I'm not saying half of the people here would actually have the money for it, but would be interested in it. Theres a butt of people here that couldnt afford the tranny alone, but what I meant was the people that could afford it. If I could afford an Elise and the tranny was availible, and as I said earlier was reliable, strong, real, etc. then I'd concider it as a mod.

About that CVT article: I'm not surprised that they are dropping it because I remember chevy and ford starting to research a 6spd auto since their current autos suck, and just plain dont have the time/money to continue with their CVT. In fact I didnt know the Ion even had it. Anyways, dont forget Nissan bought some of Toyota's hybrid technology, and probably including their CVT, so the Sentra that comes out will probably use it too. Also dont forget that the RX400h and Toyota Highlander hybrids will have CVTs, as will the Toyota Volta it seems.

 

Transmissions don't break due to any amount of hp. It's torque that breaks things.


Have you tested this item on trucks? Can it handle 1000 rwtq?
I would be interested in seeing this item in use.

 

Correct sir. Torque AND shock loads bust transmissions.

In a synchro box, when you change gear aggressively to minimise the shift time, first up you rush, with a rapid stick movement, the synchros which have a conical surface that brakes/accelerates the relative speeds of the gears/shaft. That friction needs time (dictates the shift time) for the heat to dissipate - rush it and the synchros burn/wear out.

The other thing that happens is you bring the power back in quickly. The shock load from this is momentarily acting on just one pair of meshing teeth. As you mod and engine and, as a consequence, drive more 'like a thief', the poor old transmission starts to lose teeth - it's a double whammy. The mods load up the box and the individuals who make mods like to use them...

If you have a lot of torque in the above situation, a hell of a lot of heat goes into the synchros and the wallop on the teeth has an inevitable outcome. The shock loads in an aggressively driven synchro box can be pretty evil.

At first read, you might imagine that a zero time shift is even more violent. You'd be correct in realising that there is an instant inertia shock as the engine and input shaft (and the layshaft cluster in many transmissions) have to change speed instantly. ZeroShift (a) reduces the magnitude of the 'shock' with spark cuts or throttle blips and (b) dissipates the residue through the clutch. However, as a precursor to (a) and (b), ZeroShift is dealing with less of speed difference than in a synchro situation.

Also, to answer an earlier post, there is no need (or benefit in so doing) to move the stick quick, or in 0ms! At the end of the stick movement is the ZeroShift mechanism trigger point. While you're moving the stick, you're still in the current gear which means you can, by watching the tacho, anticipate the optimum shift point by moving the stick early and popping it in the hole at the exact correct RPM.

Here are a couple of analogies comparing a synchro shift with a ZeroShift. Imagine two cars driving along the road with a plank of wood across the front.

In a synchro box analogy, both cars are travelling along adjacent to one another, one is driving the plank while the other is idling, 'pulled' by the plank. The effect of pressing the clutch pedal to isolate the engine power from the shift slows both cars. The effect of releasing the clutch (esp. in a hurry) is for the slowed cars to suddenly accelerate up to a faster speed, this time with the cars' push/pull duties reversed. It's a bit like both driving at 60 ... braking to 40 ... then returning to 80mph ... as fast as you can. We have come to accept this is reasonably benign but you can see that, in a hurry, that 40 - 80mph wallop is your 'super quick shift' when racing. All you wanted was 60 - 80 but synchro needs the power removed (consequence: drop to 40) to get you there. A step back to take two steps forward.

In the ZeroShift analogy, the second car is 'passed' the speed difference ONLY. What stops a 'jolt' being felt by the 60mph car when the 80mph car suddenly takes charge of the plank is that the motive power difference is slipped through the clutch (similar to synchro scenario) but it is ONLY the difference in engine speed dictated by the ratio swap. ZeroShift controls ensure the power cut is EXACTLY ONLY that which is required to match the engine to the new gear. Starting from a 60 - 80mph situation (compared with 60 - 40 - 80), 'wallop' is less ... then factor in the clutch/throttle control to get rid of what's left.

Remember, in a constant mesh transmission, all the gears are always in mesh and the output shaft speed (and road wheel speed) is the same immediately either side of the shift event. The clutch isolates the motive power contribution from a jolt from the driveline, aided by a power adjustment to minimise clutch wear. Even without the power cut, clutch wear will be less than a conventional on/off shift. The fact that the power is cut does not reduce acceleration because there is already energy in the driveline driving the car - more energy from the engine isn't needed at this point.

60/40/80 are arbitrary numbers for illustration. The point is that in a synchro box you lose paid-for energy/momentum in a negative acceleration between the two gears - you take a step back to take two steps forward. ZeroShift just takes one step forward.

A last analogy is to imagine turning a nut with a ratchet-handled socket driver. While you tighten the nut at a low speed, a friend with a second ratchet handle comes along and turns his handle faster. Your slower handle now begins to ratchet as it is going backwards relative to your friend.

