That's because automatic transmission is the worst and invented by the devil.
More seriously, using an automatic transmission results in trade-offs, for instance fuel usage was the historical number 1 sticking point with automatics guzzling up the petrol compared to manuals. Modern engineering has closed that gap but there are still issues related to control - ironically a move to fully autonomous cars would solve most of them (principally in non-autonomous cars drivers in manual transmission cars can use knowledge of future road conditions to make gear selection decisions that an automatic transmission cannot make as they have only a limited input set)
In terms of fuel economy, isn't it just a matter of time before automatics become as economical (then probably more economical) than manuals? Even without anticipating future events? Driving efficiently feels like something a computer could optimise for and that a human has no natural advantage doing.
My go to example is the insanity of junction 15 of the m8, that loop onto the west bound motorway is a 270 degree corkscrew rising 30 feet with a diameter of 55 yards onto a 5 lane motorway where I need to go from the left hand lane to the right hand lane (as there are entrance and exit lanes on both the inside and outside of the motorway at that point). A current automatic engine wouldn't know what was the right thing to do in that situation ( https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.8672951,-4.2358853,374m/da... )
To determine all of that you'd basically be at the level of self-driving car. Which would be awesome.
Latest Rolls-Royce Wraith does exactly that - it uses the GPS map data to change gears in advance as it is approaching a turn in the road. I am sure that this technology will be available in ordinary cars soon enough.
Manuals have better fuel usage then automatics is a myth for recent cars, no fancy self driving needed.
Now in a high-end car with a sequential gearbox this is different, but for a small town car when you'll be doing a lot of starts and stops you'll see the losses on the hydraulic coupling.
To preempt the "but you have to own a porsche for that!" responses, I'm not saying this is cheap, I'm just saying it is not limited by the available technology, just cost.
Waze-style technology + GIS + networking with other vehicles + weather data (if you look, there is already tons of small weather monitoring stations all over major). thoroughfares).
I mean many vehicles within the last handful of years have automatic traction control that can react faster to a real time change in road conditions than any human could ever hope too. A lot of the stuff I mentioned above is just extending that foresight out further so as to not be so jarring.
Bear in mind I drive a 6 year old 1.3L diesel Fiat van converted to a people carrier which is as aerodynamic as a shed. It also has 3 children, a buggy and a pile of crap in it.
Perhaps a computer could optimise this better but I doubt it. The computer and automatic box just goes when you push the pedal down. The driver isn't connected to it and feeling what it's doing and understanding the power curves.
You sure about that? Because I easily get about 70 mpg on my Prius (C class) when I'm supermiling in the city. Granted it's not as efficient on the highway, and unfortunately I do have to do a lot of highway travel. I can sustain a good a 55mpg average at the end of the month though. I plan to start borrowing my wife's whenever I'm on the highway, I think this way I can average mpg in the 70s overall when I do this.
The number for a Prius-hybrid you'd really care to look at would be the city driving numbers as that's where you get all the advantages of regenerative breaking. Running a Prius at 100+ km/h it just turns back into a standard petrol fueled vehicle carrying drained batteries.
I've found diesel engines and vehicles to be considerably more reliable and therefore less expensive. Fuel is between 5-7% more expensive here in the UK so things are good there.
The city driving numbers are about the same I found. I regularly drive right into London's congestion charging zone - at least 1-2 times a week.
51 is the expected MPG in city driving scenarios. I can achieve that with no particular effort in London traffic. I don't drive like a crazy person and hang back regularly - that is all.
My vehicle doesn't have piles of expensive electronics, batteries and things to go wrong either (look at recent threads about Toyota stack overflows for example).
The most expensive thing on a Diesel that can go wrong is the particulate filter, EGR valves and timing chains and these are cheaply regenerated and replaced respectively.
And this is why electrics are eventually going to win. A motor optimized for a single RPM speed driving a generator doesn't need a transmission. Even if the rest of the drive chain was as efficient, the loss of weight would drive the change over time.
Is this really a good argument against automatics though? The worst example of anything is usually going to be pretty bad.
