On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:35:03 -0600, Gordon McGrew wrote:

>
> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.

I would agree that they do not belong on any sports car, but IMO, the only
time I really WANT an Auto is for heavy city traffic.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:00:46 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 22:06:04 -0800, jim beam
>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 03:07:21 GMT, "Andy & Carol"
>>>>> <aforn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It called "Logic Grade" , that is why you won't grind
>>>>>> up your rotors..read up on it.
>>>>> I would think that it would hurt your gas mileage though. At least it
>>>>> would if you are anticipating a stop and just want to coast until the
>>>>> light changes. Is it possible that it waits for you to touch the
>>>>> brake pedal before it downshifts? That would make more sense.
>>>> which is precisely what it does do - it takes the signal from the brake
>>>> pedal switch.
>>>>
>>>>> On the upside, completing the downshift earlier makes it ready to
>>>>> accelerate on short notice. All-in-all, that is one reason why I
>>>>> prefer manual transmissions. The AT will never have enough sensors
>>>>> until they put in one that can read my mind.
>>>> you haven't driven an automatic lately.
>>> Well, I'm sure they have improved somewhat since they made the one for
>>> my '98 Ody, but I would be surprised if they now know in which gear I
>>> want to do compression braking. I'm pretty sure they don't downshift
>>> in anticipation of me wanting to do hard acceleration two seconds
>>> before I touch the gas pedal.
>> no, they provide a handy little lever that allows you to take care of
>> that by hand.
>>
>>> How does it know that, even though I am
>>> doing a steady 40 mph, I want to stay in second gear to be ready to
>>> make a move in traffic?
>> see above.
>
> Right, you can force the downshift or hold the gear manually but a.
> then its not automatic and b. it is clumsy to shift especially on the
> steering column.

but don't say it can't hold a gear because it can! you can leave it in
full auto or you can manually over-ride - the ultimate in choice. i
agree with you about column shifts however - i can't stand them.

>
>>> Does it know not to downshift just before we
>>> crest the hill?
>> press the brake and you'll find out. they have grade control logic.
>> increasing speed + zero gas = downshift.
>
> My comment is that the transmission downshifts when I dont want it
> too, i.e. just before cresting the hill when I would manually just
> stay in the higher gear for a few more seconds.

dude, you said auto's couldn't hold a gear - they can. and grade logic
means they select the right gear, certainly a good deal better than some
of the individuals that pop up here from time to time putting their
sticks into neutral and coasting down hills. modern autos are not only
programmed to shift right, they also learn what the driver likes.

>
>>> For my Ody, I would be happy if it just didn't
>>> downshift when I hit Resume on the CC 4 mph below the target speed. I
>>> would hope they have at least fixed that.
>>>
>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>> sticks.
>
> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
> know how.

eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
stick? makes no sense.

bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:00:46 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 22:06:04 -0800, jim beam
>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 03:07:21 GMT, "Andy & Carol"
>>>>> <aforn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It called "Logic Grade" , that is why you won't grind
>>>>>> up your rotors..read up on it.
>>>>> I would think that it would hurt your gas mileage though. At least it
>>>>> would if you are anticipating a stop and just want to coast until the
>>>>> light changes. Is it possible that it waits for you to touch the
>>>>> brake pedal before it downshifts? That would make more sense.
>>>> which is precisely what it does do - it takes the signal from the brake
>>>> pedal switch.
>>>>
>>>>> On the upside, completing the downshift earlier makes it ready to
>>>>> accelerate on short notice. All-in-all, that is one reason why I
>>>>> prefer manual transmissions. The AT will never have enough sensors
>>>>> until they put in one that can read my mind.
>>>> you haven't driven an automatic lately.
>>> Well, I'm sure they have improved somewhat since they made the one for
>>> my '98 Ody, but I would be surprised if they now know in which gear I
>>> want to do compression braking. I'm pretty sure they don't downshift
>>> in anticipation of me wanting to do hard acceleration two seconds
>>> before I touch the gas pedal.
>> no, they provide a handy little lever that allows you to take care of
>> that by hand.
>>
>>> How does it know that, even though I am
>>> doing a steady 40 mph, I want to stay in second gear to be ready to
>>> make a move in traffic?
>> see above.
>
> Right, you can force the downshift or hold the gear manually but a.
> then its not automatic and b. it is clumsy to shift especially on the
> steering column.

