Dual disk clutch does not shift slower than a single.

In fact, the gas engine RPM centrifugal force is greater with a stock clutch than a diesel engine with a dual disk clutch.

Centrifugal (or more accurately, centripetal) is the radial force from the center or a rotating object, like a swinging a bolt around on the end of a string, centripetal force is the tension in the line. That has nothing to do with speed of shifting. Its the inertia of a rotating object we are dealing with.
 
Thanks for the clarification!

Additionally, the diaphragm-style DD does not release 100% like the stock DM clutch... since installed (with new hydro & pedal properly adjusted), the 3250 moves the truck an inch or two every time you put the G56 in gear, pedal to the floor.

Unquestionably, that drag is increasing the synchros' workload (and thus shift duration).
 
Centrifugal (or more accurately, centripetal) is the radial force from the center or a rotating object, like a swinging a bolt around on the end of a string, centripetal force is the tension in the line. That has nothing to do with speed of shifting. Its the inertia of a rotating object we are dealing with.


Okay, I'll take a big slice of humble pie here for a second and see if we can calculate this out correctly.. The last time I sat in a physics class was at least 8 or 9 years ago, and I am no math wiz. I don't want to even touch centripetal vs centrifugal force... I do remember that much from my last class. :D


But, I think we both are wrong.


Wouldn't we want to compare the kinetic energy to determine the amount of (negative) work required to bring the body to rest?



Assuming I've thought that out correctly, and assuming this calculator is correct (I'm not doing all that math by hand.) Don't we end up with the same scenario?

Flywheel Energy Storage Calculator - Kinetic Energy, Inertia, Centrifugal Force, Surface Speed


I know the numbers don't reflect the actual clutch numbers 100%. But, just figure a mass of 100, diameter of 13, and the various RPMs. Then, double the mass and compare (adding a dual disk clutch in the equation).

stock3250.jpg


stock5250.jpg


dualdisk3250.jpg



So it still takes more work to slow a stock clutch from 5250rpm than a dual disk at 3250rpm... Which, even though I chose the wrong force to measure, still gives us the same answer as if we had calculated centrifugal force..

Thoughts?
 
So it still takes more work to slow a stock clutch from 5250rpm than a dual disk at 3250rpm... Which, even though I chose the wrong force to measure, still gives us the same answer as if we had calculated centrifugal force..

Thoughts?

No, it appears you are directly comparing the stored kinetic energy to one another. We are interested in how much work it requires to slow it down (which is based upon the inertia of the clutch) which is determined by the mass and the location of this mass from the axis it is spinning on.

Up to this point some weights of these clutches has been thrown around, however more importantly is how far the weight is from the spinning axis.

The main difference between a single disk and a dual disk is the addition of one clutch plate (not alot of mass), one floater disk (a decent amount of mass from center out to the edge), and the flywheel now has a huge addition of mass around the outside diameter. I'd bet the inertia of a dual disk is 4 times as large as that of a single disk (even if it only weighs twice as much)...
 
No, it appears you are directly comparing the stored kinetic energy to one another. We are interested in how much work it requires to slow it down (which is based upon the inertia of the clutch) which is determined by the mass and the location of this mass from the axis it is spinning on.

Up to this point some weights of these clutches has been thrown around, however more importantly is how far the weight is from the spinning axis.

The main difference between a single disk and a dual disk is the addition of one clutch plate (not alot of mass), one floater disk (a decent amount of mass from center out to the edge), and the flywheel now has a huge addition of mass around the outside diameter. I'd bet the inertia of a dual disk is 4 times as large as that of a single disk (even if it only weighs twice as much)...


The flywheel and floater plate move independent of the clutches (assuming the clutch is functioning correctly).

What formula should we use to compare the 2? I want to actually see/do the math. :)
 
The flywheel and floater plate move independent of the clutches (assuming the clutch is functioning correctly).

What formula should we use to compare the 2? I want to actually see/do the math. :)

Whoops, I goofed that one up. :bang So it's just the mass of an additional clutch disk, so inertia is roughly double. You need to determine the work required to slow down the mass from X rpm to Y rpm accounting for the inertia of the object. I had Physics too long ago to remember the formula, but I'm sure some searching will find it.
 
