Pat Kennet , Instruction manuals , you tube, none of them, Kenny your113 off the road couple days get away to Aberdeen with that 400 ■■■■■■■ eaton twin splitter 
robert1952:
Yes, CF the drawbar fantasy would be good fun. However, above you’ve got me saying all that starting with ‘Or if anyone has a youtube…’ etc. I didn’t say any of that so you’ve misquoted me. I know it’s only a sleight of hand and not deliberate, but please take care with your QUOTE button! Thank you,Robert
Apologies for that I’ve edited it. 
Carryfast:
robert1952:
Yes, CF the drawbar fantasy would be good fun. However, above you’ve got me saying all that starting with ‘Or if anyone has a youtube…’ etc. I didn’t say any of that so you’ve misquoted me. I know it’s only a sleight of hand and not deliberate, but please take care with your QUOTE button! Thank you,Apologies for that I’ve edited it.
No problem old mate! It wasn’t until a few moments ago I realised that they were your own comments 
. Robert
As usual with Carryfast, he highjacks a thread and writes reams of “on paper expert opinion”. His answer to the question, how many twin splitters have you driven? is none!!!
His arguments are shot down by that answer in my opinion. I drove the ERF pictured from 1987 til 1992. Once I got used to the vehicle I only ever used the clutch from a standing start
or when shunting around the yard. Without doubt the fastest change of the splitter was achieved by preselecting the change and then out of gear and back in again as quick as you can. It was foolproof. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and “on paper” evidence is often very relevent but, its no substitute for “hands on experience” in this case. Regards Kevmac47.
kevmac…spot on with the fast gear change
No question, my favourite gearbox. Kev.
kevmac47:
As usual with Carryfast, he highjacks a thread and writes reams of “on paper expert opinion”. His answer to the question, how many twin splitters have you driven? is none!!!
His arguments are shot down by that answer in my opinion. I drove the ERF pictured from 1987 til 1992. Once I got used to the vehicle I only ever used the clutch from a standing start
or when shunting around the yard. Without doubt the fastest change of the splitter was achieved by preselecting the change and then out of gear and back in again as quick as you can. It was foolproof. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, and “on paper” evidence is often very relevent but, its no substitute for “hands on experience” in this case. Regards Kevmac47.0
How did I supposedly ‘hijack’ anything when the discussion had already just taken a sideline regards the use of Fuller boxes ‘generally’ before I’d even commented on it.The Twin Split arguably just being an attempt to fix what wasn’t broke by replacing the range change function of the 13 speed box with a second splitter one instead ?.
‘Generally’ in this case just meaning the widespread and ongoing discussion worldwide,not just here,as to the advantages v disadvantages of clutch braked v floated v double de clutched upshifts.Which obviously has absolutely zb all to do with either the range change function of the 9 speed,or the range change and splitter function of the 13 speed,or the all splitter function of the Twin Split.
kevmac47:
No question, my favourite gearbox. Kev.
But one which for ‘some’ reason became extinct over a relatively short production life v the 9 speed/13 speed and more recently 18 speed. 
Carryfast:
kevmac47:
No question, my favourite gearbox. Kev.But one which for ‘some’ reason became extinct over a relatively short production life v the 9 speed/13 speed and more recently 18 speed.
‘Some’ reason or not, I still maintain that if you knew what you were doing, the Eaton Twinsplitter was the best commercial gearbox ever built, bar none!
Steve
Ste46:
Carryfast:
kevmac47:
No question, my favourite gearbox. Kev.But one which for ‘some’ reason became extinct over a relatively short production life v the 9 speed/13 speed and more recently 18 speed.
‘Some’ reason or not, I still maintain that if you knew what you were doing, the Eaton Twinsplitter was the best commercial gearbox ever built, bar none!
