It is commonly known that double-clutching and heel & toeing are techniques that will help prolong your synchros and clutch. Both these techniques require the driver to blip the throttle (rev in neutral). However, revving in neutral is widely regarded as bad for the engine. See the conflict? What gives?

 

I am pretty they mean revving excessively in neutral. Like taking it to redline for example.

 

Double clutching is unnecessary on a car with synchronizers, that is why they exist. Heel-toe may prolong the life of the clutch presuming it is done properly. Unfortunately I've never heard anywhere that revving in neutral is bad for the engine. It's the only way you should rev the engine if you are going to do it at all. The worst thing that can happen is neutral is that you hit the rev limiter, and heel-toe (done properly) will not do that.

 

Double-clutching is useless in modern standard shift cars. Revving the engine during the transition is called Rev-match commonly known as downshift rev-match. If you don't rev-match, the car will rev up when you downshift and give you a big jerk depending on the RPM. And No, there is not conflict.

 

Isn't it not uncommon to reach the rev limiter (or near it) when heel & toeing?

 

Oops, yeah I meant rev-matching.

 

He said when "done properly". You must not be doing it properly

 

I suppose if you downshift that soon it's a possibility... but at that point mechanical over-rev would be the foremost concern on my mind. The car will have great synchros and a clutch but what does it matter if engine components are blown

 

HEY HEY.........Vin Diesal said i should be double clutching!

 

no granny shifting