Steve Bigelow wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
> news:ecqdnWSyr4AjXyHfRVn-og@speakeasy.net...
>
>>>Yep, I heard that Jetta will also have it, along with their regular
>>>Porsche
>>>inspired 5spd Tiptronic automatic. If VW's DSG system turns out to be as
>>>robust as a manual transmission in the long term, it could be a good
>>>alternative for those of us with a weak left knee. Even so, there's no
>>>substitute for being able to control the power delivery with the left
>>>foot
>>>or randomly selecting a downward gear (instead of sequentially).
>>>
>>>Pars
>>>
>>>
>>
>>really? how long have motor cycles had sequential boxes? i've /never/
>>heard a m/c rider complain about not being able to shift more than 1 at a
>>time.
>
>
> Sequential...but easily double shifted!
>
my point exactly. thank you.

 

> >
> > Sequential...but easily double shifted!
> >
> my point exactly. thank you.
>

Perhaps on the race track,but when you need to make a quick getaway into a
opening in the freeway and want to burn some clutch to add to the drama (and
don't have a big engine torque monster to compensate or a lighweight bike) a
1-2 downshift from a sequential would just take away from the fun. Or, your
crawling along in traffic, see a sweat opening, slam the shifter into first,
pop the clutch, tear some rubber and by the time you've completely released
the clutch, you've already capture your spot (and eliminated the need for
the woman behind you to try and box you out). If you're in a take no
prisoner attitude, the clutchless sequential shift seems a little too tame
(especially when you don't have some serious power under the hood and need
to use the tranny to make do).

Pars

 

Pars wrote:
>>>Sequential...but easily double shifted!
>>>
>>
>>my point exactly. thank you.
>>
>
>
> Perhaps on the race track,but when you need to make a quick getaway into a
> opening in the freeway and want to burn some clutch to add to the drama (and
> don't have a big engine torque monster to compensate or a lighweight bike) a
> 1-2 downshift from a sequential would just take away from the fun.

there's not much "fun" anyway - all you're doing is pressing the little
buttons on the steering wheel. formula 1 stylee. personally, i can't
wait to get my hands on that stuff.

> Or, your
> crawling along in traffic, see a sweat opening, slam the shifter into first,
> pop the clutch, tear some rubber and by the time you've completely released
> the clutch, you've already capture your spot (and eliminated the need for
> the woman behind you to try and box you out). If you're in a take no
> prisoner attitude, the clutchless sequential shift seems a little too tame
> (especially when you don't have some serious power under the hood and need
> to use the tranny to make do).
>
> Pars
>
>

 

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 07:58:30 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
wrote:

>Pars wrote:
>>>>Sequential...but easily double shifted!
>>>>
>>>
>>>my point exactly. thank you.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps on the race track,but when you need to make a quick getaway into a
>> opening in the freeway and want to burn some clutch to add to the drama (and
>> don't have a big engine torque monster to compensate or a lighweight bike) a
>> 1-2 downshift from a sequential would just take away from the fun.
>
>there's not much "fun" anyway - all you're doing is pressing the little
>buttons on the steering wheel. formula 1 stylee. personally, i can't
>wait to get my hands on that stuff.

As a committed MT fan, I would certainly be open to trying one of
these. If it works for F1, it might just work on the street. I
especially applaud if this replaces the AT one is now forced to accept
if one wants a car that can handle the Home Depot/people
hauler/camping missions.

>
>> Or, your
>> crawling along in traffic, see a sweat opening, slam the shifter into first,
>> pop the clutch, tear some rubber and by the time you've completely released
>> the clutch, you've already capture your spot (and eliminated the need for
>> the woman behind you to try and box you out). If you're in a take no
>> prisoner attitude, the clutchless sequential shift seems a little too tame
>> (especially when you don't have some serious power under the hood and need
>> to use the tranny to make do).

I know exactly what you mean. As for sequential shifter, you just
gotta try it and see. It could be pretty good. Imagine, you at in
5th and you see the opening. You simultaneously hold down the
downshift lever and floor the gas. That signals the tranny to shift
down to the lowest practical gear. 0.2 seconds after you give the
command, you are accelerating as fast as the traction/horsepower
permit.

FIA made Honda slow down the shifting of their F1 transmission because
it was essentially seamless with virtually instantaneous shifts which
is not permitted.