Steve
I completely concur with that 
. The Twin-splitter was a masterpiece of gearbox engineering, and almost indestructible into the bargain. My only proviso, is that I have a personal preference for the 9-speed Fuller, simply because I do like a stick-change for every gearshift - cranky I know, but each to his own! I believe that the modern 18-speed Fuller actually combines the benefits of the 13-speed Fuller and Twin-split in that it is torque-sensitive so that you only have to ease off the throttle to allow pre-selected splits to go through. Robert
The gearbox was bombproof 
, but and i wonder how many CLUTCH plates flywheels were
killed in the name of this Great gear-box -
robert1952:
I believe that the modern 18-speed Fuller actually combines the benefits of the 13-speed Fuller and Twin-split in that it is torque-sensitive so that you only have to ease off the throttle to allow pre-selected splits to go through. Robert
Realistically the idea of torque sensing,as opposed to clutch actuated,split shifts contradicts pre selection in that in many cases there’ll inevitably be the need to adjust accelerator inputs before the pre selected shift is required.While the 18 speed seems to just be a logical progression of providing a splitter function in both the high and low range of the 13 speed.If I was speccing it I’d prefer the 13 or now even better 18 speed over the TS and clutch actuated splitter control.
8LXBV8BRIAN:
The gearbox was bombproof
killed in the name of this Great gear-box
I refer you to my comment - ‘if you knew what you were doing’. The group I worked for had a lot of vehicles so equiped with these boxes. One man from each depot was sent on a course to learn how to drive them. It was then our job to go ‘home’ and teach the others how to use them. Despite this, there was always always going to be SOMEONE - and I have one particular man in mind here - who would NEVER be able to handle a Twinsplitter as long as he had a hole in his a**e!
From my personal experience of over ten years with these boxes, the answer to your question is - NONE!
Steve
Carryfast:
robert1952:
I believe that the modern 18-speed Fuller actually combines the benefits of the 13-speed Fuller and Twin-split in that it is torque-sensitive so that you only have to ease off the throttle to allow pre-selected splits to go through. RobertRealistically the idea of torque sensing,as opposed to clutch actuated,split shifts contradicts pre selection in that in many cases there’ll inevitably be the need to adjust accelerator inputs before the pre selected shift is required.While the 18 speed seems to just be a logical progression of providing a splitter function in both the high and low range of the 13 speed.If I was speccing it I’d prefer the 13 or now even better 18 speed over the TS and clutch actuated splitter control.
Firstly, I’m only talking about immediate pre-selection (ie micro-seconds before changing). Secondly, the Twin-splitter is not clutch actuated anymore than the 13-speed and 18-speeders. Only a few early 13-speeders were actuated via the clutch servo. The rest (that we’re talking about in this discussion) had the type of installation in which the splitter servo was piped directly to the control switch, rather than via the clutch servo. This enabled fast clutch-less split-shifts requiring only a brief break in torque-load by momentarily lifting the accelerator (as with the later Eaton Twin-splitter), as opposed to requiring use of the clutch for every split-shift.
Really, CF, I don’t wish to pull rank or get ideas above my station, but I drove lorries with Twin-splitters to the Arabian Gulf and back so I can back the theory with practice. Robert
robert1952:
Firstly, I’m only talking about immediate pre-selection (ie micro-seconds before changing). Secondly, the Twin-splitter is not clutch actuated anymore than the 13-speed and 18-speeders. Only a few early 13-speeders were actuated via the clutch servo. The rest (that we’re talking about in this discussion) had the type of installation in which the splitter servo was piped directly to the control switch, rather than via the clutch servo. This enabled fast clutch-less split-shifts requiring only a brief break in torque-load by momentarily lifting the accelerator (as with the later Eaton Twin-splitter), as opposed to requiring use of the clutch for every split-shift.Really, CF, I don’t wish to pull rank or get ideas above my station, but I drove lorries with Twin-splitters to the Arabian Gulf and back so I can back the theory with practice. Robert
That’s fair enough Robert.
Firstly I was under the mistaken idea that Fuller offered torque sensing or clutch actuated splitter control as an optional customer choice. 
While I’m obviously just going by a different ( and personally preferable ) definition of ‘pre selection’.In which I’d still suggest,that Fuller’s idea of torque sensing,as opposed to clutch actuated splitter function,is a contradictory flaw,both in regards to real world pre selection requirements,and their own factory instruction for the need to still break the torque input by de clutching between splits. 