Whoops, I goofed that one up. :bang

LOL, don't worry about that.. Looks like I've been goofing up for 7 pages. I mean, if you're going to screw up, may as well do it big in a public area, right? ;)


So it's just the mass of an additional clutch disk, so inertia is roughly double. You need to determine the work required to slow down the mass from X rpm to Y rpm accounting for the inertia of the object. I had Physics too long ago to remember the formula, but I'm sure some searching will find it.

Sounds good to me. That is kind of what I'm getting at in all of these calculations.. No matter what we are measuring (centrifugal force, kinetic energy, inertia) I want to compare:

Stock clutch @ 3250 RPM
Stock clutch @ 5250 RPM
Dual Disk (double the weight of the stock clutch roughly) @ 3250 RPM

Then I want to see if whatever we are measuring (whatever force) is more at 5250 rpm (stock) than 3250 rpm with double the weight (double weight being a dual disk)

Is it PERFECT? Not really. Just want to make the comparison.
 
Right out of the physics book "the net work done by external forces in rotating a symmetrical rigid object about a fixed axis equals the change in the object's rotational energy".

So it appears if you wanted to compare the work required to stop the spinning clutch from your listed rpms above, it would be equal to the kinetic energy that was listed (as you stated).

Some more info out of the book...

W = 0.5*I*(w)^2 - 0.5*I*(wo)^2

I = 0.5*Mass*R^2 (this is for a solid disk)

w = angular speed (final)

wo = angular speed (start)

You will have to calculate the angular speeds for two different rpms levels like a 3rd to 4th gear shift in a 6 speed. This will be different for your two examples (the gasser higher rpm example will have more of an rpm difference between the shift).

However you should be able to get some real numbers from this. Have fun...
 
our single plate with flywheel weigh's 103 lbs our 13 inch dual disc weigh's 120 lbs.
 
Right out of the physics book "the net work done by external forces in rotating a symmetrical rigid object about a fixed axis equals the change in the object's rotational energy".

So it appears if you wanted to compare the work required to stop the spinning clutch from your listed rpms above, it would be equal to the kinetic energy that was listed (as you stated).

That's what I'm thinking.. I'm going to see if Tate agrees or not. He seems to be a little more versed in physics than I am. I'm not doing all of those hand calculations for nothing! :hehe:

I actually thought about this all the way to Seattle and back. The only thing I could come up with was kinetic energy. I don't know what else would work.. Like I said above, I think we both where looking at the wrong forces.. Centrifugal force proves the point, but it IS the wrong force.


Some more info out of the book...

W = 0.5*I*(w)^2 - 0.5*I*(wo)^2

I = 0.5*Mass*R^2 (this is for a solid disk)

w = angular speed (final)

wo = angular speed (start)

You will have to calculate the angular speeds for two different rpms levels like a 3rd to 4th gear shift in a 6 speed. This will be different for your two examples (the gasser higher rpm example will have more of an rpm difference between the shift).

However you should be able to get some real numbers from this. Have fun...


That’s another point all together! The gas engine needs to drop a significant more RPMs than the diesel engine.. Which, in theory, should take even more energy. (or time).

I was more concerned with how much energy the clutch was carrying at the different RPM levels, but that could even prove the point further. In every example that I've compared the different forces (whether it is centrifugal or kinetic energy) the gas engine at high rpm is significantly more than the diesel with dual disk at lower rpm.



What really boggles my mind is why no one with the gas engines says it causes slower shifts. If we didn't have the high RPM gas engines to use as a comparison in our diesel world, the math says they should shift slower (more force, whichever force you are measuring). But, that just doesn't seem to be the case. I still can't find any other motorsport that makes the claim. Weird.
 
The flywheel and floater plate move independent of the clutches (assuming the clutch is functioning correctly).

What formula should we use to compare the 2? I want to actually see/do the math. :)


Not really, you now need to factor in if the motor will take longer to slow down in rpm once you let off the throttle due to a heavier flywheel. ;-)... how's that for a monkey wrench.
 
our single plate with flywheel weigh's 103 lbs our 13 inch dual disc weigh's 120 lbs.

Can you measure the disk for the single disk and the 2 disks for the double (assuming they are different disks...)

That's what they need as well.
 
That’s another point all together! The gas engine needs to drop a significant more RPMs than the diesel engine.. Which, in theory, should take even more energy. (or time).

