How America lost its love for the stick shift
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
Adaptive cruise control in stop and go traffic.
I used to have to deal with a six-speed manual transmission in stop and go traffic for an hour every day, and it was pure torture. I mean, sure, it was fun for a weekend drive in the mountains, but it sucked the rest of the time.
Oh, and as a side note, my new car with an automatic transmission and a 400+ HP engine accelerates from zero to 60 faster and smoother than any one of my previous cars. I will never go back! And I have paddle shifters, if I ever want to manually control the gears.
CC on stick shifts works fine at steady highway speeds over a consistent grade.
Of course, in city traffic the adaptiveness is not very useful with manual transmission.
but i never had the cramping problem and love driving it in stop and go traffic. keeps me entertained / sane with something to do. recently noticed my left calf is bigger than my right
As one of my friends with the same car said "it's a heavy clutch. It's not that bad to use if you are a tall guy, but if you are a short woman who weighs less than 120 pounds, you are going to have to stand on it or pull the steering wheel to use it"
He has the Saabaru, and his GF can't drive his car at all because of how heavy the clutch is.
Now that I only use my car for errands in the city I wish I had the manual, but I am so glad I didn't have it when I had a 1 hour commute each way in stop and go traffic.
Yeah you can smooth things out and inject a bit more zen into your experience by accelerating and decelerating more gently and leaving a larger than normal gap, but stop&go simply exists and is a pain even with an automatic.
Adaptive cruise is a godsend.
Adaptive cruise control is easy to achieve no matter the car, and without any technology doing it. You just do it yourself.
The whole purpose of cruise control is to not do it yourself.
I define stop and go traffic as when I'm in 0-15mph traffic during rush hour on the Interstate.
If I leave a large enough gap so that I don't constantly have to press the clutch from stalling then someone else will move in front of me and then I have to hit the brakes as well.
No thanks. Automatic for me.
I don't know what to tell you. Works on my machine.
Maybe it's because I don't do it in the left lane but I never see 4+ people force their way in front of me at the exact same time with no time to decrease my speed. The occasional one will buffer out so it works for me.
It removes the need for your fellow drivers to feel a tension when it is time to switch lanes, to not have to make a risky maneuver. You get to relax when driving because now you aren’t competing to get to your destination, and you can feel more confident others are not going to accidentally hit you in a desperate attempt to go where they are going.
That impatient driver behind you? They will get around you and play the rat race. Let them. Most drivers don’t do that unless you are much obviously slower than traffic flow. Let people win the game they are playing. You are making it generally safer, and your consistency on the road helps them make decisions easier.
I’ve been doing this for about 10 years. No accidents, no cause of accidents, no angry honkers, none of that nonsense. Try it for a week! Give others space to move. Watch traffic jams ease up a little around you. It’s very neat. My space clears spaces so I can move easier after people get in front of me. I’ve seen others follow my example (or be their own example).
I do appreaciate when people drive densely packed and I try to do the same (up to a safety limit). For merging there are turn signals.
At the same velocity. It's quite possible that with the increased gap and increased flow (less stop & go), you could get higher velocity out of it to compensate. Maybe not 3x the velocity, but 2x gap and 2x velocity seems within the realm of possibility (a 60mph road that slows down to 30mph because people are driving stupidly).
Edit: on the low end, this seems quite possible. Increased gaps raising the mean velocity from 5mph to 15 or 20mph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_diagram_of_traffic...
This is super interesting! As kind of expected, there's a middle zone that balances out density and velocity. In the context of what we were talking about, the fourth "Basic Statement" jumps out at me: "If one of the vehicles brakes in unstable flow regime the flow will collapse."
Following too closely removes any margin for error and so requires you to either mimic every change in speed or create dangerous conditions.
I find the problem isn't people merging into your lane in front of you, but doing so badly (ie not leaving a safe amount of space behind their rear bumper and your front bumper).
Semi drivers have this even worse.
That's the worst problem I see around here -- cars in the freeway running bumper to bumper, and then a block of 3 or 5 cars also running bumper to bumper trying to force their way in, but none of the cars really leave enough room for a smooth merge, so the cars on the freeway end up hitting the brakes when the merging cars force their way in.
There are some advantages to driving a semi in traffic:
- Lots of gears to choose from and massive torque in order to find that perfect 'idle forward' speed.
- Far more comfortable ride then a car, it's not even close.
- Radio communication with trucks ahead, so you know what's happening ahead and which lane to be in long before the cars figure this out.
- Visibility over the top of vehicles in front (except another truck, obviously).
I think the only thing better than a semi for heavy traffic might be a luxury car with adaptive cruise and a little roof-mounted drone-cam that you could launch to check out the view ahead (though this sounds like something Homer Simpson would dream up). Your own little personal traffic copter/R2D2, with a recharging dock on the roof. Someone please tell Elon Musk to make this a priority for new Teslas. It could even check out side streets in cities and find quicker routes.
Heavy load = longer stop distance = lengthier minimum safe following distance
Minimum safe following distance > 1 car length = motorists darting in front of semis
Rinse and repeat. Assuming a heavy load and ignorant motorists, there's no way to avoid constant unsafe situations. As soon as you create a new safe gap, someone slides in.
So, no. It's terrible. (And I'm not even mentioning the additional gear shifts)
I think this wsj vid may contain excerpts from the original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtwY9xKfaYo
If everyone could just relax out there, some of those traffic standing waves would diffuse away to nothing. Ahhh...
When I get in bad traffic and struggle against the urge to tailgate I play a game where I try and give enough space to where I just roll up to the car in front of me as it is starting to move again. This gives me a time-local goal to aim at instead of fixating on supposed "bad actors" I might want to judge instead.
Edit: I found it! (from 2008 it appears) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGFqfTCL2fs
Come over to Los Angeles and take me to work for a week and we'll see how well you can make that work.
As someone who drove a stick shift far too often in LA traffic jams, I understand your point and agree with it. You have to try really hard to juuust get to the car in front as it's starting to accelerate or you will burn the heck out of your clutch.
However, if you leave the appropriate gap, someone WILL jump into it in LA. And the people behind you will start frothing at the mouth.
It's really hard to be nice to a clutch in Los Angeles.
There will always be stop and go traffic once the carrying capacity of the road is reached. Once the capacity of the road is reached, it's actually most beneficial for everyone to be as close to each other as possible, and fill gaps as quickly as possible, since there's a finite amount of road at any given time, so only way to maximize is is to fill up as much if it as possible.
Also why you should use all lanes available and create zipper merge at the very end.
Unless you can control the behavior of adjacent lanes there is no achievable amount of buffer space that eliminates stop and go. The best you can do is increase the glide time between stops. At times you will see, e.g., semis lining up side by side to help keep a zipper merge flowing, etc., but those cases are rare and not understood by other drivers.
Do you understand what causes traffic? That harder you brake, the bigger and longer the wave of people braking behind you will be. By braking less hard, you are causing less traffic.
And yes, 99% of people driving in traffic are idiots who don't know how to drive or they wouldn't be tailgating and slamming the brakes every 6 feet wasting thousands of hours of people's collective time by causing needlessly large waves of braking behind them due to the fact that those people are also following too close, amplifying the problem.
See http://trafficwaves.org/ for further reading
Do you understand traffic? I pretty much doubt it.
No, 99% of people driving in traffic aren't idiots. About 5% are, and that's all it takes. My most pleasant finding from all those years of driving was to note that the vast, vast majority of Houston daily commuters were absolutely pro drivers when it comes to congestion.
A good friend of mine and I have a standing argument about proper behavior when, driving, one encounters a "lane closed ahead" sign. He insists that the right thing to do is to abandon the to-be-closed lane as soon as feasible [tangent: he also gets mad at drivers who want to merge later, describing them as "cutters"], while I maintain that the best way to minimize the effect of a lane closure is to use whatever lanes are legal/open for as long as possible -- because leaving an open lane of travel unused only exacerbates the problem.
Who's right?
Disclaimer: I grew up driving in the Boston area (yes, among other "Massholes"), and my philosophy is "try never to use your brakes on the highway, and try even harder never to require anyone else to brake unnecessarily".
But that's a big "if" -- too many drivers are like your friend, and work themselves up into a blood-boiling rage at the thought of someone "cutting" by engaging in proper zipper merging. Tell your friend the problem is he's thinking of the merge as a competition with a "winner" (person who ends up in front) and "loser" (person who ends up behind), instead of looking for the option that maximizes efficiency for everyone.
If everyone merges early, the cars that could have been in that mile of unused lane, will instead be in the full lane, moving the entire queue backwards a mile, clogging up more exits and onramps, and making the jam worse.
Use all available road, that's what it's there for.
I agree with you. Fully packing an 'ending' lane until it actually ends is most efficient from a road usage point of view.
(I have lived for 10+ years in the Boston area but did not grow up there.
I love manuals, and everytime I drive an automatic I just hate it. It never does what I want.
The car in question was a used Audi A8. In "S" mode it would shift pretty much the way I'd shift my manual Audi S4. In D mode it was more sedate, but if I needed to downshift in order to be ready when a gap opened in traffic, I could pull on the left paddle twice and it would downshift. I thought that worst case if I hated it I could just use the paddles or the same thing on the shifter. It had a mode where it would not shift unless you told it to as well. I tried that a few times, but in the end just used D most of the time and S for the twisties.
Now I'm not sure what I have. Is a Tesla a Automatic or a Manual? It is direct drive, so you don't touch it once you "shift into gear", but it isn't making gear changes for you either. Hmmm. :-) It's also fast and smooth and absolutely no lag, either through induction/turbo or through gear changes. I worried as a car guy that I would find it too isolating, but the things I like about good cars, this has in spades (smooth, responsive, powerful engine).
Adaptive cruise control with stop-and-go support is not really the same as cruise-control in free flowing traffic. I rarely use cruise-control in normal traffic, but the stop-and-go cruise control is a luxury I never realized I wanted until I had it.
That doesn't seem like a bad drive. Try two hours from Western SF to the Golden Gate Bridge (roughly six miles).
At an average of 40 miles per hour that's not particularly bad. The people complaining about driving in stop-and-go traffic are almost certainly in much worse traffic than that.
The example I gave of getting from one end of San Francisco to another happens pretty much every holiday weekend. Average speed? About 3 mph. The worst part is the uphill approach to the GG Bridge.
Or you can look at the other SF bridge. In traffic (which has gotten so bad you'll see it like this on pretty much any weekend afternoon) it'll easily take an hour to get from the 280/101 interchange to the Bay Bridge approach (about 7 miles).
Traffic like that is why I rarely commute by car, but also why many people simply don't want to drive a car with a manual transmission.
I gave you the time it would take if you drove at mid-day, not at rush hour (hence the "without traffic" qualifier). A lot of people commute to New York, as you might imagine (and you have to go through toll booths and there was non-stop construction), but my hours were variable at that particular job so I didn't always get the same experience. It wasn't part of my normal commute, but I assure you the George Washington Bridge isn't any better than the Golden Gate, and I have also driven over that in heavy traffic.
