FORUMula1.com

[Denthúl]

Plenty of examples in the past of drivers getting to the end of races with faulty gear boxes, and mind you many at Sao Paulo so I dont see why it's so hard to believe?

It's the off-season. People need to invent these stories to make up for the lack of on-track action and absence of tonal adjustments in Kimi's interviews.

[scotty]

I dont really understand the technical details involved, but I do have a problem with this supposed gear box issue. It doesnt add up. So Ive been asking around my less technically challenged aquaintances. I'm being told it would be impossible for an ordinary gearbox to survive with without oil never mind one tuned to F1 spec. A small oil loss would be catastrophic, letting it run dry....worse. Gears would heat up and seize or blow apart the box even if the driver short shifted( which would have impaired performance had he actually done this). A gearbox loosing as much oil as red bull said it was could not be nursed no matter how good the driver.
As I say, I dont understand the technicalities, but this comes from a maintenance engineer who used to work with pumps and gear boxes. I 'd love to hear other views on this? Were Red Bull lying? Was this a thank you present to Mark? Mechanics? Engineers? Your Views please. Im gonna ask my F1 related engineer friend see what he says. But why would red bull do such a stupid story?

I gave you mine but you appear to have chosen not to listen as it doesn't fit in with your view

[racechick]

I dont really understand the technical details involved, but I do have a problem with this supposed gear box issue. It doesnt add up. So Ive been asking around my less technically challenged aquaintances. I'm being told it would be impossible for an ordinary gearbox to survive with without oil never mind one tuned to F1 spec. A small oil loss would be catastrophic, letting it run dry....worse. Gears would heat up and seize or blow apart the box even if the driver short shifted( which would have impaired performance had he actually done this). A gearbox loosing as much oil as red bull said it was could not be nursed no matter how good the driver.
As I say, I dont understand the technicalities, but this comes from a maintenance engineer who used to work with pumps and gear boxes. I 'd love to hear other views on this? Were Red Bull lying? Was this a thank you present to Mark? Mechanics? Engineers? Your Views please. Im gonna ask my F1 related engineer friend see what he says. But why would red bull do such a stupid story?

I gave you mine but you appear to have chosen not to listen as it doesn't fit in with your view

No I listened to yours, but I also read an opposing view. Being a complete idiot on technology I just wanted other views to make my mind up. Actually I've heard form my engineer friend and he concurs with you...to a certain extent.
This is what he says
Gearboxes - wear is proportional to the velocity of the gear teeth surfaces passing over each other - so if you keep the relative speed of the surfaces lower than there design maximum it will last longer - so early gear changes up the gears will help make it last longer. You have to remember there is not a lot of oil in F1 gearboxes anyway - and most of the lubrication is via a splash feed from the gearbox rotation - this is especially true of dual clutch gearboxes which have 1/3/5 on one half of the gearbox and 2/4/6/ etc on the other - so say one half the gearbox was low on oil then just selecting the other gears on the other side of the gearbox would make it last the race - albeit the car would not be as fast as the engine revs would drop further between gear changes. It depends on the fault in the gearbox and how its driven - so yes it could survive !!.


Phew!! That was hard going. So its possible to survive..... though it would be slower, and he would not be banging in fastest laps.
So Scotty, its 2/1 in your favour at the moment

[darwin dali]

I dont really understand the technical details involved, but I do have a problem with this supposed gear box issue. It doesnt add up. So Ive been asking around my less technically challenged aquaintances. I'm being told it would be impossible for an ordinary gearbox to survive with without oil never mind one tuned to F1 spec. A small oil loss would be catastrophic, letting it run dry....worse. Gears would heat up and seize or blow apart the box even if the driver short shifted( which would have impaired performance had he actually done this). A gearbox loosing as much oil as red bull said it was could not be nursed no matter how good the driver.
As I say, I dont understand the technicalities, but this comes from a maintenance engineer who used to work with pumps and gear boxes. I 'd love to hear other views on this? Were Red Bull lying? Was this a thank you present to Mark? Mechanics? Engineers? Your Views please. Im gonna ask my F1 related engineer friend see what he says. But why would red bull do such a stupid story?

I gave you mine but you appear to have chosen not to listen as it doesn't fit in with your view

No I listened to yours, but I also read an opposing view. Being a complete idiot on technology I just wanted other views to make my mind up. Actually I've heard form my engineer friend and he concurs with you...to a certain extent.
This is what he says
Gearboxes - wear is proportional to the velocity of the gear teeth surfaces passing over each other - so if you keep the relative speed of the surfaces lower than there design maximum it will last longer - so early gear changes up the gears will help make it last longer. You have to remember there is not a lot of oil in F1 gearboxes anyway - and most of the lubrication is via a splash feed from the gearbox rotation - this is especially true of dual clutch gearboxes which have 1/3/5 on one half of the gearbox and 2/4/6/ etc on the other - so say one half the gearbox was low on oil then just selecting the other gears on the other side of the gearbox would make it last the race - albeit the car would not be as fast as the engine revs would drop further between gear changes. It depends on the fault in the gearbox and how its driven - so yes it could survive !!.


