Save the Manuals!

[zedextreme8177]

That's not a rather good comparison, especially considering the UAV was landing on a runway, compared to a carrier. Here's some "all human" landings:

This one has a lot of flight computers and software assisting the pilot, but not in how hard/soft he lands.


And here's one without any such computer assistance:


Aircraft can be used as examples regarding interfaces as well:

Technically, the best solution is to have a joystick/sidestick to control the plane, this allows you to keep one hand on the throttle(s). It also allows for more space in the cockpit.

Yet quite a lot of pilots prefer the feel and feedback of a common yoke. Even the newest Boeing airliner, the 787 uses a yoke:

Even amongst yokes, there's the Y-shaped type, which is often quoted by pilots to be much easier on the arms.

But still, they're relatively uncommon compared to the normal yoke, why?

Even among motorcycles, there's certain types with a rotary shifter integrated with a clutch so you don't need to use your left foot, and certain types with the clutch operated by the foot, though these are quite uncommon.

Just goes to show there isn't any "perfect" interface, as there will always be someone who prefers one form of control over another. While DCT's, CVT's, and automatic/semi-autos will do just as good a job/even better job than humans can, there's just this feel from a manual transmission which you simply cannot get from others.

 

[Exorcet]

That's not a rather good comparison, especially considering the UAV was landing on a runway, compared to a carrier. Here's some "all human" landings:

Admittedly yes, but the point was that having computers doing things isn't necessarily a step backwards from human control.

Originally I wanted to post a comparison of unstable aircraft, one with closed loop control, one without. Understandably, there aren't many videos of the latter on youtube as no one would build such a plane and intend it to operate under such a condition and because it would probably lead to a dead pilot.

 

[zedextreme8177]

Oh I see, that's a valid point 👍

One example you can use for that is the F-117 Nighthawk. You could compare it to a RUF CTR Yellowbird in terms of handling, just that it's so bad that you need flight control software to keep it flyable.

In cars though, it's not really common for them to be undrivable without computer assistance, though most of the modern technology appears to be there for performance/safety reasons.

 

[Goshin2568]

human landing
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNi9FbJqzeo">YouTube Link</a>

computer landing
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDnvxNdez84">YouTube Link</a>

Also calculators.

You are taking it to extremes. You kind of twisted my words by leaving out what I said immediately after. In a car, at least for me, I want as much control over the car as I can without being distracting. Using an automatic, electrohydraulic, or dual clutch transmission limits my control. Its that simple.

 

[Azuremen]

You are taking it to extremes. You kind of twisted my words by leaving out what I said immediately after. In a car, at least for me, I want as much control over the car as I can without being distracting. Using an automatic, electrohydraulic, or dual clutch transmission limits my control. Its that simple.

It really doesn't limit your control though. The only actual argument for control limitation is you can not clutch kick or slip to interrupt or vary the power going to the ground. Not that you need two, as both of these can easily be acheived with either a slap of the hand brake in RWD or traction control/being in the correct gear.

 

[niky]

Indeed. Except for lacking the ability to slip the clutch manually for drag-launches or to perform clutch-kick drifts, a good dual-clutch does wonders for car control. No intricate dance to downshift in corners without upsetting car balance. Less jerky shifting. No clutch burning.

You have less control over clutch application, but the computers are at the point where they're better than most drivers.

Brings me back to an older post... would it be great for us to have manual spark advance control? Yes. But the computers do variable spark advance and retardation much better and much faster than any human can.

I'm having hard time wrapping my head around what this sentence means.

I don't see the difference between "operating a transmission" and "operating a steering rack". In my mind they're both part of driving, and both can be made unnecessary by means of technology. To me, either one of them is just a means of getting the car to do what you want it to, whether it be drive forward or take a corner.

Danoff has already touched upon it, but I'd like to reinforce... whatever the interface is, driving is driving. Just because an interface is common doesn't mean it's superior.

Which is why it's funny when some people claim the stick and pedal is superior to anything else. It isn't... it's the most common. I personally find the paddle and clutch interface better (though they usually dispense with the clutch on road cars with paddles).

About the only interface on the modern car I find beyond reproach is the steering wheel. As it allows you to use both fine and gross motor movements with a single control.

In cars though, it's not really common for them to be undrivable without computer assistance, though most of the modern technology appears to be there for performance/safety reasons.

Might be getting there. Porsche seems of the opinion you should never turn PASM off on some models.

 

[Exorcet]

You are taking it to extremes. You kind of twisted my words by leaving out what I said immediately after. In a car, at least for me, I want as much control over the car as I can without being distracting. Using an automatic, electrohydraulic, or dual clutch transmission limits my control. Its that simple.

You're full quote (after the line I quoted) was

Why would you want to have a computer do something that you can do yourself. The more things that you have control of the better, so long as you aren't distracted by all of the things. (Stuff like adjusting brake bias on the fly in a street car would just be ridiculous).

Say all you want about having 2 feet and having to use 3 pedals and that makes a crappy interface or whatever, but people are perfectly capable of driving like that, and it gives more control to the driver.

I didn't twist anything, the computer is as good as you, if not better, at many things. You want the driver to have a higher workload, and you think that will make things safer. Real life trends have basically been the opposite for everything I can think of. As long as you can properly configure a computer it will be faster, more reliable, and safer than you.

Sure, people are perfectly capable of driving with a clutch, but no one disputes that. It doesn't really give them anymore control (what do you lose with an automatic?) and by being distracting, which is can potentially be, or tiring, which it can potentially be, it can actually make things less safe.

I just think you lack trust in computers.

 

[ShobThaBob]

Getting ready to purchase my first manual transmission car in 10 years. Oh yeah.

 

[TriumphTT900]

Getting ready to purchase my first manual transmission car in 10 years. Oh yeah.

What you getting?

 

[ShobThaBob]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/5-0-...4750392?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item337ca882b8

That car.

 

[Pupik]

With all this talk of high-output performance cars, I think we're forgetting that there's usually a noticeable gulf in response and acceleration on low-output engines, especially in less-expensive cars. Not every vehicle has a dual-clutch setup, many are saddled with some 20-year-old design of a 4-speed slushy. Even five-speed autos didn't bust unto the scene until the late-1990s. And plenty of modern vehicles have delayed kick-downs, woeful upshift times, and file-the-paperwork-first drops of more than one gear.

I drive at manual car at home, but rent all sorts of machinery on the road. Some automatics are nice, and make me forget all about my left foot, and others are as stubborn as a deaf bureaucrat.

(Sorry for using up so many hyphens.)

 

[Goshin2568]

You're full quote (after the line I quoted) was



I didn't twist anything, the computer is as good as you, if not better, at many things. You want the driver to have a higher workload, and you think that will make things safer. Real life trends have basically been the opposite for everything I can think of. As long as you can properly configure a computer it will be faster, more reliable, and safer than you.

Sure, people are perfectly capable of driving with a clutch, but no one disputes that. It doesn't really give them anymore control (what do you lose with an automatic?) and by being distracting, which is can potentially be, or tiring, which it can potentially be, it can actually make things less safe.

I just think you lack trust in computers.

First of all, what can't you do with an automatic? What? Have you driven an automatic and a manual? The list goes on and on what you can do with a manual.

Shift up on demand
Shift down on demand
Make sure you are in the right gear at right time
Properly drift
Do a burnout
Clutch kick
Bump start
Rev-match downshift and heel-toe
etc, etc, etc.

It's not that I trust computers, it's that the computer, while it may do the action better, doesn't give me the choice. Even in a semi-auto, I can only engage the clutch when I'm shifting. I can't manually engage the clutch.

Indeed. Except for lacking the ability to slip the clutch manually for drag-launches or to perform clutch-kick drifts, a good dual-clutch does wonders for car control. No intricate dance to downshift in corners without upsetting car balance. Less jerky shifting. No clutch burning.

You have less control over clutch application, but the computers are at the point where they're better than most drivers.

Those are two very big excepts.

Danoff has already touched upon it, but I'd like to reinforce... whatever the interface is, driving is driving. Just because an interface is common doesn't mean it's superior.

Which is why it's funny when some people claim the stick and pedal is superior to anything else. It isn't... it's the most common. I personally find the paddle and clutch interface better (though they usually dispense with the clutch on road cars with paddles).

About the only interface on the modern car I find beyond reproach is the steering wheel. As it allows you to use both fine and gross motor movements with a single control.

I still maintain you're wrong there. Yes, driving is driving. But that is what the car is doing. You, the person, are performing very different actions between driving a car, a motorcycle, a boat, a lawnmower, whatever.

I can kind of see your argument that it's all still driving, but the actions that your body is performing are completely different.

 

[Exorcet]

First of all, what can't you do with an automatic? What? Have you driven an automatic and a manual? The list goes on and on what you can do with a manual.

Shift up on demand
Shift down on demand
Make sure you are in the right gear at right time
Properly drift
Do a burnout
Clutch kick
Bump start
Rev-match downshift and heel-toe
etc, etc, etc.

