1badride

Take my car for example: 2002 Corvette Z/06 6-Speed manual trans.

The transmission behaves like any other tranny. Push the clutch, shift, release the clutch.

Now imagine being able to shift from gear to gear, without using your clutch, and without any disconnection in the driveline! No more driveline shock!

www.1badride.com/docs/zeroshift.pdf

This is what I have been waiting for!

What do you folks think about it? At 7,500GBP, it's pretty expensive, but not as expensive as a full sequential.

revLIMITLESS

very interesting.
I'm big on technology but I love driving a standard manual with a clutch.
I would prefer that over zero shift.

1badride

Well, the clutch is what causes driveline shock during fast shifting. This technology eliminates that shock.

Some people will always prefer clutch over no clutch...

Also consider that this is not a replacement tranny, but more of a modification to stock transmissions, with the option of beefing up/changing the gears.

revLIMITLESS

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 1badride
Well, the clutch is what causes driveline shock during fast shifting.

PLYRS 3

dunno.....i'd still prefer a sequential.....

1badride

Strictly for feel or... ?

PLYRS 3

ummm no....more for it's "involvement", i think....

i may be one of the few that REALLY likes the SMG II gearbox....of course, i was beating on the car for the short time i had it (dealer demo), so i wasn't experiencing the harshness that's associated with tooling around town......

obviously you'd be frantically working the lever or paddles if you had to go 6-2 in a sequential.....

in the zero-shift, you could go directly to 6-2 (or so i gather from the article)

1badride

That is correct, any gear to any gear (using common sense of course).

For typical driving in my expected ~625rwhp+++ car, I would be rolling away from the stoplight in 3rd and going straight to 6. A full sequential would make it less of a daily driver due to the violent nature of the shifts.

I think this new technology will allow for faster driving, especially during long turns which would normally have at least one gear shift.

I also like the SMG II gearbox, although my time in the car was limited to 20 mins. At low speed - the best I could describe it was "banging" into gear. The whole car would shake unless you trimmed back the engagement timing or switched it to less aggressive shift timing or to automatic shifting.

I would tend to think involvement level would be the same, since with the SMG, you're not using the clutch, as with the zeroshift.

Also keep in mind the continuous application of power. Rather than having even a 0.8 second power disconnection gap, there would be no gap, just more pull.

Think about it... you've got the hammer down in 2nd, you're approaching redline... you slam the shifter into 3rd and instantly the rpms drop slightly and the car just continues to pull with no break in power application... AWESOME. Couple that with hardened gears and tailor made gear ratios...

PLYRS 3

actually, this is what i couldn't understand in the article....

when the rpm's drop, there IS a "break" in the power....but, there is no break in the drivetrain....correct??

how is the power application any different than if one was power-shifting (no lift)?

1badride

When the break in the drivetrain occurs, power to the wheels stops being delivered (clutch and full sequential).

Powershifting only means keeping maximum throttle applied, even during shifts. You still use the clutch, and there is still a break in the applied power to the drivetrain when the clutch is disengaged.

The Zeroshift is supposed to give a seamless transition to the next gear. Basically, the two gears are running simultaneously for a brief moment before the gear being exited is fully disengaged. Since the system does not require a clutch, it means there is never any break in power being delivered to the transmission.

At least that is how I understand it from the article.