re "R-Tronic" vs. possible "upgrade" to "S-Troninc"

[willyjp]

In light of the recent posts about a possible "upgrade" to a 2-clutch auto manual for future R8s...(from "Fastestlaps.com"): (note Fastest Laps typo: he MEANS "R"-Tronic in the quoted passage)

But R8 has appreciable disadvantage - S-tronic. This semi-automatic gearbox, as we saw on Driftbox diagram, needs approximately 0,3 second to change a gear. You feel it while driving - during the gearchange acceleration stops, and car is destabilized with powerful "kick" when clutch is re-engaged. Nor MB SLS neither 911 Turbo S with dual-clutch transmission have this negative side effect.

http://www.fastestlaps.com/articles/...ensk_ring.html


Being a 6MT driver, I don't have a dog in this fight (and yes, I know my shifts are slower than either auto-manual!). But I ran across this comment on the "Fastest Laps" website (great source for settling tap room disputes, btw, if you're not aware of it!). I thought it interesting that the writers considered the R8 "disadvanteged" by it's R-Tronic vis-a-vis the MB SLS and the 997 Turbo S, though it WAS clearly faster than the P-wagen in the chicane (are we surprised!).

Just fwiw, and don't argue with me, since I drive an MT, I'm obviously a sideline sitter on this issue. But suspicions along these lines, based on the basic design difference AND a kind of "clunky" experience with R-Tronic at the ADE@Infineon are what made me lean toward the MT when I ordered. And, I have to admit, personally I will always prefer to clutch for myself!

[randombloke]

Personally I like the momentary power disconnect - it adds a sporty character to the changes. Also, when we're talking about times to change gear, it's still always going to fare better than a stick manual and people seem perfectly fine with that so it all becomes a bit "top trumps" academic.

[amouses]

The lack of the S-tronic transmission i.e. a seamless, efficient, dual clutch way of changing gear is a shocking omission for a worlds class leading sports car.

My wife is grateful that this is all that hold me back from an R8 order. (Well that and the +50% more expensive price tag for living in Switzerland).

The R-tronic gearbox I understand is the same as the manual with hydraulics shifting gears for you. Rather like the (now ancient) early Ferrari or BMW transmissions.

Now that S-tronic (aka DSG) is available for the TTRS (>300BHP) I can't see any technical excuse for Audi to pull their finger out and deliver the goods.

Does anybody know what the official launch date / Motor show reveal will be?

[willyjp]

Well the point of my post was not to debate the value of the auto clutch in general...no question they shift faster than any "foot clutch" system (though I do respectfully take issue with your assertion that an auto tranny will "always" know better when to change gears...surely you don't really believe that either!)...but to consider the issue of whether or not Audi, in the rumored "upgrade" coming next year, "should" (assuming they "would") go to a dual clutch system, a la nearly everyone else.

I posted this just to add a bit of documentation to a heretofore rather subjective topic. If the reason to have an auto clutch is to shift faster (for me, that would be the only reason to consider it), well then "more faster", it would seem to follow, would be better. And this Laptimes piece adds a tiny bit of hard evidence to the scales in favor of going to the dual clutch.

Not that, if they DO go to an "S-Tronic", I'll get a new car. As I implied, for myself, loss of the 6MT would seriously depreciate my driving experience of the R8. So for we MT "hard cases", the rumored dropping of the MT is a bigger issue than the possible advent of a dual clutch enhancement.

In short, not about which transmission for the buyer to choose...to each his own!...but rather about which AUDI should best choose for the new model. Not that we have an iota of influence on that question!

[randombloke]

I do respectfully take issue with your assertion that an auto tranny will "always" know better when to change gears

hang on a sec - you're putting word in my mouth there! I said it's "always going to fare better", by which I meant in terms of the speed and accuracy of the changes at speed.

If the reason to have an auto clutch is to shift faster (for me, that would be the only reason to consider it), well then "more faster", it would seem to follow, would be better.

there are more considerations than just speed - sportiness is a consideration too, as is weight and packaging. let's not forget that the new lambo isn't going dual clutch.

And this Laptimes piece adds a tiny bit of hard evidence to the scales in favor of going to the dual clutch.

what did you take as hard evidence?