Anyway, I've done that and I've commuted on Massachusetts highways (allegedly among the worst in the country). I didn't enjoy it but my point is that driving an automatic car didn't make it any better.
Agreed 100%. About the only time I drive within the Bay Area is if I'm going outside the SF / Oakland / Berkeley urban core. This Labor Day I was going to Marin and planned poorly (driving the day of instead of leaving earlier).
Once you get out of that urban core (or if you're traveling late at night) public transit nearly evaporates. Without traffic that would have been around a two hour bus ride. However there are no dedicated lanes for buses along 19th / Park Presidio so that would've been easily a 3-4 hour bus trip with a few untimed transfers thrown in for good measure.
Here are some other car models with full range adaptive cruise control:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_cruise_control_syst...
And here's what looks like a more complete list of 2018 models supporting it:
https://www.cars.com/articles/which-cars-have-self-driving-f...
I would never put my manual in neutral unless I am about about to set the parking brake. It represents a mode shift in my attention and vigilance. I always did this startup sequence (and its reverse for shutdown): foot on clutch, foot on brake, start engine, release parking brake, transmission into gear, foot off brake and over gas pedal, feather clutch to pull away.
Like many on this long thread, I eventually compromised and got an automatic because of the narrowing options in the new car market here in the US as well as to make my wife comfortable sharing the car.
I am learning to enjoy the extra gears and the aggressive automatic shifting program that gives a quiet, comfortable cruise. With a manual, I would never shift my way so close to the idle speed when cruising, because my ear would be telling me it is time to downshift. But, knowing that the computer is handling it means I enjoy the comfort and can be impressed by the fuel efficiency in this mode.
I do miss the engine braking though. I think automatics are tuned to an irritating preference for coasting. I'd much rather have to keep the gas pedal depressed in order for it to sustain speed, and to have it automatically downshift and slow the car when I start to raise my foot. I'd like the automatic to do this all the way from highway speed down to the slowest crawling speed in the lowest gear, without any other inputs.
You're just not worthy of a stick. I'd get a crash box if they offered one. Synchromesh is for wussies.
It's a burden if you're stuck in bad traffic, if you've got a heavy clutch, or if you're crawling up a hill. Worse if you've got more than one of those compounding factors.
For me, motorcycles in traffic has been painful due to having to hold a heavy clutch in with your hand.
I really don't get what the issue is. Maybe my ADHD benefits focus-wise from having another thing to do? I rarely even use the cruise control unless I'm on a 3+ hour trip.
The same applies to pretty much everything in driving, of course. Initially, when learning to drive, the information flow overwhelms people, because the brain tries to understand and process everything. Eventually, routines take over and the low-level things like how to turn the steering wheel, or how to handle brakes or shifting, is done unconsciously.
But yes, if there is a smoking gun for the death of the manual in America, it would be our crumbling, congested roads and absurdly long daily commutes.
It's still "increasing engagement" which is what GP claimed to want. How about a persistent pull to the right in the steering? That's continuous and increases engagement. How about occasional "death wobble" as found in many Jeeps? That will really sharpen your focus and keep you engaged.
And no paddle replaces the sheer joy of rowing your own.
That's a purely subjective statement.
It was about efficiency and cost for ages though. That's why manuals were popular and why they aren't popular in the US anymore. Modern automatics (dual clutch, CVTs, even computer controlled single clutch and plain old torque converter slushboxes) are so much more efficient now that manuals don't make as much sense as they used to.
But when I still drove a manual it always felt like I was planning ahead, engine braking early at red lights (which often meant I could coast though it without completely stopping) etc, which you can't do with the lesser control on an automatic. Driving "lazily" in a manual means reducing shifting which often translates to more fuel-efficient driving. Driving lazily in an automatic is very different.
I'd love to see a study on hypermiling with auto vs manual in real-world condition. AFAIK all the efficiency numbers we have are just based on purely mechanical tests on a driving cycle on a dynamometer, and we all know what that kind of testing leads to.
Sure you can.
It's one the of the reasons the ZF8 transmission is used in everything from the new BMW 8 series down to the Dodge Charger.
Unless something has changed radically in the last few years, that's just not true. The torque converter will drop out of lock-up as soon as you demand sufficient acceleration (this will vary tremendously by engine - i.e. an inline four will do it regularly, a big V8 may meet most of your acceleration needs without dropping out of lockup) or tap the brakes. Torque converter with lockup have been around since 1950ish.
Having spent a decent amount of time with ZF8 speed the torque converter is almost always locked out. Throttle response and engine braking don't lie.
Edit: by the way, I looked up the ZF8 and it's available in a bunch of configurations. One of them is a wet clutch instead of a torque converter, which I imagine has to operate like an electronically controlled manual transmission. There's even an option to have an electric motor instead of a torque converter for hybridization!
The same reason I love(d) driving motorcycle. It's a full body engagement. Both hands, both feet, and super alertness and focus on everything around you.
Good- I'd rather you focus on the world around you.
There are some situations where driving a manual incorrectly is more dangerous (clutch coasting) but others where the extra control is better (Ute off-road).
Adding arbitrary other things requiring focus doesn’t seem like it would help prevent accidents.
A manual car sort of kicks you in the butt every now and then: “hey, you’re in the wrong gear. Stay sharp, and upshift!”
Other benefits, when I think about it, are that an automatic frees up one foot and one hand. I can drive with my cup of tea or coffee without having to shift, which is great. I don't know if it directly helps with awareness, but it helps me stay awake.
Now I have two cars, one for rough traffic trips. I realize this isn't practical, though, so I don't hate anyone for their automatics.
Not to be a jerk, but there's a big difference between a Dodge Dart and a Dodge Viper or a Chevy Cruze and Chevy Corvette. Cars that are designed to provide the driver with mechanical feedback and tight handling are not something that manufacturers are concerned with in most of their vehicles.
Even among sports cars with "automatic" transmissions (most likely dual clutch), the transmission is programmed very differently from the regular models. Take an automatic BMW M4 for a spin and compare it to a regular 4 series. The M4's transmission will be far jerkier and rougher shifting despite having mechanically identical components. It's programmed for faster shifts for better performance while sacrificing comfort.
Wasn't aware they dropped it for the F8X's, the E9X 335i's had the option for a DCT.
That's true engagement! My plugin hybrid minivan with an e-cvt knocks the socks off of my old 5-speed Subaru wagon. A Minivan!
(Edit) The reason why is that it takes me about a second to shift gears. A modern automatic can rev up before I'd even move the shifter, let alone before I'd get the clutch back in. An electric car doesn't need the gears at all.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy stick. But the arguments you make are nonsense.
Only time I think about gears is in low range, when I'm in an off-roader.
Frankly, I wish it was completely electric... Also, I hate to say this... The minivan is just overpowered. I hardly press the accelerator and it's like driving a rocket. At least when I drove a Leaf I had to push down a bit when I wanted to go fast
Speak for yourself. I have a manual (actually, I've never driven an automatic, come to think of it), and I couldn't care less about "connectedness with the car". My car is a device that takes me, and sometimes my family, from A to B as safely and conveniently as possible. It's a car, I'm not in a relationship with it.
YMMV.
I don't have anything against automatics per se, I can well see myself getting a car having one in the future.
I suppose I could have gone looking for one when we were buying a new car, but they're not exactly common.
I do enjoy driving a manual car, but I can't honestly say my preference is due to personal experience.
However, I'm all for the aspect of automatic transmission changing gears at the right moment to get as much power out of the engine as possible. But it doesn't weigh up the disconnected feeling they provide on my behalf.
It really depends on the type of car you're driving though, I guess. Driving a sports car with a grippy clutch is going to be painful. Driving a $750, 20 year old Mazda with a 2 L engine and a soft clutch isn't too bad at all, you just sort of ride the clutch (which I am aware isn't great for it).
I think that there is nothing that beats driving a stick shift in winding hills. Autos and paddle shifts just don't feel the same. There's just something about the mechanical action of shifting manually that I love.
I don't drive in stop-start traffic, so I don't know how well it would work, but my manual VW Golf MK VII has adaptive cruise control. If you need to shift up or down, you just do so and cruise control re-engages.
I'm pretty much always in 6th gear when I've got ACC enabled.
Obviously manuals have had normal cruise control for decades.
that said, I'd take it oven an automatic anyday.
I truly believe that stop and go is caused by automatics. All of the brake tapping tends to bunch people up at the end of long lines forcing them to a complete stop. In a manual just let off on the gas a little and the engine brakes a little, no brake lights to create cascading braking
I worry there's a sampling bias going on.
When I commuted to work, I'd keep the same tight pattern everyone else used, and it felt like any time I let up, some jerk would take advantage.
Then, for a while, I was suddenly paid to go between buildings on opposite sides of one of the worst traffic cities in the US. I always left with plenty of time and no urgency, so I would just stubbornly maintain plenty of stopping distance while everyone else was inches apart. Smoothing my braking pattern became a game.
If you constantly leave that much room people weaving in becomes rare enough that you barely care when it happens.
I feel like there's some bias affecting perception. Maybe it's a confound, or availability heuristic.
Confound - if you're trying to hug a bumper, and suddenly there's a gap, maybe that's because your lane is suddenly moving faster and someone's taking advantage of that. If you always have space, you'll have it even when your lane is less attractive. (ie, The space doesn't make your lane attractive, the pace does.)
Availability heuristic - if you care about people cutting you off and are adopting a strategy to prevent it, you will notice it more and put more weight on those occurrences than on all the seconds where no one is cutting you off.
Before I had that job, I would have read this comment and thought it was nuts though, so not sure if anyone will actually believe me.
I swear I've watched traffic clear up around me. Of course it's anecdotal, but it tends to keep things moving, even if slowly, rather than bringing everything to a halt.
Driving in traffic is a cooperative activity. The only times you don’t need to accommodate and be accommodated by other drivers are when there are hardly any around.
We should mostly be on bikes and scooters anyway.
That being said, in some European cities drivers are not very keen to stop for pedestrians in crosswalks, even when pedestrians are already in the median "island." I haven't noticed any US city of a similar size that had drivers quite so negligent about crosswalks.
Almost exclusively these people will zip around a line and force their way in at the end. Even kindergartners are taught budging in line is not good.
Why is this the problem on the people actually being considerate and are in the correct lane at the appropriate time?
I find it inconsiderate frankly, because it forces an arbitrary decision rather then just patiently using the available road as marked.
https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/mark-phelan/2018/07/0...
Zipper merging [0] exercises a different kindergarten skill, taking turns. Still, "lines" are a small minority of lane-changing situations, all of which involve taking the open space in an adjacent lane.
"Lines", to use your emphasis, are by far the major time component so for me this is a meaningless distinction. Normal traffic merges should of course be accepted gracefully.
We were taught that squeezing in is forbidden unless you're heading for an exit or something like that.
