asking about gearbox

[riff_raff]

Tim.Wright makes an obvious point. The power loss in a slipping clutch is related to the normal force and the relative sliding velocity.

[Tim.Wright]

There is a balance of loads at the clutch and no transfer of torque.

There is a torque transfer as the clutch engages after the trick shift device has done its job on the modern boxes but it is torque transfer from the rear wheels to the engine to slow the engine...

Make up your mind auto.

There is little variation in the vehicle acceleration trace on the telemetry because vehicle inertia continues to drive the car forwards during the very small time frame

If there is little variation on the vehicle acceleration then what exactly is the deficiency of the current system?

By the way, the vehicle's inertia can't create a driving acceleration. If there is no significant variation in the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle its because something is providing a torque which is balancing out the aerodynamic drag force - even during the shift phase.

By the way, I find it really hard to believe that older manual systems are in anyway better than the current systems. The up-shifts practically don't interrupt the longitudinal acceleration at all and without a doubt the down-shifts are working in a way to preload the differential in a much more controlled way that is possible manually.

[machin]

Ha ha ha. I'm sat on the sideline enjoying Autogyro's usual tirade of name-dropping-contradicting-arm-waving-subject-jumping BS when it comes to trying to persuade the world that due to some conspiracy or other modern gearboxes are sh*t, modern drivers are sh*t and his new invention is a million times better than anything currently or previously on the market.

Shame really as there's a few good contributors on here who really do know what they're talking about, but it gets lost in all the cr*p. Worst of all some people will go away and believe some of the cr*p.

[autogyro]

Ha ha ha. I'm sat on the sideline enjoying Autogyro's usual tirade of name-dropping-contradicting-arm-waving-subject-jumping BS when it comes to trying to persuade the world that due to some conspiracy or other modern gearboxes are sh*t, modern drivers are sh*t and his new invention is a million times better than anything currently or previously on the market.

Shame really as there's a few good contributors on here who really do know what they're talking about, but it gets lost in all the cr*p. Worst of all some people will go away and believe some of the cr*p.

Glad your entertained Machin.
Obviously easily pleased.

[autogyro]

There is a balance of loads at the clutch and no transfer of torque.

When the engine speed matches the applied ratio output speed and before the engine applies torque for acceleration.

There is a torque transfer as the clutch engages after the trick shift device has done its job on the modern boxes but it is torque transfer from the rear wheels to the engine to slow the engine...

When the clutch engages and the rear wheels force the engine to change its rpm to match the ratio of output.

Make up your mind auto.

Both occur during the shift.

There is little variation in the vehicle acceleration trace on the telemetry because vehicle inertia continues to drive the car forwards during the very small time frame

If there is little variation on the vehicle acceleration then what exactly is the deficiency of the current system?

I did not say the vehicle accelerated.

By the way, the vehicle's inertia can't create a driving acceleration. If there is no significant variation in the longitudinal acceleration of the vehicle its because something is providing a torque which is balancing out the aerodynamic drag force - even during the shift phase.

By the way, I find it really hard to believe that older manual systems are in anyway better than the current systems. The up-shifts practically don't interrupt the longitudinal acceleration at all and without a doubt the down-shifts are working in a way to preload the differential in a much more controlled way that is possible manually.

Yes hard to believe and difficult to prove.
The modern boxes have to preload the diff carefully because with energy harvesting it is all to easy to lose the rear end of the car under braking.
Controlling the car using the gearbox in the braking phase was part of the old skill of driving the car mainly before aero DF.

[Tim.Wright]

When the engine speed matches the applied ratio output speed and before the engine applies torque for acceleration.

I'd argue that this is a condition that never occurs in the current DCT gearboxes because the phasing of the clutches is done precisely to avoid exactly this situation. Something that you physically can't replicate with a manual sequential or H-pattern box.

Yes hard to believe and difficult to prove.

Yet you continue to state it at every opportunity that you have?

[machin]

..and difficult to prove...

