Yes, it's just making sure the revs are where they would be if the gear
was actually engaged, then the shifter just slides right in. It's very
satisfying when it works. When you're off just a little bit, it isn't so
smooth, and it's VERY bad on the synchronizers. Also, there's just no
way the shift can be as quick as a clutch shift, unless you just really
don't care about the transmission. Forcing a clutchless shift can damage
shift forks by bending them, causes extreme wear on the synchros, and
when it's missed, you get little tiny chucks of those synchro teeth
fluttering around in there.
The thing to learn is heel and toe, and use the left foot on the clutch
only. The videos you see of racers taking their Monte Carlos around the
turns at Sears Point without the clutch, well, if you watch, they clutch
the downshifts, maybe not the upshifts, and their transmissions are
built differently anyway, not sychromesh like road cars.
Say it now, and write it on the board 100 times:
I will learn to heel and toe.
I will learn to heel and toe.
I will learn to heel and toe.
.
.
.
.
Walter Fooshee
Dixie Region Probe GT
Eric Moon wrote:
> Could someone please explain 'clutchless shifting' to me? Is it simply a
> matter of matching the rev that you would be in if you were to change gears
> normally with the clutch?
> Is this bad for the car? (as if autocrossing in itself is 'good' for a car!!)
>
|