Welcome! Please use the navigational links to explore our website.
PartsASAP LogoCompany Logo Auction Link (800) 853-2651

Shop Now

   Allis Chalmers Case Farmall IH Ford 8N,9N,2N Ford
   Ferguson John Deere Massey Ferguson Minn. Moline Oliver

Tractor Talk Discussion Forum

Now why was this never used in a car???

Welcome Guest, Log in or Register
Author 
markloff

05-16-2008 12:16:29




Report to Moderator

or a car, truck etc. etc.

Seems simple enough to me. 2 dry clutches on the flywheel (or wet clutch for that matter) and shift on the fly capability. Why the heck didn"t they have something like this instead of a TA or an even more complicated Case-O-Matic, Select-O-Speed, Powershift etc. etc. What gives here? Seems like a no brainer to me.

Mark

[Log in to Reply]   [No Email]
RodInNS

05-16-2008 19:42:08




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a car??? in reply to markloff, 05-16-2008 12:16:29  
I'm not sure I follow exactly what your question is, but if you're wondering about syncro transmissions in farm tractors, then that's been done quite extensively. Both with dry clutches and wet clutches. Ford has done it since 1981 with the 10 series and then updated with the 30 series to have a 100% syncronized 8x8 transmission. Works like a top when it doesn't blow a syncro.... The had a variety of others as well.
Syncro's are pretty well a past thing with farm tractors today though. Most are power shift now. These are all direct drive with wet clutches, planetaries and computer modulated shifting. That seems to be about the only way they can keep clutches in them.
For my own part I quite like having the older style constant mesh crash boxes (sliding collar tansmissions). Their biggest failing was a lack of reverse ratios, but they shift fairly easily and are nearly indestructable.

The link you provided appears to be a race transmission. That looks complicated, expensive to build and probably even more expensive to maintain, keys to why it's not used in anything other than on an oval.

Rod

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
markloff

05-16-2008 20:02:51




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a car??? in reply to RodInNS, 05-16-2008 19:42:08  
Please read the entire thread before posting. Did you understand that this is a powershift transmission that could be made to be 100 percent mechanical?

Mark



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RodInNS

05-16-2008 20:57:33




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a car??? in reply to markloff, 05-16-2008 20:02:51  
I read the entire thread. It still didn't make sense as to what exactly was being asked.
If you're talking about automated manual transmissions, that's nothing new either. ArvinMeritor and Eaton/Fuller have been building them for many years now for OTR applications. Those are entirely ECM controlled. They're really only taking the standard 'Ranger transmission that's been used for 2 generations and installing the actuators for the ECM to control it. The ECM is only doing what any skilled truck driver has always done by floating gears, and all they've accomplished is making a transmission that is more durable to a pool of drivers who can't shift.... or put another way, greenhorns and jackasses can now get the lifespan from the transmission that everyone else gets. The transmission can be set to shift automatically or in a manual mode but the ECM controls the shift points. I don't believe that it would be cost effective or practical in a farm application. The way that that kind of transmission must shift does not lend itself to heavy draft conditions where there is a quick loss of momentum. That's why ag transmissions are mostly power shift today.

If you're simply talking about hammering gears at a manual transmission, then I think nearly every tractor transmission since the 60's has been of a constant mesh/sliding collar design. Ford's were and responded well to shifting without use of any clutches, the same as the RoadRanger. The only complication with this is that you had to be moving and have enough momentum to carry you through the shift.
The link provided seemed to me to be a race transmission where you're not dealing with a lot of torque, and certainly not much weight. Weight and torque make things go bang if you miss one. It's not such a factor in those cars. How many times have you seen a F1 car blow a shift like that and the tires light up on a hard downshift. Do that with 10 tonne behind and solid traction.... There will be a mess somewhere between the wheels and the crank pulley.