but don't say it can't hold a gear because it can! you can leave it in
full auto or you can manually over-ride - the ultimate in choice. i
agree with you about column shifts however - i can't stand them.

>
>>> Does it know not to downshift just before we
>>> crest the hill?
>> press the brake and you'll find out. they have grade control logic.
>> increasing speed + zero gas = downshift.
>
> My comment is that the transmission downshifts when I dont want it
> too, i.e. just before cresting the hill when I would manually just
> stay in the higher gear for a few more seconds.

dude, you said auto's couldn't hold a gear - they can. and grade logic
means they select the right gear, certainly a good deal better than some
of the individuals that pop up here from time to time putting their
sticks into neutral and coasting down hills. modern autos are not only
programmed to shift right, they also learn what the driver likes.

>
>>> For my Ody, I would be happy if it just didn't
>>> downshift when I hit Resume on the CC 4 mph below the target speed. I
>>> would hope they have at least fixed that.
>>>
>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>> sticks.
>
> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
> know how.

eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
stick? makes no sense.

bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 18:00:46 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 22:06:04 -0800, jim beam
>>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 03:07:21 GMT, "Andy & Carol"
>>>>> <aforn@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It called "Logic Grade" , that is why you won't grind
>>>>>> up your rotors..read up on it.
>>>>> I would think that it would hurt your gas mileage though. At least it
>>>>> would if you are anticipating a stop and just want to coast until the
>>>>> light changes. Is it possible that it waits for you to touch the
>>>>> brake pedal before it downshifts? That would make more sense.
>>>> which is precisely what it does do - it takes the signal from the brake
>>>> pedal switch.
>>>>
>>>>> On the upside, completing the downshift earlier makes it ready to
>>>>> accelerate on short notice. All-in-all, that is one reason why I
>>>>> prefer manual transmissions. The AT will never have enough sensors
>>>>> until they put in one that can read my mind.
>>>> you haven't driven an automatic lately.
>>> Well, I'm sure they have improved somewhat since they made the one for
>>> my '98 Ody, but I would be surprised if they now know in which gear I
>>> want to do compression braking. I'm pretty sure they don't downshift
>>> in anticipation of me wanting to do hard acceleration two seconds
>>> before I touch the gas pedal.
>> no, they provide a handy little lever that allows you to take care of
>> that by hand.
>>
>>> How does it know that, even though I am
>>> doing a steady 40 mph, I want to stay in second gear to be ready to
>>> make a move in traffic?
>> see above.
>
> Right, you can force the downshift or hold the gear manually but a.
> then its not automatic and b. it is clumsy to shift especially on the
> steering column.

but don't say it can't hold a gear because it can! you can leave it in
full auto or you can manually over-ride - the ultimate in choice. i
agree with you about column shifts however - i can't stand them.

>
>>> Does it know not to downshift just before we
>>> crest the hill?
>> press the brake and you'll find out. they have grade control logic.
>> increasing speed + zero gas = downshift.
>
> My comment is that the transmission downshifts when I dont want it
> too, i.e. just before cresting the hill when I would manually just
> stay in the higher gear for a few more seconds.

dude, you said auto's couldn't hold a gear - they can. and grade logic
means they select the right gear, certainly a good deal better than some
of the individuals that pop up here from time to time putting their
sticks into neutral and coasting down hills. modern autos are not only
programmed to shift right, they also learn what the driver likes.

