newmercman:
Use the clutch in a constant mesh Eaton-Fuller No…
Maybe if you’ve got plenty of time and you don’t mind risking wrecking the trans but if not and if you want a fast change then using the clutch is best.
I could have said Oh yes it is But don’t forget the OP does’nt seem to have ever used one before so he’ll be lucky to get it right with the clutch let alone without it for a while .But on the subject of fast changes I don’t think that I’ve ever seen anyone doing clutchless changes going up the box with a fuller very often with a Detroit Two Stroke on youtube or anywhere else.
Although I think this one’s got a clutch brake though which saves on the workload a bit.
BigJon:
From experience I can say that clutchless shifting is far faster than double clutching, and a lot less tiring on your left foot
BUT you have to get the timing just right to not use the clutch, otherwise you will be making some odd sounding tunes.
I have found that if I am tired, I have trouble getting the timing just right, and at that point its probably best that you go home
I’m not sure on this but clutchless shifting would fail the yank CDL licence test ? and it certainly would have done ours when double de clutching was expected on test and with some of the gear linkage systems on Brit cab overs,like the old Bedford TM with a Detroit in it,instead of yank direct into the box type on their conventionals,you’d probably be going home a lot earlier in the shift here than you would over there. .But with the ZF constant mesh box in the DAF 2800 you would’nt even have got 5 minutes up the road without using the clutch .
BigJon:
From experience I can say that clutchless shifting is far faster than double clutching, and a lot less tiring on your left foot
BUT you have to get the timing just right to not use the clutch, otherwise you will be making some odd sounding tunes.
I have found that if I am tired, I have trouble getting the timing just right, and at that point its probably best that you go home
I’m not sure on this but clutchless shifting would fail the yank CDL licence test ? and it certainly would have done ours when double de clutching was expected on test and with some of the gear linkage systems on Brit cab overs,like the old Bedford TM with a Detroit in it,instead of yank direct into the box type on their conventionals,you’d probably be going home a lot earlier in the shift here than you would over there. .But with the ZF constant mesh box in the DAF 2800 you would’nt even have got 5 minutes up the road without using the clutch .
But you could in a DAF2800 fitted with a Fuller or Eaton.
BigJon:
From experience I can say that clutchless shifting is far faster than double clutching, and a lot less tiring on your left foot
BUT you have to get the timing just right to not use the clutch, otherwise you will be making some odd sounding tunes.
I have found that if I am tired, I have trouble getting the timing just right, and at that point its probably best that you go home
I’m not sure on this but clutchless shifting would fail the yank CDL licence test ? and it certainly would have done ours when double de clutching was expected on test and with some of the gear linkage systems on Brit cab overs,like the old Bedford TM with a Detroit in it,instead of yank direct into the box type on their conventionals,you’d probably be going home a lot earlier in the shift here than you would over there. .But with the ZF constant mesh box in the DAF 2800 you would’nt even have got 5 minutes up the road without using the clutch .
But you could in a DAF2800 fitted with a Fuller or Eaton.
I used those in the ATI’s and like the Detroit TM’s and the Foden gritter/ploughs I drove using the clutch seemed to be best.The best,and fastest,clutchless changes which I can remember was with the old Leyland Clydesdale box although I’d still bet that I could make them just as fast with that,or the TM,by double de clutching,as that example of the clutchless changes made on that Detroit shown in the video.
matt2489:
I’m now not driving the truck until last week - it is a ERF ES8, with a single splitter, I’m guessing that this is a Fuller box then ?
I have never driven or been shown how to drive using a gearbox like this, but am happy to give it a go and master the art needed !
Thanks for all the advice, which I am trying to take in. I’ll keep you all posted to how I go on.
As far as I recall, the ES8, thats the steel Steyr cab with a ■■■■■■■ C series 8.3 litre engine, usually at 275bhp, came with the Eaton synchro 9 speed as standard or with a 9 speed ZF as an option. So I doubt that this truck left Sandbach with a crashbox; unless the original buyer specified it differently, always a possibility with ERF.