I was more concerned with how much energy the clutch was carrying at the different RPM levels, but that could even prove the point further. In every example that I've compared the different forces (whether it is centrifugal or kinetic energy) the gas engine at high rpm is significantly more than the diesel with dual disk at lower rpm.


Why would the gas motor drop more rpm then the diesel for the same trans changing between the same gears? the "difference" will be the same. the actual RPM that it changes between will be different (higher).

1:1 to a .73:1 (5th to 6th) I think drops 900rpm. in a gasser or diesel it will drop the same 900rpm. In a diesel. 3200 to 2300. in a gasser 6000 to 5100.
 
Why would the gas motor drop more rpm then the diesel for the same trans changing between the same gears? the "difference" will be the same. the actual RPM that it changes between will be different (higher).

1:1 to a .73:1 (5th to 6th) I think drops 900rpm. in a gasser or diesel it will drop the same 900rpm. In a diesel. 3200 to 2300. in a gasser 6000 to 5100.

You're right! I just flat let me fingers get ahead of my brain on that one.


Not really, you now need to factor in if the motor will take longer to slow down in rpm once you let off the throttle due to a heavier flywheel. ;-)... how's that for a monkey wrench.

Yeah I've always wondered about that.. Why isn't a light flywheel offered by any of the clutch manufactorers? It would probably be "race only," but if that makes a difference in shift speed (gas engine guys sure seem to think so!) you think there would be an example of it in the Diesel world. Strange that no one offers it.

I could also see an increase in drivetrain shock. It would be like letting the clutch out at 2000rpm instead of 1750rpm.. Would have to be harder on stuff. Shift slower? Yeah, maybe. But if you're dumping the clutch out, I don't know how much slower. Should try shifting various transmissions without letting the RPM fall at all (keeping your foot on the fuel).. That would be an interesting comparison!!
 
Can you measure the disk for the single disk and the 2 disks for the double (assuming they are different disks...)

That's what they need as well.

YES!!!

Please.

That would be fantastic. It would be a HUGE help.
 
IF YOU HAVE TIME... Can you also do stock flywheel weight, your single, and your dual?

I know you have a business to run... Just more numbers for my wild imagination. ;)
 
Why would the gas motor drop more rpm then the diesel for the same trans changing between the same gears? the "difference" will be the same. the actual RPM that it changes between will be different (higher).

1:1 to a .73:1 (5th to 6th) I think drops 900rpm. in a gasser or diesel it will drop the same 900rpm. In a diesel. 3200 to 2300. in a gasser 6000 to 5100.

The gear ratio difference would be the same, however the rpms dropped would be different based upon what rpm you shift at.

Let's say you are cruising at a low 1400 rpm in 5th gear and you shift to 6th, your rpms drop to 1022 (using your ratio numbers above). However the same shift at 3200 from 5th to 6th would drop to 3200*.73= 2336. And at 6000 rpm it would drop to 6000*.73 = 4380.
 
If you thought the plane on the treadmill was bad.. Wait till we dive into this.

The following is entirely my opinion. Feel free to disagree, but I would love an educated explanation with data as a response. If you’ve got a claim otherwise, back it up.

Little background on this post: I’ve been reading for a while that a dual disk clutch will cause your transmission to shift slower than a regular single disk clutch. When I first heard this, I decided to take it at face value and go with it. However, when I decided to purchase my first dual disk clutch, it became a large concern.

Unable to find an explanation as to why a dual disk clutch would shift slower, I let the issue drop and installed a Haisley Street Drag.

A funny thing happened though: I noticed 0, and I mean zip, zero, nadda, difference in shift speed. Why is that?

So, I started to question the folks that claimed a dual disk would shift slower. I wanted specific answers, backed by data. At worse, I got the typical “it just does.” At best, I folks theorized that the increased inertia from added material (and weight) would cause slower shifting. The real question is… Does it?

I figured I could probably gather a little information from google about slow shifting dual disk clutches. Problem is, we diesel folks seem to be the only ones that complain about slower shifting. Most forums and magazines praise the dual disk as a great, yet expensive, upgrade to your vehicle. Lower pedal pressure with higher holding power. But, in all of my searches, I’ve yet to find a non-diesel example of slower shifting after installing a dual disk clutch.

