Hacker News Reader

Comment by sliken | Hacker News Reader

I was looking for a nice AWD hatchback. Subaru cancelled the WRX and STI version. Focus RS sadly goes with a manual only.

Seems kind of silly to work so hard on performance/acceleration and then waste time on shifting.

View on HN

A shifter isn't just for acceleration. It's also for picking which gear you want to be in when anticipating something you're trying to do.

When racing you'll know exactly what gear to be in for what section of each corner. You'll have a plan going into the corner, coming out of the corner, and it'll be complicated enough that there's no way an automatic can keep up.

Unless you're going for quarter mile times, you'll eventually have to down-shift and performance there will be key.

Automatics are the same. Sporty cars usually have flappy paddles to control the automatic. So you can pick your gear for the next corner if you want. All the while enjoying better acceleration, faster shifts, and better mpg.

Can't push start the car when the battery dies though.

Yeah, unless you've tried them both extensively, you can't compare them that way.

The feedback provided by the clutch pedal is integral to the process of driving a manual car - it's not just 'engage' or 'disengage', it's a fully analog feedback mechanism about the state of the drivetrain linkage.

Especially the paddle shifters are like trying to tie a fly fishing lure while wearing welding gloves. No connection to the machine or feedback from the engine, no ability to change the engine state independent of the state of the drivetrain.

I miss manual transmissions every time I drive, and I drive a car with a really, really good paddle shift dual clutch transmission.

High-end sports cars with paddles use an automatically triggered manual transmission, it's a sequential shifter, not a classic automatic transmission.

There used to be a pretty wide divide between "manual" and "automatic", but now that gap has narrowed and the terminology overlaps.

This is an example of a what's inside a paddle driven engine: http://eng.kaps-transmissions.com/products-si-full-sequentia...

It's "clutchless manual", not automatic.

Do any performance-focused vehicles use CVT?

Answer: No.

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/why-you-wont-see-another-... (Sept 2015)

"Ferrari has emphatically ruled out offering a manual gearbox in its next generation of vehicles, for one simple reason: performance. Speaking at the Frankfurt motor show this week, stakeholders at Ferrari said the manual transmission had become obsolete in a performance sense because modern dual-clutch transmissions were much faster and effective in their shifts."

"We never say no, but today we say no," a spokesman said. "We are very convinced with our strategy about the automatic gearbox, it's the fastest gearbox in the market and this is a distinctive component for us. Right now we are not thinking about a manual because the performance is [less]."

Not a CVT, but a manual has no benefit. Either go CVT for efficiency or geared automatic for performance.

EDIT: astrodust: Let not split hairs; Formula 1 allowed the introduction of CVTs in 1993 and then banned them because they were too good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3UpBKXMRto

http://jalopnik.com/http-youtu-be-x3upbkxmrto-one-that-goes-...

That's a sequential shifter, which is a different beast than an automatic.

They've had paddle-driven shifting on their cars for over a decade now which just triggers gear shifts manually. It's not an automatic transmission in the classic sense, there are still gears. Classic automatic transmission systems use a fluid mechanism to transmit power which is where a lot of the power loss comes from.

paddle driven cars may not be an automatic transmission in the classic sense. Nor is it a manual transmission in the classic sense. Maybe clutchless is a better term

It's hard to define 'paddle driven' cars, since of course any automatic transmission car could have paddles that allow manual shifting.

I assume you're talking about the paddle-shifted transmissions found Ferraris, Lamborghinis, BMWs etc. in the recent past. These in fact are the opposite of 'clutchless'. They were basically manual transmissions electronically controlled and with the clutch and shifting actuated by hydraulics.

Nowadays they use some variety of dual-clutch transmission.

Sad to see someone getting beat up on for using the correct term. "Clutchless" does not refer to a missing clutch internally, but the lack of an operable clutch pedal.

They can go that way, because the technology is far enough. A traditional automatic is not suitable for sporty driving. Not only because it may choose the wrong gear at the wrong time. In racing, the balance of the car is highly important. Making an uncontrolled shift within a corner, can spin off the car because of the associated weight shift. You counter that in traditional transmissions with double clutching and heal-and-toe, where you get the rev in the transmission about right, to guarantie a smooth shift and a stable car. Ferrari and the like managed through timed automated gas bursts and other technologies to conquer the effect in automatic transmissions.

No, they use dual clutches.

They, being the computer, not the driver.

Subaru WRX is not a dual clutch, it's an (optional) CVT.

