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

#321

Post by dx034 » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 10:58 AM UTC

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #306

dx034 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is truly a non-issue once you actually learn how to drive a manual transmission well. It isn't like people keep both hands on the wheel anyway. I'd even argue that people with a manual transmission might react more quickly since they are used to at least keeping both hands readily available anyway. If it is that urgent, you forgo shifting the car.

I've always driven manual transmission and still think that. I often find myself steering with one hand through corners to shift up in time. And I could observe the same with others.

Of course it doesn't feel dangerous if you always do it that way. But that doesn't mean that it isn't. But as there are probably no studies for that it's just speculation.

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

#322

Post by nerthus » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 11:00 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #15

bcook wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do any performance-focused vehicles use CVT? Answer: No.

http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/why-you-wont-see-another-... (Sept 2015) "Ferrari has emphatically ruled out offering a manual gearbox in its next generation of vehicles, for one simple reason: performance. Speaking at the Frankfurt motor show this week, stakeholders at Ferrari said the manual transmission had become obsolete in a performance sense because modern dual-clutch transmissions were much faster and effe…

They can go that way, because the technology is far enough. A traditional automatic is not suitable for sporty driving. Not only because it may choose the wrong gear at the wrong time. In racing, the balance of the car is highly important. Making an uncontrolled shift within a corner, can spin off the car because of the associated weight shift. You counter that in traditional transmissions with double clutching and heal-and-toe, where you get the rev in the transmission about right, to guarantie a smooth shift and a stable car. Ferrari and the like managed through timed automated gas bursts and other technologies to conquer the effect in automatic transmissions.

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

#323

Post by dx034 » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 11:00 AM UTC

tdkl wrote: post #261

dx034 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but it determines how well you can steer. Especially in sharp turns you usually have to shift down/up. If there's an obstacle (perhaps a person), both hands on the wheel will give you more room to steer in both directions. You'll be much more limited with one hand.

You don't shift up/down in turns, but before and in the exit path out of them.

I (and many others) do. After a traffic light on a large intersection you will have to (or at least should) shift to second gear with most cars before you're clear of the intersection.

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

#324

Post by henrikschroder » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 11:00 AM UTC

rsp1984 wrote: post #313

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…

An often lost fact in automatic vs. stick-shift discussions is that in practice automatic transmission causes much heavier wear on the brakes of the car. This is because with a stick-shift you can just gear down when going downhill or before a foreseen stop and let the engine do most of the breaking for you. You then only use the brakes to bring the car to a full-stop on the last couple meters. This gets you much bet…

My previous car automatically engaged engine-breaking when going downhill, when it was appropriate to do so. I also had paddle-shifters if I wanted to do it myself. Your statement that cars with automatic transmissions can't engine brake is wrong.

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

#325

Post by Retric » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 11:00 AM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #206

Ntrails wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about what is required to turn the engine over and prevent stalling. -When the clutch is engaged whilst going down hill the wheels turn the engine. No Fuel Required. -When the clutch is disengaged the engine has to turn itself over - which needs fuel. *Disclaimer, i'm sure carbourettas (sp?) could well be doing weird ass things so whilst conceptually the above holds they may well be different.

It's not the fuel required by the engine, it's the engine braking. Going down a hill with clutch disengaged, the Accord would accelerate. With clutch engaged, it would slightly decelerate. That's fuel that the engine doesn't need to burn to accelerate it back up to cruising speed. Ditto when coasting to a stoplight - with clutch disengaged (or in neutral), it would coast for a longer distance, which - if you're caref…

No free lunch.

In a manual you are burning fuel when the clutch is disengaged to keep the engine turning over. With the engine engaged you steal from momentum which lowers fuel use.

The mid point of keeping the engine engaged and adding enough fuel to reach your desired stopping point once the RPM enters the same range as an idling engine is actually most efficient.

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

#326

Post by qubex » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 11:00 AM UTC

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #311

_nalply wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manual transmission is incompatible with cruise control with proximity detection, because the automated system can't shift (or it would be an automatic transmission). I would buy a car which has both (like the Smart) and manual shift in difficult conditions (like driving over mountain passes in snow). However the Smart I rented didn't have a clutch. It's weird. I don't know.

I have ACC on a shift gear and it's great on highways. Not entirely incompatible for sure.

Me too.

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

#327

Post by JetSetWilly » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 11:01 AM UTC

mnw21cam wrote: post #274

Reason077 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've driven manuals most of my life. Before stop/start came along, I was in the habit of just holding the clutch pedal down while stopped at intersections or in traffic. Anecdotally, I think most drivers do the same. Now, when driving stop/start equipped vehicles, I always try to use it. But in a manual, it does takes more thinking and effort and I wonder how many casual drivers actually bother. The thing is, most of…

> I was in the habit of just holding the clutch pedal down while stopped at intersections or in traffic. If you take a driving test in the UK and do this, that would be a minor fault. You can only have a few minor faults before you fail the test. The rationale is that you need to be in full control of the car at all times, and when you set off you mustn't drift backwards at all . The easiest way to do this without ne…

There's lots of minor faults that don't reflect how people actually drive.

For example if you are turning right and waiting for oncoming traffic to clear, then someone pauses and flashes their lights to let you turn, if you then turn that would be a minor fault in Driving Test conditions - where you are supposed to ignore the driver inviting you to turn and sit like a diddy.

Also you are allowed 15 minor faults before failure, which is quite a lot really.

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

#328

Post by vetinari » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 11:03 AM UTC

Tempest1981 wrote: post #156

fazzone wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>gear-shift indicator in the dash. My VW has this. It's useless, I never look at it. It is very simple and clearly intended only to give the best results on the controlled gas mileage testing - I believe that if a manual car has a gear-change indicator, the EPA test drivers are supposed to follow it. The advantage of a human selecting gears is that they can use more information than just the speed and engine rpm; for…

You say it's useless, but then say "maybe you will save a few bucks on gas if you follow the indicator". Isn't that the point? To teach/remind you how to save gas? I agree that it is imperfect, and imo annoying/distracting. But it may work for a large number of drivers, most of the time.

It is a trade off - you can trade a some of engine lifetime for a slightly better consumption by keeping the engine in low rpms, where it is stressed more than it should. That's exactly what the indicator suggests.

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

#329

Post by henrikschroder » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 11:05 AM UTC

saiya-jin wrote: post #221

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…

wow, you are incorrect in almost every statement. I get it, you like easy driving without worrying about clutch and gears, but not everybody is like that. I would never want automatic transmission for my car, it's inferior, expensive, less fun and car has no way knowing details of road situation I am facing and choices I am about to make. And I am far from petrolhead person FYI. Another point - I don't know a single…

> wow, you are incorrect in almost every statement.

And yet you didn't refute a single one of them, and only offered subjective preferences and personal anecdotes.

You like driving a manual. Bless your heart. Modern automatics still accelerate faster and are more fuel efficient than manuals. Just take a look at what the car manufacturers themselves report.

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

#330

Post by rini17 » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 11:05 AM UTC

fazzone wrote: post #170

Tempest1981 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say it's useless, but then say "maybe you will save a few bucks on gas if you follow the indicator". Isn't that the point? To teach/remind you how to save gas? I agree that it is imperfect, and imo annoying/distracting. But it may work for a large number of drivers, most of the time.

My point is that they far over-prioritized fuel economy. If you actually drive like that you will be spending a lot more time changing gears than necessary, and that almost any acceleration will require a downshift. I wouldn't recommend trying to stretch the gas mileage in the snow, for example, since you might need power to recover if you start to slide.

Overusing clutch is not such a big problem, but that it leads the driver to keep low rpm. Especially diesel engine is sensitive to that and can be damaged.