Hacker News Reader

Comment by Marazan | Hacker News Reader

I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet.

That's because automatic transmission is the worst and invented by the devil.

More seriously, using an automatic transmission results in trade-offs, for instance fuel usage was the historical number 1 sticking point with automatics guzzling up the petrol compared to manuals. Modern engineering has closed that gap but there are still issues related to control - ironically a move to fully autonomous cars would solve most of them (principally in non-autonomous cars drivers in manual transmission cars can use knowledge of future road conditions to make gear selection decisions that an automatic transmission cannot make as they have only a limited input set)

View on HN

I used to think automatics were horrible (I live in the UK, drove manual for 15 years) then I got one...

In terms of fuel economy, isn't it just a matter of time before automatics become as economical (then probably more economical) than manuals? Even without anticipating future events? Driving efficiently feels like something a computer could optimise for and that a human has no natural advantage doing.

A traditional automatic with a torque converter will always be less efficient I but the newer dual clutch models can probably match (or even exceed through better gear selection) the efficiency of manuals.

Without being able to determine future road conditions then automatics can't guarantee being in the "right" gear for the up coming section of road. Be that due to traffic, grading, weather, banking, sharpness of corner etc.

My go to example is the insanity of junction 15 of the m8, that loop onto the west bound motorway is a 270 degree corkscrew rising 30 feet with a diameter of 55 yards onto a 5 lane motorway where I need to go from the left hand lane to the right hand lane (as there are entrance and exit lanes on both the inside and outside of the motorway at that point). A current automatic engine wouldn't know what was the right thing to do in that situation ( https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8672951,-4.2358853,374m/da... )

To determine all of that you'd basically be at the level of self-driving car. Which would be awesome.

>> Without being able to determine future road conditions then automatics can't guarantee being in the "right" gear for the up coming section of road. Be that due to traffic, grading, weather, banking, sharpness of corner etc.

Latest Rolls-Royce Wraith does exactly that - it uses the GPS map data to change gears in advance as it is approaching a turn in the road. I am sure that this technology will be available in ordinary cars soon enough.

An augmented version of this technology (applying known map data plus sensor data) is a huge piece of the self-driving car.

Your GPS already knows where you want to go, what the road ahead looks like and often even the current traffic situation. I imagine writing some semi-smart software that hooks up that info to the automatic gearbox to give it hints about what to do wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility and no doubt a lot easier than self-driving.

There are cars which already do exactly that: http://www.dvice.com/2013-3-7/new-rolls-royce-looks-ahead-gp...

Or just buy a Nissan Versa today: http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/five-myths-about-stick-s...

Manuals have better fuel usage then automatics is a myth for recent cars, no fancy self driving needed.

That's based on the official figures. No-one gets the listed MPG ratings in real life and automatics suffer worst than manuals for under-shooting the official mpg rating.

I just purchased a Toyota Yaris. The official figures for the 1.3L engine give 5.7L/100km for manual and 6.3L/100km for the automatic.

Now in a high-end car with a sequential gearbox this is different, but for a small town car when you'll be doing a lot of starts and stops you'll see the losses on the hydraulic coupling.

I have a feeling being able to determine immediate near term road conditions is a 1.0 feature for self-driving vehicles?

Waze-style technology + GIS + networking with other vehicles + weather data (if you look, there is already tons of small weather monitoring stations all over major). thoroughfares).

I mean many vehicles within the last handful of years have automatic traction control that can react faster to a real time change in road conditions than any human could ever hope too. A lot of the stuff I mentioned above is just extending that foresight out further so as to not be so jarring.

I'm a die-hard manual fan, so you have my sympathy here. That said, I think current automatic technology is at the point where it can handle your go-to example with no problem. Yes the responsiveness of your base-level Toyota/Honda/Ford automatic transmission is going to be lacking versus a manual, but step up to a Mercedes or BMW double clutch automatic gearbox, or just go straight to the top of the automatic heap with Porsche's PDK transmission, and I think you will find all of them quite performant, even without paddle input.

