Carryfast:
Blimey in which case those old school drivers who told me how to drive the things over 30 years ago were telling me to do it the American by the book way which is obviously still out there to this day. 
On that note I’ll go with clutch/transmission brakes aren’t meant for upshifts,sequential shifts are better by miles than block changes,double de clutch shifts don’t float gears,and last but not least why did Fuller go for that stupid idea of torque sensing splitter actuation when you’re supposed to de clutch it between splits anyway and ‘pre selection’ is supposed to mean what it says.Ironically most of which helped me take to the ZF 12 speed just great. 
- I don’t believe that anyone has ever taught you anything.
- Previous discussions on here have proved that sequential shifts are inferior to block changes.
The latter point was backed up by first-hand evidence from V8Lenny, whose dyno test results showed that the transient response of modern turbodiesels was so poor that, during acceleration, it was faster and more economical to use as much revs as possible and change up as many gears as possible. Of course, the intermediate gears would be used in steady-state conditions, such as climbing hills.
You pretend to be an engineer, yet ignoring or failing to understand the findings of the test house would get you the sack from that job straight away.
dave docwra:
Throw the book away & just learn how your hearing,engine, throttle & box interact to get the best from the set up…
Great just tell Eaton/Fuller that they haven’t got a clue as to how to operate their own transmissions. 
Carryfast:
dave docwra:
Throw the book away & just learn how your hearing,engine, throttle & box interact to get the best from the set up…
Great just tell Eaton/Fuller that they haven’t got a clue as to how to operate their own transmissions.
Carryfast, I drove several lorries with the twin split (all badly) as I’m pretty sure the only way to drive was by the feel of the motor they were attached too. ■■■■■■■ imo never seemed well mated to them, mans much better. Iveco turbo star a bit of in between the both. Can never remember having an eaton/fuller instruction book with any of them… More ■■■■ and it see, you’ll be alright boy, phone when empty…
Probably the same as 99 percent of people on here ?
Tubbysboy:
Carryfast:
dave docwra:
Throw the book away & just learn how your hearing,engine, throttle & box interact to get the best from the set up…
Great just tell Eaton/Fuller that they haven’t got a clue as to how to operate their own transmissions.
Carryfast, I drove several lorries with the twin split (all badly) as I’m pretty sure the only way to drive was by the feel of the motor they were attached too. ■■■■■■■ imo never seemed well mated to them, mans much better. Iveco turbo star a bit of in between the both. Can never remember having an eaton/fuller instruction book with any of them… More ■■■■ and it see, you’ll be alright boy, phone when empty…
Probably the same as 99 percent of people on here ?
At the end of the day if somebody has never used a twin splitter I don’t see how they can comment on them
gazsa401:
Tubbysboy:
Carryfast, I drove several lorries with the twin split (all badly) as I’m pretty sure the only way to drive was by the feel of the motor they were attached too. ■■■■■■■ imo never seemed well mated to them, mans much better. Iveco turbo star a bit of in between the both. Can never remember having an eaton/fuller instruction book with any of them… More ■■■■ and it see, you’ll be alright boy, phone when empty…
Probably the same as 99 percent of people on here ?
At the end of the day if somebody has never used a twin splitter I don’t see how they can comment on them
With the exception of ( arguably pointlessly ) having just replaced the range change function of the box with a second splitter instead what’s the difference between it v a 13 speed Roadranger ?.While the issues in contention regarding floated v double de clutched shifts and ( possibly ) use of transmission brakes to facilitate up shifts for example apply regardless. 
All of which being in reply to Robert’s previous posts which obviously went along similar lines.IE nothing to do with the obvious specific splitter v range change function differences in Roadranger v TS.
Carryfast:
gazsa401:
Tubbysboy:
Carryfast, I drove several lorries with the twin split (all badly) as I’m pretty sure the only way to drive was by the feel of the motor they were attached too. ■■■■■■■ imo never seemed well mated to them, mans much better. Iveco turbo star a bit of in between the both. Can never remember having an eaton/fuller instruction book with any of them… More ■■■■ and it see, you’ll be alright boy, phone when empty…
Probably the same as 99 percent of people on here ?
At the end of the day if somebody has never used a twin splitter I don’t see how they can comment on them
With the exception of ( arguably pointlessly ) having just replaced the range change function of the box with a second splitter instead what’s the difference between it v a 13 speed Roadranger ?.While the issues in contention regarding floated v double de clutched shifts and ( possibly ) use of transmission brakes to facilitate up shifts for example apply regardless. All of which being in reply to Robert’s previous posts which obviously went along similar lines.IE nothing to do with the obvious specific splitter v range change function differences in Roadranger v TS.
Carryfast, no idea, sure someone will know… But I know I could make a 9/13 speed sing, mated to whatever engine. Whereas the twin split used to annoy me on a daily basis. Mainly at roundabouts…
Perhaps I should have read the instruction manual??
Having said that when I needed me old strato to ■■■■ pass a scania/volvo uphill I managed to work the twin split quit well… Funny that hey?
Carryfast:
Great just tell Eaton/Fuller that they haven’t got a clue as to how to operate their own transmissions.
