get higher RPM?
05-16-2006, 03:24 PM
#76
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it is tall, very tall, but I like it sometimes. But still the AT and the MT need more torque high and low and even in between the powerband. A supercharger is definetly what I'm waiting on, that and the CAI.
Last edited by Rich Rx-8; 05-16-2006 at 03:32 PM.
05-16-2006, 07:58 PM
#77
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by cjkim
Wrong, at least for the non-6 speed autos. The biggest complaint I've probably heard from auto owners is that 1st gear is ridiculously tall.
I don't think anyone is reading the original post.
1. I said both 6 port, people keep comparing manual to the 4 port which is much slower than the manual.
2. As I stated in the first post, the auto has closer ratio than the manual. Just look at mazdausa.com
3. I never said the auto was more powerful. I know that even if they both had 238hp, the manual would be more powerful.
No one on this forum knows much about the 06 autos. They are mainly comparing the 05s. Also, does anyone have real 0-60 times of the autos (06)? With closer ratios, they should be way under 7 seconds, right?
05-16-2006, 08:08 PM
#78
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fizzer
From what you've said, you didn't try to go steady at 6k RPM in 1st or second and then floor it, the powerband is so linear that it is hard to feel the kick in the high RPMs without doing that.
Have you listened to yourself? When you do that you do feel more power, BUT that is because you stepped on the gas. More gas = more power stupid.
Dyno is the best way to see where the highest power in RPM is, and it definitly isn't around 8k. Probably 5500 to 6200. Something around there. Floor it all the way around 3k and watch it from 6-9. The noise makes it seem like you are gaining power, but you aren't gaining what pushes your wheels, just horses.
Last edited by teen_living_a_dream; 05-16-2006 at 08:10 PM.
05-16-2006, 08:23 PM
#79
^noob
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: socal
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by teen_living_a_dream
lol, all I can say is wow. You do get the most power at 5500 because that is where torque gets to its best and torque is what pushes your wheels.
you don't get the most POWER at 5500. You make peak TORQUE at around there, but not the most power. Power involves time!!!
05-16-2006, 08:36 PM
#80
jersey fresh
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by teen_living_a_dream
lol, all I can say is wow. You do get the most power at 5500 because that is where torque gets to its best and torque is what pushes your wheels.
Have you listened to yourself? When you do that you do feel more power, BUT that is because you stepped on the gas. More gas = more power stupid.
Dyno is the best way to see where the highest power in RPM is, and it definitly isn't around 8k. Probably 5500 to 6200. Something around there. Floor it all the way around 3k and watch it from 6-9. The noise makes it seem like you are gaining power, but you aren't gaining what pushes your wheels, just horses.
Have you listened to yourself? When you do that you do feel more power, BUT that is because you stepped on the gas. More gas = more power stupid.
Dyno is the best way to see where the highest power in RPM is, and it definitly isn't around 8k. Probably 5500 to 6200. Something around there. Floor it all the way around 3k and watch it from 6-9. The noise makes it seem like you are gaining power, but you aren't gaining what pushes your wheels, just horses.
, but thats the dumbest thing i've ever heard.
05-16-2006, 09:08 PM
#81
the giant tastetickles
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: in the basement
Posts: 2,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DrDiaboloco
This can get confusing quite quickly... I don't know if yiksing meant to say that they have electronic clutches, but that's what it seemed like he said. The transmissions are CONTROLLED electronically by the driver and the engine computer (for rev-matching among other things), but the clutches themselves are NOT electronically actuated (this is accomplished primarily by hydraulics... a hydraulic failure on an F1 car locks the car in gear or brings it to a screeching halt).
In any case, Dj, F1 cars don't have AT's even in a roundabout way, since they will not automatically upshift or downshift like AT's will... They have to be commanded to shift by the driver, or at least they do THESE days. Calling them Sequential Manual Transmissions is pretty darned close, but I prefer "semiautomatic".
