Sequential gearboxes, why aren't there more?

confuZion3 wrote: I, for one, greatly prefer the ease and simplicity of an automatic transmission.

I, for one, have nothing to add to this conversation, except a question. Are there no auto slushbox bikes? I ask because I know nothing about motorcycles.

I'd like to say I wouldn't mind DD'ing a dog box. Never having tried one, however, I'm not even sure I could drive one. Other people not being able to drive my car seems like more of a bonus than a problem. It means my in-laws can destroy a rental car instead of my wife's car when they visit. No such luck with my side of the family, all of them can/do currently drive manuals...

Because one like this is $22k used once you get all the bits together to install it. http://www.drenth-gearboxes.com/products/gearboxes/dg500-gearbox.html

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum/showthread.php?2050762-Drenth-DG500-Sequential-gearbox-for-sale

Otherwise, I'd have one of those in every car I own.

pappatho wrote: I have considered doing a bike engine swap in a classic Mini largely to get a sequential box.

I keep going between a classic Mini and an X1/9 as the perfect motorcycle engined car. Looking forwards to the day where I make that choice.

Rufledt wrote: I, for one, have nothing to add to this conversation, except a question. Are there no auto slushbox bikes? I ask because I know nothing about motorcycles.

Yup, they are out there. Cruisers mostly.

In reply to Curmudgeon:

A couple of my bikes have what is apparently crazy technology of the future that tells you what gear your in. Of course it doesn't take me long to figure it out on the ones that don't either. I mean seriously guys riding a bike isn't rocket science.

The MTI Racing Pfitzner road racing transmission is the cheapest sequential or dog-box transmission I have seen for sale at just under $10,000.

http://www.mtiracing.com/drivetrain/transmissions.html

Whenever ALMS and other GT class road racing teams started making them (80s or 90s, maybe), the public must not have wanted them for their Corvettes and 911s so companies never started developing them for mass production. In the mid 00s, paddle shifters because the desirable trans breakthrough and killed sequential manuals from becoming a mass produced $3000 purchase, along with the death of the manual trans.

I'd say it's easier than having to learn to control a clutch with your foot. Who honestly remembers trying to learn to drive stick?? Took me quite a few tries to get it right.

I was unaware that all sequential gearboxes have straight-cut gears. That's certainly a reason. Thanks

Huh? They don't, and i didn't say so. Unsynchronized dog clutches and straight cut gears often go together because the only people who want unsynchronized dog clutches in their cars ALSO want the strongest gears they can get, but there's no technical reason that they HAVE to go together.

Both my bikes had this thing where they wouldn't go from neutral into gear sometimes without me rocking the bike back and forth. Wouldn't this be a problem with a street car?

Normal synchronized dog clutches are basically two triangles with the pointy sides facing each other so most of the time the points dont hit. Unsynchronized dog clutches are like two triangles with the flat sides facing each other. Harder to line up but once they are past each other any load from one to the other pulls them together and makes it very hard to pull them apart. That's why you have to unload the drivetrain to shift them 'nicely'. They make WOT shifting much faster and more difficult to screw up because once those edges pass each other it completes the shift for you, unlike a synchronized dog clutch where if you apply power before the thing is fully engaged it actually pushes itself apart.

Its a matter of laziness.

Imagine being forced to click down through all the gears coming up to a stoplight in your corolla, instead of just bumping the stick into neutral.

^It would be just like when I had a motorcycle, in other words, not a big deal.

mr2peak wrote:

pappatho wrote: I have considered doing a bike engine swap in a classic Mini largely to get a sequential box.

I keep going between a classic Mini and an X1/9 as the perfect motorcycle engined car. Looking forwards to the day where I make that choice.

X19 for sure unless your sticking the mini engine in the back.

Kenny_McCormic wrote: Its a matter of laziness. Imagine being forced to click down through all the gears coming up to a stoplight in your corolla, instead of just bumping the stick into neutral.

I always touch all the cogs in order anyway. Sort of an anal cadence I committed to muscle memory when I was first learning to drive a race car so I wouldn't money shift or lock the rears and go for a backwards ride.

I don't really think about it now but I notice that I do it when I watch in-car video... I can hear the throttle blips and count along... {5-blip-4-blip-3} when on the brakes at the end of long straights.