As a matter of current economics, yes, if you have a very tight budget and want a good driving experience, manual is going to be better. But automatics are as fast and as efficient as manuals a little higher up the market. And it will trickle down soon enough.
Maybe in another 10 years the automatic experience at my price range will be better but at that point we're 25 years on from coldtea's period where European cargo-cult bullshit started.
Apparently.
"second worst driving experience" has nothing quantifiable.
I would think my number 1 complaint about the driving experience was the occasional (but not predictable) incredible lag between pressing the accelerator and the car going faster and the ridiculous over-revving when I presume the car got confused about what gear it thought I should be in.
I've never seen the lag (much less "incredible") in any model I've known.
I've indeed seen the over-revving sometimes. That said, how is the over-revving any issue compared to the whole not having to even worry about manual gear shifting benefit?
It's like going to the US on a boat, because airplane food is bad. Yes, it might be, but it misses the whole point of getting there faster, easier, safer and with less concerns.
Check out a Smart fortwo on car2go sometime and be amazed :)
It feels somewhat counter-intuitive as normally you press the pedal to speed up, but when going uphill you sometimes have to really step on it just to maintain speed.
You end up paying a lot more attention to everything, vs being largely on autopilot with automatic transmission. Or at least having the option of being a lot more on auto pilot with auto transmission.
Of course this varies driver to driver, but having driven both types for about 10 years, I personally find mysel way more engaged with the manual vehicles.
Really, and you need control of what and for what?
Anything quantifiable?
I have one in my VW Golf!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_converter#Lock-up_torque...
Come on -- self-driving cars are already legal in California --
"Self-driving cars now legal in California" : http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/tech/innovation/self-driving-c...
-- and the military are testing self-driving trucks to prevent IUD casualties in hostile areas --
"Army tests self-driving trucks for the next big war: " http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/army-tests-self-drivi...
-- so your doubts are anachronistic to say the least.
> Self-driving cars have way too many hurdles to overcome before they reach that point. I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet.
Hey -- wake up and smell the Cappuccino. :)
But they already have cars that drive themselves, without human interference. Google (and other companies') engineers have been driving them all over the country on test runs. Obviously if the car will drive itself to a specified destination autonomously, the physical state of the occupant is no longer an issue.
> Ie. the ninety-ninety rule.
Yes, fair enough -- I'm sure there are still edge cases, but the OP said, with respect to this technology, "... we won't see that kind of thing even within the next few decades, if ever."
The turning point will be when the technology's edge cases are less dangerous than a human driver's edge cases. That won't take very long.
The physical state of the occupant is an issue if there are situations where the occupant might need to regain control of the vehicle. Unless the autonomous car can handle all potential situations the occupant will still need to be in a fit state to drive the vehicle.
All I can say is that the goal of self-driving cars is to take the occupant out of the picture entirely. I think a lot of public safety officials will welcome this change. Eventually, there will be two classes of vehicle occupants -- those who are qualified to touch the controls, and those who aren't.
For an earlier social model, look at elevators. At one time, to have an elevator in your building, you had to hire an elevator operator. Then there were elevators that the building's occupants could operate if they were careful and knew what to avoid. Now elevators are safely operated by anyone.
Same idea.
> when the technology's edge cases are less dangerous than a human driver's edge
> cases. That won't take very long.
This isn't the fantasy of "get wasted, get driven home, no matter what," but it seems good enough to ensure people are safe. Maybe you can get home, or maybe you sleep it off on the side of the road, or maybe your car drives you to a motel.
The self-driving car technology is also very viable to use right now. I have seen Google self-driving cars on the freeways driving next to me. It would not surprise me if they were being sold within the next 5 years, commonplace within 20-30 years.
That said, if there's a self driving car, you bet Id rather use that.
Funny how I feel exactly same way when I drive an automatic.
After having a couple of cars with automatic gearboxes (including a 4.4L BMW - so lack of power wasn't the problem) I find that I am much happier with a manual gearbox.
NB I'm not resistant to new technology in cars - my current car has automatic parking and I use it a lot and normally leave the lights on auto as well.
[Note I am in the UK]
and normally leave the lights on auto as well.
Why don't you just leave them always on anyway? Or is that not allowed in the UK?
If you're heading down a long slope, sure, use the lower gears to add control.
If you're just trying to come down from your amazing commute freeway race into the clover leaf... use the brakes for braking. Most people downshift incorrectly and add unneeded wear to their clutch.
There's few enough sticks out there already... don't leave me one with a beat up clutch.
> I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic
> transmission yet.
Haha. 1) Driving automatic cars is so boring. 2) it makes your body unbalanced constantly since you use a single foot, therefore your back will ache over long periods of driving. 3) You cannot adjust your speed as fast with an automatic car, we are stuck with binary controls while manual cars provide all the flexibility you need in real, and critical driving situations. All serious cars (like sports cars) are by far usually manual.
As for the second point - in critical situations on the road, I would rather keep my eyes on the road and both hands firmly on the steering wheel - not manipulate gears and clutch.
And I also disagree with the notion that automatic cars don't give you control - with enough experience,you can force precisely the gear you want in an automatic by operating the throttle in a right way. They actually give you way more control - if I find myself at a need to suddenly accelerate, I just press the throttle all the way down and then the transmission just drops down two gears,or one, and does it in less than a second. I am pretty sure that 90% of drivers would not be able to do is as quickly/smoothly/efficiently in a manual, selecting the right gear, declutching and starting at the right rpm - automatic transmission does that for you.
I never had an automatic stall, they don't do jarring shifts between gears, and my left leg is not about to fall off from holding the clutch in a slowly moving traffic jam.
And "serious" cars like sport cars mostly come with an automatic transmission without the manual as an option. You know why Bugatti Veyron comes with an automatic? Because no human would be ever able to change gears as quickly as needed with that car.
And interestingly, the entire off-road market is moving towards automatics as well. You know why? Because you can't burn out a hydrokinetic clutch while starting uphill or in difficult conditions.
I've driven many many cars in my life, and while there are situations where I can see how the manual transmission is "enjoyable", automatics are just objectively better, with new ones offering lower fuel consumption, better acceleration, smoother gear changes and relative lack of maintenance in comparison to manual transmissions.
But I reluctantly disagree with you. Almost all serious sports cars -- hardly "boring" -- now come with automatic transmissions: * All Ferraris are now automatic * All McLarens are now automatic * Porsche's top street car, the 911 Turbo S, is PDK-only * Porsche's top track-ready car, the 911 GT3, is PDK-only * The fastest hypercars, the LaFerrari, the McLaren P1, and the Porsche 918, are all automatic (I recall all 7-speed dual clutch)
Even Lotus, the one company you'd expect to keep the manual faith, on lightness grounds if nothing else, made the Evora available a few years ago with an automatic transmission. And Porsche has been quoted as saying the manual transmission may no longer be available after the 991 is phased out: http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/02/porsche-911-manua...
Unfortunately manual transmissions now make the car slower. A stick is becoming an enthusiast's conceit, C&D's campaign notwithstanding, and I hope they're still offered, but I'm now considering a dual clutch automatic for my next car.
The old-tech viscous coupling was lossy and difficult to control. Even when you can manually tell the trans to shift (as on a 2009 Mazda5), there is a time delay in the shifting, then you wait for the hydraulic system to confer torque and finally drive the wheels/engine brake.
The modern DCT that high-end cars are using is a direct mechanical connection and uses robotic shifting to do so instantaneously. Shifting is faster than a human can shift an H-gate, and the PID controls on gear selection have better programming etc. due to both the high end nature of the cars and the better systems they're being integrated into.
There is a world of difference between what we colloquially term an "automatic" (slushbox torque converter) and the modern DCT.
I have a Golf with a 7 speed DSG gearbox and trust me, in sport mode, you can have amazing and smooth acceleration.
Regarding point 3, is that really true to an extent that would actually matter for ordinary driving?
(Apart from the back ache)
I can even see it being a sort of a 'mini-bus service', for example, noting that you and 4 others are doing a pickup in an area and doing a school drop off, offering to split the cost of the journey.
The point is that individual car ownership doesn't really 'work' in a city too well.
