>he rejects man's technological advances >he's

I'd rather be in control. It's not about speed.

This bait is more worn than OPs pussy

>>16668670
Have fun spending $3k to replace a tranny you fucking bus rider

File: 1482801950354.jpg (30KB, 490x378px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 490x378px

>needing a crutch because "its a bit more efficient"

>>16668733
have fun being poor you unironic bus rider

>>16668670
>thinks auto is more efficient than manual
Then why do auto transmissions require coolers and manuals don't? Where's that extra heat coming from? Why does the auto version of my car have 40 fewer horses to get the same fuel economy?

You're just mad because you're too dumb to know the difference.

Why is it always butthurt autofags that make these threads because theyrthey're too stupid to learn and not manual drivers?

>>16669581
mechanical efficiently and fuel efficiency are two different things broheim.

Also manuals are splash lubricated, by design they're self regulating for temperature.

>>16669581
You fell for the manual meme and are trying to convince yourself you made the right choice.

Enjoy your bumper to bumper traffic riding that clutch. Meanwhile, I'll sit cozily just lifting my foot on and off the brake.

File: z715.png (508KB, 648x598px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 648x598px

>>16668670
>man's technological advances
>is actually a computer

>>16670429

Exactly, you don't have the brain capacity to operate a stickshift in traffic, thinking it's some big chore, hence why you shit post every time your inferiority complex towards manual driver's flares up.

>>16668670
>>16670429
Careful boys it's a big one

i cant afford automatic car cuz here they are exotic and expensive

would never ride automatic motorcycle tho since 2 wheeled vehicles are for 100% fun

File: 1477694183891.png (67KB, 449x1197px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 449x1197px

>>16668670
>2017
>internal combustion engine
PFFFFFFFFFHAHAHAHAHAHA

File: 1336176770133.png (14KB, 428x466px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 428x466px

>>16670588

>2017
>still using lithium ion

File: 1419857912544.jpg (39KB, 330x319px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 330x319px

>>16670594
>2017
>he doesn't use a quick charge 4.0 equipped device
spotted the ifaggot. enjoy charging your phone in hours instead of minutes.

>>16668719
>I'd rather be in control. It's not about speed.

"I'd rather be in control" and " It's not about speed/fuel consumption" are THE most worn out arguments against any computer/drivers aids in cars, since 1976. (ok ADAS are kind of a gray area)

but would you explain to me what does it mean?

>>16670635
It means that when you push gas in automatic car, it will react in 1-2 seconds, which is ridiculous
It means that you can't initiate powerslide without a clutch in a not powerful car
It means that when you are on cruise control and approaching a hill, car will rev up instead on shifting down and losing a bit of speed
It means that you cannot overdrive on automatic

>>16670597
>2017
>not using calorie based bipedal locomotion

accompanying picture omitted, you nigger faggots

>>16668670
I don't commute, and only drive for fun.
Also, the automatic option on my model was prone to failure, which is why the ones with the manual option are worth more.
Why exactly should I have bought the automatic version?

>>16670639
>It means that when you push gas in automatic car, it will react in 1-2 seconds, which is ridiculous

no modern automatic is that slow, and if it is that means something is broken.
this isn't 1955 with three fucking statorless torque convertors between you and 160 hp.

>>16668670
>Will a computer always and consistently outshift a human?
Maybe. Depends on gearbox construction. No automated gearbox will ever outshift an electrohydraulic manual.
>Will a computer always anticipate my actions perfectly, and will it always do exactly what I want?
Depends on software. This certainly does not apply to all automatic gearboxes. A sequential dogbox will always do what I want, safety and wheelspeed be damned. Electronically controlled automatics don't always respond perfectly, and are abhorrently annoying when they do so.

And finally, the most subjective:
>Will a computer provide the feedback and physical engagement a manual setup provides?
No. In an age where the automotive world will be heavily automated, and where enthousiast want to go back to fundamentals, a clutch pedal and an H-gate will always exist.

>>16669581
>Why does the auto version of my car have 40 fewer horses to get the same fuel economy?
Because manufacturers often put shorter (numerically higher) final drives in automatics (or at least they used to), to provide automatics with the best acceleration. This causes fuel economy to decline.

>>16670429
>I'll sit cozily just lifting my foot on and off the brake.