[harrison]

In general, the Auto plays a better tune. And the musical sound is just a little nicer and easier to play. I have even learned to throw rev sounds quite nicely. If engine management and sound control is your thing, like me, then the R-T is the perfect instrument. (Musically speaking) IMO

[willyjp]

hang on a sec - you're putting word in my mouth there! I said it's "always going to fare better", by which I meant in terms of the speed and accuracy of the changes at speed.



there are more considerations than just speed - sportiness is a consideration too, as is weight and packaging. let's not forget that the new lambo isn't going dual clutch.



what did you take as hard evidence?

Well, I don't want to get into a President Clinton argument here ("depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."), but when you said:

"Also, when we're talking about times to change gear, it's still always going to fare better than a stick...".

That sounded like you were intending to say that an auto could pick shift points better than a human. I wouldn't quibble with that being true sometimes, but I was taking issue with the "always," with which I'm sure you concur....or you would never use your paddles. I am quite content to stand corrected and accept that you meant "faster and smoother," with which I make no stipulation.

But the whole point of my responding to your reply post was to clarify that I was NOT attempting to take up the (to me rather boring) argument between the manual and R-Tronic lovers, but to PUBLISH a finding I ran across on Laptimes.com that might be seen to make a point in favor of the dual-clutch (always engaged) tranny vs the single clutch box that truly shifts "just like we do" but a whole lot faster and smoother.

In some ways, the dual clutch box functions in a track situation a lot like the "pre-selector" gearbox of the pre WW-II ERA's. Driver selected the gear he was going to want next and when it came time to change, he just de-clutched/clutched and presto, he had shifted.

Of course a two clutch arrangement is going to carry some penalty in weight and size, but you could say exactly the same (in spades) for an all-wheel drive system. I can't say as I can see your "sportiness" point however: Other than the microseconds faster shifts, the presence of one or two clutches would seem to be pretty transparent to the user or onlooker. But "sportiness" is in the eyes of user and again I wouldn't quibble.

The post I put up, I thought, would make a 2 clutch system seem "more sporty" to the track afficianado, since the writer seemed to feel the evidence suggested the R8 was taking a hit for it's slower shifting. But I'm not one of those, which is why I'm happy to cruise the backroads with my manual.

I thought it was an interesting point that the Russians (but perhaps they're not reliable, you know...could be propaganda found, and confirmed with an accelerometer, that the R8 was taking somewhat of a penalty for it's slower shift times vs. it's two competitors with 2 clutch systems. "Hard" evidence is hard to come by when it comes to fast cars, which is why they keep staging those contests where they try to find out who's got the fastest one

[randombloke]

That sounded like you were intending to say that an auto could pick shift points better than a human.

I see what you mean - but I meant times in the sense of "time taken" not "the best points in time".

I can't say as I can see your "sportiness" point however: Other than the microseconds faster shifts, the presence of one or two clutches would seem to be pretty transparent to the user or onlooker.

the momentary disconnect of power adds a character that is absent by definition of a seamless transition - it makes it feel more mechanical and delimited, and to me that enhances the character. As you say, people have different opinions and preferences.

I thought it was an interesting point that the Russians (but perhaps they're not reliable, you know...could be propaganda found, and confirmed with an accelerometer, that the R8 was taking somewhat of a penalty for it's slower shift times vs. it's two competitors with 2 clutch systems.

It will be interesting to see how the new lambo aventador's ISR single clutch setup compares.

[harrison]

Recieved a phone call from Italiano Concourso yesterday...Jay Leno arrived in the new Lambo Aventador ISR single clutch and was EXSTATIC with it.(but what else would you expect him to say?)

[willyjp]

the momentary disconnect of power adds a character that is absent by definition of a seamless transition - it makes it feel more mechanical and delimited, and to me that enhances the character. As you say, people have different opinions and preferences.

Ahh, Yes! SPORTY! The momentary disconnect of power! Mechanical and delimited!

Not to overly prolong this line of discourse, but I think you have hit on something very important here (quote above). I daresay those who are in love with their manual transmissions, with the very satisfying tactile and auditory "click" of the gate as the shift goes home, would say EXACTLY the same thing about why they prefer their MT. I get it!

As you would agree, "different strokes for different folks"