They design, market & build them & write books what probably get thrown out of the cab or used to scribble directions on, most people who used them in my opinion, took a little while to adjust to them, but once they had learnt the best way for them to use they were a great box to work with, I had a 301 SA with this box and it was probably one of the best vehicles I had for gear choice, the right gear was always available for all circumstance.
Tubbysboy:
Carryfast:
With the exception of ( arguably pointlessly ) having just replaced the range change function of the box with a second splitter instead what’s the difference between it v a 13 speed Roadranger ?.While the issues in contention regarding floated v double de clutched shifts and ( possibly ) use of transmission brakes to facilitate up shifts for example apply regardless. All of which being in reply to Robert’s previous posts which obviously went along similar lines.IE nothing to do with the obvious specific splitter v range change function differences in Roadranger v TS.
Carryfast, no idea, sure someone will know… But I know I could make a 9/13 speed sing, mated to whatever engine. Whereas the twin split used to annoy me on a daily basis. Mainly at roundabouts…
Perhaps I should have read the instruction manual??
Having said that when I needed me old strato to ■■■■ pass a scania/volvo uphill I managed to work the twin split quit well… Funny that hey?
Firstly bearing in mind that the TS seems to arguably have been a pointless attempt to replace the range change function of the 13 speed with a second splitter instead.Also it’s splitter to all intents and purposes was not pre selectable by any real sense of the word.It isn’t surprising that the thing seems to have been a short lived idea that turned the reasonably acceptable 13 speed,into a marmite type product.The effectively non pre selectable splitter function arguably being the worst aspect of the 13 speed which the TS then doubled up on while throwing away the range change. 
In addition to the obvious confusion in having a lot more splitter controlled gears to find than those ‘on the stick’.On that note I’m glad that my time was spent with the ZF 12 speed in the 2800 which I liked and not the TS in whatever which I’m sure I would have hated.
None of which is relevant to the issues in contention concerning Robert’s previous posts which,he himself previously stated,arguably apply generically,regardless of whether it’s Roadranger or TS.
I can’t see how pre-selection is relevant to this debate. I have always considered it poor practice to pre-select long before the next gear:
a) because you may forget you have pre-selected it;
b) because circumstances may change, wrong-footing you into a hashed gear change because suddenly you need to change down instead of up; and
c) because on many transmissions it wore out parts.
A good driver, surely, selects his next gear when he is ready to make the change. Or am missing something? And in any case you can preselect in of the 'boxes we’ve mentioned, though it might not be very good for them. Robert
Spot on Robert, I was going to post a similar comment but decided not too in the end as I would only be proved wrong by someone! How many of us have been idly playing with the splitter switch while driving along and then momentarily forgotten which range it was in before we touched the blooming thing? 
It takes a millisecond to flick the switch before you need the split, we are not dealing with grand prix cars where that millisecond makes a difference are we!
Pete.
robert1952:
I can’t see how pre-selection is relevant to this debate. I have always considered it poor practice to pre-select long before the next gear:
a) because you may forget you have pre-selected it;
b) because circumstances may change, wrong-footing you into a hashed gear change because suddenly you need to change down instead of up; and
c) because on many transmissions it wore out parts.
A good driver, surely, selects his next gear when he is ready to make the change. Or am missing something? And in any case you can preselect in of the 'boxes we’ve mentioned, though it might not be very good for them. Robert
It all makes more sense if you’re going by a logic of sequential shifts and the idea that whatever split it is in will usually be the opposite for the following gear whether it’s an upshift or a downshift.On that basis you only need to remember to then change the splitter at the time of the shift ‘if’ you want to skip an up shift split or not split the gears as part of a block change downshift ( forget that with the ZF no chance ).In which case how can pre selection hash a downshift or an upshift.When whether up or down will be the opposite split to the one it is in. 
On that note,as I said,how can you pre select the split with an accelerator/torque sensing actuation in which any accelerator input changes will command the split without ZF type clutch interlock and actuation.
Hit me again Robert, I can still hear him!
John
Blimey me Dr. Carryfast
You are hard work for a Sunday night mate… Who the hell can actually remember that well splitting gears or ranges ? When this gearbox was related to old lorries about, at the least, 15 year ago…
Did you ever have a go in a lorry fitted with one ?
Tubbysboy:
Blimey me Dr. Carryfast
Did you ever have a go in a lorry fitted with one ?
With more splits than positions on the stick and which can’t be pre selected,luckily no.
Imo the twin splitter works the best with the 14 litre NT s
You could preselect a split on a TS, the change never went through until you lifted off. Same as a 13spd that hasn’t been piped through the clutch.
The Volvo I shift for one uses the inertia brake or engine brake to get a fast up shift, all that electronic trickery and it’s no faster than bunny hopping a split with a TS or even flooring the clutch.
I used to block change or skip shift with a TS, I would start in 1 intermediate, then 2 low, 2 high, 3 low, 3 high and use all three splits in 4th, coming down it depended on the terrain, load, traffic etc, but coming down any number of gears was just a matter of matching rpm to road speed for the chosen gear, pretty much what I do with my 13spd on a daily basis.