Rod

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
markloff

05-16-2008 21:16:34




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a TRACTOR??? in reply to RodInNS, 05-16-2008 20:57:33  
I don"t think you understand how the dual clutch transmission works that I linked. It is for all practical purposes a powershift transmission, not a different way of shifting gears as you"re describing. It is a shift under power up or shift under power down type of set up. You can powershift between all 6 gears. Imagine the old Allis Chalmers Hi-Lo setup on the "D" series (I have a D-15, that"s why I use that as an example) and then imagine this, you"d push the lever forward to engage the clutch for the 2-4-6 gears and shifted the 1-3-5 gears to whatever gear you wanted to select next while the other clutch was disengaged. You"d then pull the lever back to engage the clutch for the 1-3-5 gears. That"s why the transmission in the article has three shafts and a shaft within a shaft. You would have two sticks on the tractor, one for the 1-3-5 gears and one for the 2-4-6 gears, each shifted independently.

Mark

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RodInNS

05-17-2008 14:23:50




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a TRACTOR??? in reply to markloff, 05-16-2008 21:16:34  
Actually, I understand it quite well. The logistics of how it works are also 100 percent dependant on a computer. Any other way and you end up with burnt clutches or a big BANG. Clutch modulation and timing is absolutely CRITICAL in that design. It's only a little bit different spin on what's been done for a long time in the 'Ranger transmissions.

Rod



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
markloff

05-17-2008 16:15:14




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a TRACTOR??? in reply to RodInNS, 05-17-2008 14:23:50  
"The logistics of how it works are also 100 percent dependant on a computer."

Even though it was invented in 1939 huh? There is no reason it wouldn"t work in a manual set-up on a tractor. If you want to bash my thread and act like the smartest guy on the internet go ahead and tell me why it wouldn"t? I don"t understand why you keep bringing up semi transmissions and "floating gears" that are going down the road at 75 mph and loaded to 80,000lbs.

Mark

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
RodInNS

05-17-2008 16:58:17




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a TRACTOR??? in reply to markloff, 05-17-2008 16:15:14  
I'm not bashing your thread, and you asked why it isn't in use.
Stop and think about what that article is suggesting. It's talking about uninterupted power flow from the engine to the wheels through two shafts. This is done 'wet clutches' 'Phasing in' and 'phasing out' each gear. It states that there are complicated electronic and hydraulic controls for this transmission. The 'phasing' of gears on these clutches is fancy speak for saying that the clutches are being slipped in a soft shift, the same as is done in a lazy shifting automatic transmission. It's not that a transmission like that couldn't be fitted to a farm tractor. It's that it's not a practical thing to do, in my opinion for a farm tractor.
The reason that the Select-O-Speed (and perhaps some of it's counterparts of that time) didn't work is that it had poor manual controls that resulted in a poor shifting, jerky transmission. It didn't get coined the Jerk-A-Matic for nothing. It earned it. The eliptical gearing of those transmissions was actually pretty reliable. It was the controls that were poor. That's why manual controls don't work well in most cases. The modern power shifts mostly use a complicated mass of speed sensors and modulator valves to control the shifts. Their timing and pressure is that critical that they must be recalibrated in service to compensate for wear over time. It's my belief that it's nearly impossible to get that kind of timing from a manual control system, in a way that is repeatable so as not to destroy the transmission.
Think what you like, but planetary transmissions are what's out there today. If this technology had any merit in an ag application, I find it hard to believe that someone would not have done it by now because it could be somewhat more efficient.

Rod

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
mark

05-16-2008 18:30:17




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a car??? in reply to markloff, 05-16-2008 12:16:29  
Maybe I am missing something in the translation.that happens more than often:).

But, years ago, hotrodders would put a clutch in front of an automatic transmission.....which has the gears always in mesh. This arrangement did away with the fluid slip/power loss of the torque converter and made for lightning fast, positive shifts. Those old Chrysler Torqueflites were damn near indestructible and while not in a tractor, they withstood in excess of 500 ft.lbs. of torque and probably more over that in HP when bolted to a 426 Hemi.

So, my point is, why not create a multigear planetary type transmission for a tractor and couple it to a clutch. Never have to use the clutch except to start and stop or reverse directions. You could seamlessly shift up and down at will, under movement.

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
markloff

05-16-2008 18:55:33




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a car??? in reply to mark, 05-16-2008 18:30:17  
Yabbut you"d still have to have hydraulic pressure, clutches, bands, servos etc. etc. and all the associated problems. I"m simply wondering why this wasn"t done "back in the day" as it could have potentially been done a lot easier than any of the other stuff that came out in the era. Would have even been simpler than the early mechanical style Torque Amplifiers in the IH"s and AC"s and offered a lot more to the user than a hi/lo.

