[grecy]

> a dual clutch is not much faster than a properly-operated manually-clutched gearbox

That's not correct. When the GT-R first came out I read a great article about why it was so damn quick down the 1/4 compared to super cars that are 2-6x more expensive. The reasons were:

1. Most of them dyno at around 480hp AT THE WHEELS. So it's making more power than Nissan claims.

2. It's the first car to get all the electronics (stability control, etc. etc.) good enough to actually make it faster, not just get in the way

3. The dual-clutch gearbox changes were so fast, they did a comparison of how long the GT-R is in neutral during the 1/4 compared to other supercars with regular manual gearboxes. I remember the time difference being in the .4-.8 second range. That was the #1 reason it was so fast - it spends an extra 0.5 seconds actually putting power to the road, which is obviously huge in a ~12 sec 1/4.

[deepblueq]

I suspect that a big limitation in shift speed is often the angular mass of the crankshaft and flywheel - that energy has to go somewhere in an upshift, and doing that quickly on a typical car with wide gearing and a heavy flywheel puts an incredible amount of stress on things. Gear ratios cancel out in the real world, since with close ratios you're also shifting more often.

I would expect something like the GT-R to have much less crank/flywheel angular mass than the average car, as well as beefed up transmission components. Even so, IIRC they had to dial things back a bit because transmissions were blowing up.

DCTs get rid of the delay from matching the input and output shafts of a conventional manual. Very helpful, but not a cure-all. My car (automated manual, non-DCT) spends much more time matching the engine to the input shaft than the input to the output shaft.

[nexox]

You seem to have ignored my "All other things the same" qualifier - that means you have to assume that power, weight (except for the difference between the gearboxes,) suspension, environment, tires, and everything else, is identical for the quoted part of my sentence to apply.

I don't see how your first two points are relevant to what I said, or your original post. You can love the GTR all you want, I don't mind, and I never claimed that there was anything wrong with it.

As for point 3, if you were to compare to a theoretical manual transmission GTR, that half a second of extra power would still only net you a couple tenths advantage, since acceleration and aerodynamic drag are nonlinear.

And I stand by my claim that a couple tenths on a 12 second quarter mile is 'not much faster.'

[grecy]

> I don't see how your first two points are relevant to what I said

They're not, I just wanted to include them for the curious.

> You can love the GTR all you want, I don't mind, and I never claimed that there was anything wrong with it.

It's an amazing car, but it's not like I have one or even want one.

>As for point 3, if you were to compare to a theoretical manual transmission GTR, that half a second of extra power would still only net you a couple tenths advantage, since acceleration and aerodynamic drag are nonlinear. And I stand by my claim that a couple tenths on a 12 second quarter mile is 'not much faster.'

You've never tried to build a 12 second car have you? A couple of tens is HUGE for a well behaved road car with a sound system, air conditioning and creature comforts. You could easily spend tens of thousands on a drag car in an attempt to get that. (I just looked it up, Motor Trend ran an 11.6, which is F-A-S-T)

[sigkill]

> with a sound system, air conditioning and creature comforts

Reminds me of that episode with May saying something on the lines of "We're going at 400kmph... and we've got air-conditioning and radio". Now, that is serious engineering.