Chrysler 300 would let you do most of that with an auto. Especially the ones relevant to driving on the road.

It's not that I trust computers, it's that the computer, while it may do the action better, doesn't give me the choice. Even in a semi-auto, I can only engage the clutch when I'm shifting. I can't manually engage the clutch.

Before you were saying the more you can control directly, the better. That's different from the choice argument.

 

[Goshin2568]

Chrysler 300 would let you do most of that with an auto. Especially the ones relevant to driving on the road.

BS

Before you were saying the more you can control directly, the better. That's different from the choice argument.

No. The argument is one in the same. In a manual, I have control over the clutch. Therefore I have the choice to engage or disengage the clutch at any point in time.

 

[Exorcet]

BS

Chrysler has been letting you select your gears since the Intrepid or something.

And here's a video for fun.

No. The argument is one in the same. In a manual, I have control over the clutch. Therefore I have the choice to engage or disengage the clutch at any point in time.

And this is something different again. Now you're not telling me whether your having control or choice with the clutch allows you to drive the car any better than if it had an auto.

 

[TriumphTT900]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/5-0-GT-Track-Pack-Only-53-Miles-/221134750392?pt=US_Cars_Trucks&hash=item337ca882b8

That car.

Nice. My uncle has that same pony.. Fun car.

 

[Dennisch]

I like it how so many people see a manual gearbox as an excuse for street racing or something. Most arguments are utterly pointless in daily driving.

 

[Pupik]

I like it how so many people see a manual gearbox as an excuse for street racing or something. Most arguments are utterly pointless in daily driving.

So is owning a BMW, by that logic. Or really anything over 100 horsepower.

Fun killer.

 

[homeforsummer]

Those are two very big excepts.

For whom? I'd argue that the majority of driving enthusiasts - not just regular drivers, but proper enthusiasts - have *never* done a clutch kick drift or a full-bore drag launch. They're not "very big excepts" at all, they're fairly small excepts as they affect so few people.

 

[TriumphTT900]

This thread has become full blown retarded

 

[niky]

No insulting the thread. Or anyone else, for that matter.

Being a person who has actually done a bunch of clutch kick drifts, as well as countless full bore drag launches... I can honestly say, the former doesn't matter (in practical terms) for anyone who doesn't have to suddenly drift their car out from underneath a falling building or bouncing, flaming fuel tanker. Which happens 100% less in real life than in the movies. The latter doesn't really matter at all, since ATs can do drag launches much better than humans can, and muscle car owners can go on all day about how a proper 4000 rpm stall converter makes for great, consistent drag launches.

Not to say that I don't like doing clutch-kick drifts, but it's not something people actually need a car to do.

 

[SpartanG]

...because you don't need to do it... because the DCT human interface is superior. There is no "missing out" here.

Superior in what way? Faster, yes, but less fun. A DCT might be faster but on the streets, it's more about fun than speed (which it damn well should be)

Honestly this whole argument is subjective. I think technique is fun. Other people think having the fastest/easiest possible car is fun. To each his own.

 

[Perfect Balance]

Danoff has already touched upon it, but I'd like to reinforce... whatever the interface is, driving is driving. Just because an interface is common doesn't mean it's superior.

Which is why it's funny when some people claim the stick and pedal is superior to anything else. It isn't... it's the most common. I personally find the paddle and clutch interface better (though they usually dispense with the clutch on road cars with paddles).

I never claimed a 3 pedal, manual gearbox was better than anything else. In fact, I said that I know a good auto/manual transmission is proven to be quicker at shifting, and quicker around a track than a human and a conventional manual ever could be.

It doesn't answer my question though. If operating a transmission isn't part of driving (which I can agree with), then how is something like operating a steering rack part of "driving"? Especially when the former isn't.


Maybe I'm not understanding what your definition of driving is.

Or maybe I'm just stupid.

 

[niky]

Steering is an essential part of driving, the gearshift and clutch aren't. Electric cars don't need it. Turbine cars and steam cars don't need it. We're stuck with it because we are using gasoline and diesel engines with limited rpm ranges.

Every car needs to accelerate. Every car needs to brake. Every car needs to turn. Those are essential.

But what I was talking about was more that the motions themselves are not essential... meaning playing with a stick and pedal... they're just traditional.

 

[Perfect Balance]

Steering is an essential part of driving, the gearshift and clutch aren't.