>
>>> For my Ody, I would be happy if it just didn't
>>> downshift when I hit Resume on the CC 4 mph below the target speed. I
>>> would hope they have at least fixed that.
>>>
>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>> sticks.
>
> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
> know how.

eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
stick? makes no sense.

bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.

 

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:


>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>> sticks.
>>
>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>> know how.
>
>eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>stick? makes no sense.

Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
were *selling* faster than the MTs.

My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
fundamental for a sports car.

The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation. Also, I
don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter. I
understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
an MT. This has potential if the AT function can be completely
disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
driver. (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)

>bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.

fud?

 

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:


>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>> sticks.
>>
>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>> know how.
>
>eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>stick? makes no sense.

Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
were *selling* faster than the MTs.

My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
fundamental for a sports car.

The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation. Also, I
don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter. I
understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
an MT. This has potential if the AT function can be completely
disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
driver. (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)

>bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.

fud?

 

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:


>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>> sticks.
>>
>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>> know how.
>
>eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>stick? makes no sense.

Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
were *selling* faster than the MTs.

My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
fundamental for a sports car.

The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation. Also, I
don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter. I
understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
an MT. This has potential if the AT function can be completely
disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
driver. (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)

>bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.

fud?

 

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 05:31:46 +0000 (UTC), Joe LaVigne
<jlavigne@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:35:03 -0600, Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
>>
>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>
>I would agree that they do not belong on any sports car, but IMO, the only
>time I really WANT an Auto is for heavy city traffic.

It depends on your attitude. For me, the only joy in "stop and go"
traffic is seeing how far I can go without touching the clutch or the
brake. When traffic is heavy but moving, I like the control that I
get from an MT.

 

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 05:31:46 +0000 (UTC), Joe LaVigne
<jlavigne@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:35:03 -0600, Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
>>
>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>
>I would agree that they do not belong on any sports car, but IMO, the only
>time I really WANT an Auto is for heavy city traffic.

It depends on your attitude. For me, the only joy in "stop and go"
traffic is seeing how far I can go without touching the clutch or the
brake. When traffic is heavy but moving, I like the control that I
get from an MT.

 

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 05:31:46 +0000 (UTC), Joe LaVigne
<jlavigne@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:35:03 -0600, Gordon McGrew wrote:
>
>>
>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>
>I would agree that they do not belong on any sports car, but IMO, the only
>time I really WANT an Auto is for heavy city traffic.

It depends on your attitude. For me, the only joy in "stop and go"
traffic is seeing how far I can go without touching the clutch or the
brake. When traffic is heavy but moving, I like the control that I
get from an MT.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>>> sticks.
>>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>>> know how.
>> eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>> ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>> stick? makes no sense.
>
> Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
> were *selling* faster than the MTs.
>
> My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
> ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
> requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
> possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
> fundamental for a sports car.

that's your perception. unless you've driven a modern auto, especially
a sports auto, you're just making uninformed assumptions and using them
as your basis for criticism.

>
> The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
> toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation.

how? my auto has the shift in exactly the same place as where the stick
would be. i see no difference. the transmission even has a no-lock
gate between 3rd & 4th [commonest manual override] especially so you
/can/ flip up and down at will.

> Also, I
> don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter.

eh? what "slippage" is that? how does its mechanical function differ
from a clutch [other than it has a much better efficiency range and is
much smoother of course]?

> I
> understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
> an MT.

as are a lot of the euro "autos".

> This has potential if the AT function can be completely
> disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
> driver.

dude, have you ever driven an auto? you have pretty much full control
over everything except clutching action - except for the fact that it
won't let you select wrong gears of course.

> (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)
>
>> bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>> criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.
>
> fud?

fear. uncertainty. doubt. if there is no technical argument against
something, people resort to fud.

here's another nugget for you - automatics are banned from f1. like
certain types of ground effects, they gave too much advantage to the
[better funded] teams that had them. the compromise is paddle shift,
but even then, interpretation of the ban has been taken to the limit
since a lot of the control functions are still automatic.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>>> sticks.
>>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>>> know how.
>> eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>> ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>> stick? makes no sense.
>
> Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
> were *selling* faster than the MTs.
>
> My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
> ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
> requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
> possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
> fundamental for a sports car.

that's your perception. unless you've driven a modern auto, especially
a sports auto, you're just making uninformed assumptions and using them
as your basis for criticism.

>
> The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
> toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation.

how? my auto has the shift in exactly the same place as where the stick
would be. i see no difference. the transmission even has a no-lock
gate between 3rd & 4th [commonest manual override] especially so you
/can/ flip up and down at will.

> Also, I
> don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter.

eh? what "slippage" is that? how does its mechanical function differ
from a clutch [other than it has a much better efficiency range and is
much smoother of course]?

> I
> understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
> an MT.

as are a lot of the euro "autos".

> This has potential if the AT function can be completely
> disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
> driver.

dude, have you ever driven an auto? you have pretty much full control
over everything except clutching action - except for the fact that it
won't let you select wrong gears of course.

> (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)
>
>> bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>> criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.
>
> fud?

fear. uncertainty. doubt. if there is no technical argument against
something, people resort to fud.

here's another nugget for you - automatics are banned from f1. like
certain types of ground effects, they gave too much advantage to the
[better funded] teams that had them. the compromise is paddle shift,
but even then, interpretation of the ban has been taken to the limit
since a lot of the control functions are still automatic.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>>> sticks.
>>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>>> know how.
>> eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>> ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>> stick? makes no sense.
>
> Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
> were *selling* faster than the MTs.
>
> My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
> ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
> requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
> possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
> fundamental for a sports car.

that's your perception. unless you've driven a modern auto, especially
a sports auto, you're just making uninformed assumptions and using them
as your basis for criticism.

>
> The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
> toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation.

how? my auto has the shift in exactly the same place as where the stick
would be. i see no difference. the transmission even has a no-lock
gate between 3rd & 4th [commonest manual override] especially so you
/can/ flip up and down at will.

> Also, I
> don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter.

eh? what "slippage" is that? how does its mechanical function differ
from a clutch [other than it has a much better efficiency range and is
much smoother of course]?

> I
> understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
> an MT.

as are a lot of the euro "autos".

> This has potential if the AT function can be completely
> disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
> driver.

dude, have you ever driven an auto? you have pretty much full control
over everything except clutching action - except for the fact that it
won't let you select wrong gears of course.

> (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)
>
>> bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>> criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.
>
> fud?

fear. uncertainty. doubt. if there is no technical argument against
something, people resort to fud.

here's another nugget for you - automatics are banned from f1. like
certain types of ground effects, they gave too much advantage to the
[better funded] teams that had them. the compromise is paddle shift,
but even then, interpretation of the ban has been taken to the limit
since a lot of the control functions are still automatic.

 

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:16:04 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>>>> sticks.
>>>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>>>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>>>> know how.
>>> eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>>> ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>>> stick? makes no sense.
>>
>> Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
>> were *selling* faster than the MTs.
>>
>> My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
>> ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
>> requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
>> possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
>> fundamental for a sports car.
>
>that's your perception. unless you've driven a modern auto, especially
>a sports auto, you're just making uninformed assumptions and using them
>as your basis for criticism.
>
>>
>> The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
>> toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation.
>
>how? my auto has the shift in exactly the same place as where the stick
>would be. i see no difference. the transmission even has a no-lock
>gate between 3rd & 4th [commonest manual override] especially so you
>/can/ flip up and down at will.

If you put it in 4, will it ever downshift into 3 by itself? When you
shift into 3 does it effectively double clutch?

>
>> Also, I
>> don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter.
>
>eh? what "slippage" is that? how does its mechanical function differ
>from a clutch [other than it has a much better efficiency range and is
>much smoother of course]?

