What I mean is once the winners do their challenge are they going to have to wait another round before they can enter again.
I wouldnāt think so, any if you win again that round after you held yours, you can have the gentlemen courtesy of passing the organisator role down to the second highest ranked person
Edit: as to the dct manual idea: itād be far slower than full sequential anyhow, just by the clutch - shift - clutch release motion alone, so efficiently wise itāll be worse anyhow, itd be more of a purist thing to still be in full control, I believe that situations where you have to suddenly change 3+ gears are too scarce to objectively justify it.
[size=200]This round is now closed![/size]
Thanks everybody for entering. Iām in the progress of writing, my girlfriendās opinion has been provided, and results will come out within the next 24 hours!
I still havenāt decided which three cars to put in the top threeā¦ very difficult choice.
To answer your question @Racer13: I realised quite quickly in this round that 1) a week may be too long 2) having a single thread of challenges with 18 entries means that yes, some people will never ever get a chance to make a challenge of their own, and thatās kind of the point of the challenge right? But Iāve seen what happens when a cool-off period is enforced: people complain, get discouraged from entering because they have to āburnā a round, and end up quitting the challenge out of principle. I donāt want that to happen, Iām kind of an all inclusive kind of guy.
What I suggest then, is that Iām going to offer all three of the winners the chance to set up their own challenge, so instead of just a single thread, we have three of these running at the same time. The main problem I then have with that is policing three threads and deciding whether a user can only enter one or all three, etc. because that could get very messy if one user does end up winning more than one of the challenges.
Thoughts on that suggestion while we wait?
I think the original plan seems better than potentially having 3 different threads. I figure that the organiser of one round might take into account the winner of the round before them and factor that into their decision, or as Dragawn mentioned, if someone wins twice in a short time they might pass it down to the next person. It might be worth looking at changing the rules if one or a few people are always the winners to allow more opportunities for others to win, but until a problem like that comes up, I donāt see a reason to change anything.
How about we put the gentlemenās courtesy in a rule then? You can still participate and win in all rounds (but the ones you held yourself ofcourse), but without being the one to set up the next challenge. More conclusive: Best participant who hasnāt held a challenge in x rounds is the host for the next.
Edit: And I agree that 3 threads would getā¦hectic.
Edit2: Choose with your heart Strop! 
Also, 2 threads might be something to speed up how fast someoneās āturnā is, while not being too much work for everyone to properly participate in all rounds if they so desire.
My vote is on single thread, no cool-off 5 days instead of a week and gentlemenās courtesy. If someone wins just after being a buyer I would let him/her decide. Maybe he/she has got another brilliant idea or maybe do not want ever to host a thing like this again 
spontaneous and stuff 
Looking forward to the story
The Transmission has three basic modes
[ul]
]Automatic - Shifter conforms to PRND Shift pattern/:m]
]Semi Automatic - Shifter conforms to PRNDĀ± Shift pattern, similar to a Honda/Toyota/Mazda/BMW Torque Converter automatic with semi-auto shifting capabilites/:m]
]Manual - Shifter conforms to an H layout, which I will show below. Manual clutch/:m][/ul]
1 3 5 7
|-|-|-|
2 4 6 R
So the stick would actually hook to the electronic control box, which provides force feedback to the shifter.
For all intents and purposes of the competition, assumed itās a normal DC Sequential setup. I didnāt mean to stir the pot! 
Iām not picturing that setup at all, most automatics use a forward and back motion to select through the gears where at manuals follow a gated horizontal pattern, to have both when neither is required due to the electronic clutch seems a waste of space.
See my earlier post on the previous page, I pretty much said the same thing. Itās kind of a solution to a problem that never really needed solving. Not to discount carskick idea.
The clutch is not electronic, itās hydraulic.
I am very surprised. Why would someone not want a manual transmission that could shift itself fully, be used like a sequential, or work like a full manual with clutch?
If I pitched it as a regular manual transmission that had the ability to shift itself in automatic mode, would you not be interested?
Iām genuinely interested to see where this goes, because in Australia at least, thereās this pretty big argument between people who use manuals vs autos, and the manual cars are sadly kind of dying out. I drive both, but sometimes my car gets used by people who canāt drive stick, which precludes me from buying a manual car for my own enjoyment. Therefore while Iām not sure just how important a problem this is, itās something thatās relevant to my interests which is why Iām asking so many questions about it.
So youāre saying that the car has a manual gated box with a hydraulic clutch. But it also has an electronic controller that allows for sequential shifting, as well as automatic, which I assume is computer determined based on throttle input and engine speed (since thereās no way it operates like a traditional auto with the planetary gear etc. etc.). Does this mean the H shifter part is disengaged entirely or does the stick move by itself in the other modes? And in sequential mode, how does one shift, flappy paddles, or still via the shifter?
SNIP>REDACTED.
well then. if you say so. nevermind what i said.
sorry bout that
Iām the OP and host of the current round, youād think if I objected to discussion on this thread I would have said so by now, instead of contributing to it. If the topic goes beyond the scope of the round, sure. But right now, the idea is still chiefly relevant to how Iām going to be writing my judgement so it is expressly relevant to this thread. (Besides, Iām really hoping for an answer to my questions within the next 8 hours or so, because Iām planning to release the results then!)
[quote=āstropā]Iām genuinely interested to see where this goes, because in Australia at least, thereās this pretty big argument between people who use manuals vs autos, and the manual cars are sadly kind of dying out. I drive both, but sometimes my car gets used by people who canāt drive stick, which precludes me from buying a manual car for my own enjoyment. Therefore while Iām not sure just how important a problem this is, itās something thatās relevant to my interests which is why Iām asking so many questions about it.
