Manual, PDK and Sports Chrono
Discussion
My dad is better than your dad sums up the PDK v Manual argument to me.
You buy a car for yourself not for what others think. Nobody's dad is perfect but you love him for who he is.
I was blown away by both the PDK and Manual on the Cayman. We should be thankful that we have such an array of choices for our cars.
You buy a car for yourself not for what others think. Nobody's dad is perfect but you love him for who he is.
I was blown away by both the PDK and Manual on the Cayman. We should be thankful that we have such an array of choices for our cars.
well said! Both gearboxes are great.Prestonese said:
My dad is better than your dad sums up the PDK v Manual argument to me.
You buy a car for yourself not for what others think. Nobody's dad is perfect but you love him for who he is.
I was blown away by both the PDK and Manual on the Cayman. We should be thankful that we have such an array of choices for our cars.
I think most (I'm tempted to say the vast majority) of those who have chosen PDK would have been very happy had they gone manual. But PDK is an outstanding auto and I would recommend that anyone (whether they have tried other dual clutch boxes or not) should give it a go, approach it with an open mind AND DRIVE IT AS A MANUAL for some of the time. I assumed I wouldn't like it, but was still proved wrong. You buy a car for yourself not for what others think. Nobody's dad is perfect but you love him for who he is.
I was blown away by both the PDK and Manual on the Cayman. We should be thankful that we have such an array of choices for our cars.
bcr5784 said:
I think most (I'm tempted to say the vast majority) of those who have chosen PDK would have been very happy had they gone manual. But PDK is an outstanding auto and I would recommend that anyone (whether they have tried other dual clutch boxes or not) should give it a go, approach it with an open mind AND DRIVE IT AS A MANUAL for some of the time. I assumed I wouldn't like it, but was still proved wrong.
You can't! Thats the point you are missing. With a manual you have MANY options available to you when changing gear from the speed of the change to the blip or no blip or from 6th to 2nd without going through 5th, 4th and 3rd etc. Both gearboxes are a world apart from each other, they are like chalk and cheese but both gearboxes are great!
Each one has its own place and its own merits but there is no crossover-best-of-both-worlds-if-you-select-manual-in-your-PDK-gearbox..... you can't use cheese to write on a blackboard and you wouldn't put chalk on a cracker.
Personally I don't see the point of buying an auto and then driving it as a manual. 99% of the time the car has a much better idea of what gear to use than the driver. The remaining 1% is changing down ready for an overtake - which the transmission cannot predict.
It happens my Porsche is a manual (which I like, despite the sobbing you read on the internet about gear ratios) and my other car is auto.
It happens my Porsche is a manual (which I like, despite the sobbing you read on the internet about gear ratios) and my other car is auto.
V8KSN said:
You can't! Thats the point you are missing. With a manual you have MANY options available to you when changing gear from the speed of the change to the blip or no blip or from 6th to 2nd without going through 5th, 4th and 3rd etc.
Both gearboxes are a world apart from each other, they are like chalk and cheese but both gearboxes are great!
Each one has its own place and its own merits but there is no crossover-best-of-both-worlds-if-you-select-manual-in-your-PDK-gearbox..... you can't use cheese to write on a blackboard and you wouldn't put chalk on a cracker.
By manual I think most people know what I mean. There are two (valid) technical arguments against (some) auto boxes - Both gearboxes are a world apart from each other, they are like chalk and cheese but both gearboxes are great!
Each one has its own place and its own merits but there is no crossover-best-of-both-worlds-if-you-select-manual-in-your-PDK-gearbox..... you can't use cheese to write on a blackboard and you wouldn't put chalk on a cracker.
1)they make naff choices of gear and
2)they make naff gearchanges
1 applies to PDK (but it's still better than most autos)
2 Doesn't apply and (for technical reasons) it makes far better gearchanges than ANY driver can.
The sequential argument is a complete red herring.. All bikes have sequential boxes (as do a lot of single seater race cars) and ARE by any reasonable argument manual.
The blip or no blip argument is also a red herring - you have to blip going down (whether you heel and toe or not) if you are going to save wear on the clutch.
Yes you can change gear slowly in a manual - but the only argument for doing so is to make the change smooth - which PDK does better anyway.
This no-half-way house argument is a complete nonsense. There have been any number of half way houses over the years - pre-selector gearboxes, bikes with slick shifters, and now dual clutch boxes (with an optional manual clutch), convention H pattern gearboxes with the clutch operated electrically when you touch the gearlever, H pattern and sequential gearboxes with torque converters (no clutch but no automatic gearchange) And if you didn't know you wouldn't believe how a Ford model T box works. And that's off the top of my head - I'm sure I can dredge up plenty more.
