Driving a stick -- interesting but highly obsolete
- Thread starter M1Accord
- Start date
- Status
The Op's comments are so typical of an individual learning to drive a manual. I said the SAME things when I learned to drive 41 years ago. I swore that my own car would be an automatic and I'd never look back. I went to that dark side once, and discovered something was missing. That connection, that feel, that joy, and the control. Some people get it, and some don't. Everyone is different. But I "got it" and I'm never letting go. So call me "obsolete". I don't care because I'm having all the fun.
Originally Posted By: M1Accord
By the way, what do you guys use for fluid in a stick transmision. I am going to change out the fluid in the 88 Integra once it becomes mine. Can ATF be used?
A lot of manual trannys use ATF ... but check the owner's manual of factory service manual to see what they specify.
By the way, what do you guys use for fluid in a stick transmision. I am going to change out the fluid in the 88 Integra once it becomes mine. Can ATF be used?
A lot of manual trannys use ATF ... but check the owner's manual of factory service manual to see what they specify.
Originally Posted By: M1Accord
By the way, what do you guys use for fluid in a stick transmision. I am going to change out the fluid in the 88 Integra once it becomes mine. Can ATF be used?
Believe it or not, motor oil is spec'd for that car as a manual tranny fluid.
http://www.amsoil.com/mygarage/ProductRecommendations.aspx?FromIndex=1&url2=1988+ACURA+INTEGRA+1
Personally, I would rather use Red Line MTL and never touch it again
By the way, what do you guys use for fluid in a stick transmision. I am going to change out the fluid in the 88 Integra once it becomes mine. Can ATF be used?
Believe it or not, motor oil is spec'd for that car as a manual tranny fluid.
http://www.amsoil.com/mygarage/ProductRecommendations.aspx?FromIndex=1&url2=1988+ACURA+INTEGRA+1
Personally, I would rather use Red Line MTL and never touch it again
Originally Posted By: 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!
Cars don't require much skill to operate, which is why you see so many bad drivers on the road. Operating a car safely, well now thats a entirely different matter. Most anybody can pass their driver's exam, get a license, and "get by" behind the wheel.
Flying an airplane is an entirely different monster. There is much much more to getting a pilots license and flying for the military or commercial airline. I will always have more respect for someone who operates a vehicle that when you run out of fuel or experience a severe mechanical problem, you crash and burn to the ground, as opposed to an automobile driver who can simply pull over to the side of the road and call AAA or text daddy to come help.
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!
Cars don't require much skill to operate, which is why you see so many bad drivers on the road. Operating a car safely, well now thats a entirely different matter. Most anybody can pass their driver's exam, get a license, and "get by" behind the wheel.
Flying an airplane is an entirely different monster. There is much much more to getting a pilots license and flying for the military or commercial airline. I will always have more respect for someone who operates a vehicle that when you run out of fuel or experience a severe mechanical problem, you crash and burn to the ground, as opposed to an automobile driver who can simply pull over to the side of the road and call AAA or text daddy to come help.
I enjoy a manual transmission. They have their advantages, especially in snow. Team up a manual transmission to a posi rear, or 4x4 and you have IMO a great combo.
I've owned them since 1976, I still do. In fact I've always had a manual transmission vehicle in my fleet since 1976. I enjoy them, even living down state NY.
They last a very long time. I've swapped clutches, not because of wear, but a leaky internal slave cylinder. Cost of ownership and dependability is another plus.
The only problem I see with them is wives, most don't like them. I've met women who enjoy driving them, mine got tired of hers due to her lousy commute home from work.
I've owned them since 1976, I still do. In fact I've always had a manual transmission vehicle in my fleet since 1976. I enjoy them, even living down state NY.
They last a very long time. I've swapped clutches, not because of wear, but a leaky internal slave cylinder. Cost of ownership and dependability is another plus.
The only problem I see with them is wives, most don't like them. I've met women who enjoy driving them, mine got tired of hers due to her lousy commute home from work.
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
The only problem I see with them is wives, most don't like them. I've met women who enjoy driving them, mine got tired of hers due to her lousy commute home from work.