So youāre saying that the car has a manual gated box with a hydraulic clutch. But it also has an electronic controller that allows for sequential shifting, as well as automatic, which I assume is computer determined based on throttle input and engine speed (since thereās no way it operates like a traditional auto with the planetary gear etc. etc.). Does this mean the H shifter part is disengaged entirely or does the stick move by itself in the other modes? And in sequential mode, how does one shift, flappy paddles, or still via the shifter?[/quote]
Glad to see the interest!
So the answer is yes, it has an electronic controller that allows for sequential shifting. This could be performed by the user via the shifter, which would be forward and back mode, or using the paddle shifters (Assuming the car was equipped with them, it technically wouldnāt be required) So depending on the car, the answer would be both. In my car, Iād prefer to have both. The whole idea of this concept is to give the user full control over how they want to control their transmission. Many cars already have both with their autos or sequential.
And you hit the nail on the head with automatic shifting. The computer would be programmed to determine which gear to be in, and how aggressive to be with the clutch. The aggressiveness/speed of the shifts and clutch action would be determined by throttle input, engine load, recent activity, and the overall behavior mode chosen by the user (Automatic, Economy, Sport, Custom).
There are two scenarios of how the shifter could work in full manual mode. Either way, the user controls the clutch. Preferably, the stick would actually be fully attached to the transmission when in manual mode, then physically disconnect at the electronic control box, where the computer could take over in the auto modes. Were this not possible, the manual shifter could just be actuated by a force feedback system in manual mode, just as it would have to while in auto modes. But any puriest would prefer a direct connection. So if a disengage on demand system could be made to work, thatās what I would go with.
What this leaves you with is:
A REAL manual transmission when in full manual mode
An EMULATED sequential shifting mode
And an AUTOMATED manual transmission.
This would likely be lighter, smoother, and less bulky than a DC Sequential transmission, but probably slower to shift. Reliability? who knows. The transmission itself should be fine and easy. It would be more about the electronic control system. And if in the event of failure, it would just return to full manual, that would be best case scenario!
I hope this helps, and feel free to ask any follow up questions. I look forward to the reviews!
Ok then. The one part I donāt quite get is how does it go from being H-pattern to up-down? If the clutch is hydraulic and the shifter is obliged to be connected to the gates, then I donāt see how itās possible to have the stick do the two things. Also, wouldnāt that be potentially hazardous for accidentally selecting reverse?
What I still donāt understand is how you still have a double-clutch setup with this system if it has a mechanical connection between the transmission and the gear lever. From my understanding of how a double clutch gear box works this wouldnāt be physically possible.
Also, if it is a mechanical connection I not sure you realize how complex, and thus heavy and bulky, that system would be, but I digress. That is hardly the point.
@ Strop If it was a mechanical connection that went to the gate you could have buttons or sensors along one of the gate slots that electronically detect the position of the gear stick and when auto or sequential mode are selected can use that position as a gear selection, and also simulate a lock through some sort of motor on the gear lever, but once switched to manual mode the electronics are bypassed.
I used a 6-speed manual in mine so yeah. But that āused car salesmanā smell can be fixed with a little cleaning. So essentially a Double-clutch manual is a regular sequential DCT with a clutch pedal using a hydraulic system?
a single hydraulic clutch pedal wouldnāt be possible since there are two clutches. Letās start with how a DCT works: Basically it is two transmissions in one: Usually one transmission for even gears, another one for uneven gears and as one clutch disengages, the clutch of the āotherā transmission engages. So thereās no single āon/offā for the clutch, but 3-4 settings: āon1/off/on2ā or āon1/off1 + on2/off2ā, I donāt see how this is manageable with a pedal without a computer deciding whether on1 or on2 should be selected.
I donāt say itās impossible, you could change the hydraulics direction depending on if an even or uneven gear is selected, although that wouldnāt be smooth if you start releasing the clutch pedal whilst shifting. Ofcourse also the computer would have to have its own probably hydraulic means to disengage manual control and actuate the gearbox and clutches. Itād be one hell of a complex hydraulic system, which could fail in so many ways. Just imagine what happens if one valve breaks, leaving you without being able to shift gears or stuck in neutral in best case, and wrecking your gearbox in worst case. Valves are pretty reliable things, which only break as in getting stuck or their actuator not functioning, but thereād just be a lot of them.
Edit: I derped, you can have both clutches disengage and engage at the same time, as long as the other gearbox disengages as the other engages, effectively turning it into a bigger manual gearbox, but that doesnt take away the complexity of transferring control from mechanical to electronical.
1 Like
Here is a sequential shifter conversion for various Japanese performance carsā¦
nengun.com/ikeya-formula/sequential-shifter
This bolts onto the standard H Gate gearbox and converts the movement from the H pattern to up/down.
That being said, I think that the complexity of your idea, carskick, is itās main failing as it requires too many items to work in synch. Reading your explanation of your idea, all I could think of was the needless complexity getting in the way of the shift quality. IMO, the benefits you claim make this gearbox a 5th wheel; thereās not enough benefit to make any one group happy, manual purists will just get a manual, the restāll buy the double-clutch boxā¦
If you want a manual that auto drivers can use then get a crashbox; the only use of the clutch is at launch and the rest of the time you just shift, firmly, and the gears mesh without the clutch pedal! 
ooh, what happens when you downshift in a crashbox? Do you need to throttle blip or will that just create havoc?