FatKao

You did it for torque because it conveniently omitted that you were increasing the throw "distance" in fancy physics terms. I called you out on your bullshit example since you lengthened the throw to come up with your lower numbers. Since you seem to need things to be spelled out for you so you can't use your crappy "Go learn physics" canned response. Work = force * distance and in this scenario is a constant on BOTH sides of the lever. The shift forks always need to be moved some constant amount with some constant force. (I'm intentionally making this the ideal case as friction on the fulcrum WILL change depending on how much mechanical advantage you are expecting)

Just in case you aren't keeping track. Here are the questions I asked you that you never answered. Because you are completely full of $hit in everything you say and really just a terrible Hustler troll that was likely too stupid to stay unbanned with their first account.


Here was the only time you gave some real numbers. Here you outright state you will "effectivly shorten throw" which is completely 100% false. If I need to divide two pairs of numbers to prove it to you I will. I'll do it anyway since providing basic math as a proof of intelligence seems important to you somehow. 12/2 > 8/3. Longer throw on the cockpit side if the transmission side stays constant.

You then quoted someone who could form a coherent thought and agreed with it. Even though it directly contradicted your previous statement.

Then another patented Boost Joose claim you know nothing while being wrong. And I showed my work above since you were too stupid to divide 4 numbers yourself. I'm still waiting to here where you would use trig here. Mechanical advantage is taught to elementary school children, no trig needed son.

You claimed "A shorter throw" and provided the math for force showing a reduced force. To break it down for the slower less mathematically inclined among us (Boost Joose). If you multiply two numbers together (Force and Distance) to come up with a third number (Work) and reduce both Force and Distance the product of them will also decrease. So yes, you claimed a reduction in total work. (Given a constant work needed on the transmission side of the lever)


Now I've shown my work yours. Show yours or shut the fu.ck up.

Boost Joose

Dude, you are totally cluless. Work is a measuremet of energy. Were working with force and torque(around the fulcrum point). You also, are not worth my time. Shut it down.

Last, it would be great if you could simply use ratios to show the exact ratio of throw legenth but there's a lot more to it than that. If there was any ratio that could be close to being relevant it would be the ratio of the bottom shaft shortened to the top legenthened. Ex:

8/12 and 2/3 which would show the throw would be exactly the same while lessening the effort. Now if you made the bottom 1.9 the throw would be shorter. This also is not a perfect calculation and I will not show you how to do it. *** off

FatKao

You're so wrong it's funny. Your mother clearly told you that you were special far too often.

Also, another no content post that doesn't address ANY of the falsehoods in your other posts.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

TheDriver

iTrader: (2)

FWIW, Boost Joose is, for the most part correct here. I'm not getting involved in the argument and I am a mechanical engineer.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

How is adding leverage/force/work going to make a car "shift better"? Its very simple in that if you have a problem where you cannot find a gear or can't get a gear to engage smoothly, shifting the fulcrum point is not going to help you find that gear, stop a grind, or reduce friction. It will only make it easier to bend and break things inside the trans. If your car doesn't go into gear, with the stock shifter (in good working order), its not going into gear with a $300 shift kit.

hustler

iTrader: (6)

If you put a plan on a treadmill, will it take off?

Seefo

iTrader: (5)

You are being silly here, Torque is rotational force. While I am not a mechanical engineer, I think its probably an inadequate or incorrect application here. We are not trying to rotate the shifter.

Anyways, I think this has turned into a ---- fight, so I will let James and Trey deal with ya

Bond

iTrader: (6)

I am a ME, you are all wrong. None of you gays have been double clutching like you should!

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

Fail ^
The force required to push the transmission internals remains the same whatever shifter you got in there. Hell you can take off the transmission shifter in general stick your dick in there and shift like that... the force required will remain the same.

The higher the fulcrum point is the LESS force is applied on the other end therefore you need to apply more force with your hand to make up for that force.

You have a foot long shifter..

Example one (standard shifter)

Top part (hand to fulcrum) is 10"(.254m), bottom part is 2"(.05m)
You apply 50N force at top with your hand,
so thats 50x.254 = 12.7M
at the bottom you have
12.7M/.05=254N
so thats 254N applied on the tranny internals.

2nd example is short shifter.
Shifter is still 12" (.3m) long total
Top part (hand to fulcrum) is 8"(.2m), bottom part is 4"(.1m).
You apply 50N force at the top with your hand.
So thats 50x.2=10M
at the bottom you have
10M/.1=100N
so thats only 100N applied to the tranny internals with the short shifter therefore you have to press harder with your hand on a short shifter to get the same force.

Let me draw a picture so your dumbass would understand.

Boost Joose

lol....this is so fukt I dont even know what to say.

First...WTF is "M"? All i could find.....
http://www.convertit.com/go/converti...s.asp?letter=m

Edit:
Actually, nevermind please dont respond because I'm sure it wont be any better than the BS above.

Boost Joose

See whats circled in red....there is where the moment is and where there is torque. Hope this helps.

Seefo

iTrader: (5)

Thats why you are wrong. You are calculating at the fulcrum, not at the little ball where all the shifting is done

hustler

iTrader: (6)

lol. Now this thread is done. Any parting words, douche nozzle?

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

Example one (standard shifter)
Top part (hand to fulcrum) is 10"(.254m), bottom part is 2"(.05m)
You apply 50N force at top with your hand,
so thats 50x.254 = 12.7M
at the bottom you have
12.7M/.05=254N
so thats 254N applied on the tranny internals.

2nd example is short shifter.
Shifter is still 12" (.3m) long total
Top part (hand to fulcrum) is 8"(.2m), bottom part is 4"(.1m).
You apply 50N force at the top with your hand.
So thats 50x.2=10M
at the bottom you have
10M/.1=100N
so thats only 100N applied to the tranny internals with the short shifter therefore you have to press harder with your hand on a short shifter to get the same force.


M stands for momentum but seeing that you're a c student i understand if u don't know it.

Let me draw a picture so your dumbass would understand.


No Track hes right to that point.. You calculate the force to the fulcrum and then you calculate to the last point...

Boost Joose

ful·crum/ˈfo͝olkrəm/Noun: 1.The point on which a lever rests or is supported

The little ball is the fulcrum

hustler

iTrader: (6)

----, I'm owned again!!!

Running the peanut gallery is tough work, but someone has to do it.

triple88a

iTrader: (2)

You might want to get your money back from that fancy school of yours..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

Seefo

iTrader: (5)

hustler

iTrader: (6)

Clearly, moving the fulcrum "higher" requires more force for gear selection...so it still won't ease shifting notchiness, it won't widen the gate, and it can't possibly improve feel in any way unless you address friction at the fulcrum or in teh transmission innards.