>He calls himself master race without the glory that is radar cruise control
I bet you ever steer your car like a peasant does.

>>16670422
Mechanical efficiency = mechanical input (at the crank) divided by output (at the driveshaft). Manuals have a better mechanical efficiency in this regard, thanks to lower losses in a clutch compared to a torque converter, or the gearbox needing energy-sapping actuators to control an automatic clutch.

As for fuel efficiency, that's usually better in a manual as well, thanks to the lower drivetrain losses.

If splash cooling is enough to cool a manual, and you need external coolers for an automatic that simply means an automatic will generate more heat, and thus has larger mechanical losses. Simply physics, really.

>>16670639
>It means that when you are on cruise control and approaching a hill, car will rev up instead on shifting down and losing a bit of speed
My car is manual and it does the same on cruise control on hills.
That's the fucking point of cruise controls.
What kind of restarded fuck would want to have a cruise control that bleeds speed on hills? Just turn it off and turn it on again when you are done

>>16670635
>I'd rather be in control
Basically means that the user controls the gear, clutch depression and can thus anticipate a car's behaviour better. Not all automatics are completely predictable, and some dual clutch boxes for example can be easily offset by an unexpected downshift. You'll get a "SHIFT DENIED" on the dash while you're rushing into a corner, using just the brakes to scrub off speed, which moves your weight onto the front axle, making your rear end light etc etc.

>It's not about the speed
Manual engagement will become more and more of a priority. Once automated driving is mandatory, all, or at least most, user-operated cars will be owned by enthousiasts, who will obviously want feedback and engagement more than they want pure speed - they can get that in an automatic car.

>It's not about fuel economy
It is though. Manual fuel economy is better due to the lower internal losses.

>>16668670
Feels so good to be part of the automagic club. Never worry about traffic or water crossings when off road.

Watching all those manualcucks get their clutches wet and suddenly stop moving always amuses me.

>>16670839
You get a shift denied because you are too stupid to downshift without over revving the engine, it's not le ebin electronic conspiracy or you being too smart for the gearbox you are using

>>16670635
It's worn out because it's true.

>>16668670
>he rejects man's technological advances
>he's in denial that computers accomplish tasks more efficiently than man
I have absolutely no problem with technology, and I don't deny computers do a darn good job.
My problem with your picture involves the clutchpacks and planetary gears controlled by hydraulic pressure.
Automated manuals (like DCTs and SMGs) are fine. Slushboxes (whether controlled by computer or not) are not.

>>16668670
Traditional auto allows some level of control but i have no fucking clue how bad down shifting ratios lag on a cvt is.

File: triple x rated lel.png (131KB, 340x314px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 340x314px

>mfw autotragics come with a device that turns engine power into nothing

File: IMG_1345.jpg (30KB, 480x464px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 480x464px

>pic related applies to anything that has to shift itself
>b-but muh dual clutch

anon if you're too retarded to drive manual & rev match properly that doesn't make the transmission shit, it makes YOU shit.

File: apu kysymys.png (29KB, 741x568px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 741x568px

Why do manual cars have better fuel economy?

Also why is it that 99% of Europoorean drivers know how to drive manual cars while only 5% of Americans and Canucks do?

>>16669581
what car do you drive anon?

>>16668670

Let me go pull up a list of well known racing cars that uses a CVT...
Well shit, couldnt find any.

>>16670984
Depends on the specs of the tourque converter. More of an issue with acceleration from stop on cvt than traditional automatics

>>16670910
That'd be true if it were consistent, and yes, shift denied usually happens when you're trying to downshift into a gear that'd put your over the rev limiter.

However, it can also happen when a DCT has prepared the next gear for you as being up, but then you suddenly downshift. By ecause the computer can't anticipate all of those actions (with current sensor packages), it can deny a shift because it doesn't have the downshift ready. It's either denial, or a very slow shift time.

>>16670922
You haven't driven a newer 8 speed torque converter auto then(8HP for example). Shift times practically on par with a DCT, but with way better NVH values.
Single clutch automated manuals like the SMG are pretty bad though. Examples like the Graziano are what causes manual 360's and Vantages to spike in price. It's what practically doomed the LFA from being cutting edge.

DCT is best for weekend cars, 8+ speed autos are best for comfy landbarge and daily drivers, and manual is best for track day enjoyment. These three are all fine for any road car, really, it's just older slushboxes, single clutch manuals and CVT's that are the bad automatic transmissions.