A simple hypothesis like this is easy to test: does stop and go traffic exist in places that are predominantly manual transmissions?
I live in Asia and I can tell you unequivocally that, yes, stop and go traffic still exists even when every single person has a manual transmission.
Like on a motorbike I tend to tweak slow speeds with the clutch only and leave the throttle in one position most of the time.
With an automatic car since the brakes are not binary and automatic gearboxes have often forward creeping I only tweak the brakes. Helps to force the gearbox into 2nd gear as well for even slower creeping.
In fact, I think automatic gearboxes reduces traffic jams as fewer parts to think of so less likely to accidentally make a mistake and cause congestion.
Wonder how many jams are due to accidental stalling a manual gearbox.
Traffic jams without an automatic gearbox is no fun. (or even less fun)
If, left in drive gear, yes. However, many cars have several options.
In my current car, a Honda, rhe lowest gear will just creep along, next gear up will slow the car rapidly on gas pedal release.
Both gears are very well chosen for traffic. I rarely apply brake.
Not with the regenerative braking in my hybrid.
If that’s the case then it should eventually be solved by a critical mass of vehicles with adaptive cruise control (assuming they optimize for fuel efficiency and/or smooth acceleration/braking)
I find I'm usually able to keep rolling in gear, which doesn't use any more fuel than just idling, and not apply the brakes in most "stop and go" traffic.
Same thing with an automatic transmission. With DSG it's obvious why, but even with a torque converter you tend to have a clutch that locks up once there's no need for slip to improve efficiency.
The simple solution is to behave like an inductor in electronics; if the front car starts, take a bit of time to get going and don't try to maintain the gap. That way you average out the speed of the stop-and-go traffic more than if you were maintaining distance.
It might help to think of stop-and-go as a wave of stop-traffic through go-traffic where the reaction time of drivers shortens or lengthens the stop-traffic duty cycle. If a driver maintains enough distance to eat an entire stop-cycle without stopping themselves, they have effectively nullified the stop-wave. If they can't do the entire cycle they can still help in reducing the duty cycle of the stop wave.
I coast nearly as much with it as I did using a manual.
I have owned manual my entire life and IMHO after the first month driving switching becomes something your brain does automatically, pretty much like biking.
It's useful on the track you say? Maybe, and I have no doubt I'd rather a paddle shifter for outright speed and ease. It's probably safer to learn to drive at high speed having removed one of the variables at least at first. That said, I'll never be Michael Schumacher.
Bottom line when you buy a performance car: what are you trying to do? It can't be "win" or see the limits of the car, so what is it? Clearly it's to have fun. And I think it's hard to argue that driving a stick is more fun, except perhaps in traffic. In the end I'd rather endure minor annoyance in traffic and in the city in exchange for the fun that comes elsewhere. I've put my money where my mouth is, own 2 cars, both stick.
There is a rough measure of power going on with these status symbols. Everyone would be driving Ariel Atoms and Caterham Lotus 7 cars or Mazda Miatas if 'good nimble sports car' really satisfied what was allegedly wanted.
So the 'what do you want, what are you trying to achieve' aspect of owning that fancy car that can do silly speeds has to have more to it than that thrill of acceleration. It is about where you see yourself in the world - status.
I may as well claim that because bicyclists are always wearing spandex and carrying helmets around, there must be more to it than the alleged enjoyment of cycling - they don't actually like riding bikes, but only want hipster-fitness lifestyle points.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn
(Besides, it's not like most use them "legally" all the time)
I have two manuals and an auto, the auto is used for the commute to work while I have a racecar and a four wheel drive (to take the racecar to the track). The auto is lovely when you have a coffee on the go, and the manuals do a far better skid.
They all have their merits, it's purely down to individual choice and don't see any need to try and justify it.
Yes, automatic transmissions have a big advantage in acceleration which is why they're so common in drag racing. The torque converter means there's an "extra low gear" to provide more torque from a standstill, and there's no need to operate a clutch that can take repeated slipping without quickly wearing out --- cars can "slip" the torque converter at full throttle for a moment and launch with the engine already running near the optimal RPM for peak power.
In fact, one of the most popular transmissions in drag racing is a two-speed automatic from the early 50s:
Don’t think I’d be able to keep my sanity if it was an auto - at least I could focus on something other than the miserable drive and crazy work/study hours.
Priorities change, but if I was making a choice today just for me - manual all the way!
Now if I could only find a car without electric power steering... or any power steering at all... (Those old NSXs were a blast to drive!)
You want a Lotus. It's a glorified go kart. Even the radio is optional.
Nope, I was bored out of my mind and the paddle shifters were no replacement. Sold it after 6 months, bought a manual again and am never going back to automatics. Yes, they're slower and less fuel efficient but they're so much more fun; like Hammond said "changing gear is a vital form of self-expression".
Probably helps that I don't drive in traffic, only for fun.
Well theres your problem, you wouldn't take a tractor on a track day why would you take a sports car into stop and go traffic? buy a small manual, sit in second problem solved, will pay for itself with the petrol you will save.
But yes, automatics are just so much more comfortable during rush hour.
There were other times during fast up or down shifting that the car would get confused and pause before figuring out what to do.
Also, these newer automatic transmissions still do not give you anywhere near the level of control you get over the car, which I found to be really annoying whenever it snowed.
I'm sure these systems have improved, but last year I sold that car and bought a manual instead. It was hard to find, but I'm glad I switched back.
Automatic transmissions are therefore regarded as either boring, or for people who do not have the skills to drive a manual.
I drive a car with an automatic transmission and people always ask me why I'd drive a 'boring' car. Then I explain it is actually 'sporty' because it has paddle shifters (which I never use), and suddenly it becomes acceptable again.
Ironically I believe an American who has never driven a manual would be able to come here and rent one, because (please correct me if I'm wrong) their licences don't distinguish between the two.
I think manuals are slowly on the way out here as well, although they'll persist for a long time on cheaper cars, and a few sportier cars.
A friend's new (automatic) Audi has both faster 0-60 and higher MPG (and lower CO2 output) than the manual equivalent, so manual gearboxes are becoming more difficult to justify, even for petrolheads.
Also could I go to a developing country, get a licence there, then it is valid in the UK and America?
These questions came to mind when I read your comment.
Depends on the country you get the license from. https://www.gov.uk/exchange-foreign-driving-licence has a simple click through questionaire that implies your 3rd world license would be valid for 12 months. Looks like you can also get an IDP [0] which will be recognised in most places in the world, but again only valid for 12 months.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Driving_Permit
First off, you would have to find a rental manual transmission. I don't know if I have ever seen a manual in all the times I have rented here in the U.S.
The police will not care about that status on your license. They probably will not notice it.
1) They are most likely cheaper and lighter than automatics. They make more sense in cheap small cars. So if cost is an issue you may opt for this.
2) They could be more fun, depending on the car they're on. There are people who genuinely enjoy being engaged while taking a drive for fun. The more disconnected you get and the more stuff is done for you, the more it feels like you're a passenger instead of the driver. It's not just about getting better mileage, or better acceleration. The manual can be part of the fun.
For almost all other purposes an automatic transmission is the comfortable, efficient choice.
This being said, automatic transmissions can still be infuriating in some corner cases where they just can't pick the right gear. As long as there's a way to shift manually that shouldn't be a problem.
As someone who drives both automatic and manual cars, and rides (manual) motorcycles, I take umbrage with this sentiment. It regularly gets trotted out in these types of discussions and is used as a way to dismiss anyone with a different view.
If you don't feel engaged while driving an automatic, the problem is with you, not the transmission. You may find manual shifting gratifying or fun, but if you need that to feel engaged then you need to stop and think about what your mind is doing while driving.
> is used as a way to dismiss anyone with a different view
I'm sorry but being offended that some people might like something different than what you like is not complimenting you at all. You complain about others dismissing your point of view while you're dismissing their point of view. And you completely ignore the fact that I didn't state it as a universal truth. It's even highlighted: "could be more fun". Your argument revolves around "I don't understand it or like it so it must be wrong". Under no circumstance do I have to like the same things as you to be right. When talking about my tastes I am always right. No exception. If you don't feel like this applies to you then it just means you're not in the target group for my statement.
The rest of your comment is just insulting which doesn't help you make a point or even make you sound like a reasonable person.
I don't enjoy riding a motorcycle but you don't see me offended by the fact that you do. Maybe you feel engaged snoozing in the train. Don't hate the people whose minds like more. And don't contradict or insult them about what they want or like. Makes you look petty and insecure. If you need validation for your tastes this is definitely not the way to go about it.
Except perhaps for a few exotic sports cars, electrics use fixed-reduction transmissions.
Also, a year or two ago was the first year where half the new cars sold were automatic. The first time I ever tried driving an automatic was actually when first driving my own car; we bought our car just before I got my license, so I couldn't test drive it then but I could drive it home when it was delivered. I quickly decided that I would not ever be getting a car with manual transmission.
This is especially funny to me since I'm working on Need for Speed which is all about car culture, where people have a lot of passion for driving stick.
Some of the older automatics were also hilariously bad, with clunky gear changes and noticeably long delay on kick down. Perhaps American drivers were more tolerant of this because they drive such long distances, so a relaxing drive was more important than an engaging one.
Nowadays the ZF automatic transmission from Germany is one of the best around. Thankfully my Grand Cherokee has an 8 speed ZF instead of an unreliable Chrysler 5-speed.
1. These automatic transmissions are still the weak spot on most vechicles.
2. They still use clutch bands that wear. The trannies are anything but simple. Most mechanics farm out rebuilding a tranny. I would recon that a malfunctioning automatic transmission us the number one cause of junked vechicles, besides wrecked vechicles.
3. It's straight forward weekend job to replace a clutch.
4. We all know modern engines can put close to 300,000 miles on them. Manufacturers know it. There's a reason they only give 70-100k on the tranny.
5. A modern automatic transmission is not a simple fix. Even AMCO guys are learning on your dime (notice they won't just give a price for a complete rebuild over the phone? AMCO in San Rafael, CA. Yea, I remember you slick.)
6. When checking a used vechicle, check that tranny fluid. It should be pink as a baby's butt. (Even then--there's no guarantee. The seller could have just changed the fluid. It shouldn't be black, brown, or smell burnt.
7. Sorry about my tirate on automatic transmissions. I've been to Automotive school, and worked as a mechanic for two years. The Automatic Transmission always intimided me.
If anyone could come up with clutch bands that don't wear, well let's say, you could dine with the 1 percenters? Tyat that be hell though?
Are you serious right now?
@icantdrive55 you are 100% right.
I don't think older automatics are hard to work on (50s-70s era), but I agree that the modern electronic ones are horribly complex.
Also I quickly checked, it seems that if you're willing to buy from dealerships' inventory, the sticker price is a moot point. Let's say you want a Golf 1.5 TSI (which is probably the most popular compact car over here in Switzerland), I find 14 of them with a manual transmission, and 96 with a DSG, and it seems trivial to find the exact same model for a similar price, or even cheaper.