I've got a good one. When we were shopping to replace her 2000 Civic coupe (manual) with a sedan on account of an impending baby, she was very much in favor of getting another manual. It took us about a month and a half, but we ended up with a pretty nice '06 Accord EX with leather, the 4 cylinder engine, and manual transmission. About a week after we got it we were driving around and she commented "I'm really glad we got a manual". It makes that otherwise very vanilla car quite fun to drive.
jeff
The only problem I see with them is wives, most don't like them. I've met women who enjoy driving them, mine got tired of hers due to her lousy commute home from work.
I've got a good one. When we were shopping to replace her 2000 Civic coupe (manual) with a sedan on account of an impending baby, she was very much in favor of getting another manual. It took us about a month and a half, but we ended up with a pretty nice '06 Accord EX with leather, the 4 cylinder engine, and manual transmission. About a week after we got it we were driving around and she commented "I'm really glad we got a manual". It makes that otherwise very vanilla car quite fun to drive.
jeff
Originally Posted By: JOD
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 are pluses as well (big ones). I singled out winter performance as the "big one" because when you go back and forth between an auto and a manual, as I have before,while driving unplowed roads covered in a half foot of fresh powder with patches of unseen ice underneath, then this is where you really see the difference, day in and day out right til winter ends.
Its why, with the luxury now of being able to hunt for my winter beater with all the it takes to find it, there will be no compromise on the transmission this time and it will be a manual. The rest are perks of ownership. The superior control in snow and ice is the perk of having one to drive in those conditions.
The first car I bought was a manual, and it was in a region with one of the longest winters and heavier annual snowfalls. Every winter since selling that car and having an auto, I've felt knee capped in the winter. That's what I miss the most; that and I find them more to fun to drive too (in any weather), but that's a personal thing and very subjective.
-Spyder
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 are pluses as well (big ones). I singled out winter performance as the "big one" because when you go back and forth between an auto and a manual, as I have before,while driving unplowed roads covered in a half foot of fresh powder with patches of unseen ice underneath, then this is where you really see the difference, day in and day out right til winter ends.
Its why, with the luxury now of being able to hunt for my winter beater with all the it takes to find it, there will be no compromise on the transmission this time and it will be a manual. The rest are perks of ownership. The superior control in snow and ice is the perk of having one to drive in those conditions.
The first car I bought was a manual, and it was in a region with one of the longest winters and heavier annual snowfalls. Every winter since selling that car and having an auto, I've felt knee capped in the winter. That's what I miss the most; that and I find them more to fun to drive too (in any weather), but that's a personal thing and very subjective.
-Spyder
Originally Posted By: Jeepster_nut
Cars don't require much skill to operate, which is why you see so many bad drivers on the road. Operating a car safely, well now thats a entirely different matter. Most anybody can pass their driver's exam, get a license, and "get by" behind the wheel.
This is a problem with our driver training and licensing procedures, as well as our rather lax definition of "getting by." I wouldn't say it has anything to do with how much skill is involved in actually driving a car safely.
Cars don't require much skill to operate, which is why you see so many bad drivers on the road. Operating a car safely, well now thats a entirely different matter. Most anybody can pass their driver's exam, get a license, and "get by" behind the wheel.
This is a problem with our driver training and licensing procedures, as well as our rather lax definition of "getting by." I wouldn't say it has anything to do with how much skill is involved in actually driving a car safely.
Other than driver to vehicle connectivity, the only real advantage these days of having a manual over an auto that I can see is durability. The auto trannies today are becoming so complex (5, 6, 7 speeds) that durability can't possibly be getting better. Unless you're a lousy manual driver and do a lot of clutch slipping, there's really nothing to go wrong with a manual tranny; the simpler the more reliable. I have a manual now (it's got 232K miles on it and it's never needed repairs), but I have to say it's a royal PITA to drive in heavy traffic. I think this vehicle will be replaced with something that has an auto tranny...
Originally Posted By: grampi
but I have to say it's a royal PITA to drive in heavy traffic. I think this vehicle will be replaced with something that has an auto tranny...