And it is possible that in the intervening decade, especially with the Eaton synchro not being their most reliable idea that somebody has changed it.
Carryfast:
By the way in the old days some/most instructors wanted to see you block change going down the box when slowing down instead of changing down one gear at a time sequentially .
Eh? Me thinks you’ve got that the wrong way about.
In the very old days when brakes were crap (remember that 40mph single carriageway limit?) the way to drive was to change down gear by gear to get engine braking to assist the brakes.
Nowadays (like the last 20+ years) we have powerfull brakes that work. Block changing is the norm & is expected on test.
Gears are for going, brakes are for slowing.
But there was a time like when I did my tests 30 and 26 years ago when the zb’s were starting to bring in those new ideas of using the brakes because it was supposedly cheaper to wear them out instead of using the gearbox to help slow the thing down and we were trained that way at that time even though we still used good old fashioned drum brakes and ‘proper’ fuller boxes amongst others.I can also remember using that block changing method to keep the instructors happy but using the sequential one on test.Passed both first time.Block changing might be the norm and expected on test these days but hopefully if the OP really is driving a ‘proper’ box he’ll forget what he was taught and downshift through the gears one at a time if the box is to survive .
Ha another cynic!
The engine has a lot more pulling power than braking power. If it can get it up to x speed id can help get it back down.
When I first started to drive I used my engine/box for slowing down to save my brakes for stopping, and my clutch once, to get moving.
I gave up watching people take my old Bedford out of the yard as my nerves couldn’t stand it, and hoped that it would come back.
Carryfast:
By the way in the old days some/most instructors wanted to see you block change going down the box when slowing down instead of changing down one gear at a time sequentially .
Eh? Me thinks you’ve got that the wrong way about.
In the very old days when brakes were crap (remember that 40mph single carriageway limit?) the way to drive was to change down gear by gear to get engine braking to assist the brakes.
Nowadays (like the last 20+ years) we have powerfull brakes that work. Block changing is the norm & is expected on test.
Gears are for going, brakes are for slowing.
But there was a time like when I did my tests 30 and 26 years ago when the zb’s were starting to bring in those new ideas of using the brakes because it was supposedly cheaper to wear them out instead of using the gearbox to help slow the thing down and we were trained that way at that time even though we still used good old fashioned drum brakes and ‘proper’ fuller boxes amongst others.I can also remember using that block changing method to keep the instructors happy but using the sequential one on test.Passed both first time.Block changing might be the norm and expected on test these days but hopefully if the OP really is driving a ‘proper’ box he’ll forget what he was taught and downshift through the gears one at a time if the box is to survive .
Ha another cynic!
The engine has a lot more pulling power than braking power. If it can get it up to x speed id can help get it back down.
When I first started to drive I used my engine/box for slowing down to save my brakes for stopping, and my clutch once, to get moving.
I gave up watching people take my old Bedford out of the yard as my nerves couldn’t stand it, and hoped that it would come back.
The pros and cons of using engine braking versus just brakes to slow a truck have also been discussed on other topics/threads and I’ve always said that it’s wrong to rely on just the brakes.But in this context it’s the idea of block changing that I was trying to point out as being one of the bad by products of that ,because it’s much easier on the transmission,and for matching road and engine speeds,with a constant mesh box,to downshift it sequentially in small close ratio steps instead of downshifting from a much relatively higher gear straight into a relatively much lower gear.But I’m not sure wether you meant using the clutch just to get moving as in the context of the clutchless change argument or not?.But from what I can make out I think that driving by the (American) book,with a good old fashioned yank box,is exactly my idea and I’d probably prefer to do their test,if I was starting to drive now,than ours.
Carryfast:
By the way in the old days some/most instructors wanted to see you block change going down the box when slowing down instead of changing down one gear at a time sequentially .
Eh? Me thinks you’ve got that the wrong way about.