All the above (I hope!) helps to explain why the shock loads go and why, despite sounding 'violent' at first hearing, a ZeroShift transmission is actually more benign. The relevance to the question is that even just converting a stock synchro box to ZeroShift increases its torque capacity/headroom (a) by being benign and (b) by removing the friction (synchro ring) element from the equation.

Now, if we want to go daft with torque all that's required is finite element analysis on gear/shaft/ZeroShift mechanism dimensions to increase sizes/strengths to meet the new criterion, eg 1000lb/ft, or 2000lb/ft, or...

Final, final answer. It will work a treat in trucks and, more to the point, it will be WORKING a treat in at least one test truck (and a motorcycle!) next year. With trucks, it's not really the '0-60' time that's the driving force, it's the fact that momentum is maintained through the shift. One-step-back-two-steps-forward transmissions are disastrous when you're hauling 25 tonnes up a mountain. Weight/gradient may conspire to make the 'double-step' impossible. Ever seen an artic 'stuck between gears' on the Alps? That's the reason why.

 

I might be interested in being a test mule. LOL...

 

+1

 

Hmm, this is an interesting concept. I enjoy the labor of shifting and I put in the time to learn the various shifting techniques, but none of that matters if your goal is to get down the track or around the road course as quickly as possible. From the moment the first paddle-shifting manual came out it was obvious that the clutch pedal and manual shift linkage were eventually doomed- with kids learning to drive on Playstation 2's it will happen even sooner... the WRX and the EVO owe a lot to this phenomenon, don't discredit its influence. The page is similar to a lot of other mystery new-tech pages on the net- the ceramic rotary, the "six-stroke" engine, the rotary valvetrain, etc, but I don't see what this ZeroShift fellow would gain by joining this board and posting in this thread, if he were merely a scammer of some sort.

 

Jordan Y: Interesting post. I think the key difference between ZeroShift and many other auto inventions is that we have set up the means to manufacture, distribute and sell INDEPENDENT of the car manufacturers. We don't 'need' a car manufacturer deal to survive which is precisely, and perhaps paradoxically, why we get deals. You can think of it like courting a lady - would you want to date a stranger who you knew was gonna hit on you for marriage all night because she couldn't pay the mortgage without you?? Good business has mutual benefit and good deals come from both parties being able to survive without the other. Co-dependence is OK, one-way dependence isn't healthy for either party. Like the message of the movie "Bruce Almighty", you can't mess with free will.

Since breaking cover last summer we've faced our share of skepticism which is fair enough. It's kind of what inventing is all about. Some people hang on to their preconceptions and send up the BS flag ... some people try to figure it out ... some people know about the precedents for certain aspects of zero-time shifting and realise we've probably unlocked the 'missing bit'. We're not challenging physics here, we are challenging preconceptions.

I'm not a scammer - my days of sending the apprentice to the auto store for a box of spark plug gaps or asking for a left-handed screwdriver are long past!

 

I have to agree with you on that point. Every one of the inventions I referenced was "looking for a manufacturer partnership" or seeking funding to continue development.
I just read through the Viper Club discussion and fortunately the discussion was more technical over there, with people trying to figure it out instead of arguing about a personal preference for manually shifting the gears and manipulating the clutch and throttle levers. After reading the information in that thread, your product doesn't seem like vaporware, it sounds like you're on to something. I've just been on the internet too long to take anything at face value.

Good luck with it; I want to build a Turbocharged 2003/2004 Mustang Cobra when I get out of college, so I'll be looking for a good transmission in another 3-4 years.

 

The 6-stroke motor looks like an obvious chance to get into race/aftermarket. If it delivers the promised gains on track, I see no reason why it couldn't make progress. I may look into that some more...

The rotary valves are good too and, again, don't seem to be an impossibility to make into an aftermarket kit for, say, Ford Pinto, SB Chevy, Ford 4.6. The concept of using ceramics in rotaries appears sound but the rotary engine is never going to take over from the piston engine.

It's a mistake for an inventor to walk right up to a car maker and hope their idea will be bought/adopted. The industry probably hasn't worked like that since the 1920's. Any new-tech - however well-founded - is a huge risk for auto makers. Frankly most "save 10% gas mileage", "go 10% faster". "save 5 components", "save 2lbs" propositions don't add up when you look at the pre- and post-manufacture supply chain investments required. Then there's the Unions in the plants making the thing you're trying to replace to overcome. Etc. etc. - few of the barriers to market entry have much to do with the technical merits of inventors' ideas. It's a shame, for sure - a whole load of great stuff isn''t coming through to the man in street.

If you can organically grow your own supply chain, then it's different.

Thanks for your good wishes - in 3-4 years you may even find a second hand 'Stang with a ZS box already in it...

 

Zshift...could you run by the airport and pick up a 5 gallon bucket of prop wash please, also i need a water pump and upper radiator hose for a 1969 VW bus thanx...btw, i love the idea of your trans shift for the motorcycle app. best of luck with it.