Quote:
Originally posted by dd74
Why are straight-cut gears more labor intensive?
|
I'm sorry, my statement was meant to be taken in conjunction with dog engagement. Straight-cut synchromesh gears are not more labor intensive for a driver, just generally noisier.
However, a dog engagement gearbox with straight-cut gears are a PITA for street use. The major advantages are increased strength over synchromesh as well as providing for clutchless upshifts. This is fine and dandy, but downshifting can be a bear as the revs need to be properly matched, which does take some getting used to. Once mastered, they are fun to drive if you can put up with the increased noise level.
Until the latest RSR with its sequential transaxle, Porsche's competition transaxles have long been synchromesh, rather than utilizing dog engagement like most of its competitors. A major reason (and this has been confirmed by a couple of prominent ALMS team owners) is that "gentlemen" drivers historically have played an active role driving Porsche's in IMSA/ALMS/Grand-Am competition. Many of these guys are not professionals and simply "buy" their ride, and have never driven a racing car fitted with a dog engagement gearbox. While dog engagement is generally stronger, if you are not accustomed to it they can break, taking the car out of the race. The rewards are not worth the risks to some of these team owners.
I've driven quite a few different cars with dogged gearkits or transmissions, and they just aren't practical for street use IMO. I even drove a GTI equipped with a 6-speed sequential transaxle suitable for touring cars on the street for a few months. Great at full throttle going through the gears but not much fun in day-to-day traffic when shifting is generally "lazy".
Ralph
Ralph