Let me google that for you

There are also examples of high-performance OEM vehicles coming with a dual disk clutch. Most noticeably, the Honda NSX was offered with a dual disk from 1991-1996. These cars redline at over 8,000rpm. This is an important fact that I will get to later, but just keep it noted for now. The goal of the dual disk clutch was to “improve clutch engagement and smoothness.” No mention of slower shifting or reduced 0-60 / ¼ mile times because of it:

Wikimedia Error


I guess it boils down to this: “what changes during a dual disk clutch install, and why would folks believe their transmissions shifted slower after?”

Most folks probably get how a manual transmission works. I love this site for pictures and descriptions of what’s going on:

HowStuffWorks "Fly Wheels, Clutch Plates and Friction"

So in stock form, a single pressure plate pushes a single clutch disk against a single flywheel.
In the dual disk clutch, we are adding an additional clutch disk and a floater plate. Does the pressure plate FUNCTION change in any way? No. It functions exactly the same as a single disk clutch.

So, if we have 2 pressure plates, and they are both rated at 3000 pound plate load, what is the difference between them? Nothing!

Is there a difference if the pressure plate is pushing on 1 clutch disk, or 2 (and a floater plate)? No. We have just doubled the amount of clutch material. Does this increase weight? YES. And THAT is where the changes are occurring.

The flywheel and floater plate are spinning at exactly the same speed. On the Haisley, the float plate was bolted to the flywheel. On the south bend, the floater plate sits inside large grooves cut in the outside rim of the flywheel. In either case, the flywheel and floater plate cannot move independent of each other (if they are, something broke).

The clutch disks are splined to the transmission input shaft. Once again, they cannot spin independent of each other, unless the splines break.

So on a single disk, the pressure plate pushes against the clutch, which pushes against the flywheel. Pretty simple.

Dual disk, the pressure plate pushes against the clutch, which pushes against the floater plate, which pushes against the second clutch, which pushes against the flywheel. Floater plate and flywheel are moving at exactly the same speed (on the Haisley it is bolted in place, on the South Bend the grooves hold it) Clutches are moving at exactly the same speed (splined to the transmission input shaft). There is no change in function.

There are 3 changes we are dealing with:
1: Pressure
2: Material
3: Weight


Lets start with pressure:

Increased clamping force from the pressure plate generally translates to increased pedal pressure. The function is identical, the “feel” is not, whether it is a single disk or a dual disk. Increased pressure plate clamping force causes 2 issues:

1, more “work” for the hydraulics (ie, higher pressures exerted back to the master cylinder.. This is why we blow out the stock hydraulics. They are asked to hold more pressure than originally designed).
2, more “work” for our leg. Once again, on either a single disk or a dual disk clutch, increased clamping force will generally increase pedal pressure. The manufacturers say so right on their websites, usually describing it as “slight increase over stock.”
Do either of these 2 increases in work explain “slower shifting?” No!

Let just step away from clutches for a second and compare it to anything else in life.

Lets say we have a machine that requires we push a lever with our legs. The travel distance is exactly the same for every person (we will say, 8 inches), but you can very the weight required to push the lever. I can push 2 pounds in 1 second. Bob can push 2.5 pounds in 1 second. Jim can push 2.2 pounds in 1 second. Frank can push 3 pounds in 1 second.

Which of us is pushing the machine the fastest? None of us (or all of us). It is exactly the same. You see, the machine does not care that we increased pressure. It functions exactly the same. 1 second is 1 second is 1 second.. No matter if it is 1 pound or 100.

The clutch is no different, (unless you believe you can push the clutch so hard that the hydraulic fluid changes properties depending on how much pressure is exerted against it from the pressure plate…) The clutch travel distance does not change (engagement points may, but we will cover that later also.) It does not matter, whether you are using a single disk, a dual disk, a quadruple disk: the travel distance of the clutch pedal does not change. The question is, can you push the clutch pedal to the floor? Yes. If you can push it to the floor, can you push it at the same speed every time? What if we increase the workload required to push the pedal to the floor. What does it change? Only the amount of pressure required to depress the clutch pedal. Distance does not change.

So, if you can press the clutch pedal to the floor in exactly 1 second with 2 pounds of pressure pushing against your foot, are you moving any slower if you can push 2.5 pounds of pressure to the floor in exactly 1 second? No. Does it take an increase in energy? Yes. The increase is in your muscles. You are asking them to do more work at the same speed. Is that humanly possible? At the weights we are dealing with when it comes to pedal pressure, you damn well better believe it is. So knowing that the hydraulic fluid is a constantly, that the distance the fluid travels is a constant, that the distance the pedal travels is a constant, and the speed at which the pedal travels is a constant.. Is there any difference between a single disk and a dual disk? No. There cannot be.

