Automatics! Automatics for towing, or my GRANDMA!!!

At least spend the development money elsewhere, and go with a sequential shift with a multiplate / easy change clutch system.

Fluid based "clutches" (torque converters) = whoosie-mobiles.

jcnel.

 

if u dont like it, dont buy it dur..

 

i guess it could be an upgradable option since THERE ARE SOME rich ppl out there that doesnt know how to drive but do want a nice car..... or maybe make (whats that shiftable automatic called?) "semi-auto" an option

 

The sequential manuals in race cars wouldn't really be suitable for a road though. Even the SMG II in the M3 is supposed to be jerky on fast changes, it has settings for different change speeds but then it looses some of it's speed. Also it is supposed to be not so good in full automatic mode, compared to a normal auto. The DSG gearbox might be better at both of these things though.

Anyway I just like a manual gearbox because for me it is more fun, getting a perfect rev matched downchange by yourself is great and part of the driving experience. I also feel like I have more control over the car in a manual for some reason (I have only driven tiptronic or whatever type autos though).

Aston

 

I had the pleasure of watching a Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale F1 at a local club day lapping the track in anger. Let me tell you, the shifter hits and hits HARD and it is lightning fast. It is indescribable what it sounds like, but it is a spectacle in and of itself. Suffice it to say I want one. If not the car, then at least the tranny.

 

Yeah, a $25k tranny in a $200k car. Not exactly apples-to-apple compared to the POS that would wind up in a $30k car.

And for all you guys who think autos are better for drag racing, they are, as long as you have 1,000+ hp and NEVER want to actually try to drive it any way other than straight and at full throttle.

This is ridiculous, automatics are for incompetent drivers and guys who own a legitimately bad *** "Funday" car with a manual trans for when they want to actually DRIVE a car, but want to haul *** in their M-B E55 on a daily basis once they get through the mind-numbing traffic.

 

For track or road racing, F1-style SMG>5 or 6 speed manual>slushbox w/torque converter and that's a fact.

An SMG in the Evo would be a fine idea, although it would likely make it even heavier than it already is! Paddle shifting just like the real rally cars, what could be better? Think about the WRC in-car videos - those cars shift so fast it's insane. 4-3-2 blip blip blip
Whether they could make one affordable is another question. I bet they have some engineers working on it now though. If fricking VW can do it...

 

I'm thinking more along the lines of a motorbike tranny. They still basically have the blade and fork system of shifting, but the shifter is taken down to a barrel device with grooves that rotates to tell which fork what to do and when. An EVO with this would be more of a transmission conversion rather than an all out redesign. The barrel can be powered by many different methods, Air, CO2, mechanical motion, etc...

BTW the barrel simplifies the system slightly enough to allow for tighter tolerances on the shift which now if you put the right materials in the tranny, you can shift clutchless. Talk to any sportbike rider on clutchless shifts (mostly upshifts), ask them how many miles they have on a tranny, and you'll get the idea on how feasible this really is.

Triptronic variants are still bascially automatic trannies, but with some computer controls to make them seem like paddle shifting wonders. Its a step up, but they still have a fluid based "clutch" (power robber we call a torque converter) and sun / plantary gear sets for providing the gearing ratios. So, for sub 800hp non-drag cars, they don't work as well as a well sorted out fork based tranny.

With a sequential system, you can still have a foot operated clutch, but I'll leave that as different issue.

jcnel.

 

Definately but they aren't supposed to be so great on the road compared to a normal auto. Racing is great but these cars are also used on the road where the driver doesn't want a super fast change but jerky change all the time. And like has been mentioned before, the better systems are very expensive.

Also even well developed systems like SMG II don't seem to be any better than a manual on the race track. In the Best Motoring tests the SMG II M3 is slower around their track than the manual, maybe because of the extra weight.

It was an Audi and VW development, I think Audi had a lot to do with it.

The motorbike idea sounds ok but motorbikes don't produce the power or torque of car engines so for clutchless shifting I imagine the gearbox would have to be a lot stronger, which might not be possible yet?

Aston

 

stick shifting is so fun, why the hell would u want an automatic?

 

stick shifting is so fun, why the hell would u want an automatic? my friend gots a 240 and i just shift for him while he drives so we can both eat in the car.

