Quaife Sequential gearboxes

[SimonB]

Anyone have any experience of using one of these gearboxes?.

Or any other alternatives?

 

Any views would be most welcome!.

[Peter Carmichael]

Suitable for tractors

[SimonB]

very useful. thanks for that.

It was a genuine request for some help......

 

maybe I'll just buy a locost instead.

 

[edmandsd]

Simon - I've been involved in the development of a new inline 5 speed sequential gear box which is 40% lighter than the Quaife offering and has a 260 ft lb torque rating. It will be available early next year and comes with a much wider choice of ratios than the Quaife box. Price will be similar to the Quaife box aswell although the design/build quality is more akin to a Hewland (Hewland do do an inline sequential box but it's about £7.5k plus Vat) It is a converted racing transaxle and not a converted road box. Drop me a line and I'll give you more details if you wish.

 

Home of BDR700

[Gary Drew]

 

 

Edited by - Gary Drew on 8 Nov 2002 13:38:25

[Peter Carmichael]

It was a serious point - the shift action is apalling. Long and mechanically imprecise. It is not a proper sequential and I won't have one on my car. The Dave Edmands item promises to be much better. I hoped to chase out the alternate view with my provocative posting (which is an opinion based on two 0-60 runs in Arnies car at Brooklands), but the pro-Quaife mob haven't turned up yet.

 

gee-fin, Fat Arnie and Chelspeed have probably lived with their boxes longer than others and give a balancing view.

[V7 SLR]

I was amazed the first time I studied the inside of a cut-away Quaife box at an Autosport show 4 or 5 years ago. It looks utterly fantastic but, once I'd got over the huge amount of machining that has gone one to create such an item, I became aware that it is really nothing more than a normal box with a barrel attached to its rear which works rather like a childs record player (slots in grooves).

 

It is an effective and strong unit but much heavier than a Caterham 6 speed box although I understand you can specify a number of alloy components to reduce that weight. How that stacks up against a Caterham 6 speed for weight and price I don't know, suffice to say it starts off more expensive and only goes upwards as you reduce its weight.

 

That said, it is bullet proof. You'd have to be an ox to break one.

 

But... it's not a truly designed-from-scratch sequential box and I can see how the shift action might be considered poor. I've driven two BEC's now and I thought their shift action was clunky but I have to admit that it is positive and light. I believe the Quaife action requires a good amount of strength and is not a satsifying experience in the slightest.

 

I'm interested in Dave Edmunds' transaxle-type sequential box, not because I could ever afford one... purely from an engineering point of view (I can't imagine how you could get all that gubbins into a diff casing).

 

Worcs L7 club joint AO.//Membership No. 4379//Azure Blue SLR No. 0077//Se7ens List Tours

 

[murph7355]

The Quaife box isn't far removed from the Caterham 6 spd in terms of weight I believe. Something like 32kgs. It costs iro 3k+VAT the last time I considered it.

 

Dave's box isn't a transaxle AFAIA - the gearbox still sits behind the engine and the diff sits on its own in the rear mechanicals.

 

I was ready to go for a Quaife unit when I heard of Dave's experiments and am no going to wait for that route to pan out. I think it'll weigh 20kgs and a will cost a similar amount to the Quaife offering. It's "only" 5 speeds, but it should be possible to match the ratios with my engine's output so 6 shouldn't really be necessary.

 

Dave's has yet to go in a deDion car (I think). My car's a deDion, as is PCs and no doubt a few others who'd be interested.

 

Roll on "early in the new year".

 

If you haven't tried it there's not much wrong with the std. Caterham 6 spd.

 

By the way Simon, we knew you were kidding about the Locost. You don't mention sequential boxes and then do that (not that I'm deriding Locosts either).

 

 

[Paul Ranson]

it's not a truly designed-from-scratch sequential box

 

AFAIK neither is the Edmands special.

 

The Quaife sequential has to fit the tunnel. If you put a long barrel to directly operate the selectors on the top or side it would become incompatible. The other parts of 'designed for sequential' would be dogs and rings, I've no idea whether the Quaife sequential uses the same gears as in an H-pattern shift box.

 

I suspect the Quaife option is rather longer-lifed than something based on a racing box, OTOH it's not hard to rebuild a racing box, once it's out of the car...

 

Paul

[Alex Wong1697456877]

Peter's is an extreme view but I can see where he's coming from. It does work well but the gear shift throw is very long and doesn't have the satisfying snick of a bike sequential. It feels a little like a standard H pattern dog box and whilst these are very strong and fast, the lever movements don't feel as precise as a bike box or even a standard synchro box. It clunks into gear like a dog box which is something that you may or may not like. I wouldn't change my Quaiffe semi helical for a Quaiffe sequential but I'm still considering Dave's sequential (when I've recovered from the my engine repair bill!!)

