Just wondering, let's say for a stock Z, will a twin plate clutch outlast a single plate? or do they last the same and only the clamping force is different?

Also, are twin plate clutches easier to drive than single plate clutches? I've talked to carbonetics/ ATS today and the Japanese tech told me that metallic multiplate clutches are super difficult to drive whereas single and multiplate carbon clutches are almost the same.

I tend to notice that single clutches seem to require more pedal effort? assuming pedal effort is proportional to clamping force.
ATS offers 1300kg & 1600kg for the single plate. 1100 and 1350 for twin plate...

 

No one can tell you how long a clutch will last...it is 100% driver dependantm, and subjective to what conditions the car sees (torque, terms of use, etc)

pedal effort and clamp force are directly related. The harder the pressure plate exerts force on the disk(s) the more effort the clutch needs from your left foot.

As for difficult to drive, again very subjective. It all comes down to clutch design, not so much disk material. With respect to noise however, carbons tend to generally be quiter than cerametallics

 

I would like more info on this too. Choosing b/w a single disc orc clutch and dual disc os giken str clutch to install.

 

single plates are for the NA among us..the twins are only needed on the FI cars

 

Not neccesarily. Please expound upon your comment if you don't mind. I would imagine that a twin plate setup could use smaller diameter clutch discs and have a similar clamping force--wouldn't that be "easier" to drive than a similar setup w/ same clamping force but w/ only one larger diameter clutch disc?

 

Nope - thats like saying the twin is easier to drive vs stock

Any twin, or triple, or single with integrated flywheel, by their nature, have small diameter disks. These clutches are far grabbier than any stock or stock replacement type clutch. By stock replacement I mean those that do not have integrated flywheels.

The mere fact that you have multiple disks means you can have good torque holding capacity, with a light pedal effort...however these clutches are FAR grabbier than stock, making it ultimately trickier to drive.

None of the conventionally used singles on this car (ACT, JWT, RPS) have particularly stiff pedals...and all engage very similar to stock. They grab better, but are not "grabby" if that makes sense.

Any twin, regardless of who makes it, requires overall more attention to operate smoothly vs a stock type clutch. That's not to say they are hard to drive, but they are a bit trickier. The more disks you have, the more overall torque you can hold, the smoother of an engagement they tend to have (from a dead stop) and the noisier things become

 

The multi-plate discs would be overkill unless you're planning on going F/I. Why spend that much money when a single will fit the bill perfectly? The thing with clutches is that you want one that is gonna be in the range of torque you're dealing with. So say you plan on pushing 300 ft-lbs (flywheel) at the max... you're not gonna need a clutch capable of supporting 1000 ft-lbs. A clutch with a max rating of 300ft-lbs to 400ft-lbs is all you need.

 

Well I have an ORC 409 D single clutch (damper, hi-mu, quiet) w/ integrated flywheel and an OS Giken STR series Twin clutch setup and their clamping force is very similar. You are saying that the STR will be harder to drive simply b/c it is a dual clutch system, w/out looking to the materials or general design of the integrated design?

 

In general, multi-plate clutches are harder to drive than singles.

 

But have a smoother engagement point than singles?

 

In my experience, they're grabby as hell. They take a certain finesse to operate smoothly. I don't think any multi-disc is gonna be smoother than a stock-type clutch.

 

My tilton has two discs and oh boy that thing is like a day care...requires lots of attention and don't even think about relaxing...it keeps you on your toes...but i love it to death and i want another one.

 

What is your definition of a "stock type" clutch? A single disc clutch that does not have an integrated flywheel--is that what you mean?

 

^ Yup.

 

bboypuertoroc
were your experience with the metallic twins or carbon twins? Because metallic twins are a PITA.

 

Carbon should grab better than mettalic, but don't they need to be "warmed up" before they actually grap well and do not "feel as well" as organic discs?

 

As far as I know there are 2 types of carbon.
One is the Carbon on Carbon which i think tilton uses.
The other is the one ATS uses which is the carbon/metal composite.
and ATS does not require it to be warmed up I think at least that's what I read from their website.

 

I don't really understand what you mean by twin plates being more tricky to drive and that they have a smoother engagement from a dead stop.
Pardon my ignorance but the only difficulty I'm having with driving different clutches is the engagement from a dead stop. If the engagement is smoother from a dead stop for the twins, why is it more tricky than a single with other variables held constant(same material, flywheel weight etc)?

 

yes that is exactly what we are saying. Multiplate clutches ALL share certain characteristics, regardless of their materials

 

I'll repeat...twins are more tricky to drive than clutches that don't have integrated flywheels. Among clutches that DO have integrated flywheels, twins tend to be less grabby than singles.