Driving a stick -- interesting but highly obsolete

[KrisZ]

Actually shifting gears in an F1 cars is not a big deal, that's what professional drivers do, high G's or not.



The reson F1 went to sequential transmission is simply shorter gear changes and no misshifts, but the driver is fully in control of gear changes, there is not computer trying to interpret driver's input, if the driver wants to downshift and overrev the engine, the transmission will comply.

 

[Jeepster_nut]

Originally Posted By: rpn453
Originally Posted By: Jeepster_nut
I don't see what they are being smug about, I mean really, its a stick shift. Its not like they are flying a plane or other machine that takes real skill to perform.


Driving on public roads at reasonable speeds doesn't require much skill. It mostly requires discipline and awareness. However, I hope you're not suggesting that simply operating an airplane requires anywhere near the skill level of a professional race car driver!



if you read the thread you will see that my post came well before F1 race cars got dragged into the mix...

 

[whip]

The OP's opinion and others like his, will be the ruination of fun cars. Doing things on your own is too much hassle, so the auto makers have to automate everything and make the cars do it for you. Never in a million years did I think I'd need the car to park itself, but we have them because a few people said it was too difficult to master. The collective driving IQ of the public will continue to decline and the cars will get smarter. I'll take driver skill over a smart car every time.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: XS650
The large majority of new cars in Europe are still manual transmission.

Exactly. I wanted to see what he'd say about that.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: whip
The OP's opinion and others like his, will be the ruination of fun cars. Doing things on your own is too much hassle, so the auto makers have to automate everything and make the cars do it for you. Never in a million years did I think I'd need the car to park itself, but we have them because a few people said it was too difficult to master. The collective driving IQ of the public will continue to decline and the cars will get smarter. I'll take driver skill over a smart car every time.

Assuming this does not preclude things like ABS and sophisticated engine management systems, I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[dnastrau]

Originally Posted By: Jeepster_nut
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: Jimmy9190
Seems I read an article somewhere (on Yahoo maybe) not long ago saying how the manual transmission is almost extinct in new cars. IIRC it said only about 3% of all new cars and trucks being built nowadays are equipped with a manual.


This is only North American trend, the rest of the world still prefers manual.

However, I think that with rising gas prices and smaller cars being introduced, I think manual transmission may make its comeback. I think part of the reason why Americans prefer auto transmission is the fact that we have big engines here with plenty of torque, automatic transmission doesn't suck out the power that much. Compare that with Europe and Asia, where they have small 1.0L to 1.5L engines and you can see that a regular slushbox simply doesn’t make sense, the power and fuel economy hit is just too great.


Im not sure about the small car segment turning back towards manuals though. I was looking at several compacts recently as a 3rd car, and it seemed that they mostly were using CVT's. The CVT is something I couldn't drive, sorry. I wouldn't even call it an automatic. I would call the CVT a gearless, even though they are infinitely geared, there just isnt that shifting feel you get with an auto or manual for that matter.


"Shiftless" cars are not new, nor are the opinions on what it is like to drive one. My uncle and grandfather both had 1958 Chevy Impalas with the then-new 348 V8 and recently introduced Turboglide transmission. That transmission was similar to the Buick Dynaflow unit in that it did not shift like a "normal" automatic. Apparently they used variable pitch blades in the torque converter to change the "gear" ratios. To this day my uncle said it was a strange feeling driving those cars as they felt like they were slipping when you were accellerating. That is one reason why the Turboglide disappeared after '61 and the two speed Powerglide continued on.

I will admit that it is a strange sensation for me when riding in a friend's Nissan Altima with CVT. It is so smooth, but I sometimes wait for it to shift. I think it is just something you eventually get used to when driving something new.

 

[greenjp]

I'll admit to a certain level of smugness in my earlier replies.

I'll never argue with someone who says "I don't find stick shifts fun", or "Traffic around here is terrible and I'd rather not bother" or "My knee/back/gluteus is bad and it's painful to shift". All legit reasons for preferring an automatic.

But make crazy arguments about safety and efficiency on the way to deeming manuals obsolete, and yes I'll come out

jeff

 

[sangyup81]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
I sense a little smug factor from stick-shift drivers to some of the replies.

I can understand where M1Accord (who lives in DC) is coming from with his statements. I lived in the SF Bay Area for a short while with my stick shift Omni. It can really wear on a person to negotiate heavy rush hour traffic with a stick, especially when your drained and hungry after a hard day at work. Not so bad in metro Detroit though.

I live in the DC area too. I used to drive every day through the American Legion Bridge to get from Northern VA to Silver Spring, MD. I'd still rather have the manual.

Oh yeah my work days were 10 hours.

 

[sangyup81]

Originally Posted By: M1Accord
Originally Posted By: Kestas
I sense a little smug factor from stick-shift drivers to some of the replies.

I can understand where M1Accord (who lives in DC) is coming from with his statements. I lived in the SF Bay Area for a short while with my stick shift Omni. It can really wear on a person to negotiate heavy rush hour traffic with a stick, especially when your drained and hungry after a hard day at work. Not so bad in metro Detroit though.


I think people associating anyone driving an auto by choice as a non-car folks that can't drive. The ability to drive and intimacy with a car have nothing to do with the transmission. F1 drivers don't use a stick. Most racing 'manual' transmission are also not the same as those found in regular cars.

The people in 3rd world drive a stick because that's all they could afford. They get the stuffs other countries throw away. UN and embassy vehicles are auto because they could afford to.
And I do agree that off-roading, specifically rock climbing, is much better with auto. A manual would be worn out very soon doing the tricks required.

Last time I checked, most of Western Europe was 1st world or at worst 2nd world.

 

[rpn453]

Originally Posted By: Jeepster_nut
if you read the thread you will see that my post came well before F1 race cars got dragged into the mix...


I did read the thread, and you made some good points. I wasn't talking about F1 cars specifically. The F1 stuff was coincidental, and not even mentioned in my response. I was talking about any car driven at its limits by a skilled professional driver. What I'm really saying is that your post appeared to dismiss cars as not requiring much skill to operate compared to other machines - which I don't agree with - but maybe I was just reading into it too much.

In terms of skill level, I would compare a recreational track user to a recreational pilot, and a high level professional driver to the Blue Angels. The average driver in an emergency situation would be equivalent to a light-aircraft passenger who needs to land the plane after the pilot suffered a heart attack!

 

[Quattro Pete]

Automatics are for people who want to be driven.
Manuals are for people who want to drive.

Nothing wrong with either one. I usually prefer to drive, but sometimes I wish to be driven, too.

 

[M1Accord]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Automatics are for people who want to be driven.
Manuals are for people who want to drive.

Nothing wrong with either one. I usually prefer to drive, but sometimes I wish to be driven, too.


I disagree with that. I love to drive, I just prefer to auto. Either trans will be the same once highway speed is reach so difference is only the first 300 yards. Hopefully, people don't downshift every time they past just for fun.

I am driving a stick now just so that I can get a full size GMC 3500 or some large sport truck much cheaper and not having to worry about transmission work from some idiot with an auto and use it like a stick. You know the kind.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: M1Accord
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Automatics are for people who want to be driven.
Manuals are for people who want to drive.

Nothing wrong with either one. I usually prefer to drive, but sometimes I wish to be driven, too.


I disagree with that. I love to drive, I just prefer to auto. Either trans will be the same once highway speed is reach so difference is only the first 300 yards. Hopefully, people don't downshift every time they past just for fun.

I am driving a stick now just so that I can get a full size GMC 3500 or some large sport truck much cheaper and not having to worry about transmission work from some idiot with an auto and use it like a stick. You know the kind.


You need to take out a car that is FUN to drive stick. My favourite is a 5.0L Mustang (87-93), but a Challenger, Camaro or new Mustang would be just dandy for you to try it out.

Nothing like railing gears while tapping the clutch with the engine roaring, both rear tires roasting, it is a LOT of fun

 

[rationull]

These debates are getting tired IMO.

Personally, I just like cars and driving. I like manual and automatic transmissions. CVTs are fine, too. I've never driven a dual-clutch style but I'm sure they're fun. I enjoy lazily driving around with an AT, especially in bigger vehicles with plenty of torque (trucks and large sedans, for instance). I haven't driven very many smaller, less powerful vehicles with ATs but the ones I have, I've enjoyed putzing around in them. I kind of like the sound of the engine droning up while the TC slips before lockup. Being able to start from a top sign without messing with the clutch is nice sometimes, too.

That said, for my choice in personal vehicles (DD, fun, whatever) I'm going to go with an MT every time (barring physical problems or, of course, changing my mind in the future

) for the following reasons (in no particular order):

1) Cheaper to buy.
2) Cheaper/simpler to maintain. Less likely to have problems in general.
3) More fun/engaging/involving.
4) Superior engine braking characteristics.
5) Better predictability.

Every type of automatic transmission vehicle I know of violates at least one of the above, usually more.


OK, I said "every time". Obviously if I were buying a big truck or minivan, I'd get an AT (not much choice). If my choice in cars is available with an MT, I'll get the MT. In addition, I would definitely let the availability of an MT sway my choice in cars (although my preferences tend towards vehicles which will have an MT available anyway).


I do object to the OP's specific position for a couple of reasons:

1) I'm not sure the phrasing "highly obselete" is justified when there are still reasons to go for an MT in many situations that aren't really debatable as far as their validity (they are generally favored in terms of initial cost and maintenance, for example -- that's a fact).

2) A few weeks or a few months is not, IMO, enough time to form a solid opinion on the matter. This is borne out in my experience and, from reading, the experience of many other posters.

 

[sangyup81]

Originally Posted By: M1Accord
Either trans will be the same once highway speed is reach so difference is only the first 300 yards.

Not true unless your auto design has a lock-up clutch. When you have a torque converter, it starts to unlock when you let go of the gas even if you are at highway speeds. You can see the RPMs go down when you coast. In order to accelerate again, your car has to rev up slightly before any power gets to the wheels.

This is not the case with a manual transmission. Manual transmissions for the most part stay locked until you hit the clutch petal. This is the reason why you get stalls when the wheels stop where in autos, the torque converter unlocks itself.

Perhaps it's not manuals you don't understand, it's automatics.

 

[ffracer]

Originally Posted By: M1Accord
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Automatics are for people who want to be driven.
Manuals are for people who want to drive.

Nothing wrong with either one. I usually prefer to drive, but sometimes I wish to be driven, too.


I disagree with that. I love to drive, I just prefer to auto. Either trans will be the same once highway speed is reach so difference is only the first 300 yards. Hopefully, people don't downshift every time they past just for fun.

I am driving a stick now just so that I can get a full size GMC 3500 or some large sport truck much cheaper and not having to worry about transmission work from some idiot with an auto and use it like a stick. You know the kind.


It is amazing today, that this needs to be explained. In the old days "10-20 years ago", most in the USA knew automatics suck and why they can never be as good as a manual, but people put up with them for traffic and had a big, torquey V8 to offset it. Now, like an iPod and NASCAR, no one knows why anything could possibly be better or could have been. Ask the Europeans - they get it, as does most of the world. It is a tradeoff. Traffic vs. well, driving a car. Stick shifts are driven in heavy traffic in most major cities of the world - as a majority! Egad!

- no eyes, automatics are reactive, passive - can't figure out the correct gear, unless you are in straight line acceleration
- gear ratios that give away acceleration to get MPGs
- Wasteful power connection - torque converter or CVT - not direct drive - lousy response and MPGs
-No racing car for ovals or road racing in top level racing worldwide is automatic. None. Formula 1 has manuals - just electronic clutches

If you explained to the enviros that 8% is wasted through the automatic in real world driving, not EPA ratings, you'd have a full blown protest.

Please PM me, and I will personally and gladly take you around a race track (racing instructor and racer) to show you driving basics and why a manual clutch gearbox (even with paddles) is central to driving. Even in a truck. It will be obvious after a few laps.

 

[Spyder7]

Given a choice, I will take a manual every time. In buying this car, at a time between cars, something had to be sacrificed for expedience and I wound up being flexible on the transmission and ended up with an auto.

My second car will be shopped for with all the time in the world to find what I want, and it will be a manual.

As others have said, with an auto, you point and shoot; with a manual, you drive the drivetrain and feel much more connected to the car and the driving experience. Its also a big plus in winter, which is also what my second car is intended for, and this is where a manual really shines.

-Spyder

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ


The reson F1 went to sequential transmission is simply shorter gear changes and no misshifts, but the driver is fully in control of gear changes, there is not computer trying to interpret driver's input, if the driver wants to downshift and overrev the engine, the transmission will comply.


And remind me again why they're using sequential transmissions versus automatics or CVT's?

 

[JOD]

I find a lot of the responses to this thread pretty hilarious. Stick shift devotees certainly are an emotional lot.

For my first 20 years of driving, I only drove manuals. I learned to drive on a stick. My last 2 cars were automatics, a V70R putting out about 350WHP with a stock 4 speed auto, and a Ford Freestyle with a CVT.

In the V70, I never really felt hampered by the transmission, even though it annoyed me when I first bought it (wasn't available in MT). I felt I could basically "shift" it with throttle pressure, up or down. Very rarely did it shift when I didn't want it to shift.

The CVT is a different kettle of fish, but for a daily driver I think it's the perfect transmission in terms of driveability. There are a ton of advantages to them.

Where manual transmissions really shine is in greatly reduced complexity, long-term durability (if you know how to drive one) and low cost of repair. All of those things appeal to me. I have faith that my CVT will last a long time, but that's what it is; a leap of faith. If something does go sideways, it certainly won't be cheap to fix.

I'd certainly go back to a manual transmission, depending on the car, mainly because I don't mind shifting gears and cost of repair is consideration. I'm certainly not going to pretend it's way better. I don't believe it is.

As far as F1, it's pretty irrelevant to this discussion, but let's not pretend that people are using sequential automatics because they're "better". Fully-automatic transmissions, including CVT's are against the rules. If they weren't, most people familiar with the sport agree the landscape of transmissions would look a lot different.

 

[FZ1]

You must,first,get your terminology right. It's not a "stick"; It'a a manual!