 

[ECR]

My type 9 Quaiffe dog box (H pattern)can apparently be upgraded to a sequential box for about £1000.00 by the addition of the sequential barrel mechanism. This would indicate that the innards are the same in both boxes.

[SimonB]

Thanks for your comments guys.

I've just placed an order for an new H pattern 4 speed alloy cased dogbox.

(Reliable / well proven / much cheaper / lighter etc)

Hope this is the right choice - only one way to find out! Midland Hillclimb Championship 2003...

 

Simon.

 

 

[Peter Carmichael]

I think Dave has previously mentioned the material quality of the gears in his box being recognised as superior to the Quaife...

[edmandsd]

I don't expect someone who's just forked out on a Quaife sequential to suddenly agree that they're far from perfect - it's just not human nature is it.

 

However consider this - I could have simply gone out and bought a Quaife sequential like everyone else but I looked into the product and even tried one in a car. As a result I didn't buy one but instead got involved in developing what I believe is a better alternative.

 

Home of BDR700

[DaveK]

having driven both Bec & a quaife sequential box the bike gearchange is far better in terms of change quality as the quaife box box seems agricultural in comparison, however the bike box are designed to be operated by the toe on a six inch lever whereas the quaife is designed to be abused hence the heavy duty change feel.

The speed of change between a seq /h pattern i would despute as the dog box i use can change gear as fast as you can move your hand ,the only advantage is not missing any gears on changes

 

I too am looking at Dave Edmunds alternative as contray to pauls post it is based on a pure sequential box with shift quality to suit

 

dave

[Paul Ranson]

I was under the impression that the 'Edmands' sequential was derived from the old Staffs Silent Gears transaxle, which happened to came in a sequential version. I think the gears are LD200/Mk9 compatible?

 

None of which means it's a good or bad box.

 

I don't know what 'designed as a sequential' really means, but the ones I've seen seem to have a barrel running parallel to the main/lay shaft.

 

In terms of shift quality, that's surely a simple engineering issue. I don't care what the shift feels like as long as it's fast.

 

The remaining factor is longevity, hillclimbers wear gears and dog rings out in a season, the 'Edmands' gearbox is designed to last a race, so there's probably an issue for regular road or track day usage. I believe the Quaife will last longer in those circumstances. (This is wear on components designed to be regularly replaced, not general wear, and is just the way it is...)

 

Paul

[edmandsd]

Paul - The only real area of wear on the Staffs Transaxle was on the cwp because it was not offset like most and hence more efficient as a result. However this isn't an issue with the inline application because it obviously does away with the cwp.

 

I was looking at a stripped down three year old sequential transaxle out of hillclimber Winston Holloway's old 260bhp 16v RS2000 engined single seater not so long ago and although the cwp needed replacing for reasons mentioned above the gearset was in pristine condition and needed no attention whatsoever. Although the gears may well be interchangeable with the LD200/Mk9 I think you'll find the Staffs box is a far more robust design.

 

I'd be interested in your obvious opposition to them - I presume it can be substantiated and isn't simply gut feel ? You haven't got a Quaife sequential in a car have you ?

 

Home of BDR700

[Paul Ranson]

I have no opposition to your box. My Quaife experience is limited to a few minutes in the DaveK/RichardH car.

 

But I do know that on a racing gearbox gears break, that dog rings wear and that the dogs on the gears wear, that they won't run hundreds of miles let alone thousands between services. Which is no problem for competition use, but may be an issue for track day or road use.

 

FWIW the limitation on LD200 is the CWP and casing rather than the gear train, with careful modification an LD200 will handle a competitive 2 litre race engine assuming there isn't too much traction available.

 

Paul

[edmandsd]

On that basis Paul any dog engagement box be it H pattern or sequential would be unsuitable for road use - Makes you wonder how motorbikes get away with it then......

[EFA]

With pneumatic actuation, the quaife box can change gear in 0.025secs. This takes the fun out of driving, but does prove all you Quaife sceptics are talking bo**ocks.

 

The shift is only as long as the lever design. Those of us with custom levers do not have this problem.

 

My box has done 10,000 miles and works today the same way (if not slightly better than) as the day it was first run in my car. Dave Edmunds' box in comparison did less than 1/2mile first time out. 😬 😬 😬

 

 

 

Fat Arn

Visit the Yellow Tractor website

See the Lotus Seven Club 4 Counties Area Website here

 

 

Edited by - fat arnie on 9 Nov 2002 19:08:30

 

Edited by - fat arnie on 9 Nov 2002 20:35:14

[Paul Ranson]

Obviously dog engagement boxes wear faster than synchromesh types. That's one of the reasons synchros were invented.

 

OTOH if you were building a transmission for racing how long would you make it last? And if you were making one as a Ford pattern replacement for rallying/racing/road/whatever usage? And given that your racing box is a transaxle where the gear ratios will be changed for every track, and possibly between practice and race...