In the very old days when brakes were crap (remember that 40mph single carriageway limit?) the way to drive was to change down gear by gear to get engine braking to assist the brakes.
Nowadays (like the last 20+ years) we have powerfull brakes that work. Block changing is the norm & is expected on test.
Gears are for going, brakes are for slowing.
But there was a time like when I did my tests 30 and 26 years ago when the zb’s were starting to bring in those new ideas of using the brakes because it was supposedly cheaper to wear them out instead of using the gearbox to help slow the thing down and we were trained that way at that time even though we still used good old fashioned drum brakes and ‘proper’ fuller boxes amongst others.I can also remember using that block changing method to keep the instructors happy but using the sequential one on test.Passed both first time.Block changing might be the norm and expected on test these days but hopefully if the OP really is driving a ‘proper’ box he’ll forget what he was taught and downshift through the gears one at a time if the box is to survive .
Ha another cynic!
The engine has a lot more pulling power than braking power. If it can get it up to x speed id can help get it back down.
When I first started to drive I used my engine/box for slowing down to save my brakes for stopping, and my clutch once, to get moving.
I gave up watching people take my old Bedford out of the yard as my nerves couldn’t stand it, and hoped that it would come back.
The pros and cons of using engine braking versus just brakes to slow a truck have also been discussed on other topics/threads and I’ve always said that it’s wrong to rely on just the brakes.But in this context it’s the idea of block changing that I was trying to point out as being one of the bad by products of that ,because it’s much easier on the transmission,and for matching road and engine speeds,with a constant mesh box,to downshift it sequentially in small close ratio steps instead of downshifting from a much relatively higher gear straight into a relatively much lower gear.But I’m not sure wether you meant using the clutch just to get moving as in the context of the clutchless change argument or not?.But from what I can make out I think that driving by the (American) book,with a good old fashioned yank box,is exactly my idea and I’d probably prefer to do their test,if I was starting to drive now,than ours.
To be honest
I find block changes, both up and down, useful at times. Even on the old Eaton Fullers. Especially when empty.
I would also spec a truck with a 16 speed zf if I bought another one, unless I was only going to drive it myself. Then I would spec it with the old 13 speed Fuller if they still made it.
Carryfast:
By the way in the old days some/most instructors wanted to see you block change going down the box when slowing down instead of changing down one gear at a time sequentially .
Eh? Me thinks you’ve got that the wrong way about.
In the very old days when brakes were crap (remember that 40mph single carriageway limit?) the way to drive was to change down gear by gear to get engine braking to assist the brakes.
Nowadays (like the last 20+ years) we have powerfull brakes that work. Block changing is the norm & is expected on test.
Gears are for going, brakes are for slowing.
But there was a time like when I did my tests 30 and 26 years ago when the zb’s were starting to bring in those new ideas of using the brakes because it was supposedly cheaper to wear them out instead of using the gearbox to help slow the thing down and we were trained that way at that time even though we still used good old fashioned drum brakes and ‘proper’ fuller boxes amongst others.I can also remember using that block changing method to keep the instructors happy but using the sequential one on test.Passed both first time.Block changing might be the norm and expected on test these days but hopefully if the OP really is driving a ‘proper’ box he’ll forget what he was taught and downshift through the gears one at a time if the box is to survive .
Ha another cynic!
The engine has a lot more pulling power than braking power. If it can get it up to x speed id can help get it back down.
When I first started to drive I used my engine/box for slowing down to save my brakes for stopping, and my clutch once, to get moving.
I gave up watching people take my old Bedford out of the yard as my nerves couldn’t stand it, and hoped that it would come back.
The pros and cons of using engine braking versus just brakes to slow a truck have also been discussed on other topics/threads and I’ve always said that it’s wrong to rely on just the brakes.But in this context it’s the idea of block changing that I was trying to point out as being one of the bad by products of that ,because it’s much easier on the transmission,and for matching road and engine speeds,with a constant mesh box,to downshift it sequentially in small close ratio steps instead of downshifting from a much relatively higher gear straight into a relatively much lower gear.But I’m not sure wether you meant using the clutch just to get moving as in the context of the clutchless change argument or not?.But from what I can make out I think that driving by the (American) book,with a good old fashioned yank box,is exactly my idea and I’d probably prefer to do their test,if I was starting to drive now,than ours.
