Punchy Dan:
0
Imo the twin splitter works the best with the 14 litre NT s
You would say that. 
My choice would be an E.R.F. with a R/R-Perkins 400/420 with the T/S was a match made in heaven, mind the
14ltr ■■■■■■■ was a very close 2nd the R/R-Perkins was just that little bit more crisp than the ■■■■■■■■ 
-
Yes have driven the eagle 410 too very nice not noisey or rattling like the ■■■■■■■ .
The twinsplitter was a brilliant gearbox i had one with a 320 ■■■■■■■ and loved it. After getting used to it i could do anything with it .never read a book on it or any technical data. just drove it changed the oil and worked it but what do I know
More than carry fast does anyway !
I drove a Kamakazi ■■■■■■■■ Hino for a while which had a TS in it, once I had worked out the gear positions & stopped playing tunes with it (no manual in the cab), it turned out they started next to your leg and worked away from you, it was not a bad motor & it pulled like train.
i drove a SA 301 drawbar with a ■■■■■■■ in it & it was brilliant with the TS in it, I would have liked to have tried one bolted to the back of a Rolls Royce.
Carryfast:
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.
Sequential shifting for the sake of it is pointless and often downright dangerous. If US drivers aren’t credited with the intelligence to block/skip shift upon the approach to unexpected hazards, sharp upward hairpins and the like, then at least credit those of us on here with the wit and experience to have done it successfully for years. Get to the top of a mountain pass in Turkey, Morocco, Greece or wherever; what do you do if you’ve only got an exhaust brake (or not even that)? You change down fistfuls of gears NOT sequentially, and descend on tip-toe. Robert
John West:
Hit me again Robert, I can still hear him!John
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
…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.They obviously taught me enough to know that ‘block changes’ only refer to downshifts.
As for ‘skip shifting’ up shifts…
Semantics- the inevitable last resort of the habitual liar.
so after all that ,carryfast has never driven one?
What’s the well known saying "those who can do and those who can’t teach "
atkiman:
so after all that ,carryfast has never driven one?
Correct 
. I’ve got to the stage where I’d be tempted to pay for him drive an artic with a TS, fully-freighted at 44-tonnes, through the Medway towns from end to end, just to gain a concept of the beast we are referring to! Sigh.
Did you say teach, or preach, atkiman? Robert
robert1952:
Sequential shifting for the sake of it is pointless and often downright dangerous. If US drivers aren’t credited with the intelligence to block/skip shift upon the approach to unexpected hazards, sharp upward hairpins and the like, then at least credit those of us on here with the wit and experience to have done it successfully for years. Get to the top of a mountain pass in Turkey, Morocco, Greece or wherever; what do you do if you’ve only got an exhaust brake (or not even that)? You change down fistfuls of gears NOT sequentially, and descend on tip-toe. Robert
I don’t think I was describing sequential downshifts ‘for the sake of it’.I actually said the idea of pre selecting splits on that basis isn’t mutually exclusive with skip shifting and block changes as and when required.Although having said that there’s more chance of missing a gear having tried to go through ‘fistfuls of gears’ up or down because road speed engine speed matching errors increase over wider steps in ratio changes.In which case I’d reverse your comment by saying block changing and skip shifting,where it can be avoided,is not only less mechanically sympathetic it could also result in missing a gear just when you need it.
The idea in that case being it’s preferable to arrive at the top of that descent in the right gear having used more close ratio downshift steps to reach it rather than late reaction braking and a possibly missed block change to match.While on that note assuming it’s got to be that shift up or down through ‘fistfuls of gears’ then no one is going to want to end up in a high split anyway so the low split would be selected either before or when making the shift up or down in that case anyway.
The point being that none of those examples are mutually exclusive with the ZF type clutch actuated,therefore pre selectable,splitter function.As opposed to the Fuller idea of torque sensing,therefore non pre selectable,splitter.Although having said that the Fuller is definitely more forgiving regards engine and road speed matching thereby making skip shifting and block changes a lot easier.Unlike the 12 speed ZF.The result obviously then being the diabolical synchro eco split.
robert1952:
atkiman:
so after all that ,carryfast has never driven one?Correct
Did you say teach, or preach, atkiman?
Blimey I think I’ve made it clear enough that I’ve got ‘the concept’ without having driven or wanting to drive the thing.Which is why I can fully understand why Eaton ditched it in favour of the 18 speed. 
Which still leaves the original point that I was actually referring to regarding floating gears and ( possibly ) use of clutch/trans brakes for up shifts which applies to Fuller’s generically from 9 speed to TS and 18 speed.Although the question of whether the TS was fitted with a third different type of trans brake designed for that purpose,remains.Although that also seems like a pointless solution in trying to use a trans brake to do the job of synchromesh on a constant mesh box in order to deal with the issue of road speed and engine speed mismatch.
I’m going to bed
Carryfast:
robert1952:
Sequential shifting for the sake of it is pointless and often downright dangerous. If US drivers aren’t credited with the intelligence to block/skip shift upon the approach to unexpected hazards, sharp upward hairpins and the like, then at least credit those of us on here with the wit and experience to have done it successfully for years. Get to the top of a mountain pass in Turkey, Morocco, Greece or wherever; what do you do if you’ve only got an exhaust brake (or not even that)? You change down fistfuls of gears NOT sequentially, and descend on tip-toe. RobertI don’t think I was describing sequential downshifts ‘for the sake of it’.I actually said the idea of pre selecting splits on that basis isn’t mutually exclusive with skip shifting and block changes as and when required.Although having said that there’s more chance of missing a gear having tried to go through ‘fistfuls of gears’ up or down because road speed engine speed matching errors increase over wider steps in ratio changes.In which case I’d reverse your comment by saying block changing and skip shifting,where it can be avoided,is not only less mechanically sympathetic it could also result in missing a gear just when you need it.