 

Anyway I look forward to seeing the reports on the new box.

 

Paul

[Micky]

I have been changing gear for many years now in/on a variety of vehicles, sometimes at maximum revs, with and without use of the clutch.

 

125 and 250 motocross bikes can be held at full throttle, with or without rev limiter, and "booted" up into the next gear, I haven't tried the technique with an open class bike ..... too scarey.

 

4 stroke bikes with rev limiters can be run up to the limiter with a boot applying pressure to the gear lever, when the limiter cuts in, the cogs shift.

 

Have never fully mastered clutchless full power changes in a car, even when bouncing off the rev limiter; momentary dipping of the clutch helps, high mileage improves changes, as does close ratios.

 

Elderly agricultural vehicles can present interesting challenges.

 

"> With pneumatic actuation, the quaife box can change gear in 0.025secs<"

Under maximum load or on a bench?

 

[Chelspeed]

Sorry for being late to the party.

 

Yes I've got a Quaife sequential box and have had it in the car for 2 years. I think it's a good well made box with some very clever design work. But there were no alternatives at the time I bought it so I don't think I've got an axe to grind, if there's something better available now I'll look at it.

 

As for Peter's commets about it not being a proper sequential I don't understand this. All sequential boxes I have seen use a barrel to move the selectors. On a bike gearbox the barrel is above the selectors and moves the selectors directly. In this application there is no room above the selectors so they have moved the barrel back and use it to drive the selectors via rods, exactly the same method used to move the selectors on an H pattern box. What no one has mentioned is that quaife have put the cylindrical selector barrel in the extension housing with the output shaft running thro the middle - an inspired bit of packaging that makes the box physically only marginally larger than the h pattern box and allows it to fit in the tunnel at all. Very clever lateral thinking and in my opinion someone deserves a medal for thinking of this.

 

As for shifting, I've not driven a bike engine in a car (but have on a bike of course), but I can't recognise my gearbox in these descriptions. Yes it'll clunk into first gear but thats dog boxes not the sequential. Shift movement is down to stick design, Arnies car has a bit of old stick broken, bent and welded on wherever it'll fit, don't confuse this with a properly designed shift lever. Mines in the original location but shortened to fit under the dash, movement is less than 20mm from neutral to gear selected (and forward and back not an unnatural up and down movement), is that agricultural and long? Don't think so, certainly doesn't feel like it when you're driving. Shift quality is clunky in the paddock but what the hell, drive it slowly and it's OK, drive it competitively and it seems to snick silently into each gear as soon as you even brush the stick.

 

Weight is one problem, alloy cased it's still well over 30kg, thats significantly heavier than the alloy cased 4 speed quaife dog box it replaced on my car. But it's not that much heavier than the Caterham 6 speed box, it's probably lighter than the standard 5 speed box. So put it in perspective, if you have an alloy cased 4 speed and the rest of the car is as light as it can be then it's a heavy box, if you have any other box then it's comparable.

 

As for Dave E's box it sounds ideal, all the advantages of the Quaife for half the weight. OK it's not 6 speed but do you really need 6 gears? Pick the right diff and the right gears and this is OK. In my view 6 speeds are needed for power spike tuned 1.4 K's, for having really low overdrive cruising gears on tin tops and for the boasting in the pub. I'll wait for the de dion fitting to be sorted, the gear selection to be engineered, try it out and decide then.

[edmandsd]

Fair comments Graham - particularly the reference to the barrel design on the Quaife enabling it to be a direct replaement for an existing type 9. The 'Staffs' box is not a direct replacement to this extent.

 

Arnie refers to shift time but there's more to it than just that..........and the new nitrous shifters that on the market would make shifting even fasterl than their pneumatic equivalents. Shift time does to a certain degree come down to inertia of moving parts and the equivalent 'barrel' on the Staffs box is a fraction of the size of the Quaife, more akin to a bike I suppose where you can fit it in the palm of your hand.

 

I'm sure time will tell whether this inline conversion of the Staffs transaxle is a success in terms of the product and it's acceptance in the market, but I see no reason why it won't be based upon experience to date and the fact the gearset is exactly the same as in their proven transaxle. Let's also not forget that this was a conversion that Mike Endean of former Xtrac fame did successfully to a Hewland transaxle a few years back - and isn't actually that complicated.

 

What you also have is a company that is dedicated to spending the time and money required to really perfect this product going forward and produce what I believe is something quite revolutionary, and for less than half the price of the Hewland equivalent.

 

 

[Barry]

If, like me, you have little or no knowledge of what goes on in a 'normal' gearbox, let alone one with a sequential change, there are a couple of pages that might help:

 

http://www.pitechnology.com/downloads/files/Slinky.pdf

http://www.haydndesign.com/pro-animate.htm

 

Anyone got any others that make it clearer 🤔