That's a legitimate argument in favor of automatics. That's a very subjective one, but its why I favor choice: those who, for whatever reason (such as the one you gave) need or prefer an auto should be (as they are) entitled to have that choice.
Likewise, those of us preferring manuals, should be offered the same choice. This is one point in favor of older cars: manual transmissions are a little easier to find (although you have to go farther back than I can shop to find them here in numbers equal to automatics).
-Spyder
but I have to say it's a royal PITA to drive in heavy traffic. I think this vehicle will be replaced with something that has an auto tranny...
That's a legitimate argument in favor of automatics. That's a very subjective one, but its why I favor choice: those who, for whatever reason (such as the one you gave) need or prefer an auto should be (as they are) entitled to have that choice.
Likewise, those of us preferring manuals, should be offered the same choice. This is one point in favor of older cars: manual transmissions are a little easier to find (although you have to go farther back than I can shop to find them here in numbers equal to automatics).
-Spyder
Originally Posted By: 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?
Some time in the early 80's I believe Williams was testing a CVT and Bernie Eccelstone heard it running, he decided it just sounded terrible and used his influence to end the CVT's future in F1 right then...
There was a class of race cars that used 440 snowmobile engines and transmissions and I saw them once at Mosport 20 years ago, it didn't really sound that great for sure... Basically the same rpm from corner exit to the end of the straight... Fast as heck but didn't really sound that way.
With an F1 budget, CVT's would probably be better than even a sequential gear box, although the rules for only having a limited number of transmissions for the season might hamper a CVT's desirability.
Does anyone know of anyone driving a CVT road car for track days?
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?
Some time in the early 80's I believe Williams was testing a CVT and Bernie Eccelstone heard it running, he decided it just sounded terrible and used his influence to end the CVT's future in F1 right then...
There was a class of race cars that used 440 snowmobile engines and transmissions and I saw them once at Mosport 20 years ago, it didn't really sound that great for sure... Basically the same rpm from corner exit to the end of the straight... Fast as heck but didn't really sound that way.
With an F1 budget, CVT's would probably be better than even a sequential gear box, although the rules for only having a limited number of transmissions for the season might hamper a CVT's desirability.
Does anyone know of anyone driving a CVT road car for track days?
Originally Posted By: M1Accord
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.
no I don't 'know the kind'; what exactly do you mean my that?
do you even know anything about trucks?
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.
no I don't 'know the kind'; what exactly do you mean my that?
do you even know anything about trucks?
Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I think he's talking about people who abuse automatics by trying to use them as though they're manuals (e.g. forcing gears, neutral drops, etc.).
Neutral drops are just plain bad. My former employer made plenty of money off Mustang and Camaro owners that insisted on that sort of stupidity. (Sun-shells fractured, planetaries that came out in pieces....etc...)
But how does one "force gears" in a modern automatic? If the TCM "thinks" it's an inappropriate shift it won't allow it to go to that gear. Believe me, I've tried to upshift manually to 6th early to save a drop or two of fuel and it just won't allow it until the speed is appropriate. (which it probably wouldn't have helped anyway because the torque converter would have slipped too much at that low of an engine speed)
I think he's talking about people who abuse automatics by trying to use them as though they're manuals (e.g. forcing gears, neutral drops, etc.).
Neutral drops are just plain bad. My former employer made plenty of money off Mustang and Camaro owners that insisted on that sort of stupidity. (Sun-shells fractured, planetaries that came out in pieces....etc...)
But how does one "force gears" in a modern automatic? If the TCM "thinks" it's an inappropriate shift it won't allow it to go to that gear. Believe me, I've tried to upshift manually to 6th early to save a drop or two of fuel and it just won't allow it until the speed is appropriate. (which it probably wouldn't have helped anyway because the torque converter would have slipped too much at that low of an engine speed)
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: 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?
Some time in the early 80's I believe Williams was testing a CVT and Bernie Eccelstone heard it running, he decided it just sounded terrible and used his influence to end the CVT's future in F1 right then...
There was a class of race cars that used 440 snowmobile engines and transmissions and I saw them once at Mosport 20 years ago, it didn't really sound that great for sure... Basically the same rpm from corner exit to the end of the straight... Fast as heck but didn't really sound that way.
