Indeed it was, but I am not apologizing. The first 99 times, a dignified response is appropriate, but unfortunately this sort of behaviour has happened dozens of times across multiple platforms. You can take all the shots you want at me or my company, I can take it. I built this company from $50 and a lot of grit, hard work, failure, success, more failure, pretty good products and awesome customer service. We've expanded far beyond our Aston Roots to do a lot of other marques and we're enjoying some hard-fought success. So you know what....? Me, I have no problem with it. I know the proof is in the pudding and I know that we will continue to do the things that have made us successful.

However, you talk to a guy like Irish like that? This is a guy who has selflessly given up hundreds of hours of his own personal time to help forum members both in public and in private, and who frankly, is one of the users who helped build this forum into 'The Aston Place.'

I remember when the Gaydon cars were new, there was no 'Aston Forum' and 6Speed grew into the place to be. It is people like Irish who's contributions built this place into what it is now. And it has always been a Bastian of civil discourse and respect.

So yes, if someone comes on here and treats a valued contributor like that, and drops the tone into the gutter then I will not hesitate to call them out.

 

There's a really good description of the principles of rotational momentum from Khan Academy here:

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/...tional-inertia

Essentially, the rotational moment of interia (tendency to keep spinning) is related to the square of the radius of the object. This means that mass far from the center of spin is significantly amplified compared to mass near the center. This is why simply measuring the weight of a spinning object without considering it's radius doesn't tell you much, as Rich describes.

 

This is an interesting thread and I have learned much regarding timing and the issues that may arise after changing to a lightweight clutch/flywheel. I would like to thank Stuart and Irish as they continue to help me figure out this car. I perform all of my own work as that is the only way I can justify the financial aspect of these cars. I have sent several PM's or emails to Irish and/or Stuart and they both have been very forthcoming with knowledge on some of the more technical issues I have had.

I have a 2007 manual with 43k miles on the original clutch. It is running just fine but I bought a VelocityAP setup from Stuart earlier this year. I am planning on swapping that in towards the end of the year. Maybe I should plan on reflashing my car at that time as well. My main reasoning for the change is a bad left knee. The decreased pedal force is the primary goal. A quicker rev change is another added benefit. Per the records, the plugs have not been changed so I may plan to swap them as well.

 

Yes, Modifying the V8’s clutch from single-plate to twinplate is the way to go, the single-plate clutch cannot manage the frictional generated heat at slip and the OEM flywheel is not heat treated meaning an ever decreasing circle of excess heat, wear and distortion creating even more heat and distortion until premature failure. The clutch can’t handle rapid pull away without frying itself and a manoeuvre like 3rd gear to 1st gear at 20 mph - whilst the single pate will return a gear lever which baulks on syncro failing to engage, the twinplate will slide into gear with ease. There are a few folk who claim +50k miles out of a single plate clutch and claim the OEM clutch is fine, which for their usage it truly is, but they have obviously never pulled away too often with too much urgency.
This thread has spent 3 pages not coming anywhere close to identifying the root cause of what is a fairly tricky engineering issue. Dignity won’t fix cars, integrity of the engineering is what will fix cars, but I’ve seen keyboard warrior Dunning-Kruger shout down engineering integrity on this forum all too often, which is why I don’t bother too much with airs and graces and tell it like it is to folk who want to read it.
The factory set-up of singleplate clutch needed an algorithm to combat gear chatter prior to production release because a mechanical fix was not possible to stop a gearbox problem, meaning gear chatter would be present on all V8 Vantage across the Globe if the feature was not adopted for production. That feature was a massive reduction of spark angle in the engine speed and load region affected to flatten-off the combustion pressure peaks of each cylinder so all engine firing cycles became damped and repeatable, this approach is at best considered ‘unorthodox’ and causes many side-effects which will need to be calibrated away too (risk of stalling, dull throttle response, heavily retarded ignition is bad for some individual tailpipe pollutants). A twinplate design clutch has it’s mass much closer to the crankshaft centreline compared to the single plate, and if the aftermarket flywheel the twinplate clutch is mated to was much lighter than the OEM flywheel, there are now 2 inertia variables that have changed which were fixed constants during process of the factory setting ‘gear rattle retard’ algorithm to eliminate gear chatter. Therefore if the factory was implementing its own twinplate clutch kit, the factory would need to either make the kit the same overall inertia as OEM or recalibrate the ECU to bring back into line behaviours which have been put at risk which are obviously more gear chatter and likelihood of a stall.
The AMR flywheel and clutch weight looks to have been designed to return the same overall inertia as the single plate OEM kit, the cars I have fitted the AMR clutch to do not gear chatter or stall, the factory needed to replicate the inertia because legislation does not permit them to issue a calibration which was not part of the original homologation test process. In the aftermarket World we can make the flywheel light to aid a quicker engine spool up, keep all clutch weight closer to the crankshaft centreline, and the resulting increased / inevitable worsening of gear chatter and stalling we can solve with an ECU recalibration because aftermarket does have same legislation handicap.