2: Material.

Can material change how fast a clutch shifts? Yes! Does it make a big enough difference that we are going to notice? Doubtful. Now, I’m not speaking for any of the clutch manufacturers here. But, I’m going to theorize. Here is my theory: the 12cb dual disk clutch from South Bend uses different material than the 6cb clutch. I’m also betting the old Haisley Street Drag 6cb dual disk used a different material than their new one. Can this change how “fast” the clutch shifts.. Minimal, minimal amounts. How? A grabbier material clutch is going to shift “quicker” than an organic (or not as grabby) material clutch. It has nothing to do with pressure plate speeds (as described above) or weight (as described later) and everything to do with slip. Or, more correctly, LACK of slip. A clutch with extremely grabby material will slip less than one with more forgiving material. My frustrations with the old street drag was that it allowed almost no slip from a stop. So, knowing that the pressure plate is moving at exactly the same speed, and the clutches, and the flywheel, and the floater plate, regardless of whether it is a single disk clutch or a dual disk, all move at the same damn speed.. How can material change how fast a clutch shifts? It will grab SOONER. When you pop the pressure plate, and it slams against the clutches, they will grab sooner on the floater plate, pressure plate, and flywheel. If we have 2 different materials, A and B. A slips for 2” on the flywheel. B slips for 3”. A is a faster shifting material. Does that end the debate? Unfortunately, not really…

Well damn it, why not? I just said that A shifts faster than B.. That should be the end of the story… and maybe it is. Maybe there are folks out there that are so concerned with 10ths of hundredths of seconds that they will just end the debate there and move on. Professional drag racers (or bench racers). But the truth is, we have friction in another area that can demonstrate if the clutch is catching soon enough.. Tires. If you are breaking traction between shifts (or chirping), the clutch is catching soon enough and with enough force that friction is now lost between the tires and ground… So lets be perfectly honest with ourselves.. How much difference is there in shift times?

Once again, we are NOT talking about how long it took to change gears.. We are only talking about the difference in time between when you released the clutch (pressure plate) to when it fully seated and stopped slipping. So, is an aggressive dual disk that catches within 3” slower shifting than a soft material single disk that catches in 5”? Nope. So, does the fact that the clutch is a dual disk make it take longer to shift? No. The factor is MATERIAL, not the amount of disks in the clutch, and it has nothing to do with how quick you change gears.

Can we make a blanket statement of “dual disk clutches shift slower than single disk clutches?” Absolutely not. We can only say that depending on the material used in the clutch, shift speeds may very, REGARDLESS of whether is it a single disk of dual disk. How much? Fractions, fractions of a second. Going even further than that, we generally WANT a little slip between gears for various reasons.. An entire thread, all together.


That leaves us with 1, single, final variable that could make a dual disk shift slower than a single.

Weight.

Where is the weight increased? On the engine side, the flywheel weight is increased (by bolting a floater plate to it, or allowing it to ride in grooves on the flywheel). On the transmission side, the clutch weight is increased (by adding an entire additional clutch).

Could this finally be what causes the transmission to shift slower? At face value, the answer seems to be “yes.” Why? Pretty simple: you are putting additional load on the transmission synchros by adding weight. (You could, in theory, also make it more difficult for the engine to reduce engine speed due to the increased weight in the flywheel, which could make it more difficult to match engine speed to gear ratio in your shifting. I’m not going to bother with the math involved in that theory, but I’m willing to bet it is minimal at best.. Much like I’ll show the additional clutch is minimal, at best.)

Lets start with how additional weight could cause the transmission to shift slower (at least in theory).

Since your foot is moving at the same speed, the hydraulics are moving at the same speed, and clutch material doesn’t become a factor until you are in gear and releasing the pressure plate against the clutch… The only other factor of how a dual disk clutch could shift slower is if you are unable to move your hand into the next gear at the same speed. That is the true “shifting speed.”

I wanted to do this with the nv5600, but I can’t find a gas engine application. So I’m going to use the nv4500 instead.

