legokcen

I believe Ferarri had this a while back. 80's maybe?

himitsu

Audi's DSC, Alfa's Selespeed, BMW's SMG, Ferrari or Maserati's F1 Transmission are all a kind of "sequential" transmission. The main difference between these and a regular matic (and its tiptronic variants) is the absence of the torque converters (which is the main culprit behind the cons of matic trannies, ie. fuel consumption, lethargic acceleration, lag, etc.)

Other than that they are operated almost the same way, just as easily, there are no manual clutches for your foot.

Main reason why its still not out, is of course still cost but as production grows, it will become cheaper and more widely used. You can pick up a decent Alfa Romeo GT with Selespeed for about the cost of the RX8, I think there may be some cheaper models too, Im not too sure, so it is coming up.

How good it is?
Well, Ferrari's current and future cars are dropping the manual trannies, F1 governing body is looking to ban sequential trannies and revert the F1 cars back to manual because its too precise and good there are no more human errors, makes F1 boring. I think thats testament enough on how good these transmissions are...
Well of course the die hard manual users who would tell you otherwise... but I still think this will be the future.

KC_Prelude

F*** Sequential. I need a clutch or my left foot feels left out...

BlueEyes

I still don't really have an answer. Why haven't they had car transmission similar to motorcycle transmissions, clutch + paddles?

I know the difference between sequential boxes and automatics and manuals. Maybe I just don't understand motorcycle transmissions. I really haven't seen a response that says they don't do it because of this XXX

Seems like a good idea.

gusmahler

I've said this several times in this thread. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SMG. I know what SMG is. I know the advantages of SMG. I know how SMG works. I fully support bringing it to the RX8 and may even trade my 8 in for an SMG version, if it comes out. I'm not asking about SMG.

I'm asking this--what historical reasons are there that sequential transmissions such as those found in motorcycles are not used in cars in lieu of H shifters. The most plausible reasons in this thread are that sequential transmissions are more expensive than H shifters (possibly true because motorcycle transmissions are not as heavy duty as automobile shifters). And inertia, car manufacturers sticking to what's out there instead of something different. (As an aside, inertia might be true for motorcycles also. Pretty much all street motorcycles are 1 down, 5 up--to shift up you move the lever up. But many racing motorcyles are the opposite, to shift up, you move the lever down. This makes it easier to upshift while you're leaning the bike. But despite the advantages of it, street motorcycles are all 5 up instead of 5 down.)

MrH

I kind of wondered the same thing.

I'm not a big fan of SMG transmissions either. There was an article recently in Car and Driver on their long term test of a Z4 with an SMG. Needless to say, the car recieved nothing but complaints about the tranny. While some versions seem to be in good working order, I'll take the more entertaining driving expierence with the real manual, even if it is a hair slower.

Zaku-8

I'm not familiar with motorcycle gearboxes... actually I'm not really familiar with car trannys either, which is why i ask, are they of fundamentally different construction? If they are, then the only reason I could think of to use motorcycle sequential gearboxes would be for space considerations.

himitsu

To be honest, Im not a fan of bikes, never ridden in 1 before either, so I wont know anything about bike gearing, but basically from what I heard you guys say, its a paddle shifter with a clutch...

So you want an auto-ish tranny with a clutch?
What is the use of that? Might as well stick with the regular manual transmission right?
I still dont see the advantage of having a sequential with a clutch over a regular manual transmission, aside from the visual point that you wont make a mistake entering the gear.

dragula53

I believe they don't use sequential transmissions because there is a lot more strain on the transmission, making reliability an issue.

I don't know how many miles people get out of the average dog box transmission or equivalent, but I know they have to have spare transmissions lying around just in case one breaks mid-race.

That's just my wild stab at it though. I don't know for certain.

Edit: I just googled around a little. If you lose a gear in a sequential transmission, the car becomes undriveable.

That may be the reason.

truemagellen

Well put...Exactly what I was thinking

Japan8

Here you go...

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/framed.../shifting.html

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/sequential-gearbox.htm

BTW, people often swap their bike shift linkage upside down in order to have "GP shifting" (one up and 5 down). GP= Grand Prix.

gusmahler

Did you not see me post the EXACT SAME LINK in the first post? That's why I'm asking. It explains how it works. It doesn't explain why passenger cars don't use them.

expo1

Just my .02

There isn’t enough of a financial incentive for the MAJOR carmakers to place these in mass-produced cars. From reading the posts here the only advantage seems to be on the track. How many owners take their car to the track? Most manual transmissions last the life of the car so reliability is not an issue. True there is less chance of driver error but is that enough reason to justify the extra cost and the learning curve? You can’t even get people to check oil / tire pressure these days try to explain to them why X car doesn’t have an H-pattern shifter? Also who would be in charge of this learning curve the Salesman??

truemagellen

woah...calm down...so what if someone relinked IT ISN"T LIKE YOU OWN THE LINK

and Expo1 is exactly right...who really cares if we can shift a millisecond faster on the highway...especially if it is boring to do anyway!

BlueEyes

Is the fun part about driving manual moving a stick up and over or is it playing with the clutch?
If you are like me and it is playing with the clutch, then I would have just as much fun only having to go up with the stick instead of up and over.

I see the financial arguement, and that is really the only one I will buy. The reilability, while maybe an issue, I can't imagine it will be more of an issue than any other trannies on the market. As for the learning curve, I don't even understand that arguement.

Japan8

No you didn't post those exact same links genius. You ONLY posted one on the AUTO seq. trans. NOT the motocycle one.

Those articles explain why sequential boxes like those on bikes aren't used in cars. Indirectly though. It's called reading comprehension, genius.

The dogs in bike transmissions can't handle heavy loads of torque. Maybe if different materials are used, but then that raises costs. On older model crusiers like the Honda Goldwing a different transmission was used... close to that in cars... in order to handle the torque. Advances in materials and changes in materials costs have helped with that issue today. 20 lbs less on a bike is VERY beneficial. 20lbs less in a car? Hardly makes a difference (in general).

To take this even farther, go take a look on that same site for it's explanations of manual transmissions and why they are H pattern.

That is it in a nutshell. Learn to read more carefully.