>>
>> Pars
>>
>>

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 07:58:30 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Pars wrote:
>>
>>>>>Sequential...but easily double shifted!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>my point exactly. thank you.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps on the race track,but when you need to make a quick getaway into a
>>>opening in the freeway and want to burn some clutch to add to the drama (and
>>>don't have a big engine torque monster to compensate or a lighweight bike) a
>>>1-2 downshift from a sequential would just take away from the fun.
>>
>>there's not much "fun" anyway - all you're doing is pressing the little
>>buttons on the steering wheel. formula 1 stylee. personally, i can't
>>wait to get my hands on that stuff.
>
>
> As a committed MT fan, I would certainly be open to trying one of
> these. If it works for F1, it might just work on the street. I
> especially applaud if this replaces the AT one is now forced to accept
> if one wants a car that can handle the Home Depot/people
> hauler/camping missions.
>
>
>>> Or, your
>>>crawling along in traffic, see a sweat opening, slam the shifter into first,
>>>pop the clutch, tear some rubber and by the time you've completely released
>>>the clutch, you've already capture your spot (and eliminated the need for
>>>the woman behind you to try and box you out). If you're in a take no
>>>prisoner attitude, the clutchless sequential shift seems a little too tame
>>>(especially when you don't have some serious power under the hood and need
>>>to use the tranny to make do).
>
>
> I know exactly what you mean. As for sequential shifter, you just
> gotta try it and see. It could be pretty good. Imagine, you at in
> 5th and you see the opening. You simultaneously hold down the
> downshift lever and floor the gas. That signals the tranny to shift
> down to the lowest practical gear. 0.2 seconds after you give the
> command, you are accelerating as fast as the traction/horsepower
> permit.

.... [drool]

>
> FIA made Honda slow down the shifting of their F1 transmission because
> it was essentially seamless with virtually instantaneous shifts which
> is not permitted.

now /this/ is what technology is all about. who would want to drive a
stick if you could have this? i remember some f1 drivers turning their
noses up at electronic shifting. i think it took 2, maybe 3 races of
getting dusted to change their minds. certainly not a full season.

i love f1. without doubt, and by a gigantic margin, the biggest single
driver of automobile innovation that there is.

>
>
>
>>>Pars
>>>
>>>
>
>

 

>
> >Pars wrote:
> >>>>Sequential...but easily double shifted!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>my point exactly. thank you.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> Perhaps on the race track,but when you need to make a quick getaway
into a
> >> opening in the freeway and want to burn some clutch to add to the drama
(and
> >> don't have a big engine torque monster to compensate or a lighweight
bike) a
> >> 1-2 downshift from a sequential would just take away from the fun.
> >
> >there's not much "fun" anyway - all you're doing is pressing the little
> >buttons on the steering wheel. formula 1 stylee. personally, i can't
> >wait to get my hands on that stuff.
>
> As a committed MT fan, I would certainly be open to trying one of
> these. If it works for F1, it might just work on the street. I
> especially applaud if this replaces the AT one is now forced to accept
> if one wants a car that can handle the Home Depot/people
> hauler/camping missions.
>
> >
> >> Or, your
> >> crawling along in traffic, see a sweat opening, slam the shifter into
first,
> >> pop the clutch, tear some rubber and by the time you've completely
released
> >> the clutch, you've already capture your spot (and eliminated the need
for
> >> the woman behind you to try and box you out). If you're in a take no
> >> prisoner attitude, the clutchless sequential shift seems a little too
tame
> >> (especially when you don't have some serious power under the hood and
need
> >> to use the tranny to make do).
>
> I know exactly what you mean. As for sequential shifter, you just
> gotta try it and see. It could be pretty good. Imagine, you at in
> 5th and you see the opening. You simultaneously hold down the
> downshift lever and floor the gas. That signals the tranny to shift
> down to the lowest practical gear. 0.2 seconds after you give the
> command, you are accelerating as fast as the traction/horsepower
> permit.

Nice option, but any regular automatic can do the same thing... But, 0.2 sec
is quick, it'd probably take me about 1.0 sec and that's with both foot
(right foot to punch the gas in order to rev match) and the right hand going
into action at the same time. The GM's tend to have a nice kick down when at
open throttle, but it still takes the transmission about 1/2 sec to take
action after being floored. So, 0.2 sec is freakin fast! A potential cool
feature would be to simultaneaously hold up on the shift while completely
off the gas, which may allow the tranny to go back into the most econimcal
gear. That way, it'd simulate a MT ability to drastcally go down to the most
aggresive gear and immiately upshift to a cruising gear (great for short
burst of powers while negoiating the highway and maximizing on fuel
consumption).

Pars

>
> FIA made Honda slow down the shifting of their F1 transmission because
> it was essentially seamless with virtually instantaneous shifts which
> is not permitted.
>