Assuming you can move your hand at the same speed before you installed the manual transmission, the only factor in gear selection speed should be if the synchros can handle the additional weight and allow you to change gears at the same speed as before. They are functioning in the exact same way, but are required to do more work with the added weight.

So, if the synchros are capable of handling the increased work load, they will function in the same way, correct? Much like if you push 2.5 pounds at exactly the same speed as 2 pounds, you are not moving any quicker or slower.

How do we know if they are capable of handling the additional weight? Measure the centrifugal force, compare how much additional force the second clutch adds, and see if there is a real life example of the synchros managing more force than what the additional clutch generates.

Check out this handy calculator to show exactly what I’m talking about:

CalcTool: Centrifugal force calculator

We are using made-up numbers since I do not have the exact numbers available.. It makes little difference in the demonstration though. Watch:

13” radius (approx size of clutch), Speed 3200 rpm (engine/transmission speed), weight 5 pounds (approx the weight of a clutch disk) = 18905.3 lbf.

These are not exact numbers, but they don’t need to be for the demonstration here. You’re clutch is exerting18905.4 lbf at 3200rpm.. Or, when many are shifting. That means that the synchros need to deal with 18905.4 lbf in stock form. Can they handle that? Yes.

Lets double the weight, just like a dual disk clutch: 13” radius, 3200 rpm, 10 pounds weight = 37810.6. Pretty darn significant change, right? Well.. Lets think about this for a moment.

The NV4500 has many gas engine applications. Same transmission, but 1 huge difference.. RPM baby!

Lets plug all of our numbers in for a GAS engine this time.

13” radius, 5200 rpm, 5 pounds weight… …. …. …. … = 50886.5 lbf.

Whoa doggy! Big difference.

Think the engineers thought this one over when they designed the transmission? You bet your sweet ass they did. The synchros aren’t even breaking a sweat at our RPM levels, even with a big, heavy, dual disk clutch. The biggest issue you may encounter by going with a dual disk clutch is increased bearing and synchro wear from the increase in weight. However, the synchros are more than capable of handling those loads… They were engineered to do so from the factory!


So what is the only plausible explanation for a dual disk clutch “shifting slower” than a single?







It’s called the Placebo Effect, and only us diesel heads seem to experience it.

I’ve got tough skin, so all you nay sayers, let’s hear why I’m wrong. :Cheer: :Cheer:





Damn, all that only to be dead wrong.

Increase the rotating mass attatched to the input shaft to the tranny can only net you a longer shift, or harder shift.

I've got two trucks here almost identical, one with a double disk, and the other stock, almost every hand that drives it asks "whats wrong with the clutch", with out a doubt it shifts slower, and you notice it when you swap trucks.
 
Damn, all that only to be dead wrong.

Increase the rotating mass attatched to the input shaft to the tranny can only net you a longer shift, or harder shift.

I've got two trucks here almost identical, one with a double disk, and the other stock, almost every hand that drives it asks "whats wrong with the clutch", with out a doubt it shifts slower, and you notice it when you swap trucks.

Sounds like you skipped the kinetic energy portion. Oh well.

Say, since that is such universal knowledge.. Can you get me a few non diesel examples? Another motorsport where an increase in rotating mass (from installing a dual disk clutch) on the transmission caused longer, harder shifts?

While we are on rotating mass in the drivetrain.. Did anyone who went from a single disk to a dual disk notice a reduction in their 1/4 mile speeds, or an increase (slower) 1/4 mile times? Just curious about this, also. :)
 
The gear ratio difference would be the same, however the rpms dropped would be different based upon what rpm you shift at.

Let's say you are cruising at a low 1400 rpm in 5th gear and you shift to 6th, your rpms drop to 1022 (using your ratio numbers above). However the same shift at 3200 from 5th to 6th would drop to 3200*.73= 2336. And at 6000 rpm it would drop to 6000*.73 = 4380.

your right. I'm wrong.. I need to stop thinking at the end of the day so much ;-)

1st gear is 1:1
2nd gear is .73

3200rpm
Top Speed in 1 gear = 83.484 MPH
And changes into 2 gear at 2336 RPM dropping 864 RPM
Top Speed in 2 gear = 114.361 MPH

6400rpm
Top Speed in 1 gear = 166.967 MPH
And changes into 2 gear at 4672 RPM dropping 1728 RPM
Top Speed in 2 gear = 228.722 MPH
 
Back
Top