2020 vs 1988 (Page 6/6) Will NOV 30, 09:36 AM quote Originally posted by sourmash: Last week a Lamborghini that was probably an Aventador (def not a Gallardo) pulled out in front of me and hoofed down the road and out of sight in traffic. What I heard was the trans shifting so fast it had to be a dual disk, so I looked it up. Nope, the Aventador has a single disc with lightning fast shifts. The transmission, a seven-speed single-clutch automated manual, is built by Graziano Trasmissioni.[23][24] Despite being single-clutch, gear-shifts are accomplished in 50 milliseconds. Lambo reorganized the transmissions so that sequential gears are on different shift collars. That means that the outgoing gear actuator can apply load to the shift collar of the outgoing gear, the incoming gear actuator can apply load to the incoming gear synchronizer and the clutch actuator can start to release the clutch ALL AT THE SAME TIME. With a traditional manual that's been automated, the clutch has to stay released long enough to the actuator to travel from being fully engaged in outgoing gear, through synchronizer operation to be fully engaged in incoming gear... so there are sequential operations. With the Lambo system, it all happens at the same time. It's not quite as fast as a dual clutch system, but it's lighter and simpler. pmbrunelle NOV 30, 07:39 PM quote Originally posted by Will: With a traditional manual that's been automated, the clutch has to stay released long enough to the actuator to travel from being fully engaged in outgoing gear, through synchronizer operation to be fully engaged in incoming gear... so there are sequential operations. What takes a boatload of time in a normal synchronized gear change is pushing on the gear lever and waiting for synchronization to occur. Besides the idea of paralleling tasks, there is also the idea of simply speeding up the longest sequential tasks. A dog-engagement box retains sequential tasks, but speeds up gear engagement to the point of being "quick enough": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL5DEuVhThE High-performance cars could have migrated to H-pattern dogboxes when they outgrew (too much time wasted shifting) synchronized manual transmissions, but history shows us that's not what happened Rickady88GT NOV 30, 09:17 PM quote Originally posted by pmbrunelle: What takes a boatload of time in a normal synchronized gear change is pushing on the gear lever and waiting for synchronization to occur. Besides the idea of paralleling tasks, there is also the idea of simply speeding up the longest sequential tasks. A dog-engagement box retains sequential tasks, but speeds up gear engagement to the point of being "quick enough": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL5DEuVhThE High-performance cars could have migrated to H-pattern dogboxes when they outgrew (too much time wasted shifting) synchronized manual transmissions, but history shows us that's not what happened I LOVE watching those old F1 races Will DEC 01, 09:11 AM quote Originally posted by pmbrunelle: What takes a boatload of time in a normal synchronized gear change is pushing on the gear lever and waiting for synchronization to occur. Besides the idea of paralleling tasks, there is also the idea of simply speeding up the longest sequential tasks. A dog-engagement box retains sequential tasks, but speeds up gear engagement to the point of being "quick enough": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EL5DEuVhThE High-performance cars could have migrated to H-pattern dogboxes when they outgrew (too much time wasted shifting) synchronized manual transmissions, but history shows us that's not what happened Since they also have to be driven on the street, and dogboxes kind of suck to drive on the street, they kept synchronized gearboxes. However, dog boxes do lend themselves well to automation. Clutch engagement of the automated transmission is the primary factor for how smoothly it drives on the street, so an automated dogbox can hammer the shift, then soft-pedal the clutch without being unseemly when driving to the grocery store.