RE: PH Blog: manual labour
Discussion
Mermaid said:
But if you had 400ps that little 1200kg car?
Strange as it might sound, I'd have no interest in that. I like the fact that you need to work at it to get it to really shift along, and trying to anticipate the road ahead in terms of keeping it on song. And the manual gearbox feeds into that whole process. Every BHP counts 
But it's a good point, maybe these flappy-paddle gearboxes only start making more sense with more power
Gary, - yes, I know, I know...(should've remembered...grovels some more apologies, etc) It's torque what does it..
Havoc - yes, I do accept your point about the emotional side of driving. There's another thread running on PH at present about handling and I contributed there saying I still judge all handling qualities of any "new" car I drive by reference to time in a Lotus Elan Sprint. Magical. Manual gearbox of course and only about 115 bhp (from memory), but it didn't feel like it needed any more power.
On the other hand I wouldn't want one as a daily driver today as I'd like 21st century safety standards in whatever device I clock up most of my road exposure time, please.
Optimistically, it may come out OK. Cars are finally about to start getting lighter in next-gen products. That's a good thing. Ditto more economical petrol engines - time to fight back against diesel there. Another good thing.
But, it looks like we're getting electric-assist steering systems whether we asked for them or not. I think auto boxes vs manuals is still a real choice today, but if the manufacturers start to optimize their engines to a 10 speed autobox I can't think that a 5 or 6 speed manual will work very well with it unless the engine is re-mapped. Will the supplier do that, or do we go aftermarket at that point? Do we then get a slap from the insurance implications??
Havoc - yes, I do accept your point about the emotional side of driving. There's another thread running on PH at present about handling and I contributed there saying I still judge all handling qualities of any "new" car I drive by reference to time in a Lotus Elan Sprint. Magical. Manual gearbox of course and only about 115 bhp (from memory), but it didn't feel like it needed any more power.
On the other hand I wouldn't want one as a daily driver today as I'd like 21st century safety standards in whatever device I clock up most of my road exposure time, please.
Optimistically, it may come out OK. Cars are finally about to start getting lighter in next-gen products. That's a good thing. Ditto more economical petrol engines - time to fight back against diesel there. Another good thing.
But, it looks like we're getting electric-assist steering systems whether we asked for them or not. I think auto boxes vs manuals is still a real choice today, but if the manufacturers start to optimize their engines to a 10 speed autobox I can't think that a 5 or 6 speed manual will work very well with it unless the engine is re-mapped. Will the supplier do that, or do we go aftermarket at that point? Do we then get a slap from the insurance implications??
Leins said:
But it's a good point, maybe these flappy-paddle gearboxes only start making more sense with more power
Probably true, not just for the "driver's processing ability" argument, but also the amount of torque the box has to handle (esp. given the near-ubiquitous FI at those power levels today) and the effect that has on the 'sweetness' of a manual gearbox....so I guess (as per the E30/S6 difference above) it boils down to "do you want extra power with your double helping of power?" or "do you want lighter weight and more finesse in your car but have to plan your driving more and make use of every single bhp?"
I know I fall into the latter camp - to me, 200bhp/tonne is about the limit for a road-car that you can genuinely thrash without feeling like you're being dangerous. Beyond that is fun in one way but ultimately frustrating unless you're prepared to risk your licence every journey...
havoc said:
Probably true, not just for the "driver's processing ability" argument, but also the amount of torque the box has to handle (esp. given the near-ubiquitous FI at those power levels today) and the effect that has on the 'sweetness' of a manual gearbox.
...so I guess (as per the E30/S6 difference above) it boils down to "do you want extra power with your double helping of power?" or "do you want lighter weight and more finesse in your car but have to plan your driving more and make use of every single bhp?"
I know I fall into the latter camp - to me, 200bhp/tonne is about the limit for a road-car that you can genuinely thrash without feeling like you're being dangerous. Beyond that is fun in one way but ultimately frustrating unless you're prepared to risk your licence every journey...
I reckon it's less for me, but mainly due to my lack of driving skills! ...so I guess (as per the E30/S6 difference above) it boils down to "do you want extra power with your double helping of power?" or "do you want lighter weight and more finesse in your car but have to plan your driving more and make use of every single bhp?"
I know I fall into the latter camp - to me, 200bhp/tonne is about the limit for a road-car that you can genuinely thrash without feeling like you're being dangerous. Beyond that is fun in one way but ultimately frustrating unless you're prepared to risk your licence every journey...
Who needs that to still have fun though?!!! 
BTW, I should have been clearer, in that when I referred to "S6" I didn't mean the V10 Audi, but the quickest shift mode on a CSL SMG box. Anything above "S4" really feels like a thump in the back, which I have to admit I find quite exciting too
And that's really the difference I suppose. I take one out (E30) early in the morning, across the local mountain roads, and sometimes come back being quite pleased with myself in having perhaps done a good job in changing gears accurately and having felt in unison with the car, albeit not actually having made startling progress across a distance. And then I take the CSL out some other day across the same route, and I come back wide-eyed and heart-racing, and again the SMG box plays a part in all that
Which is better? I've actually no idea, and that's where I stand on the whole manual vs semi-manual debate, it depends on the car I think
Not really a fan of full autos for such purposes though!
surely not... manual shifting makes most journeys far more enjoyable...
There will always be at least a minority market for manual cars
what we need (and may well get) is an automatic gearbox with a manual stick for the rare moment that we want some fun...
flappy paddles are a passing fad: its a right pain trying to use them from a moving wheel!
There will always be at least a minority market for manual cars
what we need (and may well get) is an automatic gearbox with a manual stick for the rare moment that we want some fun...
flappy paddles are a passing fad: its a right pain trying to use them from a moving wheel!