 

Yeah there is no way they would put things like active yaw control, active center differentials, g-sensors, steering wheel angle sensors, electronic brakeforce distribution, & stuff like that in a cheap Japanese econobox right? Sequential tranny is out of the question, i mean it would require a complex mix of hydraulics, clutches, and computers...I don't think any cheap japanese car could have stuff like that... And if you didn't catch my sarcasm here is a

 

The complexity of a sequential tranny is not the parts, its the driver. Like I said before, keep the clutch, change the shifting characteristic.

We're all engrained into thinking that the H-pattern shifting is the 'only' way to shift a manual transmission. Its not. In fact, how many people shift directly from 4 to 2 before engaging the clutch again on a downshift, and instead go from 4 to 3 to 2 and then let out the clutch? We think sequentally, but really that's the only advantage of a H-pattern ... you can go from one gear to any other in one movement. You can't do that on a sequential. Sequentials trade that off with being able to shift faster overall, so H-patterns are becoming somewhat moot.

From the motorbike world their manual transmissions (even on the ultra-high performance MotoGP bikes) are still the same basic design as our H-pattern cars. They just replace the stick with a very precise barrel that rotates "sequentially" with groves that pull the gear levers, instead of a H-shifter level that pulls the levers. This allows them to tighten up the tolerances on the shift forks and such, and whallla ... a sequential shifting tranny. Rotate the barrel with electroincs, pneumatics, or anything you think is complex, and its still the same basic tranny we already have.

Automatic transmissions are easy to make sequential because they basically come that way. You add some fancy switches, and bam, you make it become a triptronic / sequential shifting wonder, and then you have all the weight and glory of an automatic ... but the marketing department thinks you've created the next best thing since sliced bread, and then the public starts to think the same, and then you don't get the same shifting development for the good ol' manual transmission, and the world "seems" more complex.

The "complex" argument is one of the best ways to put down a good discussion. I suppose that's why we don't have sequential manual based transmissions in the mainstream public yet ... nice ...

Cheers,

jcnel.

 

Ummm motorcycles still have clutch levers and they don't blip the throttle for you. Sequential transmissions do all the clutching for you and blip the throttle on downshifts to rev match...It's a little more complex than your motorcycle transmission. That said, it's still not too complex to put in an Evo. Look at all the other high-tech hydraulic clutching they have on it, especially the JDM GSR.

 

We must be not thinking about sequential transmission stuff on the same level.

My points have been, that sequential transmissions:
1.) have the same internal makeup of an H-pattern manual transmission.
2.) shift through the gears sequentially via usually a mechanical barrel device.
3.) (For clarificaion) are not planetary, sun, and ring gear setups like automatic trannies.
4.) can be operated with a clutch, just like we already have on the EVO, with no external computerized, or mechanical hardware.

Small note from last post:

If I may clarify even a bit more from your statement. Sequential transmissions MAY do all the clutching for you and blip the throttle on downshifts. I still think the EVO would benefit from a sequential transmission even without all the fancy clutch, and blip goodies.

... and ... I don't know why you're talking about rev. matching on downshifting. Rev. matching comes because you've got the clutch in, and are matching the engine speed to where the engine is going to be on the downshift, before letting go of the clutch.

Have you clutchless downshifted a bike? If not, I'd suggest doing it, it really drives home the mechanical concepts about what needs to go on. For example on my Suzuki (one of the best commercial transmissions on bikes) you need to put pressure on the shift lever, and then you blip the throttle closed, and it will downshift. Then you can immediately open the throttle back up a bit to make sure you don't upset the bike too much. The blip in the throttle is just enough to let the transmission gears go slack (netural) and be able to have the fork take the one gear off, and the other fork to pop the dog into the next lower gear.

If you look at bike racers ... most of them still have a little clutch action in their downshifts. Not a lot, but just enough to get the tranny to slack up enough to get the downshift in.

The big advantage of sequential shifting is upshifting. A rachet mechanism is used to rotate the barrel, and if you put a little pressure on the level, as soon as you blip the throttle (off and then on again) it will upshift. The rachet mechanism will only rotate the barrel a certain amount (enough to shift), and then you have to put the mechanism back into it neutral position to get ready for the next shift. The only nice human factor would be a good visual indicator ... I'm the first to admit I sometimes forget what gear I'm in on the bike.

Some really good people with well characterized transmission can actually upshift a H-pattern manual with just a blip, and no clutch. It takes a lot of feel and skill, and is something that is infinitely easier on a sequential.

Thanks for your comments,

Cheers,

jcnel.