RE: Manuals and DCTs disappearing from M cars

[Slow]

cerb4.5lee said:

donkmeister said:

Patrick Bateman said:

Nope, US only. We didn't get the choice.

I understand it was a horrible gearbox too. Clutch with a delay valve. Like they tried to make it bad.

BMW are experts at making bad manual gearboxes, and it's deliberate I think so you spend more money on the Auto/DCT gearbox instead.

Really? I like the gearbox in my e46, infact had 2 of them now. Just have to remove the CDV (pretty quick and was pre done on one of my cars) and it feels better than most imo. Depends what your coming from of course - years of driving old Defenders/200+300tdi Discos/Range Rovers/Lifted pickups etc have made me accept almost any box which will go into the gear you want within 5 tries.

[kambites]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I cant' see why that would happen, unless you think they're going to ban pedestrians, cyclists, horse-riders, and every other form of human controlled conveyance as well?

I could see human-controlled cars ultimately being banned from motorways, but not really from other types of road.

[kambites]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I can't see it happening. At a practical level how can you do it? You can't ban pedestrians, cyclists etc. from non-motorway roads unless you spend billions building extra services to cater for them and if you accept that you have to allow certain human-controlled vehicles on the road, why on earth would you ban human controlled cars?

As far as I know, there is no precedent for ever banning a class of vehicle from the roads which has ever been allowed on them?

[cerb4.5lee]

Slow said:

cerb4.5lee said:

donkmeister said:

Patrick Bateman said:

Nope, US only. We didn't get the choice.

I understand it was a horrible gearbox too. Clutch with a delay valve. Like they tried to make it bad.

BMW are experts at making bad manual gearboxes, and it's deliberate I think so you spend more money on the Auto/DCT gearbox instead.

Really? I like the gearbox in my e46, infact had 2 of them now. Just have to remove the CDV (pretty quick and was pre done on one of my cars) and it feels better than most imo. Depends what your coming from of course - years of driving old Defenders/200+300tdi Discos/Range Rovers/Lifted pickups etc have made me accept almost any box which will go into the gear you want within 5 tries.

To be fair I don't have much experience with earlier Bmw's so presume they're fine then, but the manual gearboxes in my Z4M and E92 M3 were both dogs so I can easily see why most go Auto/DCT instead.

[kambites]

Hmm, I can't see it happening.

And anyway it's certainly not going to happen in my lifetime so I'll never know if it does.

Of course give it 100 years and the concept of the car as we know it might well have been replaced anyway.

Edited by kambites on Wednesday 24th May 12:44

[Slow]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Providing it is safer. Just because the car knows the road is clear and can see it is clear doesnt mean it can see the big diesel spill which any competant human would.

Also whats the plan for motorbikes? I assume the cars will have to learn to avoid them even if cars arent allowed to be driven.

[kambites]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Possibly.

I think we're probably at least 20 years off public opinion shifting far enough to even allow truly driver-less cars (as in cars with no manual over-ride) on the road. Then I don't think we'll see any sort of attempt to restrict human drivers until human-driven cars become a small enough minority that it wouldn't be political suicide to even discuss it; say 10 years for driver-less cars to really take hold in the new market and a further ten years for them to propagate down the used car market. So 40 years before it can even be discussed then any change wont come overnight.

At very earliest, I could see human controlled cars starting to be banned from certain roads in about 50 years' time. I suppose I might still be alive them but it's highly unlikely that I'll still be driving!

[RobM77]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

This isn't an objection, just a genuine question, but how would a driverless car react if a deer ran out in front of the car too late to stop, but with a car coming the other way making driving around the deer unsafe? Or an even more complicated situation (albeit rare) - a choice between hitting an empty parked car or a child on a bike? And one more: how do/would they cope with passing places in country lanes? I met some idiot this morning who stopped about 1 metre beyond a parking place, but refused to reverse a couple of metres so I could drive into it to let him pass - what would two driverless cars do?

[Atomic12C]

RobM77 said:

This isn't an objection, just a genuine question, but how would a driverless car react if a deer ran out in front of the car too late to stop, but with a car coming the other way making driving around the deer unsafe? Or an even more complicated situation (albeit rare) - a choice between hitting an empty parked car or a child on a bike? And one more: how do/would they cope with passing places in country lanes? I met some idiot this morning who stopped about 1 metre beyond a parking place, but refused to reverse a couple of metres so I could drive into it to let him pass - what would two driverless cars do?

The typical reply to that is often "what would a human do?" - and then infer that this is what would be programmed in to computer.

It is a bit of a difficult argument to make either way when you engineer an accident to happen.... because no matter if human or computer a crash is designed to happen within the statement.

So we come to the famous trolley problem (see link below):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Does the human choose the same as a computer in the trolley problem?


Putting all that aside I do think that driver-less cars may have their place. But not in the same way that is being put forward by the masses.
I see them being a viable option on their own dedicated routes whereby they would share route space with cyclists that are both separate from traditional roadways and traditional vehicles.
Driver-less cars can be made much thinner with people sitting inline rather than side-by-side, saving a lot of required route space. The intelligence within driver-less cars would be focused on avoiding cyclists and not other motorists.

[Ares]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Of course there is. With a full auto you select drive before you move, and deselect it hours later when you stop. With a PDK/DSG you change gear every time. Just like a manual.

What's the difference between pulling a lever to change a gear compared to pushing a lever? Apart from being slower and more prone to mistakes? Or is it the chance of mistakes that makes the driving experience?

[Ares]

RobM77 said:

This isn't an objection, just a genuine question, but how would a driverless car react if a deer ran out in front of the car too late to stop, but with a car coming the other way making driving around the deer unsafe? Or an even more complicated situation (albeit rare) - a choice between hitting an empty parked car or a child on a bike? And one more: how do/would they cope with passing places in country lanes? I met some idiot this morning who stopped about 1 metre beyond a parking place, but refused to reverse a couple of metres so I could drive into it to let him pass - what would two driverless cars do?

Well, systems like the Tesla learn from drivers ever second of every day.

.....but the eventualities above, and 1,000s like them, is why I suspect the 100% use of fully driverless cars may never happen.

[Mike335i]

Ares said:

Of course there is. With a full auto you select drive before you move, and deselect it hours later when you stop. With a PDK/DSG you change gear every time. Just like a manual.

What's the difference between pulling a lever to change a gear compared to pushing a lever? Apart from being slower and more prone to mistakes? Or is it the chance of mistakes that makes the driving experience?

With a DSG or a PDK you only change gears of you chose to, it is the same in that sense as an automatic. Once the novelty of flappy paddles has worn off everyone I know just leaves them in D or S.

Even if changing manually, there is little to be gained from it. Pulling a paddle requires no effort and removes interaction. Anyone can do it. Because the car can do, why bother doing it yourself?

Changing gear is harder with a clutch pedal so yes, maybe the possibility of mistakes does make it more interesting. Achievement often comes from mastering something tricky, and being able to drive a manual car well will lead to a greater sense of achievement. It is just more involved and 'making progress' is down to the driver more than the car.

Lets not forget of course that with increased performance and competence of performance cars comes the issue that the point of having fun means going much faster than before. In my views this is exacerbated by automatics as they take away a part of driving. Driving at more docile speeds is even more easy and dull, so to find the fun you press on harder.

[Ares]

Mike335i said:

Ares said:

Of course there is. With a full auto you select drive before you move, and deselect it hours later when you stop. With a PDK/DSG you change gear every time. Just like a manual.

What's the difference between pulling a lever to change a gear compared to pushing a lever? Apart from being slower and more prone to mistakes? Or is it the chance of mistakes that makes the driving experience?

With a DSG or a PDK you only change gears of you chose to, it is the same in that sense as an automatic. Once the novelty of flappy paddles has worn off everyone I know just leaves them in D or S.

Even if changing manually, there is little to be gained from it. Pulling a paddle requires no effort and removes interaction. Anyone can do it. Because the car can do, why bother doing it yourself?

Changing gear is harder with a clutch pedal so yes, maybe the possibility of mistakes does make it more interesting. Achievement often comes from mastering something tricky, and being able to drive a manual car well will lead to a greater sense of achievement. It is just more involved and 'making progress' is down to the driver more than the car.

Lets not forget of course that with increased performance and competence of performance cars comes the issue that the point of having fun means going much faster than before. In my views this is exacerbated by automatics as they take away a part of driving. Driving at more docile speeds is even more easy and dull, so to find the fun you press on harder.

All very well and good, happy that for your, that makes the driving experience.

For me its not different an argument than ditching ABS or servo brakes, or doing away with a synchromesh etc.

PDK/DSG/Paddles do not take away the driving experience for me. The best driver experience car I've owned was my Caterham, used on road, track and race. It had a semi automatic gearbox (buttons, not paddles). Driving a similar PWR car with a stick shift was a worse experience. IMO.

[kambites]

Ares said:

PDK/DSG/Paddles do not take away the driving experience for me.

This is the key bit. Everyone is different. Lack of choice is never a good thing because different people like different things.

If market forces haven't taken away anything you value yet you should consider yourself very, very lucky. It almost certainly wont last.