Talk:Non-synchronous transmission

Untitled

This article was created seperate from transmission (mechanics), and other articles, including manual transmission, so that emphasis could be given to the aspects of operator experience necessary to operate a non-synchronous transmission. Unlike an automatic, or manual, these industrial use transmissions can not be operated like the other two. It's torque and design require operator skills to shift gears, with little to no tolerance for mistakes. Non-synchronous transmissions won't work properly if the operator is unskilled.StationNT5Bmedia 03:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think we might have formed a consensus before you removed the tag? I have a few issues with the article as it stands:

• It does not address the subject given in the title. If it is about methods of operation, it should have been named "Operation of non-synchronous transmissions" or something similar.
• It doesn't contain any information that could not be added to manual transmission.
• The link to your website seems more like an advertisement than a reference.

Do you have some thoughts on this? Kevin 03:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Seperate Topic

There's no mention of range-selectors, clutch-brakes, or double-clutching in the topic on manual transmissions, nor should there be. It is a seperate topic. To include the topic of non-synchronous transmissions in a topic on manual transmissions would be a mis-representation. Also, nowhere in this article could I find any internal or external links to my user pages or personal web sites, although there are good references there for many other topics. This subject is a specialized topic, and probably would be a good candidate for a Wikipedia Project if you want to start one. I would support a WP: topic tag for any related articles: especially since the new hybrid vehicles are going to be using a lot of sophisticated centrifugal flywheel technology. StationNT5Bmedia 19:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The real problem is that this article is a mess is different ideas and subjects. Take the lead paragraph for example, which goes into regulations regarding the vehicles these transmissions might be used in.The next paragraph asks a question, which should not be included in an encyclopedia. The rest continues in similar fashion. None of the actual content is referenced, the references are front page links to truck and gearbox manufacturers. If you feel strongly that the article should not be merged, then it should at least be reduced to a well referenced (i.e. from a book) stub. Kevin 21:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a separate article for transmissions without synchromesh gears. It is a subset of manual transmissions and there is probably enough content to define it as a separate article. Leedeth 09:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Terminology and move

This article needs to be moved to a page without the s on the end of transmissions according to WP:NC and to conform with the other transmission articles. But before that we need to clear up this terminology:

Some people drive a standard or manual transmission, especially sports car & motorcycle enthusiasts. They learn that when they pop the clutch, that the vehicle will bolt as the clutch plates engage. But even these transmissions have synchronizing mechanisms that are designed to keep gear teeth from being broken off. These are referred to in the article transmission (mechanics) as unsynchronous. Don't confuse unsynchronous with non-synchronous. They're not the same.

Different than synchronous & unsynchronous, non-synchronous transmissions were designed without synchronizing mechanisms. They depend upon the operator to be experienced in changing gears. These types of transmissions are known to the world of heavy equipment operators as non-synchronous transmissions. The operators must understand how to shift these transmissions into and out of gear. Many learn how to do this in certifying schools.

Heavy equipment for industrial, military, or farm use have different torque issues. They have unique stress from massive horsepower that makes converter faces shear. For the reasons of engineering a dependable, longer-life piece of equipment, these mega-machines often use non-synchronous transmissions.

Any transmission that requires the operator to manually synchronize engine cam-shaft revolutions (RPM) with drive-shaft revolutions is non-synchronous. Inexperienced operators grind gears, unable to engage, or disengage the transmission.

What I don't understand is unsynchronous and non-synchronous. When the driver pops the clutch, it won't matter whether the transmission is synchronized or not, because the gears are already engaged within the transmission.

For reference I'll list the components in order: crankshaft, clutch, input shaft, transmission.

In the popping the clutch scenario, the transmission type doesn't matter because the whole driveline after the clutch is already synchronized. When changing gears, double clutch is used to sync the crank with the input shaft while the crank is synced to what the wheels are doing via the accelerator. With synchros, the input shaft doesn't need to be manually synced, so no double clutching is needed.

I think you're confusing unsynchronous with the clutch, therefore unsynchronous and non-synchronous are the same. Unless I'm missing something.... Leedeth 09:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

== Cite unsynchronized needed -- Introduction of the adjective unsynchronized is a SNEAKY comparison to the pronoun Non-synchronous used in common traffic law literature & manuals. There were no references outside of the Wikipedia article to justify the term unsynchronous, yet several examples are given for the term Non-synchronous. Since the term unsynchronous pertains to manual transmissions, in good faith I must believe that the editor who added the term must know what they are talking about. I do not. StationNT5Bmedia 19:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I have completed the move as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Prefer singular nouns. I have checked for double redirects and there are none. Leedeth 10:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe what we're missing here is that one does not syncing the engine and input shaft, you're syncing the input shaft, countershafts, and mainshaft, to a specific gear -- hence slowing whilst in an angle (coast or neutral) gear or revving it for an upshift. The gears are constant mesh, you're just engaging the shaft (whichever countershaft it's on) with the given gear for the shift; or the hi-lo range split. The driveline beyond the output shaft is continously meshed, save for differential or power divider locks. 184.153.195.171 (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Steam engines

I think the references to RMS Titanic and Walschaerts valve gear are completely irrelevant. Marine and locomotive steam engines do not have reversing gearboxes. The engine itself is reversible. Biscuittin (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Also, it says that the inventor of the Walshcaerts "invented the reversing lever in 1842". Locomotives didn't use that valve gear until the late 19th century; perhaps it was invented in 1842, but I assure you that locomotives were steaming in reverse with Stephenson valve gear long before 1842. That sentence insinuates that steam engines were unable to reverse before the Walschaerts was invented. In any case, as you say, it is utterly irrelevant to the article, which is about a type of gearbox, not about how valve gear can cause a steam engine to change directions. I am deleting the remaining sentence as off-topic. .45Colt 17:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've just seen this article for the first time – is it too late to AfD it? 8-( The parts that aren't utter crap (thanks for removing Walschaerts BTW) are unreadable. It's hard to even know where to start, but most (at least!) of this has to go.

As for Stephenson, that was only invented in 1841 and there's some evidence it was first used in 1843. Reversing levers are a few years earlier, as the coupled gab valve gear replaced the previously separate forward and reverse levers with a single lever. Obviously none belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Article in infancy

Don't get discouraged. Some articles have to go through this phase. But it's all in the interest of setting everything up. I swear, it looks like the same guy wrote all these. Let's figure out how to fix this and every other article we can. There must be a common mistake we're making. I think the first thing is that we're adding too many specialized concepts on top of what isn't really explained very well. Let's just think. Alex T 69.122.62.231 (talk) 02:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Tone issues

I've marked this article for cleanup of it's tone. This primarily because the later sections are quite chatty, e.g.

"Most people are familiar with the park, reverse, neutral, and drive positions of their automatic transmission.",

"Some people drive a standard or manual transmission. They learn that when they dump or pop the clutch, that the vehicle will lurch or lunge as the clutch plates engage. ".

Also, this seems written for an audience used to automatic but not manual transmissions, at least in the UK manual gearboxes are the norm and automatics what people may be unfamiliar with. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You can thank Kevin123 & some of the earlier contributors for infiltrating this article with language that bordered on vandalism . . . introducing words & ideas that didn't belong with this article, and concepts that made it clear they weren't familiar with non-synchronous transmissions. I'm familiar with them, and this article was intended mainly for commercial truck drivers in the United States, based on the necessary training needed to understand gear patterning in these massive machines. No other article in Wikipedia that I have seen does this. The topic should be cleaned up, but not sabotaged. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The main body of this article should be about how non-sychronous transmissions are engineered to endure tremendous torque, horsepower, and weight often equal to or exceeding 40 tons, to travel differently than a consumer vehicle. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It was not the intention of this article to include any training commentaries for commercial truck drivers. The article was originally written as a marvel of the engineering behind non-synchronous transmissions. StationNT5Bmedia (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Clutch brake, Syncing

Given that the most common non-synchronous transmission on the road is an Eaton Roadranger, and I believe the same fact to be true of both Rockwell (Meritor) and Mack transmission, there is -- in fact -- a synchronizer present in the transmission which performs a similar function to in a light or medium duty vehicle. Range shifts from lo-hi are synchronized for a smoother 5-6 shift. It's a pin type, mounted in the auxiliary section. Does that mean it's still non-sync, or is it at least worth a footnote? Eaton's operating literature explains it.

On the section on clutch brake, it seems like the wording makes it easy to misunderstand the explanation of being unable to engage a gear with the brake actuated. The only reason it'd prevent a gear from engaging is due to it halting the idle gear+shaft in a position that puts the dog clutch teeth out of alignment with whatever gear it is you want -- letting off a bit just spins the transmission a touch to get them into alignment, even if it's still partially actuated. Clutch brakes actuate with the last 1" of pedal travel, so the section on shifting is accurate - about halfway to the floor is enough to disengage the clutch and break torque to start shifting while moving. However, " float the higher gear into engaging the drive coupling and fly wheel and engaging the clutch plates." -- you're not floating if you're double-clutching, floating a transmission is shifting without using the clutch, but just the throttle or accelerator to break torque on the gear and sync. 184.153.195.171 (talk) 23:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Rework

Where to even start? (I'd support simply deleting this)

What's the scope? Is it narrow - contemporary US truck gearboxes? Or is it broader - any internal combustion engined vehicle with gearboxes that aren't fully equipped with synchromesh? That would include a large number of UK & European vehicles from post WW2 to the 1970s, from small cars upwards, that had synchromesh on most gears, but not 1st. Or even historically broader, so that includes vehicles (mostly pre-WWI) with all-indirect gearboxes that involved sliding gears in and out of mesh, rather than engaging them through use of dog clutches? Andy Dingley (talk)

Double clutching and clutch brake sections fixed.

As title says, previous descriptions were incorrect. Edit/add info as you see fit.