But over the last few years the automatic has increased dramatically in popularity with the more serious brands like BMW and Audi. Not just in their top models, BMW has been selling an 8 speed automatic as standard even on the 1-series.
A big part of that is because modern automatic gearboxes are not slow and boring anymore. The dual-clutch type really made sales increase. And so does the increase in hybrid and electric cars which are very popular due to tax reasons and all of them are automatic.
The driving test is a choice. You don't need a medical reason, you can choose to do the test in an automatic (or hybrid / electric) car if you want to. But almost nobody does that, because you are indeed not allowed to drive a manual car after doing the test in an automatic.
Personally though, I find driving an auto much more fun. I also have a car with paddle shifters that I never use!
Same with prices, repairs; Auto are expensive than Manual.
The basic model, no frills European car still comes (here in Ireland) with manual transmission, manual windows (at least in the back), no Aircon (heater/fan only), no cruise control...
Since there are a lot of these, it's what people are used to, and they keep driving manuals.
Idk if Americans have ever really bought many nissan micra-esque cars.
even cheap cars can have automatic transmission, it's just option and not standard
Dacia sandero costs 7990€. Dacia Sandero with automatic transmission costs 13750€.
and dacia it's not good example, they produced budget cars and their prices for standard features of other brands are extreme, for 14000€ you would be insane to buy sandero
But the American market is definitely to the point now where it makes total sense to just eliminate the option for a stick shift. Not enough people can drive it, and so few adults have them that their kids aren't learning either. It's to the point that it's actually difficult to find a good quality new car with a stick shift.
And then that in turn means you can't trust your car to anyone else. Valet parking is downright dangerous. My wife's car had its clutch literally melted by an incompetent valet driver, and the car was barely driveable when we got it back. We managed to limp to the dealer, and we got our insurance to pay, but it was a hassle. I'm not sure it's worth the risk if you are in a situation where you need to ever hand over your car to someone else. I will not be using valet parking anymore, that's for sure.
Also, I might have used valet parking once in my life. Handing my car over to someone who can’t drive stick is something I’m willing to live without—especially when you remember that many car thieves can’t drive stick, either ;)
1-https://www.wired.com/2016/03/fbi-warns-car-hacking-real-ris...
2-https://youtu.be/M31ZCh1VeX8
3-https://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/09/28/report-across-us-colo...
I'm a massive car nut, I've owned and (amateur-)raced dozens of cars over the last 20 years and always went manual, but a couple years ago I switched to auto due to a bad leg and honestly, if my leg miraculously got better, I'd stay with an auto. Modern automatics are amazing. They shift faster than I ever could, and performance autos can still engine-brake into corners etc. I'm very much a convert for pure performance reasons as well as easy/comfort reasons.
I don't want manuals to go away though, and I don't think they will. There's lots of car manufacturers that still cater to small niche groups because these days with populations the size they are, a small niche group is still enough people to profit off. I think we'll still see performance cars and motorcycles with manuals for many years to come, but all mainstream/bulk cars will be auto only.
My family now has a Toyota minivan. The transmission shifts smoothly and intelligently, and downshifting with the gear selector when descending in the mountains seems to be no problem.
Even better, we rented a big passenger van this summer in Europe, and its transmission seemed to "know" when we were on a descent, and downshifted accordingly. It was pretty cool.
Learning how to shift gears is a small ammount of learning needed to drive those kinds of vehicles so once you decide to learn them you can just learn how to switch gears.
I learned how to drive 600 motorcycle before I ever drove a car, took me 1 hour to figure out gear shifting (well start/stop/second gear at least), learned uphill starts the next day. After 3-4 hours of driving I stopped stalling the bike. Took me 20-40 hours to get good balance and double that to become comfortable enough in traffic.
As someone who will only ever own manual transmissions, that's terrifying. Over the years I've had a handful of occasions where "mandatory valet" has been presented to me. I always refuse. Most of the time, I've been allowed to park my own car and bring my keys with me. If they refuse to allow me to do so, I find my own parking elsewhere. Only once have I had to actually abandon an event due to my stubbornness to hand my car over to a stranger working minimum wage.
Yes there's always the chance of a valet who hasn't got a clue, but there's a chance of that in any job you've ever had contact with. We're just very attached to our cars (rightly so, mine is my prized possession!) so we're suitably and rightly nervous when handing them over. I'll do valet parking, but my car has a valet mode that limits the horsepower and is an auto so I don't have to worry about fried clutches anymore.
An example is bumper to bumper traffic moving at high speed. Traffic may momentarily slow down abruptly, then pick up again. All automatic transmissions I have driven react the same when I release the gas, and then press it again as traffic speeds back up. They either stay in high gear, so the torque is not immediately available when traffic speeds up, or worse, they take a few seconds to downshift and then lunge forward.
With a standard transmission, I can put the car in neutral when I see brake lights ahead, slow down with the brakes if necessary, and when traffic starts moving faster, I drop into the appropriate gear for the speed I'm at and the torque I need.
You're also not getting the advantages of engine braking especially as most modern cars won't be pumping fuel to the engine if there is no load, instead your car is just idling in neutral.
But two things have happened since then, we have computer controlled transmissions and CVTs.
Manual drivers were more efficient because they learned when the vehicle would need to shift, and shifted preemptively. A computer controlled automatic can also be aware of when to shift, and shift early, but much more precisely (since it isn't based on engine noise/judder, it is based on direct electrical feedback).
CVTs are more efficient yet again because you now have "infinite gears" and they're computer controlled.
I'd happily drive a CVT until the day I die, and I learned on a manual. The only thing I wish is that they had better "off the line" response (e.g. stopped at a light).
The UK is moving away from manuals for hybrid and fully electric vehicles which often use a CVT, or no transmission in some cases (direct drive).
Point is, automatics are pretty sturdy these days, and there are fewer shops in the U. S. that will work on manuals anymore.
I'd be willing to go with a manual on a used car that I am paying cash for, but, if you buy a new manual and need to finance it, you'll likely be upside down on your loan for an uncomfortably long time.
Meanwhile you can take the automatics apart in your garage with few-to-no specialized tools.
Some of the paddle shifters seem decent but I often like to change up where I grip the wheel on track days and on sharp turns in mountain driving, so I often can't choose my gearing at all with them.
I can see the appeal of the autos in high traffic tedious commuting situations where you're in some underpowered econobox, which is zero percent of my driving, so I'm sticking with a manual as long as I can keep finding them.
And for extra whizz while overtaking use the paddles to preempt the move by changing down a gear or two - exactly as I would in a manual.
I say this having owned numerous manual cars, including BMWs, gen 1 and gen 2 Minis and a ‘74 TR6.
Mind you it didn’t like driving over the Sierra Nevada last week. 9000 ft. saps a lot of power on a normally aspirated engine and it unbalanced the engine and transmission.
Edit: some words
Some brands are just known to throw sensor and airflow codes by mechanics up here, like Kia & GM, while others compensate fine, like VW & Subaru. I don't know how the engine software talks to the transmission software so it's hard to say how related they are.
Recently sold a manual car I owned for about 12 years, upgraded to a newer car which is automatic (only because there was no option for manual). Man, I miss driving a manual!
And another one is I tell the car what I want to do. Sure it can try to figure it out, but it will never know exactly what I want to do. I can do something quicker than an automatic will know. For example, I'll know I need to be in a lower gear because I'm about to floor it. An automatic can't know that.
Today, manual cars aren't about efficiency. Manuals are about driver engagement and the feeling of connectedness with the car and with the road. You can think. of it as more of a luxury than a necessity, and that is still a very valid argument for manual transmissions in road cars, especially those designed to be driver's cars.
That said, we don't have many big pickup trucks like the US does - here it's much more common to see mid-duty trucks like the Isuzu Elf in that space.
Why has "having fun" disappeared from people's list of requirements in a vehicle?
CVT's are boring to drive. Extremely boring.
It's funny how reasonable arguments drown with it too. This is the moment where you hear that American visitor in Europe abusing a rental car or not even getting one because he/she has no license for stick shift.
The up side is: with every year the theft protection aspects becomes more relevant ;)
Nowadays, with DSG and other dual-clutch transmissions, the automatics have become more common also in Europe. I think my next car should be a Škoda Octavia with a diesel engine and DSG automatic.
Edit: I would likely soften the "dangerous" wording above. I'm not trying to claim this is guaranteed to get you killed. Just pointing out that bypassing a well established signaling mechanism of your vehicle should be a deliberate act. Not one of convenience.
To that point, I'm not trying to claim it is insurmountably dangerous. It is more dangerous that just using the brakes, though.
https://gearbrake.com/collections/shop/products/gearbrake-sm...
Given how often I've driven on stretches of road where engine braking is prohibited, I beg to differ.
Engine braking is usually braking by shifting to a lower gear.
Edit: That said, I fully agree that most times I hear folks talk of engine braking, they mean shifting down to slow somewhat faster than just coasting.
[0]: https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/96447/why-prohibi...
The parent is essentially right; engine braking is using the engine to slow the vehicle down.
In particular, I agree with both points that "you should signal folks behind you that you are slowing down" and "you should pay attention to how fast the car in front of you is going." Neither point diminishes the other.
Similarly, when I'm braking very lightly in my plugin-in hybrid in order to charge the battery all the way down a long hill, I wish there were a way to not have the brake lights activated the whole time. It's only barely slowing me down, and I've driven other cars that decelerated more going down the same hill just due to wind drag and rolling resistance.
Though, to directly answer your question, I don't know how cars that only have a single pedal work with this. Embarrassingly, I didn't realize those existed, so would be as interested as you in the answer.
I can see no reason why this wouldn’t work equally well for cars.
edit: apparently, it's UN regulation, not federal.
https://www.bellinghamherald.com/news/traffic/rules-of-the-r...
That said, engine braking isn't appropriate in all situations; I personally wouldn't do it in heavy stop-and-go traffic, but for highway and around-town driving it's perfectly safe. I definitely wouldn't do it with a tailgater behind me, just out of common sense.
I have the same problem on my bike. I don't always signal when I'm about to stop at a corner, and have had folks near hit me for it. (Granted, if you are stopping on a bike, it is literally harder to signal that you are stopping. Point stands that if I could, it would be safer.)
One can always use hand signals too; that was something I was taught when I first learned to drive. Open hand out the window pointed up for a right turn, pointed straight for a left turn, and pointed down at the ground for slowing/stopping.
Of course that was 25 years ago; I wonder if hand signals are even still taught in driving schools.
I find that the fuel economy savings from engine breaking are largely a matter of incentives. You can drive the same way in an automatic, and you will get nearly the same fuel economy savings. You're just not incentivized to do so, since the break/gas dance is much easier in an automatic and you don't have the cognitive feedback of needing to shift gears each time you accelerate or decelerate.
Is it guaranteed to get you in a wreck? Not at all. But, I would be surprised if people weren't more keyed to the "red light" in front of them than you are letting on.