Getting to the point where this is socially acceptable shouldn't take too long. The reduction in cost base and the fact you can sit in the car and work/play should make it very attractive.
Lots of long, straight drives with far less vehicles on the road probably even make it more realistic to accomplish bc it's a less dynamic environment. I know 20+ who drive an hour both ways to work...and on the morning drive you can do it and only see a handful of cars if it's early.
Add adaptive lane assist and your half way there ;)
In many countries in Europe driving a car is considered a pleasure and a skill.
Driving manual vs. automatic is considered the same as playing a guitar vs. playing Guitar Hero.
1. Cars capable of making decisions real-time, on the road, given unpredictable stimuli 2. A network of things, between the cars on the road, to allow optimization and homogeneity of traffic 3. Regulatory environments permissive of autonomous vehicles.
All of this is well under way and I'd say conservatively we'll see robust networks in less than a decade.
I'd say you are being quite optimistic here. Such major changes will be heavily monitored and regulated, and regulations will make it very hard to market any of these vehicles before a long time. 10 years go by pretty fast, I don't think changes are going to that fast and radical. More likely in the scale of 15 to 30 years. But we'll see.
"We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next 10. Don't let yourself be lulled into inaction."
There are myriad examples of the amazing leaps our civilization makes in a decade, particularly in technology.
I really don't think my prior post is unduly optimistic, given the pace of the last decade in the auto industry, the continual convergence of the various problem spaces, and the incentives to be the first-to-market with the remaining building blocks.
Yes. Without question. It's a process that has an exponential adoption curve to it.
The benefits from self-driving cars are so enormous its ridiculous.
Productivity goes up, so for any entrepreneur, a self-driving car will become a necessity (no more wasting an hour of unproductive work to get to the airport, for example). Pollution goes down because self-driving cars have to be electric. Self-driving cars can go recharge themselves at a nearby central charging station instead of requiring expensive charging stations at every company. Parking can be decentralized (somewhat, eventually you have to cope with self-driving cars causing a mini rush hour when they come get their passengers). You don't need "long term" parking anywhere. You can take your bike to work, but call your car in if it rains.
It might not cause the revolution that the Internet has, but it's gonna be damn close.
Ubiquitous autonomous roving robots will lead to a revolution at least as big as the Internet, but probably bigger.
Like the printing press, the Internet made distances shorter, but in a low-fidelity way since reality has much higher bandwidth. With self-driving cars, suddenly “real” distances become smaller since 12 hour trips become routine†. The differences between, say, a middle-class Oklahoman, Texan, Missourian, Coloradian, et.al. start to disappear, and this scenario will play out all across the U.S. and other large regions (Canada? India?).
†If we raise the speed limit to 120 mph (mostly afforded by a change in energy policy), then I could trek from Oklahoma to NY or LA every weekend.
If anybody cares, here is my theory (at least for Germany, where I am from): Driving lessons are very expensive in Germany and you have to decide if you want to learn automatic or manual transmission. If you learn on automatic transmission, you are only allowed to drive automatic cars. If you learn on a manual, you are allowed to drive both. The prices for the drivers license are the same. So, most people will learn to drive stick. Since they are then only used to driving stick, they are actually more comfortable with than with automatic. I have met quite a few people who I had to explain how to drive an automatic (it's obviously super easy if you already know how to drive a manual). So, I think it's want you learned first that you will stick with.
The more likely cause is that gas in Europe is far far more expensive than it is here, and manual transmissions are historically more efficient than automatics (may have changed with hybrid e-CVT and newer drivetrains).
Also possibly an explanation is that engines in Europe are far smaller than here (to improve gas mileage) and manual transmissions gives the ability for a driver to play with the torque curve and delay shifts to improve immediate speed/responsiveness.
I wonder if there's been a study that looks at the safety of manual vs. automatic transmission vehicles. This coming from a guy who made it a pre-req that his future wife drive stick...
http://ideas.4brad.com/navias-induct-officially-sale-250-000
I am almost 100% certain that we won't see that kind of thing even within the next few decades, if ever. Self-driving cars have way too many hurdles to overcome before they reach that point. I mean, Europe hasn't even moved over to automatic transmission yet.