With today's cars data isn't difficult to get hold of at all... even amateur racers log a lot of their car's parameters (hell, all 3 of my push-bikes have data-logging powermeters!). The fact is that I and other people HAVE previously posted data, spec sheets and quotes from current race team engineers and drivers, and it all contradicts what you say Autogyro; it all says that gearchanges today are faster, smoother and almost infinitely repeatable. You've never once been able to provide any data which backs up your claims. All we get is this name-dropping-contradicting-arm-waving-subject-jumping sermon on the mount BS which you are becoming quite infamous for. I'm bored of it which is why I'm not getting involved as I would have done in the past. I implore people to do a search and find the data that has been posted on this forum before which contradicts the majority of your claims.

[autogyro]

..and difficult to prove...

With today's cars data isn't difficult to get hold of at all... even amateur racers log a lot of their car's parameters (hell, all 3 of my push-bikes have data-logging powermeters!). The fact is that I and other people HAVE previously posted data, spec sheets and quotes from current race team engineers and drivers, and it all contradicts what you say Autogyro; it all says that gearchanges today are faster, smoother and almost infinitely repeatable. You've never once been able to provide any data which backs up your claims. All we get is this name-dropping-contradicting-arm-waving-subject-jumping sermon on the mount BS which you are becoming quite infamous for. I'm bored of it which is why I'm not getting involved as I would have done in the past. I implore people to do a search and find the data that has been posted on this forum before which contradicts the majority of your claims.

Hahahaha

Like I said difficult to prove.

[autogyro]

When the engine speed matches the applied ratio output speed and before the engine applies torque for acceleration.

I'd argue that this is a condition that never occurs in the current DCT gearboxes because the phasing of the clutches is done precisely to avoid exactly this situation. Something that you physically can't replicate with a manual sequential or H-pattern box.

Yes hard to believe and difficult to prove.

Yet you continue to state it at every opportunity that you have?

We are not talking about DCT boxes only single clutch F1 units.

[Tim.Wright]

Aren't the current F1 transmissions all DCT?

[NL_Fer]

No they are not. The main difference between a seamless shift and a conventional box, is that the seamless doesn't lockup, when both gears are engaged. A DCT is not seamless, still a gear needs to be disenaged, before a new gear can be engaged.

The key about a seamless shift, it can actually engage a higher gear, while current gear is still engaged. The higher gear will increase the outgoing shafts speed and this action will disengage the lower gear.

So where a dogbox or dct would need a power interruption and disengagement, before a shift is possible. A seamless shift, would just need a short power reduction, to prevent the shock from destroying the shafts.

[autogyro]

No they are not. The main difference between a seamless shift and a conventional box, is that the seamless doesn't lockup, when both gears are engaged. A DCT is not seamless, still a gear needs to be disenaged, before a new gear can be engaged.

The key about a seamless shift, it can actually engage a higher gear, while current gear is still engaged. The higher gear will increase the outgoing shafts speed and this action will disengage the lower gear.

So where a dogbox or dct would need a power interruption and disengagement, before a shift is possible. A seamless shift, would just need a short power reduction, to prevent the shock from destroying the shafts.

The higher gear cannot increase the outgoing shaft speed until the engine rpm is decreased and the lower gear is disengaged.
Until that point in the shift overlap, engine torque cannot be transmitted to increase output speed and create acceleration.
Flywheel (no flywheel) inertia is not sufficient alone to accelerate the car.

[machin]

The higher gear cannot increase the outgoing shaft.... Blah blah blah...

Well that confirms it. autogyro does not understand how a new seamless shift gearbox works.

[autogyro]

The higher gear cannot increase the outgoing shaft.... Blah blah blah...

Well that confirms it. autogyro does not understand how a new seamless shift gearbox works.

Hahahaha and you do?

[autogyro]

Question

Do they take away power (blip the engine) during the shift?
If they do ask yourself why?

If applying the higher gear simply over ran the lower gear engagement why would you blip the engine?