As I said down thread, I think I can logically and in full conscious support both of those statements. :)
So, yes, folks that are being negligent deserve the blame in wrecks they cause. However, signaling benefits everyone. Including folks driving in fog/rain/night/whatever.
One of the first things i notice when driving an automatic that scares me the most is that it doesn't stop.
Thankfully electric cars are bringing this back. And i think studies are showing its safer.
Engine braking results in a slow drop in speed. If the car behind you cannot handle a slow speed decline, he is the problem, and is driving too close to you.
Most good instructors teach students to try to slow down as much as possible just by getting your foot off the accelerator (not with engine braking, and not with real brakes).
As in don't wait till you are near the stop light to apply the brakes - just get your foot off the gas much earlier, and apply the brakes when you have to. In real terms, when driving at 45mph, I usually don't need to apply the brakes until I'm at 35 or 30mph. Puts less load on the brakes, and is supposed to be safer - you are easing into a lower speed as opposed to doing it suddenly.
The people behind you will not see a brake light, but will still slow down behind you. If they hit you, they are driving poorly.
Also as I said, though, I should have been a bit softer there. I'm not saying it will get you in trouble guaranteed. But, just as I agree it is more dangerous to ride a bike without a helmet, I recommend against not signaling folks behind you that you are stopping.
And, also as I mentioned up thread. If someone hits you because they didn't see you stopping, yes, it is their fault. I don't exactly care who is at fault in many ways, if I'm hit. I'd just as soon not get hit. :)
This is akin to teaching a kid to ride a 21 speed bike. They can probably get up to that rather quickly, all told, but just learning the basics of balance and pedaling will already be difficult enough.
Similarly, just learning the basics of the car will already be tough. Why add to it? Why not take away power steering? Because it would make it harder.
To that end, I just don't know. I expect I will have an issue teaching my children. Biking has already thrown me some curve balls. Nothing insurmountable. But the more you have on the bike, the harder it is for the learner to get it going.
I mean, I hate biking without my shoes that attach to the pedal nowdays. I would not at all attempt to teach my kids on such a bike for a while.
I also hate attaching my feet to the pedals. I do not want to confess that I've hit the ground in a very undignified manner more than once because I couldn't get my feet unclipped in time :(
Nowadays, i feel more stable clipped in.
And i know countersteering is a thing. Don't really process it, though.
The shop that built my engine told me they wouldn't have done it if I was under 40.
Though to be fair, the latest iteration of the stability and traction control is pretty amazing. Short of turning it off, or driving with inappropriate tires for conditions, I can't really get the car out of shape without turning off the nannies. I can hang it out a bit but I could never manage to pull off those beautiful crowd-killing losses of control that Mustangs seem to apt to pull at Cars & Coffee events around the country.
So aside from just driving too fast and making physics an insurmountable issue, they could probably drive it pretty safely if I somehow made it so the nannies could not be disabled.
I haven't driven a nanny car and don't know what they're like. They should have a "teenager" mode which detunes it to 100HP :-)
When I was tall enough, he'd have me move his car around on our long driveway so I learned to feather the clutch for start/stop maneuvers in first gear. By the time I was getting my learner's permit and hitting the road for the first time, I already had the theory and practice for the drive-train and could focus on the more important traffic rules and vigilance.
I still remember his "graduation" test for me, which was taking me on a ride to a nearby very steep hill and parallel parking. Then, he gave me the keys and said very sincerely that I needed to pull out, drive around the neighborhood, return, and park back in the same spot without burning the clutch and without stalling the engine...
Driving is easy. Interacting safely with the other people on the road is what is hard.
A few years later they sold the car and both my sisters learnt to drive in more modern automatics.
My learning experience was miserable but after learning in that old crappy wagon I can drive just about anything now. Once you have parked a car without power steering any other parking you have to do in a modern car feels like a complete non issue.
Our truck has bad power steering. Such that it often handles as if it didn't have it. Holy crap is that a pain.
I own a manual currently. One big disadvantage (or possibly an advantage...) is when Friends ask to borrow car you need to ask "Can you drive a manual?" 9/10 times I've found answer is no.
I drive a manual steered car. It's no problem at all. It's more physical than fingertip control, sure, but I like that. You can feel the road better.
Just look up survivor bias sometime. It is a thing. This is an common refrain of it.
What? Have you even driven anything that's not a big truck without power steering (and I don't mean a car with power steering disabled). It's not _that_ big a difference, if at all.
You would clearly stop short of taking away vision. Why not make people drive with a vehicle that doesn't have a rear window? All told, shouldn't be that big of a deal. That said, https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/05/02/backup-... was a headline story for a reason.
Clever.
From the UK, where stick shift is very much the norm, it doesn't.
It's common here to see people texting while driving and I don't understand what goes through people's minds to make them think this isn't a crazy thing to do?
Large parts of the US today there's no public transport, and even no sidewalks(!) in some places. You could ride a bike, but that requires physicality and drivers aren't exactly bike-friendly.
If there was a realistic alternative to driving, you might see it become easier to revoke a driver's license, but until then, it just isn't viable.
For a majority of those living in the US the places they live and work have been so fundamentally designed around cars that no alternative form of transit is usable. Busses might run once a day, no sidewalks, no bike lanes amidst 5 layer highways. Even getting out of ones housing development via anything but a car can be challenging if its a fenced in community with winding lane and a half roads parked full of cars.
I'd naturally much prefer more strict licensing and more frequent license revocation - if for no other reason than it would demonstrably save many lives - but only after we solve the car sprawl hellscape that is a majority of settled US territory.
There's a villainous cycle at work here. Car supremacy produces cities in which you need a car, so that attempts to push back on car supremacy can be credibly opposed on the grounds that they hurt the poor and less advantaged, when of course the very opposite thing is true.
You can't suddenly make getting a license harder without also changing a hundred other things too, if you have any intent to preserve any other lifestyle than one that does not require a car, or is not at risk of losing their license. Such a claim is indeed a self-centered one, if you aren't also arguing for the other things as well, simultaneously.
To suggest it without the even referring to the rest alongside it is to create the image of horror, to anyone who isn't already aligned with your premise. And if you weren't intending that statement for people who didn't already agree with you, then the most you could have accomplished was virtue signaling, and I don't know why you would want to do such a horrible thing
So in any such argument, they’d naturally become the front of the topic.
If anyone is going to get fucked by a broad policy, it’s the poor.
You're going to build blanket standards and rules without acknowledging its effects on the population, and the proportion of the effects on different groups within that population?
Without accounting for the migration process to the new standard?
Without trying to minimize damage across the groups?
Addendum:
There is a world that exists, and there is an ideal image of the world. We aren't going to suddenly transfer to the ideal version, but we're perfectly capable of pretending we can in law. Congress is perfectly capable of arbitrarily requiring that all cars today meet 50mpg, and declaring it law. But we do not want to do that, because it would stupid, and shut down industries and cities across the nation.
Regardless of whether this is what our ideal looks like, it's not a suggestion that takes us anywhere near it. When someone goes around advocating for it to people who do not already agree with it, the first question is whats wrong with it? And the first answer inevitably features the poor, because they're the most affected. And the next question is, by how much? And again, the best example is the poor, because they bear the brunt of the negatives.
Everyone else will also eat shit, but they get the most of it, and so they show it off the most, making for the clearest example of what damages a blanket policy might incur.
They only know the hole. The hole seems like a natural, immutable feature of the world.
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. Inaction is a form of action, so it's not good enough to oppose a net good on the grounds that the transition will be painful.
Consider the Bay Area, population 7 million, with closer to 1 million of those in SF and Oakland. Then consider that the Sunset and Richmond, also basically suburbs, make up a huge chunk of SF’s land.
For a sample size of one I don’t actually need one myself.
But this is a huge exception to what the rest of my life was like. If I lived in the burbs it would be very difficult to manage without a car.
I have to imagine a significant portion of the 80% you cited lives in the suburbs and are 30-60 minutes away from their jobs and 15-30 minutes away from grocery stores.
Doesn't that go against the adage that after a week shifting becomes muscle memory or is there something else?
Why did America lose its love... when other countries (e.g. rich European countries) continue to buy majority stick?
All of the reasons given for the US presumably apply to e.g. Germany too, no? Except no transformation there...
Manual transmissions typically consist mainly of a locking mechanism that is physically moved with the shifter for gear selection and a clutch plate to couple the transmission to the engine. Typically you have one physical gear for every logical gear, and you're using the shifter to physically connect to the gear you want to use. The clutch plate is a friction material, and you press it against the flywheel (which connects to the engine) for them to stick together; press them together and the engine spins the transmission, pull them apart and you're in neutral.
In your typical automatic transmission, instead of having a physical gear for every logical gear, you have multiple sets of planetary gearsets (typically 3 sets for a 6 speed). Each planetary gearset has its own clutch to allow different parts of the planetary gearset to spin, allowing for multiple different ratios. The computer controls which clutches are applied to make the right ratio for the "gear" you're in. A torque converter is used to connect an automatic transmission to the engine instead of a clutch. Torque converters are two fans facing each other submerged in liquid, when one fan spins, it moves the liquid which spins the other fan.
Planetary gearsets of the auto transmission are typically bigger than simple gears, and the torque convertor with two fans and liquid is significantly bigger than a clutch plate which is just a flat disk.
Now you're thinking, why can't a computer just control the clutch plate movement. Well, BMW tried it with their SMG gearbox. Turns out computers aren't very good at determining how much force to apply to the clutch (which also wears over time) so that the car doesn't jerk or lag, much less figure out whether you wanted aggressive clutch engagement or you wanted the clutch to slip. Compared to letting physics do it's thing in a torque converter, a computer controlling a moving part was also much more complicated and less reliable and less predictable. The computer is already not very good at predicting what gear you want to be in, it was also not good at predicting how direct you wanted your power applied. So it ended up being worst of both worlds, none of the simplicity of a true manual, and none of the smoothness of a typical auto.
Same in the UK.
EV > Manual > Automatichttps://www.wired.com/2011/05/brammo-six-speed-tranmission
The idea was that you got the low speed torque of an electric motor and the high top speed of a ICE.
It was probably a marginal improvement though, and really more of a manual transmission nostalgia play.
[1] - http://www.killacycle.com/
[2] - https://www.engadget.com/2007/09/13/all-electric-killacycle-...
I hate using manual mode in an automatic. I love driving stick. The fun in driving stick isn't from being able to pick gears.
My feeling is the opposite. Paddle shifters are the closest I'll get to driving an F1 car, and I've put a decent amount of time in with a racing wheel and pedals and racing sims and that's where I get all of my muscle memory for my Golf GTI.
There's no point revving out all my gears in real world driving, I just want to reach the speed limit as fast as possible then go into overdrive. DCTs are very fast at switching into what they think is your next gear. They're quite slow at switching if you want to switch more gears.
Given the low end for 6th is around 35mph, 2-6 is plenty doable without going anywhere near redline.
