![Photo](https://bb2.autosport.com/uploads/av-1809.png?_r=1233612206)
Push-button vs. true manual transmissions
#1
Posted 11 August 1999 - 10:04
My racer's soul insists we go back to fully manual, clutch-interfacing transmissions. However, there could be any number of reasons to stay with push-button gearshifting. I can't think of any, but if you can, I'd love to hear it...
Whatever your position on this, please enlighten me.
In the dark with a candle but no match,
------------------
PB ;-)
Always opinionated. Not always right.
[This message has been edited by Pit Babe (edited 08-11-1999).]
Advertisement
#2
Posted 11 August 1999 - 11:48
HOWEVER I exclude all devices which change gear or allow the driver to bypass gears or whatever the bloody computers do this week from that. I *hate* them and think thats an area the FIA should focus on tightening up on. that and "engine mapping" which effectively cheats by altering engine speeds at different parts of the circuit. grrr
Shaun
#3
Posted 11 August 1999 - 12:49
#4
Posted 11 August 1999 - 13:31
I think the paddle should be banned, and stick shifts should be put back in. Drivers can not miss gears these days, and Alain Prost says that when a driver missed a gear (in the good ol' days), it allowed another to get passed. I think it would be great to see one driver pressure another into causing such mistakes, in order to overtake.
#5
Posted 11 August 1999 - 15:15
[This message has been edited by Christiaan (edited 08-11-1999).]
#6
Posted 11 August 1999 - 18:27
Wouldn't a better test of the drivers's ability result from having to figure clutch use and physical shifting into every manoeuvre?
#7
Posted 11 August 1999 - 20:04
Isn't it drivers job to take care of speed and direction, and to let car take care of things it can do better.
#8
Posted 11 August 1999 - 22:07
BTW: I think that IRL cars have the same manual shifters as NASCAR but not sure.
James Harold
------------------
" I have no interest in any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend
to go in harm's way." Captain J. P. Jones, US Navy - January 16, 1777
#9
Posted 11 August 1999 - 22:51
Perhaps with further reasoning I might see things differently.
------------------
PB ;-)
"The Why Girl"
Always opinionated. Not always right.
[This message has been edited by Pit Babe (edited 08-11-1999).]
#10
Posted 11 August 1999 - 23:15
Now for JV, his was a mental error, not a driving error, he pushed the wrong button.
A good example of a driving error is Alex Zanardi in practice for the Austriala CART race last year.
He accidently shifted before he should have, and reved the engine up to nearly 20,000 (for about 4 seconds) and blew the engine.
The IRL does use a simalar gearbox to NASAR, although next year they will run a squential gearbox.
I think some people may not relise the shifting in CART is really not that bad VS the semi automatic's.
CART has a "shift without lift" system in the engine that can sense when the revs are up and cuts the engine for a spilt second while the driver shifts the squential gearbox.
He does not even have to let up on the gas or anything.
------------------
Death through Tyranny - Megatron
#11
Posted 12 August 1999 - 01:36
#12
Posted 12 August 1999 - 02:12
F1 gearboxes are sequential shifter boxes just like CART. The difference is that CART has a mechanical connection activated by the driver and F1 has a hydraulic activation triggered by the electronic signals from the "paddles" on the steering wheel.
Even when they had manual change, drivers do not use the clutch on gearchanges, they just slam the lever. New gear clusters are fitted for each race.
#13
Posted 12 August 1999 - 03:08
#14
Posted 12 August 1999 - 05:49
#15
Posted 12 August 1999 - 06:11
Not even in NASCAR, with the use of the "jerico" transmisson.
The first car to run with a squential gearbox was the 1989 Ferrari, but was that push button?
Someone mentioned engine mapping. This has actually been around a long time. The earliest I have heard is around 1986 when Renault devoloped it for Senna's Lotus.
I think Honda was the first to put it on a road car.
Why is it that it always seems the only work teams like BAR and Arrows do with the engine is engine mapping.
------------------
Death through Tyranny - Megatron
#16
Posted 12 August 1999 - 08:40
This still would be preferable to the current transmission standards, IMHO, because it seems more like driving. Reactions, anyone? I leave room in the universe for being totally wrong about this, but if I don't ask, I learn nothing.
------------------
PB ;-)
The "Why?" Girl
Always opinionated. Not always right.
#17
Posted 12 August 1999 - 09:17
The way I see it is:
If you go to a full manual transmission and clutch the driver has to do all the fine work of changing gears at the correct times and as best as possible setting the engine speed to match the next gear change up or down. That is, if he is slowing down and running down through the gears he has to be careful not to change too early when the speed of the car is too high for the gear selected and risk over speeding the engine and a possible engine failure, when shifting up the risk is not as great since the engine speed required to match the car speed is less. However the driver can not keep his foot down on the throttle since while the transmission is going from one gear to the next the engine would over speed also.
Now teams have obviously opted to use higher tech transmissions and engine management systems to take away from the driver the responsibility of doing that task dozens of times per lap and preventing a driver error. Not only are the gear changing faster but eliminates any risk of blowing an engine due to wrong gear timing. Drivers can fully concentrate on breaking points entry points etc...
I've got a few questions:
Would anybody know if to change gear the driver needs to operate the paddle for every gear change or if he activates the down shift paddle and leaves his hand on it would the car work down through the gears as the speed allowed it to?
When shifting up and down does the engine management system synchronize the engine speed to match the gear desired, regardless of the position of the drivers foot on the throttle?
If the answer to the above is yes, then it makes the job of gear shifting quite easy for the driver.
Well my little bit.
Cheers,
Carioca
#18
Posted 12 August 1999 - 09:51
However, I know that there are a couple of programmable buttons on the steering wheel that when pressed run through a gear selection sequence for a particular series of corners, so the driver doesn't even have to touch the paddles. For example the bus stop chicane at Spa. They had this on the '94 Ferrari, and I haven't heard any rule changes banning this feature so I presume this system is used.
With a manual change, despite the fact that the clutch is not used (it still would be needed on down-shifts wouldn't it?) there is still the slight possibility of a missed shift.
#19
Posted 12 August 1999 - 10:21
Shaun
Advertisement
#20
Posted 12 August 1999 - 14:10
I watched a film on rally driving and Citreon decided to make their cars semi automatic because drivers always ignore the existnce of a clutch. These guys did clutchless downshifts to reduce speed under late braking. As you can imagine the teams weren't too happy about the costs of gearboxes and damage overreved engines.
I wonder if manual shift would really increase the racing spectacle, or just the number of retirements. You could possibly end up with a bigger gap between the poorer and richer teams because Mclaren will make a gearbox from diamond while Minardi from cast iron
![:)](https://bb2.autosport.com/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
#21
Posted 12 August 1999 - 17:03
#22
Posted 12 August 1999 - 07:15
------------------
PB ;-)
The "Why?" Girl
Always opinionated. Not always right.
#23
Posted 12 August 1999 - 21:17
The way I see it there is no right or wrong in all this, it's a question of opinion.
If you look at it in a radical way here are your choices:
Is F1 a driver to driver challenge or is it a technology challenge.
If it's to be made a technology challenge then fit the cars with all the tech gizmos we can come up with, ABS, Traction control, engine management, active suspension, active telemetry both ways from and to the car, etc... etc...
If it's purely a driver challenge then remove all the high tech stuff.
I for one believe that F1 should be a compromise between both, I follow what baddog was saying, take the computer away, leave the paddle switch and if the driver makes the mistake he pays the price.
What do you make of it, or what is your opinion? Where would you like to see the compromise? Or would you rather see it radically moved one or the other way?
Cheers,
Carioca
#24
Posted 12 August 1999 - 21:25
9.4.2 Each individual gear change must be initiated by the driver and, within the mechanical constraints of the gearbox, the requested gear must be engaged immediately unless over-rev protection is used.
9.4.3 Multiple gear changes may be made following one driver request provided they are not made before he needs the destination gear and that the car is not driven by any of the intermediate gears during the sequence. If for any reason the sequence cannot be completed the car must be left in neutral or the original gear.
[This message has been edited by MPH (edited 08-12-1999).]
#25
Posted 13 August 1999 - 06:49
I think these buttons are a good idea as with a manual shift, you can miss out gears if required, while a semi-automatic must step through all intermediate gears.
#26
Posted 13 August 1999 - 07:03
As a little (wholly unlikely) idea.. the rules could be amended to state that the computer can prevent an engine blowup if the driver downshifts innapropriately, but must engage neutral not remain in the previous gear, thus penalising the driver without blowing the car up ;)
Shaun
#27
Posted 14 August 1999 - 08:22
A gated gearbox has the advantage of being able to skip gears (like Senna at Monaco in 89--2nd and 5th were giving him problems, so he stopped using them, and won the race).
If the manufacturers are concered about engine blowups, let them use an electronic device that disengages the clucth if the engine will over-rev. Make the driver push a reset butten to get his clutch back. shifting mistakes are then punished, but don't cause DNF's.
Oh, and yes, bring back the throttle cable. Instead of engine mapping for drivability, we'll get bellcranks on the throttles. That's ok though, because you can't hide traction control in a bell crank!
#28
Posted 23 August 1999 - 01:49
Every one else here has explained why and since I agree with them I'll shut up now.
#29
Posted 23 August 1999 - 08:32
F1 Gearboxes are mearly sequential constant mesh gearboxes (like motorcycles) with a bit of techno wizardry bolted on, the adoption of them in road cars is very unlikely (as a CVTs and Auto's are more suitable for road use for refinment reasons) in other words the money spend on semi auto sequential boxes in F1 is a waste of money as we will never see them in road cars - all the gearbox systems that are advertised as being similar to the F1 ones like Ferrari's F355F1 or the "tiptronic" Porsche 911 & Audi and Fiats one (whatever it's called) are internally similar to normal gearboxes but with a sophisticated selection system.
The same goes for allowing throttle by wire systems in F1, 3D engine maps are already banned (suppposedly!
![:)](https://bb2.autosport.com/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
![;)](https://bb2.autosport.com/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
I say bannish throttle by wire and allow 4 litre engines! straight line performance isn't the danger with F1 cars it's corner speed which Bridgestone can determine by changing compounds, then we'd see drivers wrestling to control 1000+BHP out of bends which would certainly seperate the men from the boys!
Also smaller teams would benefit, too much horsepower is too much horsepower, with 1000+BHP and worse drivability (as there'd be no fancy electronics to control it) being 100BHP down wouldn't be the concern it is today as even the customer engines would produce too much power for the cars/tyres to handle. (assuming a reductuion in aerodynamic grip would implemented as well.) - better racing? you bet!
[This message has been edited by DangerMouse (edited 08-23-1999).]
#30
Posted 23 August 1999 - 12:01
Alain Prost's argument in favour of manual gearchanges was that it reintroduced a skill which drivers no longer need, and the inevitable mistakes would provide more overtaking opportunities, and we all want those don't we?
#31
Posted 26 August 1999 - 23:10
#32
Posted 27 August 1999 - 11:07
#33
Posted 27 August 1999 - 11:09
lose 10 sec. plus in/out. All this does is let the DRIVER go faster not the car if you catch my meaning. If the driver has to spend more concentration on manual shifting then he has less to spend on other things steering, braking etc.
GO Minardi!!!
#34
Posted 27 August 1999 - 21:32
#35
Posted 27 August 1999 - 21:40