Sequential gearboxes, why aren't there more?

All motorcycles have a sequential style gear change, why isn't this present in more cars? There has to be a good reason, but I honestly can't think of one.

You expect the general population to know how to work a sequential box????

The general population learned how to drive a stick shift...

once upon a time.. most of the General population has no idea how to drive a manual shift now

There are a few things I can think of.

They require a lot of driver knowledge and punish the lack of it with a truly E36 M3ty driving experience.

They wear quickly compared to other types of gearboxes.

The are not smooth under normal driving conditions. They require a certain amount of lash built in to be able to shift. Whenever you're in transition this creates a nasty feeling, sort of like if you took all the rubber out of your motor mounts.

So every motorcycle ever made, requires huge amount of knowledge to operate, wears out the gearbox and is clunky in day to day driving?? That is the design of the individual gearbox and not sequential boxes themselves, most of them in cars today are simply fancy automatics........I do not consider those a sequential box. Also there are plenty of classic H pattern boxes that suffer the same problems.

Keep in mind my view is prejudiced by 40 years of riding and racing motorcycles, I've driven everything from Formula Fords to Showroom Stock Miata to Old truck with crash box and again my biased opinion is H pattern boxes are an abomination. Motorcycle gearboxes are far more precise, the problem is they are more expensive to produce than the average automotive gearbox, so naturally in some of the cars they are not so nice.

In my old D Sports racer (Yamaha 1000 power) once you let out the clutch, there was no need to use the clutch pedal again, advantage of left foot braking and match the RPMs as you went up and down through the box. Now of course that's easy to do on a race track but if you need to stop for a red light in theory you would stall the car. For production cars that can be easily rectified with electronics / anti stall set up. It could even be done by mechanical means, many modern off road riders use a Rekluse clutch which is simply a fancy centrifugal clutch, makes riding a bike in slow speed sections much easier.

As for learning to shift, to my mind it is easier to simply keep pushing on a lever as you slow down verses hooking a lever around between gates. Reverse gear is also not in the same place on every car it only takes 30 seconds to learn where it is.

I think the biggest hurdle to putting a proper sequential box in a car is cost and frankly most drivers don't care enough about the differences to warrant the cost of manufacturing one.

Vigo, as to the ones you are referring to yes, some of them are quite horrible I remember driving a F355 around the track years back and it kind mmm not fond of this. With that said I think the "fancy automatics" as I call them will eventually become the norm in all but the bargain basement models. They also allow for some serious tuning of chassis dynamics and as time goes by we will likely look at traditional gearboxes the way we look at cars with carbs on the motors. Again at the moment they sequential boxes are expensive to make buy like all things the price will come down.

Again my highly opinionated .02

    Tom

So every motorcycle ever made, requires huge amount of knowledge to operate, wears out the gearbox and is clunky in day to day driving??

Compared to a car? YES. The answer is YES. It may not seem like rocket surgery to you, but ALL of us have driven with people that, if you put a bike-style trans in a car, they would do it wrong and then complain about it until it broke and then never buy one again. Assuming they got past the FIRST drive.

As for a ferrari f355, let's clarify something. A bike trans uses unsynchronized dog clutches between every gear. An f355 does not. An m3 smg does not. They are called sequential but they are not the same thing. Those clutches (which are what lets you shift without the main clutch just by unloading the drivetrain) are only really used in racecars, because they suck to drive slowly and wear quickly and are prone to breaking when you dont use them properly. Ask all the Honda boys running dogboxes in their drag cars how many hundreds of thousands of miles they have on their dogboxes. Most of them probably dont even WANT to drive those cars on the street anymore.

More anecdote: This year is the FIRST YEAR that a mass-production automated trans has incorporated an unsynchronized (at least mechanically..) dog clutch in a car for normal people. The new chrysler 9spd has one. Chrysler has been using computer-controlled clutch-to-clutch shifting (which requires precise, adaptive control to avoid binds/flares) since 1989 and 2014 is the FIRST year they've been brave enough to try to put a computer-synchronized dog clutch in a 'normal' car. And then they had to hold delivery of thousands of them because the software STILL wasnt good enough.