Considering all that background and considering which territory you are in, if you want a more powerful clutch but you can’t risk an ounce of stalling or gear chatter potential – it sounds like the AMR kit is arguably the best option after you have it in writing that no side effects will occur. I say this because it seems unavailable (I do stand to be corrected) in your territory to find an aftermarket ECU calibration which could rid your car of the side effects of gear chatter and stalling if you took the aftermarket twinplate route and experienced such side effects.

 

You’ve missed off from your list 'moment of inertia' in relation to crankshaft centre-line, it’s not all about the weight you know!

Some cars we fit a BR lightweight flywheel and twinplate clutch to have no chatter and no stall. Some cars develop a small amount of chatter and have tendency to stall if driven badly. The odd few cars gear chatter on arrival (stock OEM clutch) and they are the ones which will need an individual ECU calibration of more anti gear chatter retard and more anti stall, then they are OK to release to customer.
Great, you didn’t have a problem car which didn’t need too much ECU calibration to bring in-line.
As I’ve said before, it’s the odd car which causes the pain but when that lemon car is upgraded the client is seeking 100% fault free, if not it’s not so much an upgrade but a nightmare.

 

Hi Mike... I guess you are seeing us Americans are touchy about our other forum members...yes, you made good points and replies back cleared up sticking points I feel.

So with all this stated...how about someone try and help the guy that started this threat.... He has an ASM transmission. The facts seem to be the Transmission module controls the car like Grant stated in his book and I believe control the engine module...which I am guessing gives us ASM guys more software adjustments already made from the factory to control all the clutch etc... and gives the ability to tell how worn our clutch system.

You stated the factory AMR does manual only...your company does twin plate for manual and ASM (special to you)... APV does both I believe...

How does this guy decide what is best at time of replacement?

 

Feel free to come chat on another forum, happy to chew the engineering fat with you anytime if it helps you progress.

Taken from your post…

When you say “worn spark plug can ignite the combustion but creating a irregular rhythm”…..
If there is irregularity it is misfire which regardless of flywheel and clutch weight fitted (in the boundary of the kit discussed here) is going to happen anyway if the plugs are out of service. Just because a lightweight flywheel is introduced it will not change the combustion pressures from 30 deg BTDC to 50 deg ATDC – the plugs are either within service or out of service, fitting a lighter weight flywheel downstream of crankshaft doesn’t turn a marginally within service plug into an out of service plug – what’s going on above the piston (reciprocating) will not change because of flywheel, what will change is rotating velocity the energy is transmitted at both on acceleration and deceleration. So linking any poor behaviour (chatter) from light weight clutch and flywheel to changing spark plugs is not robust because if spark plugs helped on lightweight flywheel they would of helped by the same delta on OEM flywheel because the spark plugs were out of service anyway.

“and I'm OCD..so I slapped in thicker trans fluid”
Clearly you are not OCD enough to not stop and think that deviating from the factory specified trans oil fill is a bad idea?

“Avoid Legislation!? Happens quite often, and not just on AM..how do I know, because I've flashed files to issue cars at request of HQ”
So you’ve flashed ‘files’ to problem cars? We can all use AMDS to change a car config from, say, convertible to coupe or update with something like powerfold mirrors, these are all config files available globally that mothership releases. But you are saying you go one step further which is you have an engine problem with a car and you update with a tailored PCM calibration from factory? If that’s the case (which it clearly is from this and the previous ‘misfiring’ comment), that’s really something you need to keep to yourself because if the legislator was reading this, OMG!! And is why I said your original comments about how engines misfire new out of the box was quite Grave.

“until a P0315 is stored, the engine can stall near a stop from a decoast”
No, you are wrong, the misfire P0315 (crankshaft variation not learnt) profile correction has no direct influence on idle control – it might be easier to draw a picture.
So as some sort of helpful reminder that misfire corrections isn’t learned, which can be a lot of the time on old cars considering flat battery, the automaker allows the engine to stall and risk a rear end shunt as the car screeches to a stop or doesn’t accelerate away from the traffic lights – good luck defending that feature if you enabled it in a product liability court case. I don’t doubt the cars you had stalled, it just wasn’t the direct result of P0315 being 0 instead of 1