To be honest
I find block changes, both up and down, useful at times. Even on the old Eaton Fullers. Especially when empty.
I would also spec a truck with a 16 speed zf if I bought another one, unless I was only going to drive it myself. Then I would spec it with the old 13 speed Fuller if they still made it.
That’s one of the reasons why a yank truck is an even more preferable idea now because they still mainly use the old Fuller boxes in them and even better they seem to have an option with the splitter on both the low range and the high range making it an 18 speed box.But block changing just seems to defeat the object of having a multi/close ratio box in that you’re just using it like a typical old wide ratio box found on the old Brit heaps from the 1950’s etc.Downshifting those was effectively like block changing with a 13 speed fuller in that you had to brake the thing down to a much lower road speed before you could get the next gear down and I can remember plenty of times in the days when Gardner powered heaps with six speeds in them were still around often at worst either ran out of road speed before the driver could even get the next gear up because of the age it took for the revs to fall far enough for the next gear up or at best caused plenty of gear clashing bringing new meaning and sound to the term ‘constant mesh’.Although having said that I managed ok as a new driver when I was given an AEC Matador to drive on the council a few times after being more used to Bedford TM’s with a Detroit and a Fuller in them .But speccing a truck with one of those heavy,slow shifting,zb synchro 16 speed things,like I had in the Merc 2534,for someone else to drive,when you know that a 13 speed Fuller is better,seems like the type of thinking which is dumbing down the job,and the drivers,on this side of the Atlantic.
Carryfast:
By the way in the old days some/most instructors wanted to see you block change going down the box when slowing down instead of changing down one gear at a time sequentially .
Eh? Me thinks you’ve got that the wrong way about.
In the very old days when brakes were crap (remember that 40mph single carriageway limit?) the way to drive was to change down gear by gear to get engine braking to assist the brakes.
Nowadays (like the last 20+ years) we have powerfull brakes that work. Block changing is the norm & is expected on test.
Gears are for going, brakes are for slowing.
But there was a time like when I did my tests 30 and 26 years ago when the zb’s were starting to bring in those new ideas of using the brakes because it was supposedly cheaper to wear them out instead of using the gearbox to help slow the thing down and we were trained that way at that time even though we still used good old fashioned drum brakes and ‘proper’ fuller boxes amongst others.I can also remember using that block changing method to keep the instructors happy but using the sequential one on test.Passed both first time.Block changing might be the norm and expected on test these days but hopefully if the OP really is driving a ‘proper’ box he’ll forget what he was taught and downshift through the gears one at a time if the box is to survive .
Ha another cynic!
The engine has a lot more pulling power than braking power. If it can get it up to x speed id can help get it back down.
When I first started to drive I used my engine/box for slowing down to save my brakes for stopping, and my clutch once, to get moving.
I gave up watching people take my old Bedford out of the yard as my nerves couldn’t stand it, and hoped that it would come back.
The pros and cons of using engine braking versus just brakes to slow a truck have also been discussed on other topics/threads and I’ve always said that it’s wrong to rely on just the brakes.But in this context it’s the idea of block changing that I was trying to point out as being one of the bad by products of that ,because it’s much easier on the transmission,and for matching road and engine speeds,with a constant mesh box,to downshift it sequentially in small close ratio steps instead of downshifting from a much relatively higher gear straight into a relatively much lower gear.But I’m not sure wether you meant using the clutch just to get moving as in the context of the clutchless change argument or not?.But from what I can make out I think that driving by the (American) book,with a good old fashioned yank box,is exactly my idea and I’d probably prefer to do their test,if I was starting to drive now,than ours.
