Tomba wrote:Until I see real numbers from a reliable source, I will never be able to accept that gear changes with a manual shifter were quicker, even in the most optimal conditions, than the current paddle-operated quickshift boxes.
I cannot believe you can perceive this as reality. It would mean that a lowly ranked team could still use such a simple box, but strangely they were all very happy to get their hands on a quickshift version. They surely aren't doing that because shifts are slower...
WhiteBlue wrote:You also have to consider that they were not having power assisted steering at that time. So sometimes they could not afford to take one hand off the steering wheel to do the shifting. Those guys used to have strong arms. They had to do a lot more work.
Tim.Wright wrote:Yea I don't believe this either. Until there is some data showing the torque gap we can only listen. For example;
Sounds a lot slower than the shifts today
flynfrog wrote:In God we trust all other bring data.
You made the claim autogyro now back it up. No bs stories where is the data.
Belatti wrote:I do data acquisition for a guy that has two 80s F1 cars. Gear changes in upshift takes arround 0,2 secs. You can notice clearly the instant without acceleration in the GPS speed trace and also see the rpms steps.
I also have TC2000 touring car data with secuential 6 speed gearbox that uses powershift (ignition cut) and the time for a gearchange is reduced to half of that (barely more than 0,1 sec) and its difficult to see that with ONLY a GPS speedtrace.
I bet current F1 gearchenges occur in less than 0,05 secs...
autogyro wrote:Oh and Tomba, in my first post I did not refer directly to over all shift speeds.
I do say that manual gear shifts can be faster however.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests