DCT - Honda's Dual Clutch Transmission

[irev]

I don't think DCT is outlawed...

I think it is, or at least it was in my day:

"Regulation 2.4.2. Twin clutch transmission systems (DSG) are not permitted."

But as we know, that is the trouble with holding racing up as the pinnacle of what bikes should be.

Absolutely, prototype racing should be about what is technically possible, not what is technically possible, within the rules...

Gigi Dall'igna will reveal how futile the regulated approach to minimising cost is. The greatest living exponent of `rule compliance, to the very edge of that compliance`.

As for GP rulebook: Throw it out the window, set maximum number of cylinders, available fuel, number of engines for the season, number of wheels and a max permitted weight and a single rider - and let the tech lead the racing. 250 2-strokes with superchargers against 6-stroke rotary engines with electric boost - bring it on!

Never mind reducing costs. It's prototype racing: If you can't afford it, don't come and play, and if you are an inspirational designer, use genius to combat budget. It''s a Samson v. Goliath story, with the added benefit of a free-for-all in leading to benefits that spin off for the roadgoing rider. Start with aerodyanamics and rider ergonomics, as that alone will deliver 25mph+ increased top end.

Simple example: Instead of mandating four strokes and killing the 500cc two-stroke racebike, imagine they had mandated emission controls on those 2-strokes? Aprilia already had the DiTech engine from Orbital, and a 2-stroke is necessarily more efficient in use of primary materials than a four stroke, and both would use similar electronics to control firing and exhausting, so why kill the 2-stroke? In marine engines they reign supreme in efficiency and cost-effectiveness - albeit the size of a house:



What you didn't add to your regulation is the next two sections of banned transmission types

3) Continuously Variable Transmission systems (CVT) are not
permitted.
4) Automatic transmission systems are not permitted. Manual
transmissions with gearshifts assisted by quick-shifter systems are
permitted

Curiously, there's been no objection from any combatant over whether Honda or Yamaha transmission constitute, or could be construed as, dual clutch. One might argue (Gigi, probably) that as the clutches in DCT cannot operate independently, they are in fact a single transmission with a split-mode operation, in the same way that opening and closing the throttle are two separate functions, but sharing a common platform.

But given more than half the worlds total two-wheel production constitutes CVT-equipped scooters, why CVT should be excluded when allegedly `racing improves the breed` is a curious conundrum for the rulemakers to explain...

[Bluebottle]

Indeed, same with everything from bicycles to formula one.

Luckily I've been playing with racing planes recently, different kettle of fookin terrifying altogether

[visfix]

...

....and thank the Lord that he does!

[Bluebottle]

What you didn't add to your regulation is the next two sections of banned transmission types...

and the rest.

From what you said I thought they had lifted the DCT ban and I hadn't noticed

How about no restrictions except limited of fuel, anything else goes
Recumbents allowed in cycling and motorcycling, any suspension, any tech

[anonstarter]

...

....and thank the Lord that he does!

+1

[irev]

Agree minimal rules should be the rule for anything that purports to be `prototypical`. Nothing encourage progress more than when a new, innovative idea breaks through the old, conservative, incremental strategy to dominate.

Plenty of other classes to draw tighter constraints around what is and isn't permissible: Superbikes and Supersport have done it most successfully for donkeys years.

The abject failure in the prototype classes should be readily apparent and accepted through the mere presence of derived production engines (Aprilia and BMW) in the CRT class in MotoGP. By all means start with a production engine, but then where is the chassis experimentation, the suspension innovation, transmission advances and the ergonomic revelation to make those engines competitive? The racing in MotoGP is pathetic, not for the race at the front, but for the fact that there are only a handful of machines on the grid capable of reaching the podium; the rest are riding around sharing track space, wasting the teams efforts, and their sponsors money. And under the latest derivation of the rules, if you use that innovation to actually score a podium, you're penalised... That will be fun to watch Gigi circumvent.

Moto2 is closer to prototypical racing, with a generic engine. But there the rules crush chassis innovation and technical advances in suspension development to ensure no good can come of it. Racing cannot `improve the breed`...

So just how can Honda take the advanced DCT transmission and convince the World its' better? We can accept it, because the very reason we are all here is because we are open and receptive to change, albeit to different degrees (which is exactly why it's a great debating chamber) and even we are having to discuss at a technical level. It's already better than most riders, much of the time. It can `drive` more economically, it can `sport` more appropriately, and yet it's only in the second incarnation, and about five years old as a Honda construct (multi-clutch gearboxes have been around since about 1917 when they were used in the earliest tanks, and in volume production since the Eighties in coaches and buses, just not in the same form).

How good will DCT be in five years? How much better than that could it be if it was developed in the hotbed of motorcycle racing..?

[Bluebottle]

That leads to one of my favourite digs at sport bikers who try to take the piss with "why didn't you get a proper bike" or "do you want a race" etc

The reason for banning the CVT in racing was because "CVT transmission gives an unfair advantage"
The race authorities say I can't race with you because my macinery is so superior it wouldn't be fare.

Never once met a self proclaimed race bike "expert" that slagged off scooters who actually knew the regs his bike was built to.

The other one is how centrifugal clutches are for girls bikes, shopping trolleys or whatever, proper bikes need a proper clutch.
A perk of my day job is I occasionally get to test fly military helicopters, huge rip snarling things with jet engines..........and a centrifugal clutch

What I'd like to see to make racing feed vehicle development is:
Anything you like as long as it has got street legal lighting
Restrict the amount of fuel to what can get a current 50cc moped around the track
You can burn the fuel at anytime before or during the race.
2 classes; endurance and set lap

That way we can put electrics and everything on the same grid

[irev]

Only, the electrics have to show HOW their electricatrocity has been generated.

Second greatest falsehood ever imposed on the World (after `Global warming is caused by carbon dioxide, so we'll measure everything and tax you on carbon emissions, when science and governments KNOW CO<sub>2</sub> is a consequence of GW`) is Electricity = Automatically Green.

It bloody isn't ---> how many tonnes of sod and soil had to be moved to get that nickel, cadmium, lithium, and cobalt that is used in your `green` power source? And how was that processed? And how much electricity was used to create the aluminium you carry it all in? And how is that `juice` you're pouring into the battery produced? Coal-fired? Oil-fired?, Nuclear? And that `free` wind energy from the offshore towers, how much energy was used to make it, install it and maintain it? And it's return on investment efficiency (Betz Law states the limit is 59%, nothing in the market gets more than about 30%)? So, given that low performance level how long does it take before a wind farm actually goes into `positive energy` creation? 20 to 50 years. And how many windfarms have operated continuously for fifty years. Not a single one. And dont' give me any of that `solar power` crap - at best currently 15% efficient, with a max potential of 40% - and you don't control the sun anymore than you control the availability of the wind, so those are theoretical `best possible` rather than actual results:

No battery-derived technology in the current market is green: Fact.

Which is why DCT and the modern trannies that don't require disengagement or minimise disruption to drive are the solutions in the medium term. Reducing the number of times the engine goes `bang` per wheel revolution is the next. Optimising burn and efficiency necessarily follows, ergonomics and reduced friction and aerodynamic drag also have a part to play. Not a single one of these is currently `at play` in the racing world with the possible exception of electronics that limit power to ensure consumption compliance.

That might be something very interesting to explore in real world use - use GPS and journey pre-planning to create a goal-related electronic control strategy: Your tank of 15 litres must last you a weeks worth of 20-mile each way commuting, or 40 miles a day x 5 = 200 miles. The software knows the `plan` and adapts the power delivery to suit, so if you ride like a gurl for the first two days because it's been raining you have extra power available at the end of the week to hoon the loon. Or if you give it the berries on Tuesday by Friday the power is restricted and the DCT transmission optimised for getting you to the target range on Friday evening.
With GPS even one-way journeys could be optimised, to allow for hills, high-speed (motorway) sections and likely traffic hotspots (even a scooter loses efficiency making progress in heavy traffic, even though that progress is pissing on cars and lorries). A thinking GPS looks out for not just `fastest` or `motorway excluded` routes, it could even factor in uphill v. downhill stretches, constant speed and high maintained average speed roads (untrafficked, as the Yanks put it) to produce a route based on the consumption map.

So you need to travel from London to Edinburgh, and the route adapts to reflect the fuel consumed up to that point in the journey. Now performance is a true option, exercised by the simplest factor of all - stopping to refuel.

We all know `he who travels furthest, stops least` and with engine and transmission working with route planning to deliver the rider to their destination based on adaptation of fuel consumption, the rider gets to decide how they wish to cover those miles by throttle control and personal choice.

Now in that contemplated scenario an auto transmission with thinking and learning capabilities is a very necessary tool. And who needs electricity and it's `range anxiety` issues to generate economy?

Now, how is racing helping us with that? Drag increases as a square of the speed, so even a small improvemtn in aerodynamics would yield substantial fuel consumption advantages. But the rules don't permit a recumbent rider, in an aero-optimised fairing. Its all just total bollocks, disguising peurile entertainment and imposition of injury- and even life-threatening risks on the riders.Sponsors need to realise that increasing the surface area of fairings creates far larger billboards and greater ROI. Doing so to create a winning vehicle guarantees TV time and reflected glory. And THAT'S how to get rules changed in racing...

[Bluebottle]

...how many tonnes of sod and soil had to be moved to get that nickel, cadmium, lithium, and cobalt that is used in your `green` power source?

None, we've had this out before.
No aluminium either

I think you are using wildly innaccurate information, misconceptions and some plain untruths with the whole envirionment/EV thing without looking at it properly.