Edit to add.This seems to answer the the questions as to clutch brake use and floating gears.On that note,if I’ve read it right,it looks like I’d get on better with the 18 speed at least than either you or Pat Kennet would. 
While I’d guess that there’s no difference in the case of either the 9 speed,13 speed or TS regarding by the book factory instructed driving procedures,as opposed to drivers making up their own ideas,regarding floating gears or using clutch/transmission brakes during upshifts.
Carryfast:
robert1952:
Firstly, I’m only talking about immediate pre-selection (ie micro-seconds before changing). Secondly, the Twin-splitter is not clutch actuated anymore than the 13-speed and 18-speeders. Only a few early 13-speeders were actuated via the clutch servo. The rest (that we’re talking about in this discussion) had the type of installation in which the splitter servo was piped directly to the control switch, rather than via the clutch servo. This enabled fast clutch-less split-shifts requiring only a brief break in torque-load by momentarily lifting the accelerator (as with the later Eaton Twin-splitter), as opposed to requiring use of the clutch for every split-shift.Really, CF, I don’t wish to pull rank or get ideas above my station, but I drove lorries with Twin-splitters to the Arabian Gulf and back so I can back the theory with practice. Robert
That’s fair enough Robert.
Firstly I was under the mistaken idea that Fuller offered torque sensing or clutch actuated splitter control as an optional customer choice.
While I’m obviously just going by a different ( and personally preferable ) definition of ‘pre selection’.In which I’d still suggest,that Fuller’s idea of torque sensing,as opposed to clutch actuated splitter function,is a contradictory flaw,both in regards to real world pre selection requirements,and their own factory instruction for the need to still break the torque input by de clutching between splits.
Edit to add.This seems to answer the the questions as to clutch brake use and floating gears.On that note,if I’ve read it right,it looks like I’d get on better with the 18 speed at least than either you or Pat Kennet would.
OK. Yes, I have a copy of that Fuller instruction manual. However, I would lump the later 13-speed, 18-speed and TS together because their splitter mechanisms behave in the same way from the driver’s point of view; all three of them being torque-sensitive. The 18-speeder is just a slicker, posher 13-speeder with more gears! The 9-speed is a red-herring because it has no splitters. Cheers, Robert
robert1952:
Carryfast:
robert1952:
Firstly, I’m only talking about immediate pre-selection (ie micro-seconds before changing). Secondly, the Twin-splitter is not clutch actuated anymore than the 13-speed and 18-speeders. Only a few early 13-speeders were actuated via the clutch servo. The rest (that we’re talking about in this discussion) had the type of installation in which the splitter servo was piped directly to the control switch, rather than via the clutch servo. This enabled fast clutch-less split-shifts requiring only a brief break in torque-load by momentarily lifting the accelerator (as with the later Eaton Twin-splitter), as opposed to requiring use of the clutch for every split-shift.Really, CF, I don’t wish to pull rank or get ideas above my station, but I drove lorries with Twin-splitters to the Arabian Gulf and back so I can back the theory with practice. Robert
That’s fair enough Robert.
Firstly I was under the mistaken idea that Fuller offered torque sensing or clutch actuated splitter control as an optional customer choice.
While I’m obviously just going by a different ( and personally preferable ) definition of ‘pre selection’.In which I’d still suggest,that Fuller’s idea of torque sensing,as opposed to clutch actuated splitter function,is a contradictory flaw,both in regards to real world pre selection requirements,and their own factory instruction for the need to still break the torque input by de clutching between splits.
Edit to add.This seems to answer the the questions as to clutch brake use and floating gears.On that note,if I’ve read it right,it looks like I’d get on better with the 18 speed at least than either you or Pat Kennet would.
