Another reason why a manual gearbox is better

[KarlFranz]

One of our 6-Speed members is an Aston tech from Canada. He just recently posted this:

irish07 said:

Just had a client that did not renew his extended (warranty) on his v8v, reliable and only ended its yearly service... 2mths after warranty expired, the transmission #2 synchro and shift fork bent...$18,000 New trans..I know he's kicking himself now

It's a ASM, something's just can't adapt like humans..these units shift fast and strong but when a synchro is not fully lined up, we feel it and we know to re-apply the clutch to turn the shaft to make the synchro line-up and engage...ASM just sees numbers and values after the fact.

$18,000 Ouch!

I asked him why not replace the synchros and rebuild the transmission rather than replace the entire unit, but he says Aston (and Graziano) will not sell the components individually:

irish07 said:

It's always the clients choice..just AM doesn't sell the trans internal parts and graziano will not sell the internals needed to us..so ur putting aftermarket parts in the transmission..therefore we can guarantee are labour but not the parts..when a AM parts fails it doesn't cost us anything, it's a Parts warranty at AM's pockets..this client does track his car and didn't want to have the thoughts of aftermarket parts in his trans..so he opt for a remanufactured unit from AM.

[George29]

So one ASM unit fails so suddenly a manual is better?

Have there been no occurances of manuals failing? I'd be fairly sure there has been...

[mikey k]

George29 said:

So one ASM unit fails so suddenly a manual is better?

Have there been no occurances of manuals failing? I'd be fairly sure there has been...

there's nothing there that says that couldn't happen to a manual box or that it was a direct result of the ASM system
After all ASM is essentially a robot that makes the same changes to a manual gearbox that a human would
Either way a good argument for extended warranty

[KarlFranz]

mikey k said:

there's nothing there that says that couldn't happen to a manual box or that it was a direct result of the ASM system
After all ASM is essentially a robot that makes the same changes to a manual gearbox that a human would
Either way a good argument for extended warranty

Actually, the point of the story is that a robot would not make the same decisions as a human being under the same circumstances. If your synchros don't lineup and you start pulling out your clutch and you feel grinding, you immediately and instinctively push the clutch pedal back down. ASM does not do that. It just disengages the clutch, changes the gear, and then re-engages the clutch. If the synchros aren't aligned when the power comes back on, oh well, that's your problem. This is what happened to the guy in the story.

The problem with automated systems is that they can't react in circumstances that were not predicted by their creators. At least not so far. There are cases where simplicity is better than over complication. I mentioned a story in another thread where I was able to drive home from a track day for 110 miles on New Year's Eve without the use of the clutch (the pushrod return spring Inside the clutch master cylinder had failed). Had this happened with an ASM gearbox I would have been stranded because the system would not have been able to adapt, like I did, and learn how to shift without using the clutch pedal (rev matching).

[mikey k]

KarlFranz said:

mikey k said:

there's nothing there that says that couldn't happen to a manual box or that it was a direct result of the ASM system
After all ASM is essentially a robot that makes the same changes to a manual gearbox that a human would
Either way a good argument for extended warranty

Actually, the point of the story is that a robot would not make the same decisions as a human being under the same circumstances. If your synchros don't lineup and you start pulling out your clutch and you feel grinding, you immediately and instinctively push the clutch pedal back down. ASM does not do that. It just disengages the clutch, changes the gear, and then re-engages the clutch. If the synchros aren't aligned when the power comes back on, oh well, that's your problem. This is what happened to the guy in the story.

The problem with automated systems is that they can't react in circumstances that were not predicted by their creators. At least not so far. There are cases where simplicity is better than over complication. I mentioned a story in another thread where I was able to drive home from a track day for 110 miles on New Year's Eve without the use of the clutch (the pushrod return spring Inside the clutch master cylinder had failed). Had this happened with an ASM gearbox I would have been stranded because the system would not have been able to adapt, like I did, and learn how to shift without using the clutch pedal (rev matching).

Both fair points and I'm one for keeping it simple
But humans make mistakes as well (and probably more often ) as with any of these systems they are often only as good as the programmer. I would have hoped ASM has some way of sensing an issue before it grinds cogs. I'll do some digging on that.
My point I guess is there was a mechanical failure you are attributing to software based automation without being certain it wasn't simply mechanical failure.