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

#811

Post by extrapickles » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:32 PM UTC

Annatar wrote: post #145

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.

It's possible if an electric car had a manual transmission, but no company had yet built one because electric motors cam regulate revolutions per minute with amperage and voltage. However, no studies that I'm aware of to determine whether the battery range could be extended with gear ratios have been performed.

The main issue is that the efficiency curve of a electric motor is fairly flat once it gets >60% load[0]. There is a small hump typically around 60-80% output that is most efficient, but its only a few percent at best, so not worth the cost of a high torque transmission as adding a few extra batteries to cover the loss at slow speeds is much cheaper.

When cost is no object (eg: racing) you see transmissions so they can get peak power for longer.

Even in a application that I was involved in where power was ~$200/Watt, fixed gearing was chosen as the extra weight of the transmission made the whole system less efficient than what was gained by the transmission.

[0]: http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl... (Its for Irrigation pumps, but still in the same class of power output as cars)

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

#812

Post by RankingMember » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:33 PM UTC

mikestew wrote: post #797

RankingMember wrote: post #763

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar "oh wow" experience when I discovered motorcycling, but eventually gave it up because I kept getting nearly hit by inattentive drivers. You pay dearly for that cost:performance ratio advantage over supercars, and the cost is safety.

I'm nearly hit by inattentive drivers on a daily basis. I've been riding bikes for so long that I just roll with it. I knew they were going to invade my space probably before they did because I read traffic ahead and to some degree predicted the possible outcomes. But unfortunately that comes with time and experience. I've said in the past that if you can survive the first five years, you'll probably be pretty safe o…

Haha, I agree re: under 25. I started cycling when I was 19; a motorcycle is a very intoxicating thing for a 19-year-old brain. I'm glad I survived. No accidents, but definitely some close calls.

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

#813

Post by theluketaylor » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:34 PM UTC

dghughes wrote: post #673

omegaham wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My mother needs to learn this lesson. Light turns green? Stomp on the gas. Light turns red? Stomp on the brakes. She drives a minivan with a V8 and uses every bit of it on winding Massachusetts roads. People who haven't grown up with it get carsick. She's a damn good driver - in 10 years, she racked up about 430,000 miles in a Toyota Sienna without an accident... but holy fuck she's traumatizing to ride with.

She'd love a Dodge Grand Caravan we have them for work service vehicles and I was amazed at how quick it shifts. At first I thought it was a mistake almost like the engine was lugging but it was in eco mode and shifting early. In normal mode it can shift through three or four gears in (what felt like) one second. And it has a seven speed transmission. I was wondering if I got a Hellcat trans by mistake!

My grandparents have a chrysler 200 with an 8 speed automatic and I hate it. It spends it's entire life searching for the perfect gear because the computer has too many to choose from.

When you're on the highway in cruise I'm sure it selects a ratio that gets the best possible milage, but they live in the country. You need to accelerate through tight turns, pass slower vehicles without hitting oncoming traffic and constantly adjust the throttle and steering on dirt roads based on conditions. Driving in the middle of nowhere is a very active process and it always feels like that car is just in the way.

Just a tiny bit of throttle causes it to downshift 2 or 3 times and rev the nuts out of the engine when all I wanted was just a little more torque. Lifting off just a little to prepare for a tight bend upshifts to engine brake, so once you're halfway through the corner and want power to accelerate through now it has to downshift 3 or 4 times to get the revs back up. It feels like I am constantly at war with the transmission trying to get it into the right gear and then stay there. It's the most indecisive codriver I've ever experienced.

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

#814

Post by fnj » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:34 PM UTC

gerbilly wrote: post #427

I wonder of anyone else here does this. I drive manual[1], but rarely use the clutch. I use it to start moving in 1st gear then can shift between all tho other gears without it. You have to get to know the speed where the engine and drivetrain are matched. It's not that hard after a while. Shifting between 3-4th is easiest, 1st and 2nd the hardest. I can even downshift too without clutch. You have to rev the engine a…

Clutchless shifting is a lot of fun, but hard to do truly properly. With synchromesh, you may not be audibly grinding the gears, but you are going to wear the synchros unless your rev-matching is very good.

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

#815

Post by theluketaylor » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:36 PM UTC

lb1lf wrote: post #309

_nalply wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because you'll prefer to run over pedestrians crossing the street so you don't have to break and waste kinetic energy.

-That only works for children; adults have too large a moment of inertia for this technique to be effective. Seriously, his (valid, IMHO) point was that driving eco-friendly was all well and good when conditions allowed (A distinction not being made by the training manual) - but when interacting with other drivers, accelerating slowly, for instance, would often mean you could never (legally) enter a road where you're…

That's everyone's definition of yield, just most drivers are horrible at estimating how long it will take them to properly join the flow of traffic (or they just plain don't care they are cutting someone off)

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

#816

Post by larrywright » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:41 PM UTC

giardini wrote: post #706

corey_moncure wrote: post #625

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the reasoning here is that braking all the way down a steep grade can cause your brakes to overheat and become temporarily inoperable. I don't know whether this is a real effect or not, but I have heard it given as a justification for engine-braking.

unkeljoe: "braking all the way down a steep grade can cause your brakes to overheat and become temporarily inoperable. " That condition is known as brake fade/fading and occurs mostly with drum brakes and can occur on bicycles, motorbikes and automobiles. Braking heats the brake drums, which then expand. The drum may expand in diameter to the extent that the brake pads no longer contact the drum sufficiently enough t…

I would just like to commend you on your bravery. Towing a trailer with a Beetle in the mountains takes some stones.

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

#817

Post by gaur » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:43 PM UTC

sturmeh wrote: post #621

I highly recommend everyone learns to drive a manual before it becomes a dead art, it's truly a lot more fun and engaging experience. That being said there's obvious cause for the shift to all-automatic, just like we'll all be using self-driving cars not long in the future. However what concerns me is that automatic transmissions are not only more expensive in general, but harder to maintain / less reliable. That a t…

> it's truly a lot more fun and engaging experience.

No it isn't.

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

#818

Post by donkeyd » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:46 PM 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…

So there's a Dutch website where people can log their fuel consumption. This s real life, normal people, fuel consumption. I just checked some modern cars, although with a small sample size, and manual transmissions seem to be more fuel efficient. Caveat may be that in the Netherlands an automatic is deemed a luxury and is therefore more often found on cars with bigger engines.

Here's the site: http://www.autoweek.nl/verbruiksmonitor

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

#819

Post by peterjlee » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:46 PM UTC

I live in a urban city in the US and when I tried to learn how to drive a manual I couldn't find a way. Most of my friends can't drive a manual or even have a car and none of them own a manual. When I contacted a few local driving schools for manual lessons, they replied they don't have any manuals on their fleet but they'll teach me if I somehow bring my own. I might just move on and just settle for a DCT on my next car since knowing how to drive at all will become a lost art in a few decades.

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

#820

Post by donkeyd » Thu, Nov 17, 2016, 8:49 PM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #260

henrikschroder wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

However, in real life, for real humans, over a longer period of time, the drivers with modern automatic transmissions will be more fuel efficient than drivers with similar cars and manual transmissions, because the automatic transmission is a reliable machine that will do the same thing, every time. It doesn't care if you had your morning coffee or not, if some asshole cut you off, or if you got distracted or bored o…

I'm used to driving a manual, which means I'm used to always knowing the exact amount of power my car will give me, because I know which gear I'm in. I had a loaner car for a while with an automatic box. After a while I put it into sports mode, because in that way i'd never be underpowered if I needed to get in front of somebody. I would usually turn it off on freeways, but the damage in efficiency would already be done.