andylaurence wrote:Seriously though, if it was that simple and you spoke to Hewland decades ago, do you not think one would have appeared on the market by now? One of the mainstream road car manufacturers would have done it by now, rather than develop these ludicrously complex dual clutch transmissions.
No I do not expect the main manufacturers to do anything other than follow the status quo for which they are geared up with billion dollar/ euro investment rather that spend millions on developing road versions of a different gearbox concept.
It is the same reason you do not see efficient sports motorbikes with push button gear shift and the huge performance gains that would go with a complete ergonomic change to the controls. There is no need for foot gear levers and front and rear brakes would work better on left and right feet. The right wrist would only have a throttle then and far better bike control would be achieved.
All the tech is available for this so why isnt it done?
Because bikers expect a crude foot operated gear shift or they dont feel like bikers thats why.
Racing bikes mirror this because their main purpose is selling product.
I have also talked at length with two top bike teams who wanted to follow my ideas but both were stopped by their manufacturers.
The ludicrous twin clurch gearboxes are a marketing ploy in a similar way.
Buyers of cars with these units are led to believe the car is based on F1 or at least high end motor sport technology when it no way compares technically.
Because the shift paddle mechanism appears the same as F1 (although today the paddles do a different job in F1) why would car makers move away from the accepted lay shaft gear train.
Just make it twin clutch to improve shift speed without the added wear of the F1 trick shift mechanisms and you appease the less than technically minded buying public without huge development costs.
Ita a doddle.
Of course it matters little if you use paddle shifters or buttons and the gear box being operated can be almost any type.