As many a motorcyclist (and many racers) have learned, with the right transmission and technique you do not need a clutch to change gears smoothly when accelerating, with a nearly imperceptible interruption in applied torque (yes clutch-less shifts are that smooth and fast in a dog box).
This "technology" has been around for decades, and doesn't seem terribly hard to automate to me if that is even necessary, so why do we need all the complications of dual clutches with the usual associated fear of "wearing out synchros" and all those other moving parts, extra clutch,layshaft and gears?
Apparently I'm not the first to wonder about it, dual clutch is about making a better automatic, but with a few solenoids why couldn't you automate a dog box plus have an overriding clutch and shifter lever and have a seriously kick-ass manual in the same car?
(Add some more neutral detents and sort out reverse of course)
view this engine is it running seamless shift - Forum - F1technical.net
So, dual clutch, over-engineered/over-complicated or not? Is this some goofy patent and/or marketing thing involved here?