And if you are going to get REALLY silly you could argue that a conventional synchro box is semi automatic (rev synchronisation is done automatically)
If you get pleasure out of heel and toe gearchanging (I do) then fine - but don't make a religious tenet out of it. It is just an accident of the chronology of gearbox development that it is necessary/desirable at this point in time.
Edited by bcr5784 on Monday 21st September 10:52
Ozzie Osmond said:
Personally I don't see the point of buying an auto and then driving it as a manual. 99% of the time the car has a much better idea of what gear to use than the driver. The remaining 1% is changing down ready for an overtake - which the transmission cannot predict.
Maybe I'm arrogant - but I believe I make significantly better choices of gear than PDK does in either sport or normal and VASTLY better choices than the other two autos I've just hired in the past month. In Normal PDK consistently chooses too high a gear - exiting roundabouts in third or even 4th. In sport having accelerated up to speed (following a roundabout say) it maintains a low gear even though I'm up to cruising speed. In either mode unless you brake fairly hard it doesn't change down enough (or at all) for a bend, meaning that you can't use torque to help the car in the bend and it clumsily changes down on the exit. In sport it never uses 7th. With stop-start disabled in either mode it forces me to hold it on the brakes (either foot or hand) against creep, wasting petrol and wearing the clutch a bit, unless I override it and slip it into neutral. I could go on...
On the other hand PDK makes far quicker and smoother changes than I can, and can create overtaking opportunities that I wouldn't consider in a manual.
So I think there is a compelling argument for choosing PDK for its smoothness and speed (and gearing) but driving in manual mode unless you are just cruising (which traffic conditions DO often force on you).
Edited by bcr5784 on Monday 21st September 12:01
anonymous said:
[redacted]
We've had this argument many times before. It's where you draw the line. Synchromesh, ABS, Power Steering, Stability control, PTV, active suspension mounts, rear wheel steering etc all reduce your direct interaction with the car. There are some you doubtless accept and some you don't. You draw the line at manual gearboxes (however you may define that) but (I assume) are happy for mechanics to do the difficult task of synchronising the speeds of the input and output shafts - which it probably does better than you would double declutching. I'm not happy letting the box choose the ratio, but OK with it doing the actual changing since it does such a good job. Others take other views. No right or wrong answer.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Can't see why mechanical is so much more acceptable than electrical. Synchro is definitely an automated system - a mechanical one for sure. It's just where you draw the line. I don't want automated steering (rather not have power steering if cars weren't so bleeding heavy) It's just where I draw the line.You've never complained about ABS, though with most systems until recently a skilled driver could brake better than ABS could. Plenty of analysis and decision making going on there.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Synchromesh is ALWAYS intervening as you put it. It always deskills gearchanging - which both accept.Re ABS you could say the same about stability management systems and traction control systems.
But it all comes back to the line you draw - and I have no problem with it. I draw a different one and plenty more draw a different line from both of us.
That doesn't mean any one of us is right or wrong. I just don't see why you can't see that we can take different views on such things without one of us being right and the rest wrong.
Syncho is a (significant) driving aid - as is an auto blipper (which eliminates the need for heel and toeing) why you should accept one and (presumably) not the other I don't know. One matches revs on input and output shafts, the other matches engine revs to input shaft speed. The fact that one is mechanical and the other electro mechanical is of no consequence as far as I can see. Clearly either of those two features together or separately significantly deskill gearchanging . Whether you accept either or both is neither right nor wrong as far as I can see.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I'm not willfully ignoring I just think you are introducing arbitrary definitions of why one mechanism is acceptable and another isn't.You seem to have ignored synchro vs autoblip. Given that autoblip doesn't in any meaningful way analyse and intervene (it could be done mechanically with a governor of sorts) can I assume that you think it's just as OK as synchromesh then?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Autoblipping no more NEEDs to analyse and intervene than synchromesh does. As I say it could be done with a very simple mechanical governor linked to gearbox input shaft and the accelerator. You will find many examples of other types of autoblippers on the internet which use a variety of mechanical means, which could not be sensibly described as "analysing" Intervening, yes, but you can't stop synchromesh intervening. The fact that an autoblipper can be done much more cheaply - and better - with electronics is irrelevant.There's plenty of stuff on the internet of how governors work and other mechanisms that have been used either as autoblippers or engine speed control devices. (steam engines, old fashioned auto advance control systems and even mechanical rev limiters -even lawnmowers - all contain some or all of the simple elements required)
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Whether you have experienced one or not, I would hope that your technical understanding would be that such a system could achieve results similar to a good driver. And that they therefore don't fit in with your analyse and intervene model.But assuming that a purely analogue mechanical system, with no logic/electronic control COULD deliver a similar effect (do as good/better job of blipping as a good driver could) would you accept them as admissable?
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff