Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions • Hacker News Board

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#171

Post by tdkl » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:03 AM UTC

dx034 wrote: post #72

civilian wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I delivered pizza one summer in a manual. I can't ever go back. :D I really think that driving manual requires you to be more attentive... and I should look to see if traffic accidents data backs me up.

Not sure if that's the case. While I love manual transmission, I would rather argue that it is more dangerous as you're often forced to have one hand away from the steering wheel, which makes it harder to react quickly.

Number of hands on the steering wheel has nothing to do with reaction time.

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#172

Post by sidcool » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:04 AM UTC

In India, it's the opposite. Very few vehicles have automatic transmission, major reason being mileage.

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#173

Post by viraptor » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:06 AM UTC

eveningcoffee wrote: post #155

Annatar wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And since the car is most often better than you at knowing when you should shift gears, why have the manual transmission in the first place? From my empirical experiments, and from understanding how modern automatic transmissions work, the assertion above is incorrect, and here is why: a modern automatic transmission is controlled by firmware, a unikernel. The shift points and the shifting logic are based on the deve…

Yeah, downvoted for honest and informed opinion. Unfortunately this is quite common in HN.

I downvoted you for random assumptions and insulting people you never talked to.

> a modern automatic transmission is controlled by firmware, a unikernel

Have you seen the source? If not, how do you know it's a unikernel?

> The shift points and the shifting logic are based on the developers' very dim understanding of economy and of performance driving

"dim understanding"? Do you have a reference for any of that? Why do you think it's developers, not mechanical engineers or engine testing that resulted in the shift threshold?

> there is often a significant latency involved - by the time the unikernel has managed to process all the inputs from all the sensors

Again, that's a heavy assumption unless you have a source for it. Also, from own experience in actually writing control software like that, real world sensors can be read tens/hundreds+ of times per second. But even with tiny 8K microprocessors you can process it more quickly. Mostly you sit in a tight loop and wait for new data. Processing it takes tiny fraction of the wait time.

> On top of that, the developers' opinions of what's acceptable and what makes sense are truly dim and utterly infuriating

Yeah... you're just throwing ad-hominem around. Please come post some sources which support your opinions.

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#174

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:07 AM UTC

henrikschroder wrote: post #160

rimantas wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when automatic transmissions are consistently > outperforming humans at fuel efficiency What? So far each data sheet has shown higher fuel consumption for automatic vehicles.

I should probably have qualified my statement with an "over time, in real driving conditions". In a measured test, with a skilled driver, who does the right thing for the entirety of the test, it is most likely that he or she will be more efficient with a manual transmission than with an automatic. However, in real life, for real humans, over a longer period of time, the drivers with modern automatic transmissions wi…

[deleted]

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#175

Post by Tomte » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:07 AM UTC

rimantas wrote: post #60

henrikschroder wrote: post #46

I got my driver's license in Sweden, and the official driving handbook completely worships manual transmissions, and makes several untrue claims about how much better they are than automatics. You can choose to do your road test in an automatic, but that'll earn you a restriction on your license, barring you from driving a manual. It's probably fair, but almost everyone (myself included) chooses to practice in manual…

> when automatic transmissions are consistently > outperforming humans at fuel efficiency What? So far each data sheet has shown higher fuel consumption for automatic vehicles.

Sure, for professional racing drivers.

The vast majority, certainly >90%, of people who claim to be driving more efficiently manually are simply mistaken.

It's mostly observation bias. They recognize those two situations a day where they really have the upper hand. For a second or two. They don't realize that in most other driving situations they don't even come close.

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#176

Post by henrikschroder » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:08 AM UTC

Annatar wrote: post #121

henrikschroder wrote: post #46

I got my driver's license in Sweden, and the official driving handbook completely worships manual transmissions, and makes several untrue claims about how much better they are than automatics. You can choose to do your road test in an automatic, but that'll earn you a restriction on your license, barring you from driving a manual. It's probably fair, but almost everyone (myself included) chooses to practice in manual…

And since the car is most often better than you at knowing when you should shift gears, why have the manual transmission in the first place? From my empirical experiments, and from understanding how modern automatic transmissions work, the assertion above is incorrect, and here is why: a modern automatic transmission is controlled by firmware, a unikernel. The shift points and the shifting logic are based on the deve…

I didn't downvote you, but you are on Hacker News, and you are complaining about bad software, and making the claim that said software will never improve, despite car manufacturers having extremely high motivations - to the tune of billions of dollars of market share - to improve this software, to meet stricter fuel efficiency laws and safety laws.

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#177

Post by kybernetyk » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:09 AM UTC

tdkl wrote: post #167

Learning to drive on an automatic is like never learning handwriting and going to typing instead.

Sounds pretty OK to me ;)

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#178

Post by barsonme » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:10 AM UTC

photogrammetry wrote: post #153

Annatar wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just spent two hours this morning in bumper to bumper traffic. In a diesel. With a manual. Shifting and clutching the entire time. All that monstrous low end torque just made the diesel want to take off the entire time. Still I wouldn't change that for anything in the world. I always hated the lag between stepping on the gas pedal and the car beginning to move in the automatic. No clutch. That's no life, sucking al…

You're going to love electric cars. Zero lag.

It's insane. I visited my uncle in Petaluma and he drives a volt. He's normally a very slow driver (drives us insane ;), but one day we were running late to dinner (don't do that to my aunt...) so he decides to floor it (again, flooring it for him, so like 45 MPH) and that car just _took_ off.

I was very surprised at how much torque the car had. It's one thing to realize, "oh, yeah, of course electric cars have more torque because x, y, and z" but a completely different thing to be sitting in it when the car decides to go 20 MPH faster in a blink of an eye.

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#179

Post by pja » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:10 AM UTC

Off-topic, but I opened this page without any tracking or ad-blocking & after about 30 seconds of reading, was treated to two video adverts which were off-screen but playing audio at the same time. One would have been obnoxious enough, but 2 simultaneously was just awful.

Online ads do the marketing for ad-blocking all by themselves don't they?

Re: Fewer than 3% of cars sold in the U.S. have manual transmissions

#180

Post by kalleboo » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 9:11 AM UTC

henrikschroder wrote: post #160

rimantas wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when automatic transmissions are consistently > outperforming humans at fuel efficiency What? So far each data sheet has shown higher fuel consumption for automatic vehicles.

I should probably have qualified my statement with an "over time, in real driving conditions". In a measured test, with a skilled driver, who does the right thing for the entirety of the test, it is most likely that he or she will be more efficient with a manual transmission than with an automatic. However, in real life, for real humans, over a longer period of time, the drivers with modern automatic transmissions wi…

I'd love to see some kind of study that went deep into how the results pan out over a certain population and why.

My own anecdote is that I'm a better driver in a manual. I'm a lazy driver, and lazy in a manual means avoiding stopping/gear changes by anticipating green lights and so on. Being lazy in an automatic results in more stop and go for me because it's no more effort. I could be as efficient in an automatic, if I put in the effort (which I would probably do if I knew my numbers were going into a study).