So... for me it would just be faster getting that finished with ;)

I am anxiously awaiting certain people in this thread to start build threads detailing the sequential transmission they are going to put in their cars because it is so worth it.

There is a guy who built a 10 second dodge shadow and designed a sequential shifting drum to go on top of the 'normal' 5spd transmission. I would love to see that built and implemented just for my curiosity's sake. I think he also actually cut off a bunch of the dogs and made it a 'crash box' (they call it that because its PLEASANT TO USE, obviously) to increase his shifting speed. I think that stuff is kinda neat, even if i would have spent way more effort choosing a lighter clutch disc before modding the internals. Different strokes..

Vigo as mentioned in my first post, the hurdle on a sequential box is indeed the price. They are indeed so worth it but as most folks won't care the economies of scale don't work. You can manage to find them for 6K you could also convert a BMW K100 box but oops it's spinning the wrong way as will most bike gear boxes. Cost is the issue.

As for the comment about getting down to 1st gear several bikes had a shift cam that allowed you to go from top gear to first in one shift.

Tom

Tom1200 wrote: ...you could also convert a BMW K100 box but oops it's spinning the wrong way as will most bike gear boxes

Honda Motor with a K100 sequential…. Effort probably outweighs the benefits, but still cool.

mr2peak wrote:

Rufledt wrote: I, for one, have nothing to add to this conversation, except a question. Are there no auto slushbox bikes? I ask because I know nothing about motorcycles.

Yup, they are out there. Cruisers mostly.

Its only the one honda isn't it?

mr2peak wrote:

Tom1200 wrote: ...you could also convert a BMW K100 box but oops it's spinning the wrong way as will most bike gear boxes

Honda Motor with a K100 sequential…. Effort probably outweighs the benefits, but still cool.

Now you're talking! Wonder how much power those boxes could handle...

Is it really that hard to fab up motorcycle engine in a car? Some of them have 125+ HP should be good enough for a car.

trigun7469 wrote: Is it really that hard to fab up motorcycle engine in a car? Some of them have 125+ HP should be good enough for a car.

It isn't the HP, but the Torque or the lack of it anyway. The clutches aren't built to handle a 1500-2000lb car. So they are a pain in the butt to try and drive at anything other than a race track, where they are similar to a Formula car where you get it rolling and keep it rolling with as little use of the clutch as possible.

kevlarcorolla wrote:

mr2peak wrote:

pappatho wrote: I have considered doing a bike engine swap in a classic Mini largely to get a sequential box.

I keep going between a classic Mini and an X1/9 as the perfect motorcycle engined car. Looking forwards to the day where I make that choice.

X19 for sure unless your sticking the mini engine in the back.

X-1/9's are pretty heavy for their size (lots of extra bracing to support the car in the case of a rollover) so they are around 2000lbs in their lighter forms, but many are a bit higher with the usual options onboard and a couple of butts in them.

They're expensive, but you can have one! http://quaife.co.uk/shop/products/qke8j

My dad's and my locost is going to have a bike engine just for this reason, I've always wanted to pretend to be a rally driver! Ha...

Vigo mentioned 'crash boxes', those are conventional manuals with the synchro ring teeth cut off. You better shift those like you mean it.

I prefer a Clutch-Flite with a full manual reverse valvebody.

turboswede wrote:

kevlarcorolla wrote:

mr2peak wrote:

pappatho wrote: I have considered doing a bike engine swap in a classic Mini largely to get a sequential box.

I keep going between a classic Mini and an X1/9 as the perfect motorcycle engined car. Looking forwards to the day where I make that choice.

X19 for sure unless your sticking the mini engine in the back.

X-1/9's are pretty heavy for their size (lots of extra bracing to support the car in the case of a rollover) so they are around 2000lbs in their lighter forms, but many are a bit higher with the usual options onboard and a couple of butts in them.

Ok the mini is the better choice but I still stand that the engine should be in the back.

I giggle everytime I watch this car(usually every couple of months if I'm feeling sad or something)

http://youtu.be/Z7YGVEMlHPs

Eventually i'd like a sequential on the blue Miata. Why? Because it looks fun. And i like noises.

I like dog boxes, too. This is rad. http://youtu.be/n_1jO64tuQA

This looks hilarious: http://youtu.be/vxG1PFHOpI8

I'd be down for any of that E36 M3.