In any case, Dj, F1 cars don't have AT's even in a roundabout way, since they will not automatically upshift or downshift like AT's will... They have to be commanded to shift by the driver, or at least they do THESE days. Calling them Sequential Manual Transmissions is pretty darned close, but I prefer "semiautomatic".
Last edited by yiksing; 05-16-2006 at 09:14 PM.
05-16-2006, 09:43 PM
#83
Pining for the Fjords
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dillsrotary
^^^ agreed, a neon comes "semiauto", F1 employs a clutch.
Last edited by DrDiaboloco; 05-16-2006 at 09:53 PM.
05-16-2006, 10:18 PM
#84
jersey fresh
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DrDiaboloco
I presume you'll be writing a letter to the various F1 teams informing them that they don't have a semiautomatic gearbox. Just for fun I checked the official websites of Ferrari, McLaren and BAR-Honda, and they both refer to their F1 gearboxes as "semiautomatic".
http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?...car_guide.html
"While maintaining the same position and longitudinal mounting, the gearbox is a completely new design, achieving both a reduction in dimensions and weight. The gearbox is cast in titanium with seven speeds (plus reverse) and is electro-hydraulically operated with a sequential shift. In keeping with a trend initiated by Ferrari and now almost universally adopted in Formula One, the car is fitted with a high level exhaust system, the same layout as seen on the F2002.
05-16-2006, 11:03 PM
#85
Pining for the Fjords
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the page you linked, it says in the data panel (near the bottom of the page):
-Semiautomatic sequential electronically-controlled gearbox
Might as well add Super-Aguri and Williams to the list of misguided F1 teams that call their gearboxes "semiautomatic".
Midlands F1 calls it a "sequential" gearbox, Red Bull Racing just refers to it as being operated by hydraulics with a "pull clutch", and BMW just calls it a "7-speed"... while Toyota and Renault don't mention the gearbox at all (at least not that I could see). Scuderia ToroRosso doesn't even mention the CAR on their website, amazingly enough.
So, of the teams that mention their gearbox's "type" in any way, 5 out of 6 (or 5 of 7 depending upon how you look at it) call it "semiautomatic". I'll stick with their definition of their own product.
What should be obvious to any fool that gets up early to watch F1 live from Europe (like myself, for instance LOL) is that all these semi-auto gearboxes are sequential-shift, like motorcycle gearboxes... They can't skip from 5th to 3rd without going through 4th. This is the way it's been since semi-auto trannies were first introduced by Ferrari in '89 (??)... And I don't think anyone has had a 3-pedal, h-pattern shift mechanism in F1 in nearly a decade.
P.S.- Of course the page you linked refers to 2003's car, not the current car, though in basic design both gearboxes are the same.
-Semiautomatic sequential electronically-controlled gearbox
Might as well add Super-Aguri and Williams to the list of misguided F1 teams that call their gearboxes "semiautomatic".
Midlands F1 calls it a "sequential" gearbox, Red Bull Racing just refers to it as being operated by hydraulics with a "pull clutch", and BMW just calls it a "7-speed"... while Toyota and Renault don't mention the gearbox at all (at least not that I could see). Scuderia ToroRosso doesn't even mention the CAR on their website, amazingly enough.
So, of the teams that mention their gearbox's "type" in any way, 5 out of 6 (or 5 of 7 depending upon how you look at it) call it "semiautomatic". I'll stick with their definition of their own product.
What should be obvious to any fool that gets up early to watch F1 live from Europe (like myself, for instance LOL) is that all these semi-auto gearboxes are sequential-shift, like motorcycle gearboxes... They can't skip from 5th to 3rd without going through 4th. This is the way it's been since semi-auto trannies were first introduced by Ferrari in '89 (??)... And I don't think anyone has had a 3-pedal, h-pattern shift mechanism in F1 in nearly a decade.
P.S.- Of course the page you linked refers to 2003's car, not the current car, though in basic design both gearboxes are the same.
