Quote:
Originally Posted by SSHemi364
This is pure insanity . For those who don't understand, a clutch assisted box can be shifted without a clutch, at a cost of between .015 and .020 sec per gear change. that is the time spent in neutral between gears. It also limits your clutch tune up as the flair in engine speed applies more counterweight. Do the math, a clutchless will be at least .05 to .06 quicker. Not to mention the ability to tune the clutch in a larger window.
All this does is escalate the cost of racing. Not a smart move given our present economy.What could possibly be the reason for this? Too hard to police? I don't think so, I can show you how to identify the cheaters in a New York min..
I think we need a explaination. The sportsman classes are not the place for highroller experiments. How about stapling the rule book closed for a few years and letting us catch our breath.
|
Yes I agree it would run cost up however I can't agree with your estimate or .05-.06 E.T. gain. I've tested both styles of trans. in my own car and .02 was the most gain I saw of course results may vary. Yes you can use a more favorable clutch tune however for my money IF allowed I'd jump on the clutchless in a second. Here's why, the initial cost is basically the same the durability of the clutchless unit is far greater, anyone who's ran a clutchassisted and not used the clutch can tell you that the wear is drastically increased with a "small" repair costing $500-$700. With my trans.that translated to about 30 to 40 runs.Racers will always gravitate towards"the fast" stuff, look at the auto trans deal you can run a $1500 Powerglide or you can run a $6000. 3 speed. So with the great price difference of the autos why would cost even be a concern with the manual trans. Joe