaging and aerodynamics. Then again, even the engine's centre of gravity is forced by the rules, pretty much like everything else...


Ford Prefect said:
I?m thinking a decent mechanic can probably do that within an hour or two. Even if you were to calculate his salary with something completely ridiculous like 1000 ?/hr...

I recall reading an article on F1 mechanics' salaries and the number was much lower than I expected. Can't remember what the average amount was, but they're not exactly showering in money.

WillDAQ said:
True, but you have to have a set of replacement ratios for each gear, the time it takes to design and manufacture all of those ain't cheap.

The gearboxes still need to be designed for various different ratios, even if you can leave Monaco-like ratios out. If I understand the rules right, you're not allowed to change the gears after every race in 2014 since they are considered a part of the gearbox. If anyone who's had a better look at the 2014 rules can confirm or un-confirm this, I'd appreciate it. If this is the case, the gears need to designed way more durable than now, so there goes the cost effectiveness. And if they can change them after every race, they still need to manufacture the replacement gears so no money saved there either.
 
Gear ratios which have to be decided pre-season? This has to be the dumbest rule change in a while. While I understand it might bring some excitement if the teams end up with different ratios, but this is not the way to mix up the field. Besides, the most likely scenario is that the teams end up with very similar ratios and we'll end up with useless gears in the box like vikiradTG2007 mentioned. They should just stick with the 7-speed and changeable ratios.

I agree, that is completely asinine.


Also no VGTs is retarded as well. We use VGTs in some of our tractors and they are absolutely awesome. If they're going to take away gear-ratio selection at least give the teams VGTs.
 
Last edited:
One thought on how to make the regulation more manageable is to only allow 4 gear boxes, but allow each to have a different set of gear ratio's. You wouldn't have to use the gearboxes in succession and could choose which one works for each race but they would have to get you through the season. I imagine 3 or 4 different sets of gears would cover enough of the races to make it viable, but it would still keep the costs down a bit. Do the current rules allow gear ratio changes even though they have to use a transmission for four races or whatever? Despite the primary malfunction seeming to be hydraulic in nature, I'm sure having a new set of gears for every race makes them last longer.
 
True, but you have to have a set of replacement ratios for each gear, the time it takes to design and manufacture all of those ain't cheap.
Well, I?m not really familiar with all the specifics in F1. But I think once you have your geometry worked out and your super complicated simulation for whatever crazy gear-material you are using is in place, it?s not that big of a deal compared to some of the other stuff.

The gearboxes still need to be designed for various different ratios, even if you can leave Monaco-like ratios out. If I understand the rules right, you're not allowed to change the gears after every race in 2014 since they are considered a part of the gearbox. If anyone who's had a better look at the 2014 rules can confirm or un-confirm this, I'd appreciate it. If this is the case, the gears need to designed way more durable than now, so there goes the cost effectiveness. And if they can change them after every race, they still need to manufacture the replacement gears so no money saved there either.

I?m thinking that in a specialised application like F1, it?s actually easier (and therefore cheaper) to just swap parts as you go along, rather than coming up with something that can last for the whole seaspn.

The main idea behind this rule is probably to force the engine developers to come up with something with a large useful power band rather than something which only works between 14K and 15K.
 
Power band shouldn't be an issue because there is no regulation on the boost, so they should be able to make it as wide as they want.

Sam Michael on the BBCs German FP2 coverage said that turbo boost scramble buttons would happen - so the drivers call call up extra boost at the push of a button, but apparently the fuel flow rate is regulated per rev band, so between W and X revs, the flow rate is one amount, between Y and Z another flow rate again.

Remember they're using 8-speed gearboxes to overcome the gear ratio lockdown.
 
Last edited:
Erm, no. That FW has been present for a couple of races now.
 
lol
 
They've been quick all year without a dramatic 'step', so clearly it's just a small part of the big picture.
 
Could someone explain to me how F1 gearboxes manage to "seamlessly shift"? I remember watching a video where Ross Brawn talks about having 2 gears run engaged at the same time before one disengages. How the heck is that even possible? And what is keeping this technology from being implemented into road cars? i.e. Why is it so expensive?
 
Top