From: aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer)
Subject: Re: RFI: Art of clutchless shifting
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Lines: 25
Reply-To: aas7@po.CWRU.Edu (Andrew A. Spencer)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, lusky@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Jonathan R. Lusky) says:

>In article <93112.103631LRR105@psuvm.psu.edu> <LRR105@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>I'm not familiar with the trannies used in Winston Cup, but in the trans-am
>cars I've played with the  transmissions were the racing variety, with
>dog clutches instead of sychros.  In a transmission with dog clutches, the
>gears are always  engaged with each other and moving the dog clutches
>engages the gears to the shafts.  Motorcycle transmissions are the same way.
>Shifting without the clutch on a transmission with syncros can and will cause
>transmission damage, the only question being how long it  takesto grenade
>something (for the trans in my 87  Pulsar SE, it was  about 3-5k miles, but
>it had a weak  tranny in the first place).

just out of curiosity, how is this "dog clutch" any different from a synchro
transmission.  What you described SOUNDS the same to me.  In fact, what little
i've studied on trannies, the instructor referred to the synchros as "dogs"
and said they were synonymous.  The gears are always meshed in a synchronized
gearbox, and you slip the synchro gears back and forth by shifting. Or at least,
that is what i was taught.  Explain, por favour?

thanx
DREW
ps email's fine if this is inappropriate for here, or if i'm the only bonhead
who doesn't know the diff.
