14 replies to this topic

[desmo]

Whilst reading Peter Wright's recently published and very interesting book "Formula 1 Technology", I came across the following:

"The last attempt to change the concept of selecting gear in a racing gearbox, away from the system of face-dogs was, to the best of my knowledge, the Lotus "queerbox" fitted to the T78 on occaision in 1977. Based on a principle used in the Gogomobile bubble car[!], the gears were selected by balls being forced out through holes in the shaft, into grooves in the internal bore of the gear to be driven. The arrangement resulted in a very short gear cluster, having removed the need for gear face-dogs and dog-rings and probably would worked well with a hydraulic gear change system to provide selection load. As it was, the feedback through the gear lever gave the drivers tennis elbow, and I distinctly remember the day at Snetterton when the gearbox selected a gear by itself while the engine was being warmed up. The car wandered off across the paddock, chased by the mechanics."

This piqued my interest in the concept, but I haven't been able to find out anything further on the matter. Can anyone here shed any more light on the subject?

[Frank de Jong]

The only memory I have concerning Lotus gearboxes were experiments with a Weisman transaxle early in 1978 on the Lotus 79.

[Don Capps]

The Queerbox was something Colin Chapman worked upon and inflicted upon his drivers about the time Team Lotus went GP racing. It seemed to be brilliant in concept but lacking in reality. I think Innes Ireland was using a Queerbox when he had his almighty shunt at Monte Carlo in 1961, being fortunate to escape with his life.

At any rate, the notion of the Queerbox was something that Chapman never seemed to get out of his system.

[David Beard]

Originally posted by desmo
Whilst reading Peter Wright's recently published and very interesting book "Formula 1 Technology", I came across the following:

"The last attempt to change the concept of selecting gear in a racing gearbox, away from the system of face-dogs was, to the best of my knowledge, the Lotus "queerbox" fitted to the T78 on occaision in 1977. Based on a principle used in the Gogomobile bubble car[!], the gears were selected by balls being forced out through holes in the shaft, into grooves in the internal bore of the gear to be driven. The arrangement resulted in a very short gear cluster, having removed the need for gear face-dogs and dog-rings and probably would worked well with a hydraulic gear change system to provide selection load. As it was, the feedback through the gear lever gave the drivers tennis elbow, and I distinctly remember the day at Snetterton when the gearbox selected a gear by itself while the engine was being warmed up. The car wandered off across the paddock, chased by the mechanics."

I have wondered about this. Does the design of the 1977 box really have much in common with the original Queerbox? In the original just one set of dogs on the sliding tubey thing had to take a bashing for all 5 ratios. If the later incarnation has a set of balls for each ratio (which I don't know) it doesn't seem to be all that queer to me, in the Lotus transmissional sense. If, however, it had only one set of balls, that's a different matter.

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Don Capps
The Queerbox was something Colin Chapman worked upon and inflicted upon his drivers about the time Team Lotus went GP racing. It seemed to be brilliant in concept but lacking in reality. I think Innes Ireland was using a Queerbox when he had his almighty shunt at Monte Carlo in 1961, being fortunate to escape with his life.

No that was the ZF, first fitted to the 21.

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is that "Carbreaker" Moss won the 1960 Monaco Grand Prix with the Lotus grearbox. not the circuit for a delicate transmission.

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
No that was the ZF, first fitted to the 21.

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is that "Carbreaker" Moss won the 1960 Monaco Grand Prix with the Lotus grearbox. not the circuit for a delicate transmission.

Bingo!! The ZF with the reversed shift pattern -- that's right. Thanks, Roger.

And another nod as to Moss' abilities by managing to win at Monte Carlo with the Queerbox.

[dmj]

Two different spellings, and both wrong: It is Goggomobil. One of prettiest little cars ever...

http://members.braba...ac/adawubs1.htm

[desmo]

Interesting. No help on the workings of the "queerbox", but I (and Mr. Wright) had got the spelling of Goggomobil wrong indeed. Thanks for the correction.

[David Beard]

Originally posted by desmo
Interesting. No help on the workings of the "queerbox", but I (and Mr. Wright) had got the spelling of Goggomobil wrong indeed. Thanks for the correction.

Well this is the innards of the 59 version...can't help with the later one.

[desmo]

Thank you sincerely. I am still trying to figure out how the ratio selection was implemented from the drawing but it does look potentially very compact compared to a dog-face/ring selector fork design.

[Barry Lake]

Probably not a lot of help regarding the original question, but I was working for the motor auctions when the Australian Goggomobil distributor (and builder, in a sense, putting local bodies on imported chassis) went bust in the early 1960s.

I drove dozens of the things in sedan, sports (Dart) and "eggshel" panel van guises, to, through, and from the auctions.

The gearbox was faster in the shift (between 1 and 2, 3 and 4, if not quite so quick between 2 and 3) than anything I have ever driven. But it had no feel at all. First was to the left, from memory, and slam it across to the right for second. Neutral was for and aft, and it was a bit slower to halt the shift at the neutral gate, pull it back (I think), then slam left into third, and slam it across to the right for fourth. That's how I remember the pattern, it could be different. But fore and aft neutral is definitely right, 1-2 and 3-4 selected across the gate left-right or right-left is also correct. I'm just not sure about whether 1-2 was forward or rearward of 3-4.

I use the word "slam" because the lever simply slammed across and crashed into the other side of the gate in an instant. There was no such thing as a slow change, and it didn't seem to want one. And no clashing of gears at all. I always wondered how they did it, now I have an idea (with the spring-loaded balls). There was no meshing and unmeshing of gears, it would seem. They were constantly in mesh.

There was no reverse in the Goggo box. You switched off the engine. Turned the ignition key in the opposite direction, and it started the little two-stroke engine in the reverse direction. You then had four reverse gears, with very rapid change between them! The challenge was always there to see how fast you could drive the car backwards - but I wasn't going to try it!

[just me again]

It look interesting. but i don't think the length of the gearbox is much shorter than normal, because you have to think about the teleskop inputshaft.
I would think the biggest + for this box is the quick gearshift that even might have helped Moss in 61, It must be very difficult to miss a shift with this box.
Bjørn

[just me again]

Sorry ofcourse not 61 but 60 ( regarding to Moss )
Bjørn

[petefenelon]

Originally posted by desmo
Whilst reading Peter Wright's recently published and very interesting book "Formula 1 Technology", I came across the following:

deletia

This piqued my interest in the concept, but I haven't been able to find out anything further on the matter. Can anyone here shed any more light on the subject?

There's quite a bit about the Queerbox in Crombac's Chapman biography, and also a fair bit in Robson's book on Cosworth (Keith Duckworth was hired at Lotus to "make it work" when he was fresh out of Imperial College)...

pete

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by just me again

I would think the biggest + for this box is the quick gearshift that even might have helped Moss in 61,

Moss used a Collotti gearbox in 61.