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

871–880 of 893 posts

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

#871

Post by Grishnakh »

henrikschroder wrote: post #792
Grishnakh wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The love of manual transmissions isn't irrational, it's merely outdated. Manual transmissions were indeed more efficient than automatics up until about 10 years ago. Governments aren't exactly famous for being completely up-to-date on everything. The driving handbook you're complaining about was probably written 30 years ago... Back then, automatics really did suck badly. With modern cars, automatics do get better fu…

> The driving handbook you're complaining about was probably written 30 years ago No, it's continually updated, and featured lots of other modern facts about cars. For example, from a safety perspective, it urged people to stay the fuck away (maybe not using those words) from cars manufactured before 2000, because safety ratings increased a lot between 1990 and 2000, across the whole board. The eco-driving requiremen…

>Fortunately that is pretty self-regulating, because it's incredibly hard to drive a manual if you haven't had practice and training. :-)

Exactly. Why bother regulating this at the DMV when people who can't drive a stick simply aren't going to try anyway (unless they're trying to actually learn and a friend is teaching them)?

That's weird about the handbook. You're exactly right: if you want to drive economically, the easiest thing to do is simply buy a newer car (and of course do things like not do full-throttle acceleration from stoplights, but that applies equally to all cars). Automatics in the last 5 years have surpassed manuals.

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

#872

Post by Annatar »

striking wrote: post #687
viraptor wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> sensors More to the point, the sensors are either wired directly to the controller or data is retrieved over CAN. And there may not even be a spin-lock waiting for that data, data acquisition could very well be interrupt-driven. The latency claim is totally unfounded, and anyone who has made use of an embedded platform (even as weak as PIC or Arduino) to collect data can see it as totally and utterly wrong.

The latency claim is totally unfounded, and anyone who has made use of an embedded platform (even as weak as PIC or Arduino) to collect data can see it as totally and utterly wrong.

Where is the latency coming from, then? Other than disputing what I wrote, no explanation of where the latency is coming from has so far been offered.

I will gladly accept an explanation where the latency is coming from, and have even listed concrete models, years, and scenarios to facilitate a concrete explanation. Please, have at it.

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

#873

Post by Annatar »

striking wrote: post #693
Annatar wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have noticed systemic abuse of ad hominem labeling anyone who doesn't lavish high praise and criticizes instead. Please show some emapthy and think about how the code could be improved instead, so these criticisms can be addressed with a practical solution. In this particular case, all my criticisms can be addressed by offering a manual transmission option with a dry clutch, not even code optimization is required.…

> lag between depressing an accelerator pedal Well, doesn't fuel flow need to be increased before acceleration can begin? That causes latency, much more than software would. Perhaps the software is causing a little bit of that, perhaps there's a simple delay loop instead of a sensor there and it's a little too long. We'll never know, but there are plenty of guesses you could make. > why the engine will often konk out…

Well, doesn't fuel flow need to be increased before acceleration can begin? That causes latency, much more than software would.

No, because the engine in question is a common rail diesel engine, which means that the fuel is kept under a constant pressure of 2,200 atmospheres, ready to be injected into the cylinders. The only thing that has to happen is for the piezoelectric injectors to open. On a vehicle with a common rail diesel engine without firmware, where the logic is hardwired electronics in the ECU, and the throttle is connected with a cable as opposed to drive-by-wire, such a thing does not occur: zero latency, instant response.

As I owned both types of vehicles, I was in the unique position to observe and experiment. These are vehicles from completely different manufacturers, one German, one Japanese. The Japanese diesel has no issues or problems whatsoever. That's the one I kept.

Not a single stall since going back to a mechanical throttle. And also, I've learned on a manual and have been driving them daily for decades.

And for the record, I had two firmware updates on the drive-by-wire model, and they only helped marginally with throttle response, but never fixed the issue.

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

#874

Post by stillworks »

fnj wrote: post #803
stillworks wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few comments in here which are claiming manual is better for fuel economy. IMHO, the way to get better mileage is - Drive slow - Accelerate gently - Look ahead and coast to slower speed instead of breaking when you need to reduce speed - If on a motorway, trust your cruise control - Check you tire pressure EVERY TIME you refuel. I have an eight year old six speed auto shifter 2 litre petrol engine car. On…

"Accelerate gently" Nope. Absolutely incorrect. Best fuel economy is to accelerate rather strongly to cruising speed, getting into top gear quickly. BMW studied this when they brought out the 528e, and found something like 70% throttle is most efficient for this purpose. Upshift at moderate rpm, to be sure, but dawdling in the lower gears taking forever to reach top gear is a waste of fuel. You don't waste fuel accel…

> Best fuel economy is to accelerate rather strongly to cruising speed, getting into top gear quickly

I have noticed that if I am accelerating strongly then up shifts happen between 2500 and 3000 rpm, otherwise the up shifts happen very much at 2000 rpm. Once I am in one of the upper gears then I tend to avoid heavy footing and accelerate gently.

I noticed if use a heavy foot, the box tends to down shift. This I have noticed in just the plain vanilla D mode and not Sport mode which tries to shift at top of the rev range. I don't regularly use the Sport mode.

On typical motorway driving, I keep at 70mph to 75mph between 2300rpm to 2500rpm. That is the rpm range and speed at which I have been able to get 40+ mpg.

I could try the "strong acceleration" theory and see if I get any better mileage... but I guess I won't see a massive improvement.

> People look at me cross-eyed when I tell them I run 40+ psi

Interesting. How far above the manufacturer spec is that :-)

My car is a touring/estate/wagon style and the due to the extra weight, the rear tires are rated at 2.5 bar / 36 psi ! Which I personally find to be very high. But I stick to the manufacturer specs.

Depending on how quickly you change your tires you may not notice the wear. I am too paranoid about driving on sub-par tires and so far have stuck to changing all four tires after 24 months.

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

#875

Post by lmm »

luca_ing wrote: post #870
lmm wrote: post #574

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. Turning the engine is going to take energy one way or the other. But you can use energy that would otherwise be wasted heating up the brake pads rather than energy from burning fuel.

I think the alternative was coasting, not braking.

So if you're coasting you're spending fuel to increase your speed (relative to what you'd do by staying in gear). In the situation where you're considering coasting that's probably not a tradeoff you want to be making.

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

#876

Post by astrodust »

sliken wrote: post #47
astrodust wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A shifter isn't just for acceleration. It's also for picking which gear you want to be in when anticipating something you're trying to do. When racing you'll know exactly what gear to be in for what section of each corner. You'll have a plan going into the corner, coming out of the corner, and it'll be complicated enough that there's no way an automatic can keep up. Unless you're going for quarter mile times, you'll…

Automatics are the same. Sporty cars usually have flappy paddles to control the automatic. So you can pick your gear for the next corner if you want. All the while enjoying better acceleration, faster shifts, and better mpg. Can't push start the car when the battery dies though.

High-end sports cars with paddles use an automatically triggered manual transmission, it's a sequential shifter, not a classic automatic transmission.

There used to be a pretty wide divide between "manual" and "automatic", but now that gap has narrowed and the terminology overlaps.

This is an example of a what's inside a paddle driven engine: http://eng.kaps-transmissions.com/products-si-full-sequentia...

It's "clutchless manual", not automatic.

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

#877

Post by astrodust »

schwap wrote: post #125
sliken wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

Sad to see someone getting beat up on for using the correct term. "Clutchless" does not refer to a missing clutch internally, but the lack of an operable clutch pedal.

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

#878

Post by astrodust »

viraptor wrote: post #159
astrodust wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't see the problem of using a standard transmission in traffic. Once you've learned how to drive with it the whole thing becomes instinct and you don't even consciously notice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill It's an instinct / not a problem as long as you don't know a better option. If you didn't have a running water, the trip to the well would also be something completely normal. (I'm not saying that one option is universally better - just that it's easy to justify the other position as "I've always done it this way and it's super simple")

I'm saying I literally don't notice that I'm driving a manual car. I just drive.

When I'm in an automatic it's all "okay, it's like I'm driving an Xbox now."

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

#879

Post by astrodust »

allendoerfer wrote: post #43
astrodust wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't see the problem of using a standard transmission in traffic. Once you've learned how to drive with it the whole thing becomes instinct and you don't even consciously notice.

Much like breathing, it is fun when racing but quite annoying, when you have to do it under load, you did not want to be in in the first place.

When racing you'll be paying exacting attention to your shifts, you'll need to time them properly if you're working on shaving time off your laps. When driving normally it's not a big deal.

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

#880

Post by astrodust »

bgia wrote: post #23
astrodust wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't see the problem of using a standard transmission in traffic. Once you've learned how to drive with it the whole thing becomes instinct and you don't even consciously notice.

I do. I've been driving stick shift for most my life and moving to automatic made a huge difference.

I'm sure it's different for everyone, but I know a lot of people where manual is so ingrained they don't even need to think about it. It's no more difficult than walking on two legs.
Post reply on HN