Phew!! That was hard going. So its possible to survive..... though it would be slower, and he would not be banging in fastest laps.
So Scotty, its 2/1 in your favour at the moment

Yes, he short-shifted and hence was slower (than his max. possible, which is usually higher than everybody else's max. possible) most of the time - thus, he was still able to keep up with MW. This doesn't preclude him doing some faster laps in between (the gearbox would still be capable of such speedier laps), it just lowers the chance of the gearbox holding until the end of the race - therefore, the team called him back.

[andrew]

Before you bring "facts" into an argument, it is customary to have some.

Well I don't see any facts or anything in the least credible in the theory that Vettels gearbox was fine but Red Bull wanted to gift Webber a win.

As for facts in my comments, there are a few if you read what I wrote.

Vettels gearbox was at or nearing the end of its life cycle - fact.

Wrong fact. New gearbox.

Vettels was on wet weather settings as evidenced by his rain light being on which can only be done by changing the cars settings ratehr than a switch on the light or in the cockpit - fact.

So? Redbull can easily switch his car to wet weather mode for the world to see his flashing light and believe his gearbox really has issues.

The wet weather settings will entail less harsh gear settings aimed at reducing wheelspin so puts less strain on the gear box - another fact. So what say you again about not seeing any facts in my comment? Thought so.

This isn't another fact, it just supports the previous.

For the record, I couldn't really care if Webber was gifted the victory...but the conspiracy theorists have a field day with this one. Last race of the season, Webber's never won before and he's got a couple of WDC positions to gain, convenient time for a 'gearbox' problem for the guy who's won everything, and even with a gearbox problem the guy makes fastest lap when Webber is ensured in control of the race.

Coincidence? Still, might be...but businesses don't always tell the truth to public which is completely understandable.

Something wrong with your quotes here. The Conspiracy theory bovine manure should not be attributed to me. Someone else has this dubious honour.

Let me spell it out again:

The conspiracy theorists have a field day with this one. You don't have to be part of this group. But you don't have enough argument on your side to refute them either. It's open to both sides to accept what they prefer...like the ending to 'Inception'.

I was meaning that I was going against the conspiracy theories but the quotes have gone funny looking like I was supporting them, which I'm not.

I've not seen Inception but I get what you're saying.

[bud]

So its possible to survive..... though it would be slower, and he would not be banging in fastest laps

fuel loads dropping? Track rubbering down? Many factors why this would be the case. Him short shifting in the lower gearing would only have affected him in the infield, (where we saw him go off track incedently) partly S2 and S3 so say about 1/3 of the lap. Sebs fastest lap was 7 tenths slower than Webbers fastest lap set 3 laps after Sebs fastest. Sebs fastest time was near identicals to Fernando's which was also set around the same time, 3 laps earlier While Jenson was faster by 5 tenths He set his fastest 2 laps before Fernando's. See a common factor here? Fastest laps being set at the end of GPs when track is rubbered in after 60 odd laps added to the fuel loads lowering Sebs however is considerably slower than his team mates or Buttons.
It's not hard to fathom this but we are asking someone who sees a Martin Whitmarsh conspiracy here.

[racechick]

So its possible to survive..... though it would be slower, and he would not be banging in fastest laps

fuel loads dropping? Track rubbering down? Many factors why this would be the case. Him short shifting in the lower gearing would only have affected him in the infield, (where we saw him go off track incedently) partly S2 and S3 so say about 1/3 of the lap. Sebs fastest lap was 7 tenths slower than Webbers fastest lap set 3 laps after Sebs fastest. Sebs fastest time was near identicals to Fernando's which was also set around the same time, 3 laps earlier While Jenson was faster by 5 tenths He set his fastest 2 laps before Fernando's. See a common factor here? Fastest laps being set at the end of GPs when track is rubbered in after 60 odd laps added to the fuel loads lowering Sebs however is considerably slower than his team mates or Buttons.
It's not hard to fathom this but we are asking someone who sees a Martin Whitmarsh conspiracy here.

You dont have to be condescending. Ive said Im asking becuase I dont have the technical know how myself. Some forums ive looked at overwhelmingly accept without question that it was a ruse. Im still open to differing views. It's wrong to ask for other views is it befiore i make my mind up? Im still open about this. You've given your opinion, so thank you, I'll bear it in mind when I make up my mind about this.

The oil is nothing to do with the Whitmarsh situation. That was just a cheap shot was it?

[bud]

It's not a matter of opinion it's a matter of facts. People who think it was a set up have no facts just opinions. I put forward facts what have they put forward other than opinion?
I couldn't care about forums who think it was a set up, some people think the moon landing was faked still to this day. There's always going to be idiots out there who see what they want to see.

End of the day Webber fans can take no solace in him winning due to mechanical issues for his team mate, it was hardly a return to dominant wins of the likes we saw last season.

