95 - 02 F1 Tech
Discussion
Vaud said:
nsa said:
Is there any way to compare lap times between the front running 95-02 era cars and the current ones? I think a previous post said potential 1.5-2.0 seconds at Bahrain, which is much less than I expected.
Are any tracks completely unchanged since then? Monza might be a good comparison - Autosport archives may have the sector times, and the speed traps times going back for those races. Monza is a good one to indicate straight-line, but doesn't really flatter aero developments as much as somewhere like Spa might.
Pole times:
1992 1:22.221
1995 1:24.462
2000 1:23.770
2004 1:20.089
2009 1:22.955 (fastest time, not pole lap)
2013 1:23.755
Seems to follow the engine power of the eras, with 2004 being the current record with that mighty V10.
A bit closer to topic, what a fantastic thread. As an engineering nerd, this is right up my street. Any more details about gearboxes in this era poppop? Or do you send boxes away to manufacturers for rebuild/inspection? By that I mean the internal shifting mechanisms and gear layouts/casings etc.
Pole times:
1992 1:22.221
1995 1:24.462
2000 1:23.770
2004 1:20.089
2009 1:22.955 (fastest time, not pole lap)
2013 1:23.755
Seems to follow the engine power of the eras, with 2004 being the current record with that mighty V10.
A bit closer to topic, what a fantastic thread. As an engineering nerd, this is right up my street. Any more details about gearboxes in this era poppop? Or do you send boxes away to manufacturers for rebuild/inspection? By that I mean the internal shifting mechanisms and gear layouts/casings etc.
Krikkit said:
A bit closer to topic, what a fantastic thread. As an engineering nerd, this is right up my street. Any more details about gearboxes in this era poppop? Or do you send boxes away to manufacturers for rebuild/inspection? By that I mean the internal shifting mechanisms and gear layouts/casings etc.
Nope we do all the gearbox work in house. We have a gearbox dyno/test rig with it's own hydraulic system and a dyno set of Moogs/valveblock etc. with a spare STEP 8 ECU to run them which allows us to setup the box post build e.g. gear positions etc. which we then export to the car ECU. 
All the boxes we work with are Xtrac internals, the casings, oil systems etc. were all designed in house by the team. We have pretty big stocks of gearbox bits and with regular attention we get surprisingly good life from the internals with the shift times reduced from max attack a little.
On the subject of casings they are a total work of art. This is a 2K era box which is thin wall cast titanium with carbon crash structure/casing brace. The clutch is internaly mounted in the bell housing, again a total work of art.
We'll be building one up shortly to test as a potential upgrade for an earlier car with a magnesium gearbox. Be interesting to see how that goes as 1) it gives us loads more spare boxes so we can turn the shifts back up and 2) it weighs 11KG less.
Justaredbadge said:
Was it the 04 BAR that had a cf gearbox casing?
What would be the deal with lifing a component like that?
We had a fairly rigorous lifing schedule for the Hewland stuff I've worked on, but some of the stuff would have been useable for about 3 times the miles that it actually did.
Arrows did it first in 99 if I remember correctly. Generally we run the cases until bits come through the side.... With an occasiona crack test on the suspension mounting points etc. The CF boxes would be no different apart from the difficulty in crack testing them. What would be the deal with lifing a component like that?
We had a fairly rigorous lifing schedule for the Hewland stuff I've worked on, but some of the stuff would have been useable for about 3 times the miles that it actually did.
banx22 said:
Excellent thread. I'm fascinated. What a cool job to have.
Whats the deal if one of these things was to crash heavily? are you able to repair the tub or is it written off?
We have the tooling for most cars, including tubs, so we'd just manufacture another if the budget was there to do it. To be honest you need to have a massive, massive impact to damage the tub - we've not had a written off tub yet!Whats the deal if one of these things was to crash heavily? are you able to repair the tub or is it written off?
red_duke said:
Are the carbon brake disks assigned to the bin when they drop below a minimum weight? I have CCMs on my street car and always wondered how they can loose mass without showing any obvious signs of wear.
No, they are lifed on minimum thickness, not weight. Both pads and discs do wear down, I'm not sure where you get the idea that they don't.red_duke said:
Are the carbon brake disks assigned to the bin when they drop below a minimum weight? I have CCMs on my street car and always wondered how they can loose mass without showing any obvious signs of wear.
You're confusing big heavy carbon ceramic road car brakes with carbon/carbon race car brakes. There is no ceramic in our brakes, they are primarily pure carbon..... and they wear just like a steel disc does. CCM (Carbon Ceramic Matrix) are a different thing entirely and don't operate at temperature in any where like the same manner. The loss of mass is due to the carbon in the matrix oxidising at very high temperatures which leaves the ceramic matrix remaining. The matrix size doesn't really change as ceramic is very hard but the net result is the loss of carbon from the matrix results in a disc which is now lighter. The minimum weight is based on the amount of acceptable carbon loss for the disc to still meet minimum performance/safety spec as determined by the OE.
Tomorrow is hydraulics day again. We have to rebuild this with a lower KM pump, test the Moogs and replace as required, replace the wiring loom and generally clean and fettle.
This last saw action at Spa in 2000 so it's been in a box a while.... The old one currently on the car will go off for US cleaning and eventually be rebuilt as the spare. The pump failed on this one which is VERY rare.
I'm going to mail everyone back re discs once I've got home this evening and we'll sort something out
This last saw action at Spa in 2000 so it's been in a box a while.... The old one currently on the car will go off for US cleaning and eventually be rebuilt as the spare. The pump failed on this one which is VERY rare.
I'm going to mail everyone back re discs once I've got home this evening and we'll sort something out
poppopbangbang said:
The matrix size doesn't really change as ceramic is very hard but the net result is the loss of carbon from the matrix results in a disc which is now lighter.
Great explanation, thank you. Nice to know I wasn't imagining things as my CCM rotors have a "minimum weight" stamped into them rather than a "minimum thickness".
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff