or is it the driver that isnt shifting right? I hear conflicting info on this topic.

 

it depends on which one you have, but really i think its more of a driver error

 

People who cannot shift destroy syncros!! A short shifter simply changes the fulcrum point of the shifter. That change will not effect anything mechanical.

John

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by PrettyLude &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">it depends on which one you have, but really i think its more of a driver error</TD></TR></TABLE>

You kinda contradicted yourself right there...

 

by making the shift throw "quicker" you decrease the amount of time you have to get the clutch fully disengaged.

can someone post the site for the company that makes the Street Track Shifter [or something like that]. it's a shifter that is uber-tall but made to have the same shift ratio as stock. on the site they explain the issues of using a short-throw shifter. pretty interesting, but I forget the URL.

 

driver mess synchros up, not the shifter.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by mmuller &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">drivers mess synchros up, not the shifter.</TD></TR></TABLE>

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by mmuller &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">driver mess synchros up, not the shifter.</TD></TR></TABLE>

so true

 

The tranny itself can only shift so fast internally. Short shifters, when coupled with a driver still wanting to shift as quick as he did with the stock shifter, will wear out the tranny sooner, rather than later.

 

I agree, I think a short shifter will magnify any bad habits a driver has.

 

by making the shift throw "quicker" you decrease the amount of time you have to get the clutch fully disengaged.


yea so speed up your foot and there ya go faster ets
for short shifters

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EE_Chris &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The tranny itself can only shift so fast internally. Short shifters, when coupled with a driver still wanting to shift as quick as he did with the stock shifter, will wear out the tranny sooner, rather than later.</TD></TR></TABLE>

you have no idea how a transmission works do you?

 

Synchro rings act like miniature brakes, matching the selected drive gear (input shaft) speed up or down to match the selected driven gear (output shaft) speed so the gear can be fully engaged before the clutch is disengaged. As the sychro wears and it's braking effect diminishes, so does it's ability to match gear speeds as quickly.

If the sychros are worn, you have 2 choices: replace them or slow your shifting speeds down. If the synchro is really worn, you're really going to have to change your shifting habits. You're either going to either have to adopt a little rev matching or, in the case of a totally wasted first gear synchro, place the shifter in first and depress the clutch before you start the engine (been there, done that!).

Now, if the bozo behind the shifter is too stupid or inexperienced to recognize the "feel" of things mechanical and gets forceful about it, that's when the real damage occurs. Short shifters can be an advantage when rapidly shifting a tranny in excellent condition. Bozos ruin trannies, not short shifters. Short shifters just let bozos ruin worn out trannies faster.


Modified by hybrid2nr at 8:49 AM 11/13/2004

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by krustindumm &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">you have no idea how a transmission works do you? </TD></TR></TABLE>

Do you? Do you see the explanation given above? Short shifters do NOT wear out a transmission - its the idiot attached to it that doesn't understand the mechanics of whats going on.

Why don't you go ahead and enlighten??

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by EE_Chris &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Do you? Do you see the explanation given above? Short shifters do NOT wear out a transmission - its the idiot attached to it that doesn't understand the mechanics of whats going on.

Why don't you go ahead and enlighten??</TD></TR></TABLE>

I do understand, which is the reason for the :thumbsdown: to the person who made a BS reply without understanding. I don't see any need to re-explain because 1fastVX has already done an excellent job.

 

Has anyone thought that maybe Honda designed the throws a certain way for a reason? I dunno, i think short shifters do not help transmissions. Some of these shifters are like a 50% shorter throw compared to stock, so you synchros are working twice as hard. Making something work faster than it is designed to do so is not good. The only way i see a short shifter not killing a trans is if you shift slow, but then what is the point of getting a short shifter.

 

The reason Honda designs the shifters at the length they do is for the average consumer. The same reason the stock suspension is so soft. Your average consumer does not care that the shift throw is 8" as long as it is easy. Changing the fulcrum point decreases throw, and increases effort required.

You can shift just as fast on the stock shifter, but it is much more conveniant to do so with a short shifter.

The synchro wear occurs for the same reason that people break shifters, they suck at driving and don't time the clutch correctly, therefore placing increased stress & wear on all effected components.

-Dustin

 

The bearings can go bad....

 

the tranny doesnt know you have a short throw shifter

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by yaya &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the tranny doesnt know you have a short throw shifter</TD></TR></TABLE>

But the synchros know when you try and engage them via an altered geometry in a shorter amount of time that results in accelerated wear.

Think.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rapid_roy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">But the synchros know when you try and engage them via an altered geometry in a shorter amount of time that results in accelerated wear.

Think.</TD></TR></TABLE>

you could do it in the same time with the stock shifter, your logic sucks.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by krustindumm &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">you could do it in the same time with the stock shifter, your logic sucks.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Then please point out the fallacy of logic I have committed, logic boy.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by krustindumm &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">you could do it in the same time with the stock shifter</TD></TR></TABLE>

I could shift faster if my arm were shorter too.

Neither of those have anything to do with short shifters and their effect on synchros and how quickly they engage.

You making this point also brings up the issue of that in order to not damage synchros with a short shifter you have to shift slower than a stock one.

In mechanical terms it is slower over a shorter distance or faster over a longer one in order for the engagement times to be the same and not cause any premature wear.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by rapid_roy &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">slower over a shorter distance or faster over a longer one </TD></TR></TABLE>

Righto. Shorter doesn't have to mean faster. You can ruin sychros just as easily by slamming around the stock shifter. I'm nice to my trans with my short shifter, most of the time I don't even need the clutch to slip it from gear to gear.

 

Think about the shift lever as just that, a lever. A longer shifter requires a smaller input effort, but a larger travel difference. Likewise, a shorter shifter requires a larger effort to move, but the distance needed to complete the shift is smaller. So to me it is basically a trade off of which you think you like better. As for negative effects on the syncros, I would say shift timing/style would have a greater effect. For example, if you have a stock shifter and you have the habit of not quite fully disengaging the clutch before you start to move the shifter, you may experience increased tranny wear. This is because the distance the stocker needs to travel may take up the "slack" time and allow the clutch to disengage before the next syncro is used. A shift like this will wear the dog teeth on the gear and syncro blocker ring. Now add a short shifter and the same bad shift style. You still have that wear on the first syncro, but if you hammer that shorty from gear to gear, you have the potential to wear two syncros if you get carried away and try to complete a shift before the clutch pedal is depressed (If the grinding isn't enough to tell you you're doing something wrong, you have other probs). As for the tranny itself, it should be able to handle very fast shifts, so long as the right shift technique is used. If you are a really good shifter, the limiting factor becomes the clutch engagement as you can only shift correctly with the clutch fully disengaged. This is where mods such as different sized slave cylinder pistons, throw out bearings and shift forks come into play.