To be honest
I find block changes, both up and down, useful at times. Even on the old Eaton Fullers. Especially when empty.
I would also spec a truck with a 16 speed zf if I bought another one, unless I was only going to drive it myself. Then I would spec it with the old 13 speed Fuller if they still made it.
That’s one of the reasons why a yank truck is an even more preferable idea now because they still mainly use the old Fuller boxes in them and even better they seem to have an option with the splitter on both the low range and the high range making it an 18 speed box.But block changing just seems to defeat the object of having a multi/close ratio box in that you’re just using it like a typical old wide ratio box found on the old Brit heaps from the 1950’s etc.Downshifting those was effectively like block changing with a 13 speed fuller in that you had to brake the thing down to a much lower road speed before you could get the next gear down and I can remember plenty of times in the days when Gardner powered heaps with six speeds in them were still around often at worst either ran out of road speed before the driver could even get the next gear up because of the age it took for the revs to fall far enough for the next gear up or at best caused plenty of gear clashing bringing new meaning and sound to the term ‘constant mesh’.Although having said that I managed ok as a new driver when I was given an AEC Matador to drive on the council a few times after being more used to Bedford TM’s with a Detroit and a Fuller in them .But speccing a truck with one of those heavy,slow shifting,zb synchro 16 speed ecosplits,like I had in the Merc 2534,for someone else to drive,when you know that a 13 speed Fuller is better,seems like the type of thinking which is dumbing down the job,and the drivers,on this side of the Atlantic.
To be fair i think most drivers would get the hang of a fuller after a few hours driving whereas a twinsplitter could make grown men cry and apparantly the old zf crash boxes could be hard ones to drive.
But i suppouse a fuller would have to be forgiving as it was invented for a nation of inbreds who cant even use a knife and fork. Anyone who has sat oppisite an american for dinner will know where im coming from.
Carryfast:
By the way in the old days some/most instructors wanted to see you block change going down the box when slowing down instead of changing down one gear at a time sequentially .
Eh? Me thinks you’ve got that the wrong way about.
In the very old days when brakes were crap (remember that 40mph single carriageway limit?) the way to drive was to change down gear by gear to get engine braking to assist the brakes.
Nowadays (like the last 20+ years) we have powerfull brakes that work. Block changing is the norm & is expected on test.
Gears are for going, brakes are for slowing.
But there was a time like when I did my tests 30 and 26 years ago when the zb’s were starting to bring in those new ideas of using the brakes because it was supposedly cheaper to wear them out instead of using the gearbox to help slow the thing down and we were trained that way at that time even though we still used good old fashioned drum brakes and ‘proper’ fuller boxes amongst others.I can also remember using that block changing method to keep the instructors happy but using the sequential one on test.Passed both first time.Block changing might be the norm and expected on test these days but hopefully if the OP really is driving a ‘proper’ box he’ll forget what he was taught and downshift through the gears one at a time if the box is to survive .
Ha another cynic!
The engine has a lot more pulling power than braking power. If it can get it up to x speed id can help get it back down.
When I first started to drive I used my engine/box for slowing down to save my brakes for stopping, and my clutch once, to get moving.
I gave up watching people take my old Bedford out of the yard as my nerves couldn’t stand it, and hoped that it would come back.
The pros and cons of using engine braking versus just brakes to slow a truck have also been discussed on other topics/threads and I’ve always said that it’s wrong to rely on just the brakes.But in this context it’s the idea of block changing that I was trying to point out as being one of the bad by products of that ,because it’s much easier on the transmission,and for matching road and engine speeds,with a constant mesh box,to downshift it sequentially in small close ratio steps instead of downshifting from a much relatively higher gear straight into a relatively much lower gear.But I’m not sure wether you meant using the clutch just to get moving as in the context of the clutchless change argument or not?.But from what I can make out I think that driving by the (American) book,with a good old fashioned yank box,is exactly my idea and I’d probably prefer to do their test,if I was starting to drive now,than ours.