To preempt the "but you have to own a porsche for that!" responses, I'm not saying this is cheap, I'm just saying it is not limited by the available technology, just cost.

You'd think so but I get 7mpg more than the best rated Toyota hybrid which is supposedly the most efficient thing out there.

Bear in mind I drive a 6 year old 1.3L diesel Fiat van converted to a people carrier which is as aerodynamic as a shed. It also has 3 children, a buggy and a pile of crap in it.

Perhaps a computer could optimise this better but I doubt it. The computer and automatic box just goes when you push the pedal down. The driver isn't connected to it and feeling what it's doing and understanding the power curves.

> You'd think so but I get 7mpg more than the best rated Toyota hybrid which is supposedly the most efficient thing out there.

You sure about that? Because I easily get about 70 mpg on my Prius (C class) when I'm supermiling in the city. Granted it's not as efficient on the highway, and unfortunately I do have to do a lot of highway travel. I can sustain a good a 55mpg average at the end of the month though. I plan to start borrowing my wife's whenever I'm on the highway, I think this way I can average mpg in the 70s overall when I do this.

I get 58 solid. Prius is quoted at 50 here in the UK. If I'm on a flat road at 40-50mph (north circular) I can get a solid 80mpg average. Just have to stay easy on the throttle and not change speed.

You do realize that you're comparing a diesel car to a standard petrol-hybrid right? Diesel engines are ~33% more efficient per-liter (and usually that much more expensive).

The number for a Prius-hybrid you'd really care to look at would be the city driving numbers as that's where you get all the advantages of regenerative breaking. Running a Prius at 100+ km/h it just turns back into a standard petrol fueled vehicle carrying drained batteries.

Yes. It's about the end game, not the tools.

I've found diesel engines and vehicles to be considerably more reliable and therefore less expensive. Fuel is between 5-7% more expensive here in the UK so things are good there.

The city driving numbers are about the same I found. I regularly drive right into London's congestion charging zone - at least 1-2 times a week.

51 is the expected MPG in city driving scenarios. I can achieve that with no particular effort in London traffic. I don't drive like a crazy person and hang back regularly - that is all.

My vehicle doesn't have piles of expensive electronics, batteries and things to go wrong either (look at recent threads about Toyota stack overflows for example).

The most expensive thing on a Diesel that can go wrong is the particulate filter, EGR valves and timing chains and these are cheaply regenerated and replaced respectively.

It pretty much has already happened. Most cars that offer both versions are very similar in terms of mileage for automatics and manuals - the difference is usually only like 1 or 2 mpg, with the automatics actually coming out on top at times because the car makers can add more gears. And realistically, most drivers aren't as good at using manual transmissions as they like to think they are, which also does a lot to cancel out the theoretical improvements a manual transmission offers.

Not really, an automatic transmission always adds some amount of weight over a manual transmission.

And this is why electrics are eventually going to win. A motor optimized for a single RPM speed driving a generator doesn't need a transmission. Even if the rest of the drive chain was as efficient, the loss of weight would drive the change over time.

For at least 15 years or so, that's just cargo cult BS Europeans who haven't tried automatic transmission cars say.

I drove a new Vauxhall Corsa with automatic transmission a couple of months ago. It was the second worst driving experience of my life.

What an utterly un-useful statement without any detail. Why was it a bad driving experience? What vehicles are ranked first and third?

Very low cost automatic transmissions are terrible - the gap between gear shifts goes on for ages. The Vauxhall Corsa is an example of this; for the American market check out a Smart Car.

Is this really a good argument against automatics though? The worst example of anything is usually going to be pretty bad.

As a matter of current economics, yes, if you have a very tight budget and want a good driving experience, manual is going to be better. But automatics are as fast and as efficient as manuals a little higher up the market. And it will trickle down soon enough.