The idea in that case being it’s preferable to arrive at the top of that descent in the right gear having used more close ratio downshift steps to reach it rather than late reaction braking and a possibly missed block change to match.While on that note assuming it’s got to be that shift up or down through ‘fistfuls of gears’ then no one is going to want to end up in a high split anyway so the low split would be selected either before or when making the shift up or down in that case anyway.
The point being that none of those examples are mutually exclusive with the ZF type clutch actuated,therefore pre selectable,splitter function.As opposed to the Fuller idea of torque sensing,therefore non pre selectable,splitter.Although having said that the Fuller is definitely more forgiving regards engine and road speed matching thereby making skip shifting and block changes a lot easier.Unlike the 12 speed ZF.The result obviously then being the diabolical synchro eco split.
I’m glad to see that you weren’t doggedly championing sequential shifting for the sake of it - I just got that impression from your post (along with similar posts you’ve made elsewhere on the forum). You are quite right in supposing that ‘fistfuls of gears’ would only be appropriate when encountering unexpected hazards; and of course one would approach expected hazards with a combination of braking, secondary braking (engine/exhaust) and skip-changing down through the 'box. I’m sure we agree on that. And you are right about the preference for low split for whole changes in those circumstances, but this is not an issue with the Twin-splitter because you can always be in exactly the gear you want to be in for any given circumstance.
You are still assuming that the Fuller/Eaton 'boxes are not pre-selectable. Both Newmercman and I have emphasised that they ARE pre-selectable in recent hours. I simply referred to it as bad practise, not impossible practise. You said: with the ZF type clutch actuated,therefore pre selectable,splitter function. The actuation has nothing to do with whether the splits are pre-selectable or not, for precisely the reasons that Newmercman gave. The Twin-splitter is not everyone’s cup of tea, but it was far too clever a piece of engineering to dismiss out of hand (lest you were thinking of doing so! ). Robert
Carryfast:
robert1952:
atkiman:
so after all that ,carryfast has never driven one?Correct
Did you say teach, or preach, atkiman?
Blimey I think I’ve made it clear enough that I’ve got ‘the concept’ without having driven or wanting to drive the thing.Which is why I can fully understand why Eaton ditched it in favour of the 18 speed.
Which still leaves the original point that I was actually referring to regarding floating gears and ( possibly ) use of clutch/trans brakes for up shifts which applies to Fuller’s generically from 9 speed to TS and 18 speed.Although the question of whether the TS was fitted with a third different type of trans brake designed for that purpose,remains.Although that also seems like a pointless solution in trying to use a trans brake to do the job of synchromesh on a constant mesh box in order to deal with the issue of road speed and engine speed mismatch.
Eaton didn’t ‘ditch’ the TS in favour of the 18-speed, CF . Indeed, they were produced alongside each other. The Twin-splitter was a UK thing with limited use on the Continent. The TS was a late-comer (early '80s from what I remember), but the synchro revolution had already set in and new-generation drivers didn’t want constant-mesh 'boxes of any kind 
. By the late '90s the Twin-splitter had bitten dust quite simply because it failed Euro-3 decibel levels, as I described earlier in the thread. The 18-speeder took off in the States and Antipodes as a natural modern successor to the faithful 13-speeder. Robert
atkiman:
I’m going to bed
I’ve just got up again to finish the task! Robert
dave docwra:
I drove a Kamakazi ■■■■■■■■ Hino for a while which had a TS in it, once I had worked out the gear positions & stopped playing tunes with it (no manual in the cab), it turned out they started next to your leg and worked away from you, it was not a bad motor & it pulled like train.i drove a SA 301 drawbar with a ■■■■■■■ in it & it was brilliant with the TS in it, I would have liked to have tried one bolted to the back of a Rolls Royce.
A Rolls Royce Silver Wraith with a Twin-splitter: now that’d be some car, Dave 
. Robert
robert1952:
You are still assuming that the Fuller/Eaton 'boxes are not pre-selectable. Both Newmercman and I have emphasised that they ARE pre-selectable in recent hours. I simply referred to it as bad practise, not impossible practise. You said: with the ZF type clutch actuated,therefore pre selectable,splitter function. The actuation has nothing to do with whether the splits are pre-selectable or not, for precisely the reasons that Newmercman gave. The Twin-splitter is not everyone’s cup of tea, but it was far too clever a piece of engineering to dismiss out of hand (lest you were thinking of doing so!
I still don’t get how it’s possible to provide for pre selection of splits ‘unless’ it’s using the ZF type clutch interlock and actuation.
IE in the case of Fuller’s torque sensing idea,like the ZF,the split function is set by the switch.But,unlike the ZF,is then actuated by accelerator movement and resulting torque change,which will obviously inevitably take place before a pre selected split is required so effectively makes pre selection impossible.Which is why it’s ‘bad practice’ in the case of the Fuller but it’s correct practice in the case of the ZF.
The idea of torque sensing splitter actuation seeming even more stupid in the case of the Fuller bearing in mind that they correctly still instruct use of the clutch between split shifts anyway. 
robert1952:
Eaton didn’t ‘ditch’ the TS in favour of the 18-speed, CF
Thanks for correcting that Robert.But the fact remains wherever and whenever Fullers were marketed worldwide to this day it was the 13 speed and 18 speed Roadranger which won out over the TS on the basis of natural selection.On that note personally I think that any box in which splitter function outweighs what’s ‘on the stick’ makes no sense.IE splitter means what it says split the gears available on the stick by two and any more than that and it all gets confusing.Hence the 18 speed and 13 speed are still around but no one really wanted the TS.