Just in case you have the ignore feature active on Peppers post I'll quote the web site.

Lee

###
If you take changing gear as the gap in power transmission rather than just selecting a mechanical gear you will find an auto is slower than a sequential box. Most auto boxes in sport mode have a gap of about 300 milliseconds an SMG dog box changes gear at full throttle cog to cog in 75milliseconds.
###
There is NO gap in the transmission of power... that is the whole point about preselection... stop digging your self another hole... [b]PUT THE SHOVEL DOWN hahaha :D

You have, to date 'back-tracked' on the torque multiplying function of a torque convertor, you have failed to see that the Auto'box in production cars are designed for the 'Market' and not for making the most of the cars performance and now you are trying to convince yourself and others that Autos don't deliver constant power to the wheels... :D

I SUPPOSE THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEESE

So Mycroft, as you obviously aren't ignoring me anymore... :p

Why DO race teams favour sequential/manual systems...?

Thankyou......

its finally sunk in.

:D :D :D

The new DSG boxes with clutch preselect without losses and gaps in transmission Conventional auto's do not.

Have you ever driven an auto with worn brake bands? The change takes forever.

Lee

Pepper, he seems to be ignoring me now instead :( ;)

I missed this... the 'definition of desparation'...

###
Have you ever driven an auto with worn brake bands? The change takes forever.
###

No!, I maintain my cars :D... but I have had a clutch go... and the 'gearchange' took 3 days... hahaha:D


[Edited by Mycroft - 5/4/2003 1:40:02 PM]

Pathetic.

I'll bow out with these thoughts for everyone.

I enjoyed to the technical banter at the biggining but now we are down to childish insults. So I have had enough.

Petrol engines are not linear in their power delivery. If you have the same torque at 3000rpm as 5000rpm your rate of acceleration is the same at 3000rpm as it is at 5000rpm unless you change gear ratio.

Any gear ratios you put in an Auto box you can put in a manual box and not suffer Torque Convertor losses. Therfore an equivalent manual will always be faster. Unless of course you leave the manual in a higher gear or the driver doesn't want to race, this does not however mean the auto is then a faster car.

Race and Rally teams use manual boxes to maximise performance.

If by fitting a Levelten TC and ECU you could make your 370bhp XKR faster than a Ferrari and 470bhp 911GT2 then I think the race teams may have missed something. :rolleyes:

The bottom line is you cannot create (Laws of Physics again)energy you can only transmit what is available at the engine through the drivetrain to the wheels. You can alter how much reaches the wheels through gearing.
However you do it adding a torque converter introduces losses into the drive train so that system is slower.

How much slower on standard setups? I'll tell you.

Alfa 156
2.0TS Manual 155bhp 0-62 in 8.6. Standing km in 29.6.
2.0TS SMG. All figures same as above.


2.5V6 Manual 190bhp 0-62 in 7.4. Standing km in 27.9
2.5V6 Auto 190bhp 0-62 in 8.5. Standing Km in 29.2


As you can see adding the auto blunts the performance of the 2.5 down to 2.0litre level.
Any mods to the autobox or torque converter is just trying to get some of the perfomance that has been lost back.

I really hope someone will take up the challange, but for me thats it. :D

Cheers
Lee






[Edited by logiclee - 5/4/2003 3:50:35 PM]

Translation supplied by Bullsh!tsifter.com

I'll bow out with these thoughts for everyone.
Retreats, shouting.

I enjoyed to the technical banter at the biggining but now we are down to childish insults. So I have had enough.
I'm looking rather foolish, I'm cutting me losses!

Petrol engines are not linear in their power delivery. If you have the same torque at 3000rpm as 5000rpm your rate of acceleration is the same at 3000rpm as it is at 5000rpm unless you change gear ratio.
I'm a gonna state the bleedin' obvious so I sound like I know what I talking about

Any gear ratios you put in an Auto box you can put in a manual box and not suffer Torque Convertor losses. Therfore an equivalent manual will always be faster. Unless of course you leave the manual in a higher gear or the driver doesn't want to race, this does not however mean the auto is then a faster car.
I'm a gonna state the bleedin' obvious so I sound like I know what I talking about.

Race and Rally teams use manual boxes to maximise performance.
I'm a gonna state the bleedin' obvious so I sound like I know what I talking about.

If by fitting a Levelten TC and ECU you could make your 370bhp XKR faster than a Ferrari and 470bhp 911GT2 then I think the race teams may have missed something.
'I'm a Non-Entity, Get Me Outta Here'

The bottom line is you cannot create (Laws of Physics again)energy you can only transmit what is available at the engine through the drivetrain to the wheels. You can alter how much reaches the wheels through gearing.
However you do it adding a torque converter introduces losses into the drive train so that system is slower.
I'm a gonna state the bleedin' obvious so I sound like I know what I talking about. I hope everyone forgets that my standpoint has changed.