Well, as you point out, I don't have any experience with modern high
end luxury cars, but I note that at least more modest cars generally
have a significantly greater 0-60 speed and a lower mpg rating. Since
they now mostly have five gears, I would assume that means they are
slipping. Actually, the slipping is partly by design, the so-called
torque multiplier effect. Basically, if you are cruising along and
you give it a little gas, but not enough to force a downshift, you
will see the rpms jump up immediately.

The ultimate "torque multiplier" is a CVT. A lot of people don't like
them at all, but others say they get used to it. (The perception
problem is so bad that some manufacturers program virtual gears into
them thereby defeating the chief advantage of the CVT.) I only rode
in one CVT car, a Nissan luxury sedan in Japan and it wasn't bad in
that application. He drove it fairly aggressively too - we hit almost
180 kph on the expressway. I would like to try one of these. I don't
know if I would like it or not.

>> I
>> understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
>> an MT.
>
>as are a lot of the euro "autos".
>
>> This has potential if the AT function can be completely
>> disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
>> driver.
>
>dude, have you ever driven an auto? you have pretty much full control
>over everything except clutching action - except for the fact that it
>won't let you select wrong gears of course.

Will it let you start out in 5th gear? Not that I want to do that,
but the point is I don't like it downshifting or upshifting without my
command.

>> (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)
>>
>>> bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>>> criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.
>>
>> fud?
>
>fear. uncertainty. doubt. if there is no technical argument against
>something, people resort to fud.

Well, I would certainly prefer an MT to the AT in my 98 Ody, but of
course that was not an option.

Perhaps newer, high dollar vehicles are better set up for manual
shifting, and have fewer compromises but then that raises the point:
Why not just have an MT? They are cheaper, more durable and I like
the way they work just fine. For my purposes and preferences, I see
no benefit to an AT whatsoever.

I presume I will never again be able to buy a large, cargo carrying
vehicle (eg. my old Volvo 245 station wagon) with an MT so I assume I
will have to go with 2007 technology sooner or later. I will let you
know what I think.

>here's another nugget for you - automatics are banned from f1. like
>certain types of ground effects, they gave too much advantage to the
>[better funded] teams that had them. the compromise is paddle shift,
>but even then, interpretation of the ban has been taken to the limit
>since a lot of the control functions are still automatic.

I would first point out that torque converters are not banned AFAIK,
but they are not used either. I would be curious to know whether and
how ATs would be used in F1 if they were not banned. I can imagine
the programming: if rpm >= redline then upshift, if downshift RPM <
redline then downshift. The situation is a little different on the
road and the technology is bound to be different and more compromised.
I seem to recall Ferrari had an AT at one time in F1. I dont' recall
if it was a clear advantage but I do recall that on a couple of
occasions it decided to downshift into 2nd when it should have been in
5th. That was exciting. Not relevant to the argument but an amusing
story. It may have been an early paddle shifter rather than a true AT

 

On Sat, 06 Jan 2007 11:16:04 -0800, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:48:16 -0800, jim beam
>> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>> Bottom line is they are OK for average (or worse) drivers in light
>>>>>> traffic. But I definitely don't like them in heavy city traffic and
>>>>>> they just don't belong in any sports car IMO.
>>>>> tell that to porsche - last i heard, their autos were faster than their
>>>>> sticks.
>>>> That is because most Porsche buyers are people who want to show off
>>>> how rich/cool they are and don't really care about driving it or even
>>>> know how.
>>> eh? how does criticizing [without basis] driver skill address the
>>> ability of a computer-controlled transmission to shift faster than a
>>> stick? makes no sense.
>>
>> Sorry, I misread the post. I thought you were saying that the ATs
>> were *selling* faster than the MTs.
>>
>> My preference for MT is not based on how fast it shifts but rather the
>> ability to integrate the shifts seamlessly into driving. This
>> requires decisions based on information that the computer cannot
>> possibly know. May not matter much for a minivan, but it is
>> fundamental for a sports car.
>
>that's your perception. unless you've driven a modern auto, especially
>a sports auto, you're just making uninformed assumptions and using them
>as your basis for criticism.
>
>>
>> The problem with most (virtually all) ATs is that they are biased
>> toward automatic operation and discourage manual operation.
>
>how? my auto has the shift in exactly the same place as where the stick
>would be. i see no difference. the transmission even has a no-lock
>gate between 3rd & 4th [commonest manual override] especially so you
>/can/ flip up and down at will.