Same here. I drive an EV every day but have a 6 speed Miata for fun.
However we acquired an old '81 ford tractor a few years ago so I can wrench on that all I want while still enjoying the EV for daily driving.
A DCT (Dual Clutch Transmission) like the Porsche PDK is not remotely comparable to a torque converter based transmission. Yet, both are categorized as "automatic".
Telling people automatics are great when you are referencing a type that the majority of people will never have a chance of owning is a classic Hacker News manual-vs-automatic discussion trope.
Golf R, many Kia: e.g. a brand new Kia Soul for $22k.
I also have an Audi TTS which is automatic but has a "manual" mode. Apparently it can shift faster than a human being, which makes it much quicker to leave it on auto if you're going for a fast 0-60 time. Just stomp on the gas and it'll shift at the optimum moment. But since that's rarely what I actually want to do, I find the auto-shifter too conservative for my taste most of the time and drive it in (no clutch) "manual." But the Tesla is just better: faster off the line, perfectly responsive, never in the wrong gear. I don't miss manual at all when I drive my Model S.
Yup.
The responsiveness of an EV makes even a Nissan Leaf feel surprisingly zippy.
When I drive my wife's CRV (which has a CVT), it feels bad when I floor it to pass someone and I have to wait for the RPMs to increase before it actually really begins to move. Even in my manual BRZ, it takes me a second to clutch in, give it gas to rev match while moving the shifter, and release the clutch. And I've had times dropping to second where I rev-matched poorly while releasing the clutch too fast, causing a bit of wheel spin, which made the traction control hit the brakes a bit.
Feels bad, man.
Looking forward to getting an EV in about 5 years. Planning on getting a Tesla Roadster if I can afford it. The wife would rather see me settle for a Model S P100D though.
Not exactly a feature I give a damn about. Hell, by the time I'm ready to buy a Roadster, there will probably be some used ones available that I will pick up.
Ditto for the Bolt and Leaf. This is the future of cars.
Honda uses a different system where the engine is just a generator until highway speeds, when a wet cluch engages engine to wheels.
Although I've mellowed a lot, what I love about manual transmissions is the ability to instantly ramp torque. It's especially useful for extreme turns. Do EVs have so much torque that it's not necessary?
That's what when people drag race a Tesla, the Tesla wins in a quarter mile, but then all of these other high speed automobiles end up catching and passing the Tesla a few seconds afterwards. This video explains it[1].
And yes, torque at the wheels is likely much greater for Teslas than for my Civic VTEC in third gear. But I wonder about second gear. I mean, the car has wide low-profile tires, and I can spin them on dry pavement in second, from a standing start. And it takes some skill to avoid doing that when starting in first.
One of the things he told me was that the cost of getting a car through California smog certification had to be covered by the sales of the car, and limited production run cars have higher production costs because the assembly line has to be re-tooled during the run.
All I know is that it makes me sad, and I'm glad that Mazda, for the moment, still offers a manual on all their trim packages for many of their cars.
I have driven automatics a handful of times. The longest I spent was 2 weeks in a motor home touring the Rockies.
While I can see the appeal for around town driving driving up and down grades was a bit of a pain. Basically I had to learn the behaviour of the transmission and use a combination of the exact amount of throttle, hold down gears and flicking between tow haul and normal to get the gear I wanted. It was more hassle than having to change gear manually.
That said, I have driven automatics with some weird gearing where specific hills mean you'd oscillate around the desired speed. There, you do end up caring, unfortunately. That said, that's the kind of situation where the manual mode on newer stuff comes in, and on older stuff, you'd have a few gearing sets (Drive/Low/3, on a grand caravan I used to drive. Never did figure out what 3 was good for...)
It's a vicious circle sort of problem at this point. Less manual cars -> can't learn stick -> can't drive stick -> no one buys manuals -> less manual cars.
In the end, I can learn the concept, but I won't really know how to drive stick unless I have a manual... and I'll never buy a manual, so the only possibility is that I'll start off ruining the clutch on some rental. (Or, more likely, I'll go out of my way to rent automatic... but that may not always be possible)
It's not about out performing an automatic transmission it's about engagement. For some people that's not going to have any value. For others there is no going back to numb econoboxes with automatic transmissions.
It's a shame more people don't get over the hump and get to see what driving can be vs. what it is for most.
City traffic commutes and long highway cruises seem to be what most people think of when they think about driving, but it can be so much more than that.
Few things are as fun as a balanced car on twisty mountain roads, and in that recipe the manual transmission is a key ingredient.
Most cars are designed to make you feel nothing and hear nothing. Nothing from the road and nothing from the engine.
I'm of the understanding that "safer" driving is a function with an asymptote well above zero, i.e. there's only so much that a person's skill as a safe driver will improve the net safety of the system.
I'd like to add that I'm not just talking about the safety of the extra person driving; there's also the safety of the other road users, whether in cars, on motorcycles, on bicycles, or on foot. An extra driver on the road raises the net risk for everyone.
Additionally, in my experience the intersection of "drives for fun" and "drives safely" is so close to zero that it's not worth considering.
So I don't find anything magical or special about having to manually manage the gears when a computer could do it more efficiently and relieve me of the need to worry about it. When I'm driving I want to be focused on the road and traffic around me, not micromanaging the way the engine is transmitting power.
Or maybe to go with a car analogy: what if we took away your accelerator pedal and replaced it with a crank attached to a fuel pump, so you had to constantly turn the crank to get fuel, and turn it faster or slower to manage the throttle and the amount of fuel going to the engine? You'd be much more deeply "connected" to your car that way, but would you rhapsodize about what a wonderful experience it was? Or would you see it for what it is: a task that can be done with more efficiency and less distraction by a different approach?
I don't drive stick, but I think it would help me considerably.
Even with 8+ hours of sleep, 3 cups of coffee, music blasting in my ears, and the windows open I often find that driving for longer than 30 minutes on the open road (i.e. no traffic) starts to put me to sleep.
Computers have gotten better at managing the coupling sensibly, but they still are not perfect at predicting drivers' future intentions.
This argument basically says that if the computer only does it better in 99.99999999999999999% of cases, the correct solution is to have the computer handle 0% of cases. Which makes no sense.
(also, almost all "automatics are terrible at anticipating what needs to happen" arguments are based on decades-old experiences, as if automatic transmissions are fixed in time and incapable of improving)
Truth is that when you are stuck in bumper to bumper traffic, stopping and starting, manuals are tedious and not a good experience.
I have what's regarded as the best manual transmission in production on my Porsche, but in traffic, the automatic transmission on my econobox Mazda3 still does a better job moving the car from a stop smoothly with minimal impact on fuel economy with almost zero effort. On the Porsche, I'm either slipping the clutch causing more wear or having very jerky/abrupt starts, revving a bit more than necessary or risking stalling/bogging by short shifting.
Sure, the manual is a lot more fun and engaging to drive, but most people are simply content with commuting with an appliance.
I haven't actually seen a car without a sequential/manual mode for a long time, come to think of it. Used to drive a 2003 Grand Caravan that didn't have it, but it had a few different automatic modes that helped fill that void for hills.
I hate that about automatics. Floor the gas, count 1,2...ok here we go.
It’s why nearly every new car looks like the same identical boring bar of soap, and has the same vanilla handling as a Camry. Everything about driving a modern car is sedate and passive, like you’re just an observer. And there’s so little variety, the most aggressive option on some models is “18 inch wheels.” Some manufacturers are even playing fake “vroom vroom” sounds over the speaker system because their engines are so docile. It’s hard to even find a color that’s not black, white, gray, beige, or navy blue.
Rant over. As a car enthusiast, modern trends make me sad.
>It seems like every automotive engineering decision since the 80s has been dominated by occupant safety and comfort, and fuel efficiency, to the detriment of everything else.
Yes, of course. Regulators (and hence automakers) have realized that a failure to continue to optimize on these features implies an unnecessarily high mortality rate associated with vehicle usage, either directly (in accidents) or indirectly (through pollution and climate change). And for what it's worth: The type of whining you're doing here isn't helpful to the auto enthusiast community -- it comes off as ignorant and entitled to non-enthusiasts.
I hear ya. FWIW, a modern Camry would outpace a Ferrari or Porsche from the 80s, and arguably some of them are starting to give the early 90s (NSX, Supra, 300ZX, RX-7 etc) a run for the performance money. Looks not so much.
The fact that the majority of your vanilla commute-boxes (Camrys, Fusions, Accords, etc) are now shipping with 220+hp stock / 280+ sport and platforms that have gone through decades of rigidity research and tire tech, means the majority of drivers are getting way more performance potential than they can possibly wring out. A base 2018 Camry SE is now pulling 0.88g on the skidpad.
Heck your average soccer mom is now getting 300+hp in her "well-equipped" SUV for the red-light commuter drag race thanks to things like the 3.5 Ecoboost. Since when does a Ford Edge run a low-14 quarter-mile??
The last 10 years of automotive tech have been another golden age similar to the 60s IMO. Reliability, safety, and performance are all vastly superior.
Anyway, if you’re a performance vehicle enthusiast on a budget, you’re going to have trouble finding a suitable car that isn’t equipped with a manual.
BTW I find your entire comment pretty interesting.
So the current top speed on Tesla Models S3X is 155MPH. The Roadster 2 is expected to have a top speed of 250MPH.
Is the 155MPH an example of what you're referencing Re: high rotor speed? Thanks.
Caveat: I'm just an automotive hobbyist, so if an automotive engineer rolls in and calls bullshit on anything I've said above, they're almost certainly correct.
> Caveat: I'm just an automotive hobbyist
Yeah, I'm not even a hobbyist really. (: Just interested in electric vehicles.
I try to describe the situation like this: imagine you have two axis of control with an automatic, the accelerator and the brake. You can use these two independently of each other, and your car's actions will respond to them.
Now with a standard transmission, you're adding a clutch, adding a third dimension, which can also be used independently of the two. The ability and actions your car can take essentially take on a new dimension.
In the case of an automatic, this third dimension is executed by the system, releasing the user from control. However as great autopilot is yet a reality, the world presents more driving obstacles than what a standard automatic vehicle can perfectly account for. Thus giving a "not perfect but good enough" result.
CVTs work too I guess, but I'm also trying to have fun here.
In my personal experience, driving stick makes me more engaged with driving, and therefore more concentrated on driving, while automatics make me feel like everything is easy and I can pay less attention.
I think self/assisted driving would be the key feature to get me off the stick.
Joking apart, I’d swap my manual for an ‘automatic’ with paddle-shift manual controls.
If I was commuting in a city I’d definitely want an automatic though.
After 1980, an 'overdrive' gear was added to most transmissions. "Overdrive" in this sense means that for one turn of the input shaft, the output shaft would turn slightly more than one.
After the early 2000's, we started to see the introduction of 3 and 4 planetary gear sets bringing the total gears anywhere from 6 to 9.
The true automatics, or CVT, there's limited need (or fun:) in paddle shifts outside of hills, poor traction, etc.