To be honest
I find block changes, both up and down, useful at times. Even on the old Eaton Fullers. Especially when empty.
I would also spec a truck with a 16 speed zf if I bought another one, unless I was only going to drive it myself. Then I would spec it with the old 13 speed Fuller if they still made it.
That’s one of the reasons why a yank truck is an even more preferable idea now because they still mainly use the old Fuller boxes in them and even better they seem to have an option with the splitter on both the low range and the high range making it an 18 speed box.But block changing just seems to defeat the object of having a multi/close ratio box in that you’re just using it like a typical old wide ratio box found on the old Brit heaps from the 1950’s etc.Downshifting those was effectively like block changing with a 13 speed fuller in that you had to brake the thing down to a much lower road speed before you could get the next gear down and I can remember plenty of times in the days when Gardner powered heaps with six speeds in them were still around often at worst either ran out of road speed before the driver could even get the next gear up because of the age it took for the revs to fall far enough for the next gear up or at best caused plenty of gear clashing bringing new meaning and sound to the term ‘constant mesh’.Although having said that I managed ok as a new driver when I was given an AEC Matador to drive on the council a few times after being more used to Bedford TM’s with a Detroit and a Fuller in them .But speccing a truck with one of those heavy,slow shifting,zb synchro 16 speed ecosplits,like I had in the Merc 2534,for someone else to drive,when you know that a 13 speed Fuller is better,seems like the type of thinking which is dumbing down the job,and the drivers,on this side of the Atlantic.
To be fair i think most drivers would get the hang of a fuller after a few hours driving whereas a twinsplitter could make grown men cry and apparantly the old zf crash boxes could be hard ones to drive.
But i suppouse a fuller would have to be forgiving as it was invented for a nation of inbreds who cant even use a knife and fork. Anyone who has sat oppisite an american for dinner will know where im coming from.
But the zf synchro ecosplit and the EPS was the Germans revenge on the Brits when they found out that we could drive their constant mesh zf boxes better than the so called master race could .But that nation of inbreds over there seem to have done ok over the years and if the fuller is the result of what happens when you fancy your sister I just wish that I was’nt an only child.
I must admit a fuller is hard to beat just put the inbred bit in as a wind up don’t know about the master race because my dad recons given the choice between an atki borderer and a 1418 merc he would have chosen the atkinson and he is deffintly not someone who goes misty eyed at trucks of the when men were made of steel and the trucks are made of wood era.
What is it that people get all misty eyed about atkinsons for anyway I think its a northern thing.
kr79:
I must admit a fuller is hard to beat just put the inbred bit in as a wind up don’t know about the master race because my dad recons given the choice between an atki borderer and a 1418 merc he would have chosen the atkinson and he is deffintly not someone who goes misty eyed at trucks of the when men were made of steel and the trucks are made of wood era.
What is it that people get all misty eyed about atkinsons for anyway I think its a northern thing.
Don’t ask me I’m a Southerner born and bred but Bewick’s lot seem to like Atkis for some reason especially with a zb Gardner fitted in it .I’d rather have the Merc 2534 thanks even with that zb synchro box in it.The really scary thing about those Northerners though is that they’d also prefer a zb Atki with a zb Gardner in it to a Kenworth with a 8V92 Detroit and a 13 speed Fuller.
Carryfast:
By the way in the old days some/most instructors wanted to see you block change going down the box when slowing down instead of changing down one gear at a time sequentially .
Eh? Me thinks you’ve got that the wrong way about.
In the very old days when brakes were crap (remember that 40mph single carriageway limit?) the way to drive was to change down gear by gear to get engine braking to assist the brakes.
Nowadays (like the last 20+ years) we have powerfull brakes that work. Block changing is the norm & is expected on test.
Gears are for going, brakes are for slowing.