With an F1 budget, CVT's would probably be better than even a sequential gear box, although the rules for only having a limited number of transmissions for the season might hamper a CVT's desirability.
Does anyone know of anyone driving a CVT road car for track days?
Per the FIA technical regulations:
9.6.1 The maximum number of forward gear ratios is 7.
9.6.5 Continuously variable transmission systems are not permitted to transmit the power of the engine
defined in Article 5.1.
Originally Posted By: 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?
Some time in the early 80's I believe Williams was testing a CVT and Bernie Eccelstone heard it running, he decided it just sounded terrible and used his influence to end the CVT's future in F1 right then...
There was a class of race cars that used 440 snowmobile engines and transmissions and I saw them once at Mosport 20 years ago, it didn't really sound that great for sure... Basically the same rpm from corner exit to the end of the straight... Fast as heck but didn't really sound that way.
With an F1 budget, CVT's would probably be better than even a sequential gear box, although the rules for only having a limited number of transmissions for the season might hamper a CVT's desirability.
Does anyone know of anyone driving a CVT road car for track days?
Per the FIA technical regulations:
9.6.1 The maximum number of forward gear ratios is 7.
9.6.5 Continuously variable transmission systems are not permitted to transmit the power of the engine
defined in Article 5.1.
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Some time in the early 80's I believe Williams was testing a CVT and Bernie Eccelstone heard it running, he decided it just sounded terrible and used his influence to end the CVT's future in F1 right then...
There was a class of race cars that used 440 snowmobile engines and transmissions and I saw them once at Mosport 20 years ago, it didn't really sound that great for sure... Basically the same rpm from corner exit to the end of the straight... Fast as heck but didn't really sound that way.
With an F1 budget, CVT's would probably be better than even a sequential gear box, although the rules for only having a limited number of transmissions for the season might hamper a CVT's desirability.
Does anyone know of anyone driving a CVT road car for track days?
DING!!! Yep, that's why, though it was in the 90's. It's a real shame too, because it probably set back CVT's a long time both in acceptance and engineering. It basically came down to aesthetics.
With the limitations in F1, I don't think anyone has bothered putting together a track-capable CVT. And let's face it, F1 is the only place where the budget would exist to do it.
Here's a brief clip where you can get the sound, and yes, it's terrible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3UpBKXMRto
Some time in the early 80's I believe Williams was testing a CVT and Bernie Eccelstone heard it running, he decided it just sounded terrible and used his influence to end the CVT's future in F1 right then...
There was a class of race cars that used 440 snowmobile engines and transmissions and I saw them once at Mosport 20 years ago, it didn't really sound that great for sure... Basically the same rpm from corner exit to the end of the straight... Fast as heck but didn't really sound that way.
With an F1 budget, CVT's would probably be better than even a sequential gear box, although the rules for only having a limited number of transmissions for the season might hamper a CVT's desirability.
Does anyone know of anyone driving a CVT road car for track days?
DING!!! Yep, that's why, though it was in the 90's. It's a real shame too, because it probably set back CVT's a long time both in acceptance and engineering. It basically came down to aesthetics.
With the limitations in F1, I don't think anyone has bothered putting together a track-capable CVT. And let's face it, F1 is the only place where the budget would exist to do it.
Here's a brief clip where you can get the sound, and yes, it's terrible: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3UpBKXMRto
Originally Posted By: M1Accord
Stop-n-go traffic is a no brainer, especially if lane merging is involved.
Speaking just for myself, the transmission I was driving in traffic never bothered me as much as the traffic itself.
Originally Posted By: M1Accord
the technology is truly obsolete.
The physics still favors a mechanical clutch over a fluid coupling. The laws of physics are never obsolete.
Stop-n-go traffic is a no brainer, especially if lane merging is involved.
Speaking just for myself, the transmission I was driving in traffic never bothered me as much as the traffic itself.
Originally Posted By: M1Accord
the technology is truly obsolete.
The physics still favors a mechanical clutch over a fluid coupling. The laws of physics are never obsolete.
- Status
Similar threads
