Clutch-Less Shifting, Final Answer??

[HYPERR]

b/c really what's the point?

Smoother shifts, less wear and tear to the bike, and perhaps just a smidgen more enjoyment out of the ride?

[Wrider]

The dogs on the transmission are no matter what going to grind for a slight bit before they engage. Plain and simple. That is how a transmission works. Now if you don't use a clutch, they're still under load, so they'll grind just that little bit more. May not be a lot but it is some, and that little bit adds up. Personally I'll probably do clutchless shifts when I feel like getting lazy. But if you're looking for optimal life out of your transmission I'd definitely use the clutch. It's designed to take more of the wear instead of the gears. And trust me, a new clutch pack installed is a heck of a lot easier and cheaper than a new transmission gear installed.
Wrider

[HYPERR]

The dogs on the transmission are no matter what going to grind for a slight bit before they engage. Plain and simple. That is how a transmission works. Now if you don't use a clutch, they're still under load, so they'll grind just that little bit more. May not be a lot but it is some, and that little bit adds up. Personally I'll probably do clutchless shifts when I feel like getting lazy. But if you're looking for optimal life out of your transmission I'd definitely use the clutch. It's designed to take more of the wear instead of the gears. And trust me, a new clutch pack installed is a heck of a lot easier and cheaper than a new transmission gear installed.
Wrider

What you are saying makes sense in theory. However is it possible that since a clutchless upshift is so much smoother and seamless that it actually grinds the gear less in reality? You sound like a very competent rider. You must've done countless clutchless upshifts where the gear snicked in so smoothly and silently, have you not? Does that sound like the gear is being grinded more than normal? It does not to me.

Kevin Schwantz as well as the most racing schools states that cluthless upshifts are much smoother and the chance of botching an upshift is much less and I completely agree. Less things to do and less things to go wrong. A good example would be: Exiting a right-hand corner, hanging off to the inside, it's much easier and safer to clutchless upshift than to reposition your forearm to work the clutch. The odds of botching a shift from this somewhat awkward position is far less if you do not have to shift you arm to work the clutch as well.

Kevin Schwantz and other racing teams and schools have done countless teardowns and inspections and they have fully concluded that clutchless upshifts causes no wear and tear whatsoever over and above clutched shifting.

In the end, it's everyone's individual bike and they can enjoy it any way they like. I will continue to clutchless upshift as it makes riding that much smoother and enjoyable for me; and IMO and countless others, no downside whatsoever.

[storysunfolding]

Kevin Schwantz and other racing teams and schools have done countless teardowns and inspections and they have fully concluded that clutchless upshifts causes no wear and tear whatsoever over and above clutched shifting.

Can you post links to articles on that? I don't recall hearing that during the kevin schwantz super bike school.

Oh, and if you hang off your bike on the street in my honest opinion and countless others- you're a squid

[Wrider]

Yeah I like to think I'm a halfway decent rider. Haven't done many clutchless upshifts though no. As for the theory part, sorry bud, that's fact. I've learned a whole lot about bikes and their mechanical parts since October when I started at Motorcycle Mechanics Institute down here in Phoenix. I've asked instructors though what they thought of clutchless shifts and they said basically the same thing we've all said. It's not good for your tranny and clutches are much cheaper and easier to replace than a tranny. Even on a Harley where the tranny literally bolts on it's easier to replace a clutch.
Wrider

[HYPERR]

Kevin Schwantz and other racing teams and schools have done countless teardowns and inspections and they have fully concluded that clutchless upshifts causes no wear and tear whatsoever over and above clutched shifting.

Can you post links to articles on that? I don't recall hearing that during the kevin schwantz super bike school.

Yeah let me see if I can find something to validate it. I don't believe I read it on the net but I definitely remember reading it in one of the gazillion magazines that I read.

Oh, and if you hang off your bike on the street in my honest opinion and countless others- you're a squid

LOL!! I don't hang off on the street anymore! Bikes and tires are soooo good these days, like you said, there are no need for such squidly activities on the street.

When I started riding back in the mid 1980s the tires and the bikes(at least the 10+ year old ones that I could afford) handled so crappy that you had to do a semi-hangoff just so you didn't have to lean the bike too much. Plus we had to emulate Randy Mamola's radical(for then) style. Hey we were stupid kids back then, don't hate!

[HYPERR]

Yeah I like to think I'm a halfway decent rider. Haven't done many clutchless upshifts though no. As for the theory part, sorry bud, that's fact. I've learned a whole lot about bikes and their mechanical parts since October when I started at Motorcycle Mechanics Institute down here in Phoenix. I've asked instructors though what they thought of clutchless shifts and they said basically the same thing we've all said. It's not good for your tranny and clutches are much cheaper and easier to replace than a tranny. Even on a Harley where the tranny literally bolts on it's easier to replace a clutch.
Wrider

On my CBR, and a lot of Japanese sportbikes(especially Gixxers), when you do a clutchless upshift, it is so smooth and effortless that you feel almost no resistance whatsoever. In fact, less than you would feel with a clutched upshift. If the gears are being "forced" as you say, why the reduced resistance?

[HYPERR]

Storys Unfolding, I did a quick search and I found this.

http://www.sportrider.com/ride/146_0704 ... index.html

It is not the exact combo you are looking for because it confirms Schwantz's praise of clutchless upshifts but the teardown results are not directly from him but from various racers at Sports Rider. The article that I read was from a printed periodical and not the net so I do not know if I can find something similar. I looked throught some of my books(magazines I throw out after reading), including Keith Code but could not find the right one.

Are you planning on going to Schwantz's classes again? If so do please ask the man himself. I would be very interested to hear what he says.

[Fast Eddy B]

This is getting to be a circular argument. I keep stating that a properly done clutchless shifting causes no wear and tear to the drivetrain.

Yes, your argument is circular. A clutchless upshift is safe, because you only accept safe clutchless upshifts.

And yes, the whole argument is repetetive, because you all keep repeating the same arguments over and over and over.

So what we have here are repetetive arguments with elements of circularity.

Ed

[Sev]

You cannot use a race engine as an example of what should be considered acceptable wear. A perfectly built race engine will last for exactly 18 laps.

2 Warm up
15 Race laps
1 Victory lap

After that it explodes and needs to be rebuilt to win the next race. The idea is to get optimal performance for it until the race is over. And it doesn't even need to do a complete victory lap lol.

Regardless, I've got physical proof that clutchless shifting is bad for your transmission.