Sure, steering is essential, and so is accelerating. In a car with a manual transmission, you operate the transmission in order to enable the car to accelerate effectively. (I'm NOT saying it's the best way) In a car with a steering rack, you operate the steering rack for the wheels to turn. Sure, with technology, the need for a manual transmission is obsolete, but for all we know this may be the same case with the steering wheel and the gas/brake pedal in the future.

As far as I'm concerned, if the car has a manual tranmission, then operating the transmission is just as much "driving" that particular vehicle as turning the steering wheel in any other.

Now, there's also the factor of controlling a car at the limit that conventional slushboxes can't simply can't do well, because of the lag in response time by design. A good "automatic" clutch system solves this problem, but the number of good ones can be counted on one hand.

Therefore, especially on sports cars, until they have a suitable replacement, "x" sports car should absolutely be offered with a conventional manual. Lamborghini, although I have no personal experience, has from what I can tell, a pretty good automated gearbox. In this case it makes complete sense to drop the full on manual entirely.


For your average car though, say a Hyundai Genesis coupe for example. Hyundai does not currently produce a transmission effective enough to outperform a manual in a "driving at the limit" scenario (as far as downshift speed, smoothness, throttle response). Until they do they should keep offering a manual. Fortunately (for me )they still do.


Basically, I have no problem with getting rid of manuals (although I enjoy them) as long as there's a suitable replacement. Some manufacturers have them, and it's fine, but the majority don't, and that's where the problem lies.

 

[TriumphTT900]

Im agreeing with the whole traditional thing. I honestly see no point in changing the 3 pedals and h box standard tranny setup. It just works. Its something hard to forget once learned. Sequential paddle shifters and "electronic manual transmissions" are cool too. But hell im just repeating whats been posted a million times here. Traditional standard tranny will always be an option if more people want it. I'm sure car manufacturers would love more people buying those cars cause they are cheaper to make than autos.

 

[niky]

Only bad thing is... Hyundai's manual in the Genesis Coupe is garbage. I hope they've fixed it with the new one. We get to drive it later this month.

 

[McLaren]

Im agreeing with the whole traditional thing. I honestly see no point in changing the 3 pedals and h box standard tranny setup. It just works. Its something hard to forget once learned. Sequential paddle shifters and "electronic manual transmissions" are cool too. But hell im just repeating whats been posted a million times here. Traditional standard tranny will always be an option if more people want it. I'm sure car manufacturers would love more people buying those cars cause they are cheaper to make than autos.

The "issue" is that most people don't want it when it comes to the actual buyers. And when that happens, it doesn't matter which transmission is cheaper to make b/c the manufacturer will stick with the one in demand & fade the other out.

And as sports cars get increasingly faster, manual transmissions will no longer even be an option for the car to maximize performance. Porsche's current GT3 test cars have all been spied with a PDK transmission, something most enthusiasts thought would never make its way into the 911 GT3/2 cars.

 

[homeforsummer]

Basically, I have no problem with getting rid of manuals (although I enjoy them) as long as there's a suitable replacement. Some manufacturers have them, and it's fine, but the majority don't, and that's where the problem lies.

How do you define them not having a "suitable" replacement?

Off the top of my head, I can think of several huge car companies where their autos and dual-clutch transmissions are as good or better than their manuals.

Funnily though as I'm writing this, I've realised that they're all European. I certainly can't think of any Japanese company where their autos are better (maybe Lexus) and save for on some specific cars, I'm not sure how many American cars have better autos than they do manuals.

But European ones? Sure: You'd have to be a lunatic to buy a manual Mercedes these days; BMW's 8-speed autos are as good as any DCT, quick, fun to use and both faster and more economical than the equivalent manual; the VW empire's DSG boxes are generally pretty good (save for on a few cars) but having driven plenty of their manual vehicles I'd say the transmissions don't really "add" to the experience, so on balance I'd probably go DSG; Fiat's dual-clutch box is pretty good too (save for a clumsy stop-start system you can turn off, thankfully); Jaguar is all autos these days so there's no choice, but then they're pretty good transmissions anyway... and there are probably others.

The ones that aren't so good yet are the French lot. I think Renault does a DCT but I've not yet driven it so can't comment, but Citroen/Peugeot persist with a single-clutch automated manual which is really jerky. Think not far off as bad as the one in a Smart. All those lot I'd go for manuals, while the Smart is best as an electric vehicle these days.

So for whatever reason, a region of the world that mainly buys manuals still seems to offer some of the best alternatives for buying manual...

 

[niky]

Just drove a Chrysler 300C with the 8 speed. Pretty nifty tranny. The other testers during the day kept asking if it had a V8 in there... Great way to avoid the weedy area of the power band...