A 2017 Subaru WRX with a CVT and 268hp will deliver 5.9s 0-60. Certainly not a supercar but it fits the definition of 'performance-focused' for most people.

It is odd to see in action; accelerating from a stop using launch control causes the car to not simulate gear shifts for maximum performance; the engine quickly climbs to about 6700 and just hangs there while the speed increases. No shifting drama at all. Almost boring.

Well, it was banned in F1 over a decade ago

You can get better 0 to 60 time with manual.

Automatics are faster.

Cammisa, Jason. "Here's what's really killing the manual transmission." Road & Track. March 10, 2014. (April 10, 2015) http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a6308/whats-really-k...

Lachnit, Carroll. "Five Myths About Stick Shifts: Manual vs Automatic Transmissions." Edmunds. Sept. 26, 2013. (April 10, 2015) http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/five-myths-about-stick-s...

If you're not driving a stick, eating paleo, and listening to your music on vinyl with a 100% analog mastering process, then you're doing it wrong.

OK, but can stop doing cross-fit?

I can't tell if this is sarcastic or not.

It should be completely obvious that machines can be made to do things quicker, better, and more reliably than humans.

So why are Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Skoda, Volkswagen and such reporting slower zero to sixty times on automatic transmissions?

Just did a quick check on Mercedes' German website, tried to find some models that are still offered with manuals, and got this:

B160d - faster with automatic

B180 - faster with automatic

B200 - faster with automatic

C180 - slower with automatic

C200 - faster with automatic

C220d - faster with automatic

CLA180d - same

CLA180 - faster with automatic

CLA200 - faster with automatic

E200 - faster with automatic

I'm sorry, but you are wrong for at least one of the manufacturers you listed. I only found one Mercedes model where they reported a slower 0-100km/h time for the version with the automatic transmission.

I'm pretty sure the numbers for the other manufacturers are similar. Automatic transmissions have simply surpassed manuals. Yay, technology!

Did a quick check on Audi's German website:

https://www.audi.de/de/brand/de/neuwagen/a6/a6-limousine.htm...

The A6 2.0 TDI accelerates faster with an automatic transmission (8.2s vs. 8.4s), and is more fuel efficient (4.4l/km vs 4.5l/km)

They are? Not in the US:

BMW 340i: Auto 4.8s, Manual 4.9s http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2017/3/340iS...

BMW M3: DCT 3.9s, Manual 4.1s http://www.bmwusa.com/Standard/Content/Vehicles/2017/M/M3Sed...

C&D review of the VW Golf R: "The manual loses to the automatic Golf R against the stopwatch. The 0.7-second deficit from zero to 60 mph, which takes 5.2 seconds, is almost fully attributable to the two shifts required to reach 60" http://www.caranddriver.com/volkswagen/golf-r#eztoc8578403_0...

I couldn't find a manual Mercedes on their website, Skoda isn't for sale here, and I couldn't find 0-60 numbers on VW's website so I quoted an automotive review instead.

The general consensus I've seen is that automatic transmission cars are faster than manual transmission cars 0-60.

The Golf R isn't really a fair comparison as it's a dual clutch, not a traditional automatic, and more importantly, it gets a (quite aggressive) launch control while the manual doesn't.

My argument was that machines can do simple things better than humans, the Golf R automatic transmission is a machine that does shifting better than a human, and you are complaining that the comparison is unfair because the machine is too good at what it does?!?

Come on.

I'm just saying it's not apples and apples... the launch control helps the time a lot more than the DSG does.

Spot-checked BMW as well:

http://www.bmw.de/de/neufahrzeuge/3er/limousine/2015/technis...

Innerorts in l/100 km: 5,2 [5,0] / 4,7 [4,6]

Außerorts in l/100 km: 3,8 [3,6] / 3,4 [3,3]

Kombiniert in l/100 km: 4,3 [4,1] / 3,9 [3,8]

Beschleunigung 0-100 km/h in s: 7,9 [7,8]

Numbers in brackets are with automatic transmission, and it outperforms the manual transmission in both fuel efficiency and acceleration.

Not gonna do Skoda and Volkswagen, feel free to prove me wrong though!

Seems like automatic transmissions have really evolved over years. I was wrong.

Certainly not. A modern DCT or even a regular torque converter (such as the ubiquitous ZF 8-Speed) will be faster to 60 than a manual with even the best driver by several tenths.

That's true. A good automatic transmission will be slightly faster. However I also get his point, as most of the last-gen cars with automatic transmission were slightly slower than their manual counterparts.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com