How much slowe on standard setups.

Alfa 156
2.0TS Manual 155bhp 0-62 in 8.6. Standing km in 29.6.
2.0TS SMG. All figures same as above.


2.5V6 Manual 190bhp 0-62 in 7.4. Standing km in 27.9
2.5V6 Auto 190bhp 0-62 in 8.5. Standing Km in 29.2


As you can see adding the auto blunts the performance of the 2.5 down to 2.0litre level.
Any mods to the autobox or torque converter is just trying to get some of the perfomance that has been lossed back.
I'm a gonna state the bleedin' obvious so I sound like I know what I talking about.

I really hope someone will take up the challange, but for me thats it.
'I'm a Non-Entity, Get Me Outta Here'

Cheers
D'ya reckon I got away with that... retreat with boasting worked at Dunkirk... worth a try!
Lee

hahaha :D

You won't be missed much, except of course by your own personal Ra-Ra girl...



[Edited by Mycroft - 5/4/2003 4:12:49 PM]

Pathetic.

I bet £20 that he comes back into this thread :D LOL

The whole thing is just an ego-massaging exercise for Liecroft - he deliberately sparks arguments to get people to talk to him because they wouldn't otherwise....what a sad life!

LOOOOSERRRRRRRR!

:D

Mycroft, what planet are you from?

Logiclee hasn't 'retreated' looking 'foolish'. He has made his point, argued his case and prooved his knowledge to everyone on this board/thread accept yourself. Who can blame him from giving up the impossible challenge of educating your tiny brain, and even bigger challenge of getting you to acknowledge it.

As far as I can see the only fool here is you, but its mighty entertaining!!!

He said
###
It doesn't matter how well the power delivery of an engine is mated to the gearboxbox and coupling the fact is the maximum output of the engine will not reach the box due to the losses in the torque convertor.
###

Then goes on to backtrack and agree that the TC which sits between the Engine and gearbox does increase the torque!

What he has proved is that he cannot admit when he is wrong.

His has far from proved his knowledge, he has highlighted his deficiencies.

Shame.

To repeat my post from page 10...
###
You have, to date 'back-tracked' on the torque multiplying function of a torque convertor, you have failed to see that the Auto'box in production cars are designed for the 'Market' and not for making the most of the cars performance and now you are trying to convince yourself and others that Autos don't deliver constant power to the wheels...

Any person who thinks that is a 'proof' of ability [to be proven wrong on the 3 points raised] is a bigger fool than any encountered so far...

I think it's proof of ability ;)

I think its proof that Mycroft is a d!ck

:D

;)Cheers matey;)

I think this whole thread proves that Mycroft isn't an engineer.

- Constant refusal to answer questions.
- Having "big important secrets" that can't be divulged.
- Answering logical retorts with "you simply don't know what you are on about.....hahahahahaha"
- When beaten resorting to mud slinging.

Mycroft ~ you're a Politician aren't you? ;)

LOL @ mik

Dunno about the politician bit, but the rest is spot on :)

I think this whole thread proves that Mycroft isn't an engineer.

- Constant refusal to answer questions.
I answered everyone the answers may not have been to your liking.

- Having "big important secrets" that can't be divulged.
I do play things close to my chest.

- Answering logical retorts with "you simply don't know what you are on about.....hahahahahaha"
Well when anyone posts anything laughable, then that is what I do... I laugh at them... it's called 'contempt'... hahaha :D

- When beaten resorting to mud slinging.
No one has 'beaten' me on a single point... post one... I have slung no mud... I make sure you know that I think you are a 'bit dim' :D but that is all... hahaha :d

Mycroft ~ you're a Politician aren't you?
Now that is insulting, take that back... :D

Have I called you an Idiot?... just checking... hahaha :D



[Edited by Mycroft - 5/4/2003 9:33:14 PM]

So is this thread to de-generate into a slagging match... don't let me stop you.

I am not only your superior intellectually... [blindingly obvious]... but I like a keyboard joust also, I am particularly good at it... hahaha :D

But as there is no-one out there in Scooby-land who can put up an even vaguely intellectual arguement... there is really only one place to go... or the thread could go the same way as Pepper and quietly die....

Now that we can agree on :)

hahahahahahahaha

Hi :)

Hi there Claudius... how goes it bro!

hehe mycroft my bros hows you tonight haha :D lol just wanted to check if your still up ;) :D lol u no what I mean ;) lol im so sexy yeah :D they call me big kebabus bin moses ;) :D lol

?Moses?... neat...

Na, just kidding, it's me :D LOL