Well, I find the Vauxhall Corsa with manual transmission is lovely to drive so I am comparing the experience between the two. So sure, I might not have been looking at the best-of-the-best when it came to automatic gears but I was comparing like-for-like.

Maybe in another 10 years the automatic experience at my price range will be better but at that point we're 25 years on from coldtea's period where European cargo-cult bullshit started.

Apparently.

Also worth noting that most of the modern super-cars don't even have a true manual (that is, a stick-shift and a user-operated clutch). They're mostly electronically controlled dual-clutch setups since a computer can shift faster than any human can. The 2015 BMW M3 was even rumored to not have a manual option at all, and it's known for being a driver's car. I believe they're keeping it around for now, but there's some worry that the clutch/stick-shift arrangement is going away in the future because the electronically controlled transmissions are that much faster.

How much of it was placebo? How much of it was "feeling out of control"?

"second worst driving experience" has nothing quantifiable.

I had absolutely no preconceptions going into using the automatic - I would even go so far as to say I was looking forward to it as I'd never driven an automatic before.

I would think my number 1 complaint about the driving experience was the occasional (but not predictable) incredible lag between pressing the accelerator and the car going faster and the ridiculous over-revving when I presume the car got confused about what gear it thought I should be in.

>I would think my number 1 complaint about the driving experience was the occasional (but not predictable) incredible lag between pressing the accelerator and the car going faster and the ridiculous over-revving when I presume the car got confused about what gear it thought I should be in.

I've never seen the lag (much less "incredible") in any model I've known.

I've indeed seen the over-revving sometimes. That said, how is the over-revving any issue compared to the whole not having to even worry about manual gear shifting benefit?

It's like going to the US on a boat, because airplane food is bad. Yes, it might be, but it misses the whole point of getting there faster, easier, safer and with less concerns.

> I've never seen the lag (much less "incredible") in any model I've known.

Check out a Smart fortwo on car2go sometime and be amazed :)

Driving a car with a cheap or slow automatic transmission is a bit of an art - after a while you start knowing when and how to floor the accelerator just to tell the car that you'll need it to shift up in a couple of seconds.

It feels somewhat counter-intuitive as normally you press the pedal to speed up, but when going uphill you sometimes have to really step on it just to maintain speed.

Yeah dude it's totally because we haven't tried them. It's not because they're 'intelligent' pieces of shit with virtually no control or anything.

>It's not because they're 'intelligent' pieces of shit with virtually no control or anything.

Really, and you need control of what and for what?

Anything quantifiable?

While in motion, a driver should maintain 100% of their focus on two things: direction and speed. Having to juggle another pedal and lever to make sure upcoming speed change would be suitable to the driver is unnecessary and a distraction. Modern cars perform gear changes good enough, at the worst. If you have a CVT, it is even better (but very expensive to buy/repair, I acknowledge that).

Changing gears manually is you paying a lot of attention to speed and direction. Once the first part of getting comfortable changing gears is past, you as the driver change gears based on paying attention to engine noise, speed, driving conditions, other vehicles.

You end up paying a lot more attention to everything, vs being largely on autopilot with automatic transmission. Or at least having the option of being a lot more on auto pilot with auto transmission.

Of course this varies driver to driver, but having driven both types for about 10 years, I personally find mysel way more engaged with the manual vehicles.

You should try a proper DSG gearbox, they will change your mind and they're even faster and more economical than manual gearboxes.

I have one in my VW Golf!

But DSG isn't a traditional auto. It's still clutch based, you just don't control the clutch yourself.

Automatic transmissions have a clutch that's operated automatically. DSGs have two clutches for quicker gear changes. That's the only major difference.

Standard automatic transmissions don't have a clutch disc. They have a torque converter.

Virtually all modern automatic transmissions use a "lockup torque converter" for fuel efficiency. The lock-up clutch is activated once the transmission is fully coupled, and at that point the efficiency of the transmission is essentially identical to that of a manual transmission.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_converter#Lock-up_torque...

Oh how I wish this were the language we all adopted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com