For sequential/dual-clutch, paddle shift operation is direct... and fun :)
a) Automatic with paddle shifts: still has a torque converter between engine and wheels, soft response on pedal, and double-guesses everything you do
b) Sequential and/or dual-clutch with paddle shifts: still has a clutch, direct connectivity from engine to wheels, same response to gas pedal and more control
First one is zero fun to drive (for me). Second can replace my manual easily.
I drove a BMW with the 7 speed Dual Clutch Transmission (DCT) for a few years. The programming is really good, but every once in a while it would get things wrong and I'd look like a kid just learning how to drive a stick shift. BMW has switched to the ZF 8 speed for the new M5, and I wouldn't be overly surprised to see that happen for the next-gen M3. The purists will wail, but at the end of the day, it won't change anything, and the cars will still be fun to drive.
There truly is no comparison, dual clutches and in sport mode the car executes a throttle blip on down shifts so I can left foot brake all the time and always have both hands on the wheel. I only care about being precise (and quick when needed) so no, I don't miss manual at all.
So with a dual clutch AT vehicle, under savagely hard threshold braking there is no gear related pitch change. And under normal driving there is none either. To be clear though I only tested the GTI at a small "pitch and catch" autocross style track once, but I did drive all of VW's vehicles that day, it was a manufacturers test day.
Here's a Wikipedia explanation
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-clutch_transmission "
Bikes and cars have significantly different engine power characteristics. I'm guessing you ride a sport bike?
While I do miss doing 3 -> 2 heel toe downshift for corners, trying to figure out when to lift off to scrub enough speed without touching the brakes for a corner is just as entertaining.
I think shifting gears in general, whether automatics or manual, will fade out as electric drive-trains take over.
Biggest reason I miss Stick shift is that, it just felt that I had a stronger connection with the car and the acceleration was more predictable. With automatic you might not be in the right gear and the car might upshift too soon or too late.
A potential side effect of the stronger connection is that more involvement leads to more spirited driving and potentially traffic tickets.
Then I got a Tesla. Beauty of Tesla is that it has just has one gear, so you are always in the right gear. So this avoids the biggest issue with Automatic. OTOH, because I am not manually changing gear, this avoids the spirited driving issue. It is now an appliance and just works.
On top of this, we pretty much hand out drivers licenses like fucking flyers in this country. Just stand in line and earn yours.
If you’ve ever been on a road in Europe you’ll see a dramatically different scenario. Free flowing traffic, everyone seems to see everyone else around them; people are paying attention and know their cars.
The market for automated vehicles is ripe because we’re fucking morons behind the wheel, and somehow we’re ok with that.
Interesting they chose a picture of a floor shift automatic for the article.
Need a third foot to do that (or a hand brake) with a manual.
Edit: Hill lock definitely sounds nice. Didn't exist when I was young, poor, and had crappy old American made manual shift cars...
You just didn't go old and crappy enough. Studebaker had "Hill Holder" back in the 1930s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill-holder
Of course some nitwit pulled up right behind me as I was trying to pull out into the road. I tried easing up on the foot brake and allowing the clutch to grab some as a quick test but the car still started to creep back. I said screwed it and yanked the parking brake as hard as I could while getting off the foot brake and meshing the gas while at the same time letting up on the clutch and undoing the parking brake. Not the hardest thing, but mainly made an issue by modern drivers getting right on your bumper...
Pretty common on late 60's, 70's, and some 80's cars.
Performing a hill start correctly is often part of driving tests in the UK.
Most consumer cars in the Netherlands are still sold as manual transmission, probably because the price was usually lower compared to automatic transmission. But we won't have a choice forever, since we are heading to an hybrid/full-electric future and almost all electric cars have a CVT anyway.
When you say it's not possible to get a license for an automatic car, do you mean it's not possible to get tested for a driving license with an automatic?
I know, plural of anecdote is not data.
Oh well. My 1998 Tacoma with a five speed will die soon enough, and I'll end up buying an automatic, probably.
I will have :wq! on my headstone, though.
Of course, most drivers don't track their cars, and it's pretty hard to mis-shift when you're not on the track if you know what you're doing. (Or even on the track, if you're careful.) But sometimes it only takes one, and given how simple it would be to implement something like this, it seems like a no-brainer for companies like Porsche, especially given we're already seeing things like auto-blip for manuals (which I'm far less keen on, fwiw, but fine with as long as it can be turned off!)
Of course I have zero mechanical engineering background so who knows the feasibility of this approach.
I find this a bit difficult to believe.
The automatic option has a reputation for being pretty good, but the manual is excellent. It was certainly never even a matter of choice for me, and for the growing number of (BRZ/(GT)86/FR-S) enthusiasts I know.
Yes, I'm in a niche, but so is the car.
But the 86 siblings are really pretty focused. I love my car, but wonder how those who aren't _really_ into spiriting driving justify it over other excellent options (e.g., GTI) in its price range.
Only reason I can think of is that the real enthusiasts bought them early on. Now, most people buy them because they want a 'sports car'; only 10% are actual enthusiasts.
I get the reason why some people insist driving sticks. You feel more "in tune" and "in control" with your car. But for the vast majority, this is completely unnecessary. Most people just want to get from point A to point B in one piece. For these people, feeling more in control of your car is as unnecessary as feeling more in control of a hand-cranked window over a power window.
Eventually we'll all be in self-driving cars and this whole debate will seem silly and trivial. "Automatics" will eventually include automatic turning and automatic braking and all things automatic.
Now I drive a manual Golf GTI and I'm firmly of the "cold dead hands" camp with having it. I always wonder why other people don't like driving, and then I drive their cars. Having the stick turns my 45-minute commute from a chore to something I legitimately somewhat look forward to. My lease runs out next year and it seems like 2018 is the last year for many stick-shift models.
Definitely going to miss it when we all go full electric. Even then I hope to have a "fun" car to drive around.
I'm teaching an attention-impaired teenager to drive, and we're doing stick for exactly this reason: extra cog load reduces daydreaming? Perhaps that's a controversial idea. But for him, so far so good.
After that, the idea is that you have to pay more attention to your surroundings to understand what gear you need to be in. Each gear has almost its own personality, something you only really get exposed to if you're forced to set it manually.
Its a lot like the car equivalent of the command line
Based on personal experience, it takes about three years to get over that. YMMV.
Driving a manual, especially on a track teaches you a lot about the physics behind the machine you are operating. For example, few people consider how weight transfer when cornering can either help you or send you into a spin - electronics handle most of this for you and when decelerating, computers won’t let you shift.
I do have to wonder if texting and driving would be a lesser concern if both hands were occupied... Probably not, but one can dream!
Also, I vastly prefer the control a manual gives you in low traction situations over automatic transmissions with electronic traction control.
For my own tastes, once my 2000 Ford mustang's automatic tranny started acting funny sometimes (after 15 years and 200k miles), I bought a used manual tranny, flywheel, and clutch pedal set from a wrecked mustang of the same year and did a swap. Much happier now. I also feel more "invincible". If my starter goes out, I won't be stranded, I can just do a push start! Heck even if your battery is dead you can normally still push start. Nothing can stop me! Heck it even has a spare tire unlike all these "modern" cars. Truly nothing can stop me!
Porsche got a lot of backlash in the US when they discontinued manuals, to the point where they engineered a brand new manual gearbox with parts sharing with their PDK just because of US demand for the latest generation.
Audi thought there was also demand for Audis with manuals, apparently there wasn't.
That said, the only reason cars have a transmission at all is because of a serious flaw in the way internal combustion engines work. That means that the best transmission would be no transmission at all... and the transmission that best approximates that state of affairs is, more or less inarguably, PDK.
Audi sells cars. Cars are sold in America. Audi sells cars in America.
> Truly nothing can stop me!
I hope stop signs can
When my first child was born, I went over to the local Audi dealership with plans to buy an A4 Avant Quattro with a manual transmission. No dice. Audi was only willing to sell Americans a manual transmission if it came in a sedan.
For a long time, there we so many artificial limitations, like you couldn't buy the upgraded radio or get leather seats if you wanted the manual transmission. A few years ago, BMW even limited the paint colors if you bought a 3-series with a manual. These days you can order any option you want on the 3-series with the manual - as long as you get the largest engine.
Most modern-ish cars really don't like this, regardless of transmission.
Too many companies don't try to push any advanced technology into their manuals; if you want any kind of active safety features you need to go automatic. Honda was probably the outlier; I test drove the Civic Hatch and it had everything except for low-speed follow available in manual. But others like Subaru, Mazda, etc won't put any of those features (adaptive cruise, etc) in manual packages, at least in the Canadian market.
I did notice that trend which is unfortunate. The tendency for sporty cars to forgo safety equipment. I hate it.
It looks like the Mazda 3 sedan is now available in CA with the same equipment.
This is a huge issue and I’ll contend it’s a major contributor to traffic in urban environments. In a manual vehicle or a DSG/DCT vehicle (read: something that has a clutch or clutches and avoids a torque converter like common automatics) you can let off the gas pedal and your vehicle isn’t going to continue to accelerate. Combine that with the ability and knowledge that downshifting is going to force the engine to behave like a brake and you have much more precise control over your speed.
I rarely use my brakes. I own a 6-speed Mustang and my wife has a 6-speed STI. I drive very fluid, estimating (or doing my best to) the perfect avg speed during traffic so I can roll along and smooth out disruptions in my lane. Meanwhile the vast majority of other drivers are constantly battling their vehicles natural tendency to move by tapping on the brake pedal like a moth banging on an outdoor light.
Brake lights cause other people to brake. Even if there is no logical reason to do so, people will respond and then a chain reaction of unnecessary braking is happening all the way down the highway. It’s not the only cause of traffic but it’s a significant variable in an algebraic shitstorm of other issues.
I’m also pretty convinced that having extensive experience with a manual vehicle makes you a better driver. For instance a lot of folks have no clue what the 1/2/3 or +/- buttons do on their auto transmissions. They aren’t aware of engine braking down a steep grade. They’re able to cruise along (thanks to creep) in traffic with their foot never coming off the brake pedal and their attention primarily on a phone. It kills me to see this.
Anecdotally the best drivers I know drive or have driven manual cars. The worst drivers I know don’t share this experience.
It’s tragic they are going away. The irony here is that worldwide America is one of the few places where it’s still appreciated. A lot of high end European auto makers have ditched manual entirely abroad yet still offer it as an option here (on certain models).
I realize automatics are becoming more efficient and have definitely surpassed manuals as far as shifting speed but I still love my stick shift. I wish more people could appreciate it. Unfortunately they’re so rare now and carry such an elitist stigma that a lot of people will never even have the opportunity to row the gears and truly drive a fun car.
While I empathize with car enthusiasts' loss of manual control, as a used car buyer, and person who enjoys cleaner air, I'm ok with moving past manual (and even automatic) transmissions.
