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

121–130 of 893 posts

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

#121

Post by Annatar »

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 developers' very dim understanding of economy and of performance driving, and because the firmware is so shitty, there is often a significant latency involved - by the time the unikernel has managed to process all the inputs from all the sensors, compute a decision and acutally shift the gear, I've long since shifted with a manual. On top of that, the developers' opinions of what's acceptable and what makes sense are truly dim and utterly infuriating: as I drove the manumatic in hypermiling mode in which I normally drive a stick, the idiotic unikernel refused to upshift because the programmer thought that the gear would be too high and the RPM's too low, neither of which was the case. This was a 3 liter V6, so with plenty of low-end torque for the situation I was putting it through.

Incensed, I repeated my experiment on other makes and models: the result was always the same.

After so many years of automatic frustrations, I will never again own one: the day when I'm no longer able to buy a vehicle with a manual transmission is the day I take a bicycle or walk with the two legs nature gave me, or engineer my own car, and the car manufacturers can go to hell, because they sure won't be seeing any of my money ever again.

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

#122

Post by VMG »

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…

Very similar situation in Germany.

I think the misinformation could be an historical artifact from times when automatic transmission technology was in early stages.

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

#123

Post by exclusiv »

rvanmil wrote: post #30

I switched to automatic a year ago and I'm glad I did. Stick shift feels ancient already, and besides it's just annoying once you realize it can be done automatically. I'm from The Netherlands though, so most of my colleagues and friends call me "grandpa" now, because automatic is, as they say, for old people; almost everyone here drives stick shift.

I don't feel it's annoying. If you have a shifter it feels like you're actually driving.

People will long for manuals as we move more and more into autopilot.

Manual transmission. Double edge razor. Smoker grill. Get off my lawn. It's kind of beautiful.

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

#124

Post by pmontra »

kweinber wrote: post #7

Manual shifting is neither possible nor even relevant in electric cars or cvt (continuous variable transmission) cars. Their rise will be the true end of the stick shift.

Actually most Formula E cars do use gears and manual shifting. This is why

[1] http://www.fiaformulae.com/en/news/2015/november/boxing-clev...

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/FormulaE/comments/2gbika/why_do_for...

None of that probably matters for road cars. I'm using a car sharing service's single gear electric cars. They have great acceleration and are easy to drive. Better than automatic transmission cars.

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

#125

Post by schwap »

sliken wrote: post #49
astrodust wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

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

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

Nowadays they use some variety of dual-clutch transmission.

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

#126

Post by lb1lf »

rgzn wrote: post #32

I think anyone who drives off-road in the mountains knows how much better sticks are then automatics. It's extremely frustrating to take automatic trucks on steep off road terrain.

-I beg to differ. My current 4x4 fun vehicle is an old Land Cruiser with an auto box. I do not miss manual shift at all. Low 2nd and off I go, for the most part.

No need to work my left foot like a drummer in a speed metal band.

Having some sort of terrain response system like just about any current 4x4 does makes it even simpler.

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

#127

Post by tempestn »

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.

I would be very interested to know the accident rates of manual transmission vehicles in North America, compared to the average. I agree that all else being equal, the added difficulty in driving them should result in a higher rate. But the added attention/engagement required could be an opposing factor. It's also possible that people inclined to buy manual transmission cars are better drivers on average. (I suppose it's also possible they're more aggressive, worse drivers on average too, although I would expect the former.)

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

#128

Post by sshanky »

vmarsy wrote: post #104
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 Do you have data to back this up? Unless you're driving a dual clutch "dry" transmission or a CVT, because of Physics, an automatic transmission will always be less efficient. The Automatic transmission Torque converter [1] will waste some of the energy provided by the engine, especially with city driving. Also, most automatic cars…

In modern cars, disengaging the clutch (or using neutral) when coasting (toward a stop or down a hill) is less efficient than staying in gear. This is because it takes some fuel to keep the engine idling, where staying in gear allows the computer to completely cut fuel flow, as long as the forward motion is keeping the engine turning.

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

#129

Post by PeterStuer »

Over here (Belgium) manual transmission (4 forward +1 reverse gear) was the standard for decades. It still dominates the cheaper car bracket, but the luxury segment has gone almost 100% automatic. What is left there is optional manual shifting (by stick or F1 style steer paddles), but always with an automated clutch. This evolution has also gradually allowed increasing the number of gears, now not uncommonly 6, 7 or 9 gears forward. Modern automatics are in practice more fuel efficient

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

#130

Post by exclusiv »

gambiting wrote: post #95
manmal wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would it be better for society if everybody had automatic transmission?

I would call myself a "car enthusiast" and I drive an automatic - I feel like even in dangerous situations, I have full control of the car. Whether it's sudden need to stop or accelerate, I have full control. In a manual car I've had a few near-accidents where the car just stalled because I was so concentrated on braking and avoiding the obstacle - Which was great, except that I found myself in a middle of a dual car…

Never experienced that but you have way more control in a manual excluding powerful electric cars.

You need to stop fast, well you have gears to utilize quickly in a manual. Need a pop to get out of a sticky situation? Drop the gear to get in the power band and pull away. I don't understand your argument other than manuals being more error prone.

Certainly you could stall it in an intersection if you aren't experienced as an example.

I haven't seen a report on this but I'd wager manuals were safer in practice before the smartphone and became even safer after. You can't be messing around with distractions nearly as much in a manual.

Post reply on HN