05-16-2006, 11:06 PM
#86
Pining for the Fjords
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My bad, Toyota DOES mention their transmission on their site:
Gear selection is sequential via driver-controlled electro-hydraulic actuation
Driver-controlled electro-hydraulic actuation="semiautomatic"
Gear selection is sequential via driver-controlled electro-hydraulic actuation
Driver-controlled electro-hydraulic actuation="semiautomatic"
05-16-2006, 11:15 PM
#87
Pining for the Fjords
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Posts: 688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My bad, Pt. II-
I found a Renault F1 press release that refers to the new R26's gearbox thus:
Seven-Speed Semi-Automatic
At worst, that's 6 of 8 (and more likely 7 of 9) F1 teams that refer to their gearbox actuation in specific that call it a semi-auto officially, so at this point I will stop looking any weirder and call it a night.
I found a Renault F1 press release that refers to the new R26's gearbox thus:
Seven-Speed Semi-Automatic
At worst, that's 6 of 8 (and more likely 7 of 9) F1 teams that refer to their gearbox actuation in specific that call it a semi-auto officially, so at this point I will stop looking any weirder and call it a night.
Last edited by DrDiaboloco; 05-16-2006 at 11:18 PM.
05-16-2006, 11:18 PM
#88
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know but I kind've agree with teen. The ***** of the car seem to level off at like 6K rpm's. From 6K to 9K is just more noise and no more ***** than at 6K. I think that's exactly why I wasn't impressed cause it sounds more ballzy than it actually feels. We need a supercharger to go along with that crazy noise in the high rpm's, and hopefully it'll help out the not so exciting low end as well. It'd be nice to get off the line quick without having to do hard launches.
Last edited by Rich Rx-8; 05-16-2006 at 11:28 PM.
05-17-2006, 12:16 AM
#89
^noob
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: socal
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rich Rx-8
I don't know but I kind've agree with teen. The ***** of the car seem to level off at like 6K rpm's. From 6K to 9K is just more noise and no more ***** than at 6K. I think that's exactly why I wasn't impressed cause it sounds more ballzy than it actually feels. We need a supercharger to go along with that crazy noise in the high rpm's, and hopefully it'll help out the not so exciting low end as well. It'd be nice to get off the line quick without having to do hard launches.
05-17-2006, 04:42 PM
#91
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This forum sums up power to torque to weight.
https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-tech-garage-22/horsepower-torque-weight-2462/
This proves that higher RPM isn't always better. If you removed the limiter and shifted at 11k, you would have much less power than your peak power by the time you shifted slowing you down.
https://www.rx8club.com/series-i-tech-garage-22/horsepower-torque-weight-2462/
This proves that higher RPM isn't always better. If you removed the limiter and shifted at 11k, you would have much less power than your peak power by the time you shifted slowing you down.
05-17-2006, 05:11 PM
#92
Administrator
how could you possibly use buger's post to somehow prove your point? it doesnt in the slightest. the cars clearly make more power near redline then they do at the torque peak. but they wont make more power past that BECAUSE OF THE INTAKE TRACK. if you could get more air in then it would continue to make more power. and that doesnt even take into the equation the gearing changes you would make because of the new rev range.
05-17-2006, 05:19 PM
#93
^noob
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: socal
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by teen_living_a_dream
This forum sums up power to torque to weight.
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=2462
This proves that higher RPM isn't always better. If you removed the limiter and shifted at 11k, you would have much less power than your peak power by the time you shifted slowing you down.
https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.php?t=2462
This proves that higher RPM isn't always better. If you removed the limiter and shifted at 11k, you would have much less power than your peak power by the time you shifted slowing you down.
Let's examine what you wrote:
Originally Posted by teen_living_a_dream
You do get the most power at 5500 because that is where torque gets to its best and torque is what pushes your wheels.
Now let's pretty summarize everything from a quote in that thread.
Originally Posted by Buger
There are numerous examples of this phenomenon. The Integra GS-R, for instance, is faster than the garden variety Integra, not because it pulls particularly harder (it doesn't), but because it pulls *longer*. It doesn't feel particularly faster, but it is.