Had a Mazda 3 Astina manual before, lovely car. I'd love a Civic Type R manual but most realistically my next car will be an electric one. Not in the market for one now, cars make you fat compared to other modes of transport, and currently using other modes is viable for me so sticking (sorry!) to that for now.
From http://www.corvetteblogger.com/2017/06/09/production-statist...
For 2017, a total of 25556 paddle shift automatics, and a total of 7226 manual shift.
Labor has overtaken parts in terms of expense for service like this as well. I can easily bill the cost of a compact car for work done on a high end manual car (Porsche and high end mustangs for example)
I'm also really glad he made me learn, because 15 years later I finally got to Europe and had to rent a car there. It was impossible to find an automatic, but luckily I knew how to drive manual.
Granted they are not popular, but I prefer them. Sadly the market does not. And electric cars, which seem to be the next iteration of the automobile, don't have transmissions at all, so the ability to drive a manual is really looking like it will soon be a fairly useless skill.
My 19 year old niece bought an old F-350 and taught herself to drive a shift. She told me that it was retro cool because so few in her generation know how to drive one. I may have to teach her Morse code ;<).
Recently, I drove a little Hyundai round trip between Portland and Seattle. MPG for the trip was 54mpg! I drove upper middle of the pack, in terms of speed. Not poking around.
The decisions it made were insane good. I will sometimes data log my cars and try for peak fuel efficiency. So, I am really good at squeezing mpg out of a car. I get my communte optimized each time I use a new car. Been doing that for years. It is just a bit of fun.
That car nailed the usual oppirtunities for gains. Well done.
Honestly, I am not sure I could beat that car in a manual transmission version. At the least, doing so would require way more attention than I am willing to give.
Given the compute and greater efficiencies possible today, manual for fuel economy makes less and less sense. Electrics are coming too.
I love manual cars, but do not love them as daily drivers anymore.
Did not think it would happen. It has.
As someone who lives in a country where automatics are still in the minority, it’s very odd.
According to the article, this makes the consumer into the customer of the dealer, and not the manufacturer. As such, the dealer is the manufacturer's true customer, and their demand is what drives production and availability.
The dealer, naturally, optimizes their inventory for the best sellers, which are generally grayscale colors, so that's what they order from the manufacturer. When the customer shows up, the limited choices often force compromises, which turn into statistics used to further optimize inventory.
The way out of this loop is for the customer to insist on the exact desired configuration.
The problem is that many (most?) people don't care enough to wait for three months instead of driving home in their new car the same day. This is further exacerbated by the dealer's willingness to offer a better deal on a car that's on the lot than one that has to be ordered.
I wouldn't be surprised if transmission availability plays into this to some extent, though probably not quite as much. After all, manuals are still generally cheaper in terms of MSRP, but dealer pricing may negate and even reverse that advantage.
I'm not sure there's a significant market for cars in the US where traffic isn't a factor or hasn't grown significantly in the last generation.
Given that automatics are much nicer to drive in traffic, I sense that is a huge reason why there's just not much of a market for manuals. Unless the manual was going to be massively cheaper (and it's not), I can't think of a large group of people who would desire manual transmissions.
Economy seems to be a wash. And quite frankly, I've observed that stick shift cars tend to be driven in "fun" mode, which is probably less economical.
I like... automation. I'm waiting eagerly for a self driving car. Meanwhile, my next car will probably be electric.
While my family still has one stick-shift car, my kids will learn to drive it. My daughter already has, and my son will, after he figures out how to drive the automatic car safely.
I just bought an A4 with the manual transmission and it was tough to even locate one...most Audi dealerships get only a few each year.
Oddly, the dealer said Audi was ramping up its manual offerings next year.
Shifting is fun when the roads aren’t a disaster, but between traffic and the fact that ICEs are pretty much untenable in the long-term, it’s hard to justify buying another manual. Plus, the options for new stick shift cars seem to be dwindling every year anyway.
I’d like to be able to continue driving a standard, but it just makes less and less sense (for me, at least).
One is the perception that automatic vehicles have significantly worse fuel efficiency than stick shift. And the second is that the newer CVT based automatic vehicles have not been introduced in India.. and the older AMT automatic vehicles is what have been half-heartedly used by manufacturers.
I'm eagerly awaiting the first 'open design' auto that uses easily acquired and interchangeable parts. I would also like to see the same in lawn mowers.
It's 2018 people! Leave obsolete technology behind. You want to learn how to drive a horse drawn cart too?
EDIT - This was meant as a reply to a related comment. Oops.
The vast majority of cars around are manual, unfortunately. This means that you won’t be able to drive most cars around. In the case of one person I know, they had to retake their driving test a couple of years later because they were forced to drive a manual car. In addition, if you are buying a car as a young adult, it is likely that price matters, and the number of cheaper, used manual cars vastly outnumbers cheaper, used automatics.
It isn’t much extra effort to learn manual, and you can let the skill atrophy afterwards.
But it is a useful skill to have. What if you go abroad and have to drive a stick shift. Looks like in many nations, stick shift is sometimes the only option.
I have no doubt PDK (and even far less sophisticated (semi-)automated transmissions) is _faster_ and less likely to make a mistake, but what if outright performance isn't the ultimate goal?
I had the pleasure of driving a 991.1 GT3 with PDK, and it was blisteringly fast (both the car and the transmission). But I was definitely more of a passenger than in my 2004 6-speed manual Miata, and the fact that I noticed that is pretty telling about my preferences.
In a multi-car garage I certainly wouldn't complain about a great (semi-)automated transmission in a daily driver (PDK, DSG, DCT, or even ZF's lauded 8-speed auto), but next to it would have to be a toy with a good manual.
Here's a fun short video about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaUCdAdaaj8
Low speed/rock crawling/grades I feel would suck with a clutch, though. On fairly basic rough stuff like cutting through woods over logs and what not to get to my camping destination I often need 2 hands on the wheel to gently fight mud/etc pulling them in the wrong direction. The easier control of your torque w/ manual is probably nice, though. When you're doing this stuff you're typically locked to under 15mph because of the sway bar disconnect (it pops back on if you hit 17mph) & lockers, so you're not even changing gears out of 1st so maybe it's not even a problem.
Anyway hope you're able to get some adventuring in it, I moved to the big city and haven't put many miles on mine since I bought it in May. Just a few offroad trips. Hopefully a caravan to Overland expo next year.
My last car (a Subaru STi) had a nice 6 speed. I replaced it this spring, with a newer ride that came only with an automatic. Probably is the wave of the future.
Automatic transmission is a godsend for developing countries like India where roads are too crowded, and filled with bad drivers with bad driving etiquette, and the start-stop driving happens for more than one reason. Its a shame that the market hasn't grown here, at least AFAIK. On the flip side, making it easy to drive might worsen the bad driving and make it accessible to even more incompetent people, as has happened with gearless scooters. It would be interesting to see how things unfold.
Most people just want a car to get them from A to B. Manual has little to go for it among non-car-geeks, other than "people think it's normal" (in Europe). Automatic is sold as an expensive option here but that makes no sense to me - how can a chip be more expensive to produce than a physical gear box? I assume it isn't and the auto companies just charge what they think people are willing to pay.
I'm glad that EVs are taking hold because then, finally, automatic will become the default. It breaks a ridiculous habit that benefits nobody.
I'm not sure what you mean by "chip" here -- all cars have gear boxes (in some form -- you need to have a way of converting the engine's rotation into wheel rotation without stalling or overworking the engine) the question is how they work and what controls the gear ratio. A manual gearbox is actually very simple conceptually and mechanically, resulting in cheaper hardware (and the repair costs are quite cheap too).
Common automatics use a fluid coupling as their gearbox with a torque converter, which is a more complicated piece of machinery (with more significant repair costs in the medium-term -- a clutch replacement is $1000 while an automatic transmission rebuild is $5000). So it makes some sense that they are more expensive -- though it's not always the case that automatics are more expensive to buy (it's only really the case of cheaper cars that they're always more expensive).
The only kind of automatic I can think of that is a "chip" would be a double-clutch transmission (which might appear like an automatic to a user), but as the name suggests under the hood it is two manual transmissions with a computer trying to predict the future to know what gear is needed next). Those are even more expensive because they are ridiculously complicated, and probably require some sort of license from the manufacturer to sell.
I had no idea that it was becoming so rare, though.
Some of us really do prefer to drive stick.
Once you are on the highway and driving at 80 km/h or above, in most manual cars you are already shifted to the highest gear. In my Hyundai Matrix I am already shifted to the highest gear at 55 km/h.
Oh, and regardless which car you have, please, do not touch your mobile phone.
Ah, globalisation.
Anyhow, a stick is turning into a great car theft prevention device.
Drunk driving became illegal, then agressively enforced.
This created a powerful incentive for having a vehicle anyone can drive.
All my friends growing up were gearheads of some kind, and drove manual cars. Now they have automatics, so they can continue to get drunk when out and have someone sober (their wives, generally) drive them home.
Don't forget letting the female half of the population drive in the US is a relatively new development as well...
If manual was universal, then everybody used to know how to drive it. The situation you describe wouldn't have made sense 50 years ago. The only reason a generation of wives would know how to drive automatic but not manual is if automatic was already the mainstream choice.
So what you're saying might strengthen the feedback loop, but it can't be the cause of the trend to start with.
Do you mean to say "new" as in "before this old man who is bordering on retirement was born"? Maybe you city folk kept the ladies in the passenger seat, but out on the farm and you don't drive stick, you're not much use. My long-dead grandmother drove everything from the farm truck full of livestock for the sale barn, to driving us kids to church on Sunday when we stayed with her. Were I to guess, if there were a time women didn't generally drive, it was maybe the '50s and before. Sure wasn't the 60s.
Besides, as I was discussing with my wife (who shifts more smoothly than you do) this weekend: manuals aren't what kept women from driving, it was lack of power steering. You can teach a seven-year-old to drive stick.
Hell it's still a novelty to see coverage of women in automobile racing. Even when they aren't competitive, the media will broadcast their image just for participation alone.
Culturally, it's still fairly common to hear comments about women drivers being inferior.
So I think we're clearly not even out of the woods yet today.
This is completely false, my understanding is there was never a prohibition against women driving in the USA, although maybe at one point in the past it was less common. Also I don't see what this has to do with your earlier point about drunk driving.
It was largely disallowed. Men made all the money, automobiles were expensive and complicated, and it was still considered uncertain if women were capable of handling the complexity.
Our history is full of examples of activities effectively prevented en masse by society without being explicitly illegal.
Just because our past is embarrassing doesn't make it untrue.
Edit:
With regards to how it integrates into my comments about drunk driving and designated drivers; having women become generally accepted as peers in the operation of automobiles changed the parameters for purchasing the vehicle for the household.
If I'm going to continue drinking regularly, and I'm no longer allowed to drive drunk, and we collectively regard women as perfectly acceptable behind the wheel - I'm buying a car that I know my wife can drive as well as I can, not necessarily my preferred model.