BTW, I understand there are a lot of circle track cars that use the setup you describe.

Mark

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Walt davies

05-16-2008 14:05:06




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a car??? in reply to markloff, 05-16-2008 12:16:29  
Because the early sincromesh trannies wouldn't stand up to anything but a light car for light work. All old Tractors have heavy duty spur gear trannies for strength.
Walt



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
markloff

05-16-2008 14:31:08




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a car??? in reply to Walt davies, 05-16-2008 14:05:06  
Good point, although....they do make "constant mesh" trannies that are not synchromesh. The 1566 and 1586 IH come to mind. They had the gears in constant mesh and had sliding dog collars that locked the gears to the tranny shaft instead of the gear itself sliding on the tranny shaft, (was suppose to shift easier). I don"t know if those trannies had spur or helical cut gears. Also, the gears being syncroed by the syncros in this dual clutch setup would not be under power at the time the would just have to be synced to shift for the next powershift. They may have held up that way, I don"t know. Good point. Sure seems more doable than the powershifts of the late 50"s and early 60"s though.

Mark

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
jdemaris

05-16-2008 16:58:56




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a car??? in reply to markloff, 05-16-2008 14:31:08  
What transmission with syncrhonized shifting ISN'T
constant-mesh? I can't think of any I've ever seen.



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
markloff

05-16-2008 17:13:02




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a car??? in reply to jdemaris, 05-16-2008 16:58:56  
Whatchu mean? I never said there was. There are "constant mesh" (straight and helical cut gears) transmissions that are not synchronized shift though.

Mark



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
Ken Macfarlane

05-16-2008 13:24:08




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a car??? in reply to markloff, 05-16-2008 12:16:29  
Not sure, it is pretty simple though. Lots of reasons pop to mind. Why do some JD's still have that damn non sychro 3 speed 3 range box? Its found in some pretty pricy cabbed JD's but is a throw back to what, WW2 era?



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
jdemaris

05-16-2008 13:14:31




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a car??? in reply to markloff, 05-16-2008 12:16:29  
Simple? Doesn't look anywhere near simple going by the info in the link you attached. Looks just as complicated as anything else around today. It states it provides an un-interupted powerflow - yet, one clutch must disengage, and the another engage - so it seems there has to be some lag - just as in an automatic transmission. Toric drives - and/or variator-sheave drives give uninterupted power, are simpler, and have been around just as long. If you want simplicity, and two speeds that are virtually uninteruped - a Model T Ford had that - and it was pretty simple in design. In a farm tractor - seems there is no great need for an uninterupted power-flow thoughout a wide RPM range - but maybe I'm missing something?

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
markloff

05-16-2008 14:05:02




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a car??? in reply to jdemaris, 05-16-2008 13:14:31  
Could be made to be very simple back in the day. I just posted the link so you could see the basics. It wouldn"t have to very complicated. Use a shuttle type shifter like the "D" series Allis Chalmers had to engage and disengage the clutches and manually shift what gear you wanted to go to next. It would be just as much a shift on the fly as a Torque Amplifier or a powershift set-up with no hydraulics and associated troubles/complications or planetary gear sets that were expensive to manufacture 50 years ago. Have 6 speeds that shift under power and a high/low/reverse/neutral after that for a total of 12 speeds forward and 6 reverses.

Mark

[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
markloff

05-16-2008 12:28:22




Report to Moderator
 Re: Now why was this never used in a TRACTOR??? in reply to markloff, 05-16-2008 12:16:29  
Sorry....title should have read "Now why was this never used in a TRACTOR???"

Mark



[Log in to Reply]  [No Email]
[Options]  [Printer Friendly]  [Posting Help]  [Return to Forum]   [Log in to Reply]

Hop to:


TRACTOR PARTS TRACTOR MANUALS
We sell tractor parts!  We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today. [ About Us ]

Home  |  Forums


Copyright © 1997-2023 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy

TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters

Website Accessibility Policy