Downshifting Rtronic Question

[woodranch]

Is there any advantage into downshifting yourself rather than the letting the car do it itself.Is the downshift bark exactly the same or a little louder when you do it yourself?...sorry but a dumb newbie question.Soon I will be all settled in and hopefully be able to help someone else.

[mngolfer]

If you downshift yourself you control when the downshift occurs. I downshift to reduce braking at stop lights. I never let the car control the downshift.

[SebringSilver]

The advantage would mainly be that you'll always be in the right gear for what you're about to do with the car (say, anticipating passing another vehicle, or merging with traffic from an on-ramp, etc.). At least that's how I drive the car - always in manual mode. The car does kick down if you floor the throttle, but that's not a very elegant alternative to manually selecting the gears.

As for the bark on rev-matched downshifts, they'll always be more aggressive when you do the downshifts yourself because it's likely that the downshift point will be at higher revs than what the transmission control unit would have done them at...in the interest of creating less wear-and-tear on the gearbox.

Just my two cents...

[alfessex]

Agree with comments above, i control the downshift and use also coming up to stop lights etc rather then use the brake unless at short notice

[thebishman]

There is nothing wrong with allowing the ECU to downshift for you when coming to a stop. Frankly brake pads are much cheaper to replace than a clutch so this fascination with 'stopping' the car by downshifting is beyond me; on the track yes, (and that's primarily to be in the correct gear for corner exit and to not unsettle the car mid-corner), but for regular street driving when say pulling up to a red light, just use the brakes and let the car, even in manual mode, change down for you. You won't hurt anything and perhaps save (very) small amouints of fuel by not having the engine rev to higher rpms when changing down manually at a higher rpm range than the car will do so automatically. But, no-one who owns these cars cares about fuel economy; otherwise we wouldn't drive one! lol
Bish

[SoCalR8V10]

Bish, I understand and agree with your comment on break pads being cheaper than a new clutch... But, the downshift blips/barks (especially with the right exhaust) are about the most addicting thing ever with the rev-matching of the Rtronic. Does this really wear out the clutch life faster?

There is nothing wrong with allowing the ECU to downshift for you when coming to a stop. Frankly brake pads are much cheaper to replace than a clutch so this fascination with 'stopping' the car by downshifting is beyond me; on the track yes, (and that's primarily to be in the correct gear for corner exit and to not unsettle the car mid-corner), but for regular street driving when say pulling up to a red light, just use the brakes and let the car, even in manual mode, change down for you. You won't hurt anything and perhaps save (very) small amouints of fuel by not having the engine rev to higher rpms when changing down manually at a higher rpm range than the car will do so automatically. But, no-one who owns these cars cares about fuel economy; otherwise we wouldn't drive one! lol
Bish

[Moggy]

It's an interesting talking point. One I chatted about when I had my Aston Martin Vanquish. The Vanquish came with a similar style gearbox to the RTronic and I'd never experienced one before.

There's really two use cases - maximum performance (like on a track, or possibly back roads) and everyday. I'll not address maximum performance as in that case you do what you need to do and as long as the car survives the race all is fine!

After all the chatting around, I decided it was better to brake to slow rather than use the engine. This was a purely personal decision and I could point you to several folk who would vehemently argue the opposite :-)

My reasons:

Control:

The ability for a car to slow down is limited by the tires traction to the road. Beyond that limit and you slide, which slows your speed less than otherwise, the dynamic friction between rubber and asphalt being much lower than the static friction. Hence the introduction of ABS, which prevents wheel locks. ABS works by lifting the brakes to a wheel at the first sign of that wheel locking up. As a result it won't kick-in if you're braking using the engine. Not usually a problem in this use-case, but what if you hit a patch of ice or oil? I'd like to maintain control.

Maintenance:

Brakes and clutches are both parts designed to wear and be replaced. Unlike clutches, brakes are much easier (and cheaper!) to replace. Having said that, I don't think that the additional wear on either clutch or engine is that much greater than the wear saved on brake pads by using them less.

Design Use:

Brakes are designed to slow a car down. Engines, on the other hand, are designed to speed a car up. Use the tool designed for the purpose it was designed for.

Habit:

Get used to using the brake by using the brake. That way, when an emergency happens, you'll automatically know where the brake pedal is, how it feels and just how hard it needs to be pressed without having to think about it.


Having said all that, I did still downshift as I was braking to a stop. Not to slow the car down - my brakes were doing just fine at that - but to hear that wonderful throttle blip. :-)

[SoCalR8V10]

Very well said ++ Especially the last part! Those blips are soooo addicting....

It's an interesting talking point. One I chatted about when I had my Aston Martin Vanquish. The Vanquish came with a similar style gearbox to the RTronic and I'd never experienced one before.

There's really two use cases - maximum performance (like on a track, or possibly back roads) and everyday. I'll not address maximum performance as in that case you do what you need to do and as long as the car survives the race all is fine!

After all the chatting around, I decided it was better to brake to slow rather than use the engine. This was a purely personal decision and I could point you to several folk who would vehemently argue the opposite :-)

My reasons:

Control:

The ability for a car to slow down is limited by the tires traction to the road. Beyond that limit and you slide, which slows your speed less than otherwise, the dynamic friction between rubber and asphalt being much lower than the static friction. Hence the introduction of ABS, which prevents wheel locks. ABS works by lifting the brakes to a wheel at the first sign of that wheel locking up. As a result it won't kick-in if you're braking using the engine. Not usually a problem in this use-case, but what if you hit a patch of ice or oil? I'd like to maintain control.

Maintenance:

Brakes and clutches are both parts designed to wear and be replaced. Unlike clutches, brakes are much easier (and cheaper!) to replace. Having said that, I don't think that the additional wear on either clutch or engine is that much greater than the wear saved on brake pads by using them less.

Design Use:

Brakes are designed to slow a car down. Engines, on the other hand, are designed to speed a car up. Use the tool designed for the purpose it was designed for.

Habit:

Get used to using the brake by using the brake. That way, when an emergency happens, you'll automatically know where the brake pedal is, how it feels and just how hard it needs to be pressed without having to think about it.


Having said all that, I did still downshift as I was braking to a stop. Not to slow the car down - my brakes were doing just fine at that - but to hear that wonderful throttle blip. :-)

[a7MeDiNo]

I rarely use my car on auto. The gearbox is very annoying when it controls shifts.

[alfessex]

yes that my point also, hearing the sound of the throttle blips is adictive ...im not worried about the clutch, i'll have the car for 2years only and move on...i doubt the clutch will wear out for the amount of miles i do in 1 year...last car i had i did 25k in 4.5 years!! if it goes...i can afford the car, so i can afford a new clutch