“Your entire theory of retarding timing, explained by you..was to adapt the pulses to the lighter flywheel. You don't need to put 1,250 words to explain, it's summed up in 7 words(adapt the pulses to the lighter flywheel)”.
I think you are getting confused between misfire correction detection (something a mechanic learns as he drives the car) to help ping a misfire light when engine goes out of spec versus base ignition calibration to stop gear chatter which was done by OEM prior to release of car. Understand what I have written about the whole subject then come back with a concise question instead of trying to link anecdotal coincidences of 'I changed something and something happened but cant explain why'. I’m not discussing a theory, I’m talking rhetorically about the process I went through as OEM. The problem is loose gearbox build causing chatter, the solution the OEM installed was ignition retard, the chatter which is only just being controlled by that retard (too much retard is bad) is put slightly out of specification because of different inertia driveline and the chatter returns, the solution is to extrapolate out the base PCM calibration to stop the problem happening. The solution is not to change MAF meters, spark plugs, gearbox oil or learn misfire profile correction or change any serviceable item in the workshop and say these actions fixed the problem. These are all serviceable items which might alter chatter by a slim margin, but and as you rightly say, they were already out of service anyway and regardless of clutch and flywheel inertia.

But the dealer philosophy to this subject should be clear? - if the customer wants an uprated clutch, the only part 100% error state free is the AMR kit (similar inertia to single plate), because given the change of inertia and risk of gear chatter / should chatter or stall occur, the aftermarket world in your territory (Bamford Rose included) seems unable to resolve.

 

Hi. i have been a board sponsor for couple of years so i know the scene, but don't post often, i read lots though, i felt i needed to contribute here though.

For the life of me i don't know why AMR part hasn't been set up for ASM on account of the number of complaints about that driveline, my advice would be PM Andy@Aston and ask when it might be available. If the answer was 'never', there is only option of aftermarket available. There are a few driveability issues which will vary car-to-car with twinplate clutch on ASM and require an engineer with a laptop to resolve if the driver is fussy about the poor driveability. If the scenario of individual laptop support (remote or physical) was not an option should something not work out then its a risk of take the upgrade and the better outweighs what detracts or steer clear altogether. We've had a bad experience of a franchised dealer fitting our kit in a territory we could not support which was nail in the coffin to us sending out parts in a box and hope for the best.

 

Thanks Mike....I appreciate your information on the ASM...I would bet the guy that started this threat can at least know there is limited options on ASM currently.

Furthermore, I bet many that read your reply on ASM will contact Andy and ask why we are the forgotten ones...

Lastly...time heals all wounds...I hope you and Irish07...APV get past this ....as I can see you will be another asset to this site....as long as you leave the fighting in England....lol
Safe driving!

 

How I wish BR was represented down here in SA, Im certain many AM owners would embrace the product and the team behind it.

 

Received PM's from a couple of you regarding this topic, so just for clarification:

1. We can and frequently do bump the idle RPM for those installing either the Twin Plate VAP unit, or the AMR Unit. This can be done remotely with our VTech tuning tools, whether you're in Timbuktu or our Headquarters. For those 1/5 or 1/10 who experience louder than usual transaxle rattle we always recommend bumping the idle. In fact, many of you who have purchased ECU Tunes have requested additional variants which include this idle RPM bump for later fitment of the Twin Plate Clutch.

2. As I have posted a few times, both regarding the stalling issues documented by those with and without Twin Plate Clutch & flywheels - We have several things we can do to mitigate this. We don't necessarily go into detail about the technical aspects here, but we have been able to resolve several situations of this ilk with electronic calibration changes to the operating parameters.

 

It was 3 months ago you thought you saw something

https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...ml#post4656210

and 3 months later you know you've cured cars of this problem? When most cars don't stall but once every few months? Or have you cured a habitual staller like mine?

 

Its something we have been investigating on and off since around 2012/2013 off the top of my head. We've certainly been applying changes to cars with twin plates pretty much since their inception.

We have had success with some stalling cars, but given the intermittent feedback from customers (some people disappear for months) and the intermittent nature of the problem the conclusion isn't always concrete.

This post only only dates back 3 months however.

 

I would be looking for conclusive data that proves you've cured a stalling car, because you're saying that you have without it. But if you think you're onto something that isn't what Gaydon is concentrating on, how about cutting a deal with them to sell it to them.

I still believe this is Gaydon's responsibility and should be a recall ECU flash for all V8VM6's. But I don't have any idea how long it's going to have to cure mine [if it does] before I can say it's cured. There are some that won't stall for 6 months and then stall 5 times over a weekend, and then those like me that can stall twice a week [although it has only stalled twice in the last 4 weeks since the engineer from Gaydon was tweaking around on it]

It is having the stock clutch put back in it tomorrow, I figured I'd do so squat thrusts tonight to prepare myself.

 

Have they ruled out an intermittent open circuit in the docking station/key configuration as a cause of the "random" stalling?