I have always been a manual man, auto's were always agricultural things that robbed the driver of the more delicate control.
However a few years ago i was looking at a supra (i likes my old jap rot boxes ) and finding a manual one was hard, plenty of auto's about though, and i got talking to a few enthusiats, and it turned out it was actually a very good unit, that dropped down as required and was pretty clever to keep the car lively, and these were circa 1996.
I am not a huge fan of the flappy paddles mainly as i feel in a 1.4 i4 they are a bit silly, the plastic feels cheap and like they may break.
However sitting in a 991 and cayman at my local Porsche dealer (old man and i were in for a look as and salesman said i could sit in whaetever i fancied!!) the paddles were metal, felt a lot more solid and more useable.
However the manual in my 350 is a chunky beast, takes effort and firm input to change, its not annoying, i like the definite engagement, though my old integra type R had a lovely smooth change to fly up through the box, but the 350 is a lazier motor so doesnt need the urgency.
If they were both autos, would i have these memories of having different input methods from my previous cars?
However a few years ago i was looking at a supra (i likes my old jap rot boxes
) and finding a manual one was hard, plenty of auto's about though, and i got talking to a few enthusiats, and it turned out it was actually a very good unit, that dropped down as required and was pretty clever to keep the car lively, and these were circa 1996.I am not a huge fan of the flappy paddles mainly as i feel in a 1.4 i4 they are a bit silly, the plastic feels cheap and like they may break.
However sitting in a 991 and cayman at my local Porsche dealer (old man and i were in for a look as and salesman said i could sit in whaetever i fancied!!) the paddles were metal, felt a lot more solid and more useable.
However the manual in my 350 is a chunky beast, takes effort and firm input to change, its not annoying, i like the definite engagement, though my old integra type R had a lovely smooth change to fly up through the box, but the 350 is a lazier motor so doesnt need the urgency.
If they were both autos, would i have these memories of having different input methods from my previous cars?
Just because some of the current tests claim an automatic can be similar in consumption, my response to that is RUBBISH!
And I will add, that I do not believe any automatic will ever come to a place where they can equal the consumption numbers of a manual in the hands of a well trained driver's hands! And I believe that NO automatic will NEVER exceed the consumption numbers of a manual in a well trained drivers hands....
And every piece of data today shows a minimum of 10-30 % penalty for all automatics. This number has maintained that range for most of the last 30 years as automatics have gotten better at shifting gears. But the fact that automatics today can shift faster than a manual has very little to do with whether they can do it while sipping fuel. Usually fast shifts mean more fuel used not less, just the nature how driving something that shifts fast is driven.
But the data from the real world still shows that even if effort is applied to saving fuel in one the current high tech autoboxes they still cost fuel getting the power through them. That is a design flaw that isn't likely to ever be overcome compared to any manual trans vehicle similar in size and power....
And I will add, that I do not believe any automatic will ever come to a place where they can equal the consumption numbers of a manual in the hands of a well trained driver's hands! And I believe that NO automatic will NEVER exceed the consumption numbers of a manual in a well trained drivers hands....
And every piece of data today shows a minimum of 10-30 % penalty for all automatics. This number has maintained that range for most of the last 30 years as automatics have gotten better at shifting gears. But the fact that automatics today can shift faster than a manual has very little to do with whether they can do it while sipping fuel. Usually fast shifts mean more fuel used not less, just the nature how driving something that shifts fast is driven.
But the data from the real world still shows that even if effort is applied to saving fuel in one the current high tech autoboxes they still cost fuel getting the power through them. That is a design flaw that isn't likely to ever be overcome compared to any manual trans vehicle similar in size and power....
Edited by binberme on Thursday 25th September 10:50
binberme said:
Just because some of the current tests claim an automatic can be similar in consumption, my response to that is RUBBISH!
And I will add, that I do not believe any automatic will ever come to a place where they can equal the consumption numbers of a manual in the hands of a well trained driver's hands! And I believe that NO automatic will NEVER exceed the consumption numbers of a manual in a well trained drivers hands....
And every piece of data today shows a minimum of 10-30 % penalty for all automatics. This number has maintained that range for most of the last 30 years as automatics have gotten better at shifting gears. But the fact that automatics today can shift faster than a manual has very little to do with whether they can do it while sipping fuel. Usually fast shifts mean more fuel used not less, just the nature how driving something that shifts fast is driven.
But the data from the real world still shows that even if effort is applied to saving fuel in one the current high tech autoboxes they still cost fuel getting the power through them. That is a design flaw that isn't likely to ever be overcome compared to any manual trans vehicle similar in size and power....
There is no reason an 'auto' cannot give exactly the same mpg as a manual. I'm no fan of Auto's but they are no longer the torque converter laden slush boxes of old. A modern system using a clutch is effectively no different from a manual.And I will add, that I do not believe any automatic will ever come to a place where they can equal the consumption numbers of a manual in the hands of a well trained driver's hands! And I believe that NO automatic will NEVER exceed the consumption numbers of a manual in a well trained drivers hands....
And every piece of data today shows a minimum of 10-30 % penalty for all automatics. This number has maintained that range for most of the last 30 years as automatics have gotten better at shifting gears. But the fact that automatics today can shift faster than a manual has very little to do with whether they can do it while sipping fuel. Usually fast shifts mean more fuel used not less, just the nature how driving something that shifts fast is driven.
But the data from the real world still shows that even if effort is applied to saving fuel in one the current high tech autoboxes they still cost fuel getting the power through them. That is a design flaw that isn't likely to ever be overcome compared to any manual trans vehicle similar in size and power....
Edited by binberme on Thursday 25th September 10:50
However, I sort of agree. The main reason that they are being used I believe is they allow the car to be programmed to perform to maximise efficiency, and thus reduce emissions when tested on the gov test cycle.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff