![]() 12/09/2013 at 10:12 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
Have some non-synchronized non-constant mesh helical gears. Those of you who know transmissions know how weird that is.
![]() 12/09/2013 at 10:22 |
|
My Corvair is a lot like that.
![]() 12/09/2013 at 10:27 |
|
Even down to the angled holding spline, I see (keeps in mesh under load).
It's probably not that weird for three-speeds overall, but in the context of anything more modern and dressed up, it gets much weirder.
![]() 12/09/2013 at 10:37 |
|
It's a driving experience that most people would fuck up quickly.
![]() 12/09/2013 at 10:49 |
|
My Landie has a non-synchro first, second, and reverse, but its second gear is constant mesh (engagement via dog clutch) and its reverse and first are straight cut.
This arrangement with a trans:
Only makes sense with a three speed (first and reverse on the same fork - otherwise the holding spline doesn't work)
Only makes sense for a tall first in a weakish car (since otherwise a straight cut first/reverse would make more sense - implies engine isn't hideously strong, and car noise is a priority if first is running at high speeds)
Related - implies a plebian car of the late 30s at the earliest in most cases, really, because an earlier car would have been less likely to be a cheap car *with* noise reduction as a feature.
A relatively cheap car (otherwise, would have more speeds or a synchro)
A car with limited trans space - as a dog clutch even given all the above would make more sense than a slip-in helical for first
——
All in all, this is pretty much an economy three-speed late 30s-early 60s arrangement only.
![]() 12/09/2013 at 14:57 |
|
This is the transmission I had to learn on. It never inspires confidence :(
![]() 12/09/2013 at 15:25 |
|
Can't say I've shifted one myself, but the design effectively grabbing its first and reverse on its own when at the right depth to engage and moving has got to be a trifle uncanny.