Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 893 posts

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

#611

Post by pryelluw »

hx87 wrote: post #606
J-dawg wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. It's also incredibly difficult for those who haven't practiced as you have. The few times I have tried it (in safe conditions) I have ended up braking far too hard. My left foot somehow doesn't have the "feeling" of my right foot on the pedal. One racing driver technique that can be useful in normal conditions (in a manual) is heel-and-toe braking. I use it to avoid excessive engine braking while downshiftin…

It's much safer if that how you learned to drive from day one. Unfortunately most existing drivers don't have the skills to safely left-foot brake so that's how we teach new drivers.

You are right! Its not a common skill. Im left handed so left foot breaking feels natural to me. Plus I drove manual cars for years and am used to feel the clutch/brake bite with the left foot.

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

#612

Post by JBReefer »

emodendroket wrote: post #545
JBReefer wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I take the bus or train, even in towns where most people drive(when possible). I used to commute from Downtown Hartford to the Airport. 20 minute drive, 40 minute bus ride. I showed up happy and refreshed and having had time to read, my coworkers showed up stressed out and miserable. I mean, I guess you save 20 minutes, but....

I like taking the train but I generally find a bus ride pretty unpleasant.

Not all places have trains, and not all buses are unpleasant. My rides in Hartford were all great. A lot of the anti-bus thing in America has some pretty ugly roots, but I'm not going to argue about it on HN.

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

#613

Post by hx87 »

3poundkilograms wrote: post #531
speeder wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am from Brazil, here the population hates "hydramatic" cars as they call automatic cars. I saw one accident that the cause was lack of transmission knowing the future: road crossing, bad road signs didn't made clear who had priority, so both drivers went forward. Both cars tried then to stop, but the automatic car instead had just shifted up, then as the driver tried to stop, it lurched forward and hit the other ca…

Automatic transmissions back then were quite the hydraulic maze, as they operated entirely on hydraulics. These days, they're electronically controlled. I don't think the failure rate has changed. In a manual, you can of course clutch out as long as your clutch cable (or hose for hydraulic clutched cars) doesn't fail, which is not an option you have for automatics. These kinds of failures do occur today, though. See…

> You can disengage a manual if you're quick with an intact clutch cable, but you're a bit lost in an automatic, especially if it's too powerful to hold on the brake.

The typical car has brakes that can dissipate 4x the engine power, so either the driver failed to press hard enough or the brakes failed in that case.

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

#614

Post by usrusr »

petercooper wrote: post #420
usrusr wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Racing divers would shift exactly like automatic because they need to tease the best possible acceleration out of a given engine configuration. Day to day driving is wildly different from that, there are only very few situations where people come anywhere close to the maximum acceleration their car would offer. With manual transmission, you can attain submaximal acceleration by flooring the throttle in a low gear. Th…

Racing divers would shift exactly like automatic I'm not going to say "you're wrong" but I think there are plenty of situations where you know or can anticipate what gear you need to tackle a certain scenario, where an auto simply can't know. For example, a set of 90 degree bends with (very) short straights between them (this is a real scenario where I live and why I've thought about this at length already). In a man…

> I'm not going to say "you're wrong" but I think there are plenty of situations where you know or can anticipate what gear you need to tackle a certain scenario, where an auto simply can't know.

I know what you mean, the similarity between an automatic and a race driver was only meant to be about the specific context of fuel efficiency, not about shaving of a few more second from your lap times. But in the end, both of those wildly different optimization goals can benefit from a driver's superior ability to anticipate future power demand. And both goals create comparable challenges in "coaxing them through throttle alone", which describes my frustration with automatics pretty well. In day to day driving, people seem to want a certain amount of acceleration at non-aggressive rpm, and automatics that make it hard or even impossible to tap the full low-rev torque of a given engine make people buy bigger engines than they would need if the transmission would better support their use case.

Give me an automatic that allows me to apply unrestricted (by backshifting) torque at any rpm and I would look at it much more favorable.

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

#615

Post by mi100hael »

vinay427 wrote: post #454
torrent-of-ions wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, many Americans can't drive in rain let alone snow and ice.

I'm not sure where you're getting that. There are hundreds of thousands in my area that seem to do it for several months every year.

I've lived in northern states where everyone does 10 over in the rain and maintains the speed limit even with 2" of snow on the ground.

I've lived in southern states where people refuse to go faster than 40 if the roads are anything less than bone-dry.

Totally depends on what people are used to driving in.

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

#616

Post by wompfox »

jbob2000 wrote: post #476
bitL wrote: post #339

I never understood how to use automatic transmission in snowy/icy conditions. To me it's basically a lottery. With manual transmission and clutch I can actually recover from a slide almost immediately (the moment you start sliding you disengage transmission right away with clutch and do initial correcting maneuver which you cut short the moment you feel any kind of traction in order not to oversteer; it takes some pr…

Automatics have traction control. The computer that operates the traction control is much faster at taking power from the wheels than a human using a clutch.

Manuals have traction control too

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

#617

Post by Spooky23 »

bitL wrote: post #339

I never understood how to use automatic transmission in snowy/icy conditions. To me it's basically a lottery. With manual transmission and clutch I can actually recover from a slide almost immediately (the moment you start sliding you disengage transmission right away with clutch and do initial correcting maneuver which you cut short the moment you feel any kind of traction in order not to oversteer; it takes some pr…

Pretty easy.

Take your foot off the gas. If you're still sliding, steer into the slide and correct. If necessary, rinse & repeat.

IMO, the only real advantage a manual has is the ability to do some engine braking.

Post reply on HN