But there was a time like when I did my tests 30 and 26 years ago when the zb’s were starting to bring in those new ideas of using the brakes because it was supposedly cheaper to wear them out instead of using the gearbox to help slow the thing down and we were trained that way at that time even though we still used good old fashioned drum brakes and ‘proper’ fuller boxes amongst others.I can also remember using that block changing method to keep the instructors happy but using the sequential one on test.Passed both first time.Block changing might be the norm and expected on test these days but hopefully if the OP really is driving a ‘proper’ box he’ll forget what he was taught and downshift through the gears one at a time if the box is to survive .
Ha another cynic!
The engine has a lot more pulling power than braking power. If it can get it up to x speed id can help get it back down.
When I first started to drive I used my engine/box for slowing down to save my brakes for stopping, and my clutch once, to get moving.
I gave up watching people take my old Bedford out of the yard as my nerves couldn’t stand it, and hoped that it would come back.
The pros and cons of using engine braking versus just brakes to slow a truck have also been discussed on other topics/threads and I’ve always said that it’s wrong to rely on just the brakes.But in this context it’s the idea of block changing that I was trying to point out as being one of the bad by products of that ,because it’s much easier on the transmission,and for matching road and engine speeds,with a constant mesh box,to downshift it sequentially in small close ratio steps instead of downshifting from a much relatively higher gear straight into a relatively much lower gear.But I’m not sure wether you meant using the clutch just to get moving as in the context of the clutchless change argument or not?.But from what I can make out I think that driving by the (American) book,with a good old fashioned yank box,is exactly my idea and I’d probably prefer to do their test,if I was starting to drive now,than ours.
To be honest
I find block changes, both up and down, useful at times. Even on the old Eaton Fullers. Especially when empty.
I would also spec a truck with a 16 speed zf if I bought another one, unless I was only going to drive it myself. Then I would spec it with the old 13 speed Fuller if they still made it.
That’s one of the reasons why a yank truck is an even more preferable idea now because they still mainly use the old Fuller boxes in them and even better they seem to have an option with the splitter on both the low range and the high range making it an 18 speed box.But block changing just seems to defeat the object of having a multi/close ratio box in that you’re just using it like a typical old wide ratio box found on the old Brit heaps from the 1950’s etc.Downshifting those was effectively like block changing with a 13 speed fuller in that you had to brake the thing down to a much lower road speed before you could get the next gear down and I can remember plenty of times in the days when Gardner powered heaps with six speeds in them were still around often at worst either ran out of road speed before the driver could even get the next gear up because of the age it took for the revs to fall far enough for the next gear up or at best caused plenty of gear clashing bringing new meaning and sound to the term ‘constant mesh’.Although having said that I managed ok as a new driver when I was given an AEC Matador to drive on the council a few times after being more used to Bedford TM’s with a Detroit and a Fuller in them .But speccing a truck with one of those heavy,slow shifting,zb synchro 16 speed ecosplits,like I had in the Merc 2534,for someone else to drive,when you know that a 13 speed Fuller is better,seems like the type of thinking which is dumbing down the job,and the drivers,on this side of the Atlantic.
I gave up watching people take my old Bedford out of the yard as my nerves couldn’t stand it, and hoped that it would come back
Is why I would spec a synchro box, or mebbe have to be automatic nowadays
Back to block changing. If you’re empty or going down hill, surely you don’t split every gear? I can understand the need for close ratios when fully freighted. I started off on a 200 sed atk with the 6 speed David Brown gearbox and temperamental twin speed axle. went from that to a 201 with a zf 6 speed with a splitter (same box as in the JCB fastrac now I think) Went from that to a Bedford TM with an L10 290 ■■■■■■■ and a nine speed fuller. Talk about a culture shock? Anyway back to the topic, just stating my credentials. I don’t agree with cooking the brakes but was sold on block changing as a way to reduce the number of times I had to move the stick in a day, as a lazy git that’s what sold it to me. I use the gears and engine to help check my speed on hills, but also have no problem with dropping 2 3 or even a full range of gears at a time if the situation suits it. I also find it a help when hitting very big hills if you go down the gears 1 at a time your revs drop faster than you can change gear.
No…
.