[racechick]

Yes it is about facts, and since I dont know much about gear boxes that's why I was asking. Opinions will be based upon the available facts, and I doubt any of us are in possession of all the facts. So we form our opinions on the facts available. Ive heard compelling arguements on both sides...probably Im coming down on the side of taking the oil leak at face value.......maybe

[andrew]

So its possible to survive..... though it would be slower, and he would not be banging in fastest laps

fuel loads dropping? Track rubbering down? Many factors why this would be the case. Him short shifting in the lower gearing would only have affected him in the infield, (where we saw him go off track incedently) partly S2 and S3 so say about 1/3 of the lap. Sebs fastest lap was 7 tenths slower than Webbers fastest lap set 3 laps after Sebs fastest. Sebs fastest time was near identicals to Fernando's which was also set around the same time, 3 laps earlier While Jenson was faster by 5 tenths He set his fastest 2 laps before Fernando's. See a common factor here? Fastest laps being set at the end of GPs when track is rubbered in after 60 odd laps added to the fuel loads lowering Sebs however is considerably slower than his team mates or Buttons.
It's not hard to fathom this but we are asking someone who sees a Martin Whitmarsh conspiracy here.

You dont have to be condescending. Ive said Im asking becuase I dont have the technical know how myself. Some forums ive looked at overwhelmingly accept without question that it was a ruse. Im still open to differing views. It's wrong to ask for other views is it befiore i make my mind up? Im still open about this. You've given your opinion, so thank you, I'll bear it in mind when I make up my mind about this.

The oil is nothing to do with the Whitmarsh situation. That was just a cheap shot was it?

Condescending? No. Sensible fact based reasoning by Bud? Yes.

[racechick]

So its possible to survive..... though it would be slower, and he would not be banging in fastest laps

fuel loads dropping? Track rubbering down? Many factors why this would be the case. Him short shifting in the lower gearing would only have affected him in the infield, (where we saw him go off track incedently) partly S2 and S3 so say about 1/3 of the lap. Sebs fastest lap was 7 tenths slower than Webbers fastest lap set 3 laps after Sebs fastest. Sebs fastest time was near identicals to Fernando's which was also set around the same time, 3 laps earlier While Jenson was faster by 5 tenths He set his fastest 2 laps before Fernando's. See a common factor here? Fastest laps being set at the end of GPs when track is rubbered in after 60 odd laps added to the fuel loads lowering Sebs however is considerably slower than his team mates or Buttons.
It's not hard to fathom this but we are asking someone who sees a Martin Whitmarsh conspiracy here.

You dont have to be condescending. Ive said Im asking becuase I dont have the technical know how myself. Some forums ive looked at overwhelmingly accept without question that it was a ruse. Im still open to differing views. It's wrong to ask for other views is it befiore i make my mind up? Im still open about this. You've given your opinion, so thank you, I'll bear it in mind when I make up my mind about this.

The oil is nothing to do with the Whitmarsh situation. That was just a cheap shot was it?

Condescending? No. Sensible fact based reasoning by Bud? Yes.[/quote

Your not in this debate. Follow it through properly, read all the contributions or butt out!

[andrew]

So its possible to survive..... though it would be slower, and he would not be banging in fastest laps

fuel loads dropping? Track rubbering down? Many factors why this would be the case. Him short shifting in the lower gearing would only have affected him in the infield, (where we saw him go off track incedently) partly S2 and S3 so say about 1/3 of the lap. Sebs fastest lap was 7 tenths slower than Webbers fastest lap set 3 laps after Sebs fastest. Sebs fastest time was near identicals to Fernando's which was also set around the same time, 3 laps earlier While Jenson was faster by 5 tenths He set his fastest 2 laps before Fernando's. See a common factor here? Fastest laps being set at the end of GPs when track is rubbered in after 60 odd laps added to the fuel loads lowering Sebs however is considerably slower than his team mates or Buttons.
It's not hard to fathom this but we are asking someone who sees a Martin Whitmarsh conspiracy here.

You dont have to be condescending. Ive said Im asking becuase I dont have the technical know how myself. Some forums ive looked at overwhelmingly accept without question that it was a ruse. Im still open to differing views. It's wrong to ask for other views is it befiore i make my mind up? Im still open about this. You've given your opinion, so thank you, I'll bear it in mind when I make up my mind about this.

The oil is nothing to do with the Whitmarsh situation. That was just a cheap shot was it?

Condescending? No. Sensible fact based reasoning by Bud? Yes.

Your not in this debate. Follow it through properly, read all the contributions or butt out![/quote]

I sincerely apologise for agreeing with Bud. I'll endeavour to make sure it doesn't happen again. No doubt if I was agreeing with you I'd have been welcomed into the fold but hey-ho. If you don't want others entering into a debate then it kind of begs the question as to why you're having it in a public domain.

[f1ea]

Considering team orders are permitted, i dont see the reason for RB to go out of their way to make it look like anything... however, the whole thing looked conspiracy-ish...

[racechick]

Considering team orders are permitted, i dont see the reason for RB to go out of their way to make it look like anything... however, the whole thing looked conspiracy-ish...

Yes that was my first thought. Which was why I wanted to find out more.

[Fred_C_Dobbs]

Considering team orders are permitted, i dont see the reason for RB to go out of their way to make it look like anything... however, the whole thing looked conspiracy-ish...

Webber strenuously objects to use of team orders, even if he is the beneficiary.