If you put it in 4, will it ever downshift into 3 by itself? When you
shift into 3 does it effectively double clutch?

>
>> Also, I
>> don't particularly care for the slippage of the torque converter.
>
>eh? what "slippage" is that? how does its mechanical function differ
>from a clutch [other than it has a much better efficiency range and is
>much smoother of course]?

Well, as you point out, I don't have any experience with modern high
end luxury cars, but I note that at least more modest cars generally
have a significantly greater 0-60 speed and a lower mpg rating. Since
they now mostly have five gears, I would assume that means they are
slipping. Actually, the slipping is partly by design, the so-called
torque multiplier effect. Basically, if you are cruising along and
you give it a little gas, but not enough to force a downshift, you
will see the rpms jump up immediately.

The ultimate "torque multiplier" is a CVT. A lot of people don't like
them at all, but others say they get used to it. (The perception
problem is so bad that some manufacturers program virtual gears into
them thereby defeating the chief advantage of the CVT.) I only rode
in one CVT car, a Nissan luxury sedan in Japan and it wasn't bad in
that application. He drove it fairly aggressively too - we hit almost
180 kph on the expressway. I would like to try one of these. I don't
know if I would like it or not.

>> I
>> understand that VW has a paddle shift AT that is actually built like
>> an MT.
>
>as are a lot of the euro "autos".
>
>> This has potential if the AT function can be completely
>> disabled, i.e. it never makes a shift without a command from the
>> driver.
>
>dude, have you ever driven an auto? you have pretty much full control
>over everything except clutching action - except for the fact that it
>won't let you select wrong gears of course.

Will it let you start out in 5th gear? Not that I want to do that,
but the point is I don't like it downshifting or upshifting without my
command.

>> (Not that I would buy a VW under any circumstances.)
>>
>>> bottom line, you're welcome to drive whatever you want, but don't
>>> criticize autos on the basis of fud - it's simply not justified.
>>
>> fud?
>
>fear. uncertainty. doubt. if there is no technical argument against
>something, people resort to fud.

Well, I would certainly prefer an MT to the AT in my 98 Ody, but of
course that was not an option.

Perhaps newer, high dollar vehicles are better set up for manual
shifting, and have fewer compromises but then that raises the point:
Why not just have an MT? They are cheaper, more durable and I like
the way they work just fine. For my purposes and preferences, I see
no benefit to an AT whatsoever.

I presume I will never again be able to buy a large, cargo carrying
vehicle (eg. my old Volvo 245 station wagon) with an MT so I assume I
will have to go with 2007 technology sooner or later. I will let you
know what I think.

>here's another nugget for you - automatics are banned from f1. like
>certain types of ground effects, they gave too much advantage to the
>[better funded] teams that had them. the compromise is paddle shift,
>but even then, interpretation of the ban has been taken to the limit
>since a lot of the control functions are still automatic.

I would first point out that torque converters are not banned AFAIK,
but they are not used either. I would be curious to know whether and
how ATs would be used in F1 if they were not banned. I can imagine
the programming: if rpm >= redline then upshift, if downshift RPM <
redline then downshift. The situation is a little different on the
road and the technology is bound to be different and more compromised.
I seem to recall Ferrari had an AT at one time in F1. I dont' recall
if it was a clear advantage but I do recall that on a couple of
occasions it decided to downshift into 2nd when it should have been in
5th. That was exciting. Not relevant to the argument but an amusing
story. It may have been an early paddle shifter rather than a true AT