OK. Yes, I have a copy of that Fuller instruction manual. However, I would lump the later 13-speed, 18-speed and TS together because their splitter mechanisms behave in the same way from the driver’s point of view; all three of them being torque-sensitive. The 18-speeder is just a slicker, posher 13-speeder with more gears! The 9-speed is a red-herring because it has no splitters. Cheers, Robert
Well put Robert and as I said before you can still do a quick clutch less upshift with a 9spd without the need of double de clutching in the hands of a competent driver
Cheers, and you’re right there about the 9-speeders, Gaza. Robert
gazsa401:
robert1952:
Carryfast:
robert1952:
Firstly, I’m only talking about immediate pre-selection (ie micro-seconds before changing). Secondly, the Twin-splitter is not clutch actuated anymore than the 13-speed and 18-speeders. Only a few early 13-speeders were actuated via the clutch servo. The rest (that we’re talking about in this discussion) had the type of installation in which the splitter servo was piped directly to the control switch, rather than via the clutch servo. This enabled fast clutch-less split-shifts requiring only a brief break in torque-load by momentarily lifting the accelerator (as with the later Eaton Twin-splitter), as opposed to requiring use of the clutch for every split-shift.Really, CF, I don’t wish to pull rank or get ideas above my station, but I drove lorries with Twin-splitters to the Arabian Gulf and back so I can back the theory with practice. Robert
That’s fair enough Robert.
Firstly I was under the mistaken idea that Fuller offered torque sensing or clutch actuated splitter control as an optional customer choice.
While I’m obviously just going by a different ( and personally preferable ) definition of ‘pre selection’.In which I’d still suggest,that Fuller’s idea of torque sensing,as opposed to clutch actuated splitter function,is a contradictory flaw,both in regards to real world pre selection requirements,and their own factory instruction for the need to still break the torque input by de clutching between splits.
Edit to add.This seems to answer the the questions as to clutch brake use and floating gears.On that note,if I’ve read it right,it looks like I’d get on better with the 18 speed at least than either you or Pat Kennet would.
OK. Yes, I have a copy of that Fuller instruction manual. However, I would lump the later 13-speed, 18-speed and TS together because their splitter mechanisms behave in the same way from the driver’s point of view; all three of them being torque-sensitive. The 18-speeder is just a slicker, posher 13-speeder with more gears! The 9-speed is a red-herring because it has no splitters. Cheers, Robert
Well put Robert and as I said before you can still do a quick clutch less upshift with a 9spd without the need of double de clutching in the hands of a competent driver
I think it would be fair to say that the issue of floating gears or use of clutch/transmission brake for upshifts.As opposed to by the factory instruction book double de clutched shifts and clutch brake use,applies in all cases whether 9 speed,13 speed,TS or 18 speed.The former unarguably being made up flawed logic driver habits which are inconsistent with how ‘it should be done’.IE the torque loadings need to be removed totally by de clutching the transmission during all shift operations.While the clutch/transmission brake isn’t designed to be used to facilitate upshifts.
On that note I don’t see anything in the factory instructions which isn’t totally consistent with how I was instructed to drive Fuller equipped vehicles.Those instructions given to me by factory test drivers who weren’t exactly known for their incompetence.
Which leaves the obvious question of the flaw in Fuller’s splitter actuation in that the factory instruction calls for the clutch to be used between split shifts just as I was taught.But doesn’t use clutch actuation to operate the splitter function.Thereby removing one the main advantages of splitters regarding pre selection ability in addition to a built in inconsistency regarding their own operations advice.
The manufacturers have to cover their backs by giving simple instructions to first-time users. They played it safe by advising clutch use. After all, many first-time users may have come from years of driving with sychro boxes, even back then (there are drivers around who started on Scanias / Volvos in the late '60s and retired never having touched a Fuller gear-stick!). That’s my guess. I suppose it’s even possible that Dr Fuller-Frankenstein devised a monster that was far more brilliant than they’d supposed, only to find that wily British drivers took no time at all to invent two different methods of ‘bunny-hopping’, clutchless gear-changing, mysterious (but true) ‘extra’ gears, and even a notch on some Twin-splitters that enabled them to override the limiter without it showing up on the chart - I kid you not! The Twin-splitter is an immensely clever and complex 'box with enormous scope for imaginative driving. I’m a pretty competent TS user but I know there are drivers on here who could probably teach me a further set of tricks I’d never thought of (Gaza for instance!). Robert