I'm sure I made a mistake somewhere so someone more knowledgable please feel to correct me
05-17-2006, 05:22 PM
#94
^noob
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: socal
Posts: 1,340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by zoom44
how could you possibly use buger's post to somehow prove your point? it doesnt in the slightest. the cars clearly make more power near redline then they do at the torque peak. but they wont make more power past that BECAUSE OF THE INTAKE TRACK. if you could get more air in then it would continue to make more power. and that doesnt even take into the equation the gearing changes you would make because of the new rev range.
05-17-2006, 05:24 PM
#95
Administrator
Originally Posted by maxxdamigz
I
Torque converter fluid dynamics are what limit most standard automatic sporty vehicles. At 9000 rpm, periphereal fluid flow is 20% faster (20% higher redline than 7500). This can lead to all sorts of issues including exponential viscous effects and power loss, heat dissipation issues, and possible sonic fluid flows.
If you're not able to run at 100% throttle and put it to the ground, then the MT and AT would be indistinguishable. You would just have a heavier foot in the AT. If you like to beat your car, the MT can put down quicker quarter miles with launching and power shifting. Depending on stall speed of the torque converter and the ignition/fuel cut used when shifting, these things are not usually possible in an auto, and with good reason.
I don't really have anything valuable to add to this thread, but I am pretty bored at work. Thinking about cars is infinitely more interesting.
Torque converter fluid dynamics are what limit most standard automatic sporty vehicles. At 9000 rpm, periphereal fluid flow is 20% faster (20% higher redline than 7500). This can lead to all sorts of issues including exponential viscous effects and power loss, heat dissipation issues, and possible sonic fluid flows.
If you're not able to run at 100% throttle and put it to the ground, then the MT and AT would be indistinguishable. You would just have a heavier foot in the AT. If you like to beat your car, the MT can put down quicker quarter miles with launching and power shifting. Depending on stall speed of the torque converter and the ignition/fuel cut used when shifting, these things are not usually possible in an auto, and with good reason.
I don't really have anything valuable to add to this thread, but I am pretty bored at work. Thinking about cars is infinitely more interesting.
05-17-2006, 05:50 PM
#96
jersey fresh
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 3,688
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well doc, it looks like as of 2008 we won't even have to discuss semiauto
http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press...160605-02.html
"GEARBOXES
- All cars will be fitted with gear ratios, final drive ratios and differentials which have been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification
- Gear changing will only be permitted by the use of a manually operated mechanical linkage to the gearbox
- Clutches will only be operated via a foot pedal connected mechanically to a release mechanism"
but your arguement has convinced me, so did this official rules page.
http://www.formula1.com/insight/rule...gs/14/496.html
http://www.fia.com/mediacentre/Press...160605-02.html
"GEARBOXES
- All cars will be fitted with gear ratios, final drive ratios and differentials which have been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to an agreed specification
- Gear changing will only be permitted by the use of a manually operated mechanical linkage to the gearbox
- Clutches will only be operated via a foot pedal connected mechanically to a release mechanism"
but your arguement has convinced me, so did this official rules page.
http://www.formula1.com/insight/rule...gs/14/496.html
05-17-2006, 11:57 PM
#97
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No I'm saying that the car feels no different at 8.5k then it does at 5.5k, I do get it. It's just my opinion, I'm saying that the engine is more talk than walk after 5.5k, the sound is the only thing to look foward to and the feeling is not. What's so hard to understand?
05-18-2006, 08:47 AM
#99
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Rich Rx-8
No I'm saying that the car feels no different at 8.5k then it does at 5.5k, I do get it. It's just my opinion, I'm saying that the engine is more talk than walk after 5.5k, the sound is the only thing to look foward to and the feeling is not. What's so hard to understand?
hp = torque * RPM / 5252. More hp means you go faster.
05-18-2006, 08:52 AM
#100
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nycgps
Feels no different at 8.5K than* it does at 5.5k ....... I have no idea what your "feel" is but ....
I give up.
I give up.