Tephra - one suggestion/idea. I have NLTS and I love it but I encounter one problem. When I rev match or heel toe shift, when blipping the throttle, I often activate the NLTS limiter by accident. I have the NLTS TPS threshold set at 99% but I still hit it some times. Its just when I'm in a rush and blipping the throttle quick I sometimes push it all the way down.

Would you be able to make it so that you can set a LOAD that you have to be above in order to enable NLTS. Users could set it to around 140 or so, that way you are always above this while NTLS shifting but for rev matchign you can floor it and not hit NLTS.

What do you think?

 

dudical26: I do the exact same thing (blip the throttle on a downshift, and hit the TPS threshold). I'd set the TPS threshold higher than the 95% I have it at now, but I really don't think it would make much difference (as you've probably noticed at 99%).

I would kill for a fixed-RPM style of NLTS, rather than an RPM-offset style. It'd solve the downshifting problem, would let me target a specific shiftable RPM (ie. an RPM the transmission likes to go into gear at, not necessarily a static offset of the RPM I'll be at when I shift, something I experienced when doing a track day: I noticed that my shift points moved around quite a bit), and would completely eliminate the "whoops, I accidently brushed the clutch" accidents that I know everyone here experiences from time to time when they're in a hurry (even if they'll never admit it).

But it could just be my bias showing (and I whined about this when I first loaded the ROM earlier in the thread, so this is the last I'll say about it). The benefits of having any form of NLTS available far outweigh the usability concerns I have with it right now, so I'm obviously not switching back to the old ROM.

 

you guys can't be hitting 90% or even 60% tps when downshift blipping surely???

dudical - I think the load stays hi - the boost does so I assume the load does as well, guess a log will prove it...

have you guys considered extending the clutch switch so it doesn't engage so high up?

 

I did this and now I can drive the car either way nlts, regular speed shifting or rev matching.

 

I do in fact hit 100% throttle on a blip, if you do it very quickly 100% blip works perfectly for bring up the RPM to the right range.

I have looked at my NLTS logs and I stay above 170 load during shifts. If you allow the user to configure it that would be best, but I would say to set it at 140 load just to be safe.

I have also tried to extend the switch a bit by putting extra foam on the clutch pedal.

 

which switch are you trying that on? the clutch cancel or the staitionary switch?

 

oh I see what you mean - getting my self confused...

I could put in some logic so that NLTS only works when you are accelerating (ie your speed is increasing).

However I am less inclined to make too many conditions on the NLTS just incase it doesn't activate when the user thinks it will and you end up screwing your driveline...

 

I was thinking of doing something like that with speed increasing only, but I also thought about what kind of exceptions to that rule could occur. I can't really think of a situation when you would want NLTS without your speed increasing.

However, I think just making it so load has to be above 100-140 would be safer. Since you are always above that while using NLTS

 

do you have a log of a downshift while bliping? so we know what sort of loads you are seeing?

the load condition is far easier to implement than speed increasing condition ...

 

A thought about the coming (?) 'auto-valet mode'.

Good idea, but for a permanent protection of the car, wouldn't it be better to use something else than a rev-limiter? I am guessing it wouldn't be a big problem to cut ignition or fuel (or both) instead?

This way the rev-limit activation could be used just when needed, like when lending out the car or something. (By the way, is it possible to not have the engine light flashing? Perhaps only when the rev limiter is hit? But still flash to confirm function on/off).

In addition one could have an automatically activated anti-theft function, so you would have to do something to start the car everytime (for example touching the pedal twice, or once shorter than the rev-limit activation/deactivation. But it should accidentaly be switch off when a "thief" tries to start the engine wile pressing the gas pedal at the same time.).

 

The sequence of events where I bump into this is:

1. pop off the gas, intake goes to vacuum
2. start braking hard
3. blip the throttle (heel-toe, or via left-foot-braking)
4. clutch in, shift, and get back on the brakes if left-foot braking
5. miss the apex because you just clutch-braked and it scared the crap out of you/caused you to oversteer badly
6. tell passenger to hold on to something
7. wait for tow truck

Especially under heavy-braking conditions (speaking only for myself, of course), there's a tendency to over-shoot on the throttle rather than under-shoot (ie. mash gas, wait to hear RPMs rising, release), since that's easier to keep track of when you have three pedals in play at the same time.

(With heel-toe, I have less of a problem, but I suck at heel-toe shifting because my freakishly large feet trip all over themselves. Yeah, that's right, I get all the ladies. )

duducal's suggestion of having a load check would probably work in this case, since under decel you'll be under vacuum; remember, the point in this use case isn't to use NLTS, it's to slow the car down.

 

oh yeah I forgot about the timelimit on Valet flashing thing - ill add that as well...

automatic theft = auto valet with really low rev limit

 

I really like the idea of a load parameter alot! I havent been able to drive my car in a while, but I know when I'm racing I do blip at 100% sometimes in a jam to get RPM up and downshift. A load threshold would be fantastic.

 

alright well dudical you got MSN? shoot me a PM with your MSN and i'll let you test out the load thing

in the morning

 

hey Dave dont know if you missed it but any comments on post #718? hopefully they werent stupid questions :S