Unsynchronized dog clutches (there is probably a shorter term for them..?) are only great in the context of enthusiast drivers driving enthusiastically, or with very precise computer control. If you dont have either of those two situations you should definitely avoid them.

For me a motorcycle gearbox is a joy to use. There was a Geo racing in Lemons with a motorcycle engine in it. The in car video was awesome to hear the engine rev to 10 jillion RPM and the shifts were quick, just like bike would be.

Wow, I must be doing it wrong.

My motorcycle does none of those awful things and still has it's original gearbox at over 200,000km. That's shifting without the clutch for most of the gear changes as well.

Mind you, my British bike is nothing like that at all. Maybe Honda knows something about gearboxes that others don't.

Ranger50 wrote: You expect the general population to know how to work a sequential box????

This. The first time someone rides a motorcycle and discovers thinking is involved (gotta remember which gear they are in then move the left foot up/down the required number of times to find the gear they want), a lot of them will just say the hell with it.

Vigo wrote:

So every motorcycle ever made, requires huge amount of knowledge to operate, wears out the gearbox and is clunky in day to day driving??

Compared to a car? YES. The answer is YES. It may not seem like rocket surgery to you, but ALL of us have driven with people that, if you put a bike-style trans in a car, they would do it wrong and then complain about it until it broke and then never buy one again. Assuming they got past the FIRST drive. As for a ferrari f355, let's clarify something. A bike trans uses unsynchronized dog clutches between every gear. An f355 does not. An m3 smg does not. They are called sequential but they are not the same thing. Those clutches (which are what lets you shift without the main clutch just by unloading the drivetrain) are only really used in racecars, because they suck to drive slowly and wear quickly and are prone to breaking when you dont use them properly. Ask all the Honda boys running dogboxes in their drag cars how many hundreds of thousands of miles they have on their dogboxes. Most of them probably dont even WANT to drive those cars on the street anymore. More anecdote: This year is the FIRST YEAR that a mass-production automated trans has incorporated an unsynchronized (at least mechanically..) dog clutch in a car for normal people. The new chrysler 9spd has one. Chrysler has been using computer-controlled clutch-to-clutch shifting (which requires precise, adaptive control to avoid binds/flares) since 1989 and 2014 is the FIRST year they've been brave enough to try to put a computer-synchronized dog clutch in a 'normal' car. And then they had to hold delivery of thousands of them because the software STILL wasnt good enough. Unsynchronized dog clutches (there is probably a shorter term for them..?) are only great in the context of enthusiast drivers driving enthusiastically, or with very precise computer control. If you dont have either of those two situations you should definitely avoid them.

I'm sorry, I quit reading after you posited that riding a motorcycle is difficult, or is difficult because of the gearbox.

Just stop. Seriously. Stop.

Curmudgeon wrote:

Ranger50 wrote: You expect the general population to know how to work a sequential box????

This. The first time someone rides a motorcycle and discovers thinking is involved (gotta remember which gear they are in then move the left foot up/down the required number of times to find the gear they want), a lot of them will just say the hell with it.

A big gear number indicator in the dash would alleviate much of this problem. At that point it seems to me the sequential pattern is much more user friendly than the H pattern. If you found someone who had never seen a car before and had to teach them how to operate an H pattern shifter or a sequential shifter, I think the sequential shifter would be easier to teach.

Move the lever forward to go down a gear (or whatever direction is chosen), move the lever backward to go up a gear. That seems easy verus first move the lever down, then up and to the right, then down etc. to up shift. Reverse is probably about equally confusing between the two.

NVH, straight cuts are noisy

pappatho wrote:

Curmudgeon wrote:

Ranger50 wrote: You expect the general population to know how to work a sequential box????

This. The first time someone rides a motorcycle and discovers thinking is involved (gotta remember which gear they are in then move the left foot up/down the required number of times to find the gear they want), a lot of them will just say the hell with it.

A big gear number indicator in the dash would alleviate much of this problem. At that point it seems to me the sequential pattern is much more user friendly than the H pattern. If you found someone who had never seen a car before and had to teach them how to operate an H pattern shifter or a sequential shifter, I think the sequential shifter would be easier to teach. Move the lever forward to go down a gear (or whatever direction is chosen), move the lever backward to go up a gear. That seems easy verus first move the lever down, then up and to the right, then down etc. to up shift. Reverse is probably about equally confusing between the two.

There is a lot of truth in this. I also recall teaching n00bs how to ride dirt bikes, one person was my (now ex) wife. It took a LOT of training to get her to understand 'I'm in 4th but I need 2nd, press the lever down twice.. oh now I need neutral, it's halfway between 1st and 2nd. If I'm in 2nd, I press DOWN half a click, if I'm in 1st I LIFT half a click, holy cow I gotta remember what gear I'm in ALL THE TIME!'.

I'm not saying it can't be done, of course it is done every day. Lots of road bikes have gear and neutral indicators, easy peasy.

What I'm saying that 95% of people out there are not willing to think that hard. They already won't buy conventional H pattern manuals, it screws with their Twitter and text time, having to be cognizant of a sequential would drive them bugE36 M3 trying to balance their iGalaxy4311HTC1011ZOMG! playing with a shifter and watching a gear indicator in the cluster. (So much for 'multi tasking'.)

Flight Service also mentioned NVH. I didn't even consider that but he's right on the money, Princess and the Pea syndrome would quickly kill the whirring sequential box.

laughed at you story of the "x" trying to find neutral … my Kaw. 500 3 cyl. 2 stroke was even easier .. all the way down was neutral, first click up was first … etc …

Just stop. Seriously. Stop.

BIKES ARE NOT CARS. The relative lack of inertia in tiny bike parts is one of the main reasons they can get away with running those transmissions. The OTHER main reason is that people who go to the trouble to learn to ride bikes accept that they have to learn to operate the berkeleying bike if they EVER want to ride a bike and live through it. That is not true of cars where anyone can just buy and drive an auto much more easily and for the same or less money. Lash and ease of operation are a BIG DEAL in 'normal' brand new cars, and unless this hasnt occurred to you, ALL THE CARS ON THE PLANET were brand new at one point. That means customers drove them with new car, big money expectations and a dogbox in a brand new car would NEVER EVER EVER sell well enough to justify its existence. I CANT FACEPALM ANY berkeleyING HARDER so will you please just stop?

PEOPLE DONT EVEN BUY SYNCHRONIZED MANUALS! How in the berkeleying christ do you expect to sell dogboxes? Oh yeah, you don't! Y'all are just talking out your ass because unlike a real car company you dont have hundreds of millions of dollars to lose pushing a damn stupid idea to market and then watching it crash and burn.

Have you ever talked to or even read about people who have tried to DD a dogbox? Have you? What happened when they let their moms drive them? Or were they not berkeleying retarded enough to even let them try?

Im not trying to be E36 M3ty to the OP because of other people who have replied here but this is an open and shut case. How easy your non-car is to operate according to enthusiast standards has ABSOLUTELY NO berkeleyING RELEVANCE to why noone makes a mass-production dogbox car.

Am i banned yet?

no .. you're good

Vigo wrote:

Just stop. Seriously. Stop.

BIKES ARE NOT CARS. The relative lack of inertia in tiny bike parts is one of the main reasons they can get away with running those transmissions. The OTHER main reason is that people who go to the trouble to learn to ride bikes accept that they have to learn to operate the berkeleying bike if they EVER want to ride a bike and live through it. That is not true of cars where anyone can just buy and drive an auto much more easily and for the same or less money. Lash and ease of operation are a BIG DEAL in 'normal' brand new cars, and unless this hasnt occurred to you, ALL THE CARS ON THE PLANET were brand new at one point. That means customers drove them with new car, big money expectations and a dogbox in a brand new car would NEVER EVER EVER sell well enough to justify its existence. I CANT FACEPALM ANY berkeleyING HARDER so will you please just stop? PEOPLE DONT EVEN BUY SYNCHRONIZED MANUALS! How in the berkeleying christ do you expect to sell dogboxes? Oh yeah, you don't! Y'all are just talking out your ass because unlike a real car company you dont have hundreds of millions of dollars to lose pushing a damn stupid idea to market and then watching it crash and burn. Have you ever talked to or even read about people who have tried to DD a dogbox? Have you? What happened when they let their moms drive them? Or were they not berkeleying retarded enough to even let them try? Im not trying to be E36 M3ty to the OP because of other people who have replied here but this is an open and shut case. How easy your non-car is to operate according to enthusiast standards has ABSOLUTELY NO berkeleyING RELEVANCE to why noone makes a mass-production dogbox car. Am i banned yet?

I was unaware that all sequential gearboxes have straight-cut gears. That's certainly a reason. Thanks

Vigo I think you should read some motorcycle brochures, the part where they list things like 6 speed " contsant mesh" the average bike transmission is not like a Hewland dog ring gear box. Also they do not all have straight cut gears. Again I've used both, motorcycle gearboxes work so nice that if you preload the lever the instant you let off the throttle the slightest bit the slide into the next gear. In fact on two stroke bikes it's common to preload the lever and just wait, when the power drops off it slides right into the next gear. Clutch less down shifts are simple as blip blip blip and push the lever every time you blip the throttle. As for the average driving appliance type learning how to manage all this, mmmm all those Yuppie Davidson riders managed it as did the trendy Ducati buyers. Driveline snatch, try adjust the chain or just buy one with a shaft drive.

As for dual clutch transmissions, I instruct at a couple of PCA track days among others so I am familiar with them. Some are better than others and yes most people prefer an automatic.

For anyone who hasn't driven a bike engine car or shifter Kart, from an enthusiast stand point H pattern boxes suck (note even in my street car I heal and toe) once you free up your left foot to brake, you can be so much more precise. As for needing to know what gear you're this no different than traditional manual in a car, that is what a tach is for or even easier if the motor is going WAAAA shift up if it is going Bwaaaaa go down a gear.

Tom

I, for one, greatly prefer the ease and simplicity of an automatic transmission.

By the logic many people are giving sequentials shouldn't exist in bikes because the general population can't understand them. Extending the logic further bikes shouldn't exist because the general population doesn't want one. Not every option has to appeal to the general population, though a business case is much more easily made if it does.

Ignoring the fact that there may be engineering issues I am not familiar that would prevent a sequential from being readily used in a street car, there are some cars I think it could be a good fit for. If both manual styles were an option and similarly priced I would likely buy a sequential if I was getting a hot hatch or a more technologically focused sportscar like an S2000. Cars that have a little more of a throwback feel like a Miata I would probably lean toward a H pattern. The MINI GP is a car that I think it would have been a great fit for. Unfortunately there is no way to justify the development cost for such a small production number.

I have considered doing a bike engine swap in a classic Mini largely to get a sequential box.

Drive a smart fortwo. Sequential manual gearbox. Not a performance application, but works the same. A mild lift while shifting smooths the shifts. Actually fun to go up and down the gears. Just don't use auto mode. That sucks!

Both my bikes had this thing where they wouldn't go from neutral into gear sometimes without me rocking the bike back and forth. Wouldn't this be a problem with a street car?

A better question is why should there be more? What does it fix? Plus how much more does it cost for that benefit? And what are the drawbacks?

Have been driving manual cars for 30 years, I can't really see a benefit to having a sequential trans, when compared to the compromises.