>>16671006
>29 KB PNG
>Why do manual cars have better fuel economy?
Lower internal losses.

>Why can Euros into manual, and Americans can't?
Because when WW2 was over, the US experienced a boom in wealth and had a massive surplus in (automotive) manufacturing. This wealth translated into the widespread use of the luxurious (or at least seen as luxurious) automatic transmission. Once the automatic obtained majority of the market share, less and less people knew how to drive them. In Europe, people were recovering from that war, and never had that same automotive boom. This prevented the automatic from getting a majority share, which is why even today, 99% of all Euro driving tests (excluding auto-only licenses) have to be taken with a manual vehicle. In the US, you can take your driver's test on an automatic. That means that in Europe, virtually all drivers have to know how to drive manual, and in the US, it's mostly enthousiasts who know how to drive stick.

>>16671138
feel free to find a list of racing series who allow CVT's

>well shit, couldn't find any

>>16671152
>what is le mans

>>16668670

Man these threads are annoying. I know this is bait but it bothers me because there are people out there that actually think manual drivers don't know that automatic is better.

We don't drive stick because we think it's more efficient or faster. We drive it because it satisfies some autistic urge related to mechanical feedback.

>>16671177
yeah, what is le mans, anonymous?

because no le mans series I know of allows cvt's

http://www.fia.com/regulation/category/118

dumbass

>>16671177
Too bad there's no CVT's in Le Mans either.

File: Screenshot_20170215-151618.png (694KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

694KB, 1080x1920px

>>16671177
A single race, and the championship it's part of doesn't allow CVT, pic related

>>16671152
Formula SAE :^)

>>16671237
Don't they just run autocross-like events rather than actual racing?

>>16671256
Yeah we do, dumb time trial shit, not wheel to wheel. That'd be too fucking awesome. Watch what you say about autocross, though, conefuckers can get real lippy when faced with the truth.

>>16671266
I knew a guy who used to be a uni professor and he ran a bunch of what they call "bike student" over here, dunno if there is a "bike SAE" equivalent.
It was basically a moto3 replica made by the students much like formula SAE, but they do actual racing rather than time trials.

He said there were too many liability problems with letting students race against each other on cars so they use the time trial format. With bikes they hired actual riders and not students for the same reason.

>>16670563
>you don't have the brain capacity to operate a stickshift in traffic
Having a brain means knowing you don't need to waste energy when an easier alternative exists.

I currently own 2 v8 cars. The automagic one is absolutely boring unless your flooring it. The manual one is one of the most fun cars Ive ever ridden in; and if it were auto it would be as boring as the other.
>tl;dr ill stick with my v8

>>16670766
That's where you're wrong kiddo
Ford has an absolute abortion of a gearbox and engine pairing in the vans which I suspect is in other rigs too.
Lay into it to pass someone like you would in literally any other auto and it let's off the power, fumbles with gears, redlines because it overshot the downshift, now you're actually slower than before then itll find a reasonable gear to go with.
It also likes to shortshift like a bitch and this causes more gear fumbling and dropping gears on hills because muh efficiency. Never had this issue on older electronic or mechanical autos

File: f23623192.jpg (107KB, 673x435px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 673x435px

>Be hooning
>Hit apex
>Ramp up on throttle
>SUDDEN DOWNSHIFT
>Car jerks and upsets suspension balance
>Corner suddenly fucked

I have a mech. eng. degree and a computer sci. degree, I know that technology has its place... But it is very clear to me that an intelligent driver with a traditional manual has MANY advantages as far as controlling their vehicle. I also just can't get excited about driving an automatic car.

I prefer cable-throttled, EFI, manual cars and most engineers of most ages do too.

>>16671843
I mean, I'd really love myself an automatic transmission that could read my mind and know what I want in every situation, but you were conscious of what you were driving when you went hooning.

You could have used the manual mode to have control of the gear changes or maybe you just pressed the throttle pedal too much and clicked the kickdown switch by mistake and ruined your epic apex.

Also auto trannies don't just downshift if it ends very close to redline and it causes an immediate upshift afterwards, so it was just answering for your call for the greatest acceleration and downshifted to give you that. It means you were using a higher than necessary gear in the first place.
You ask it for power and it gives you power, the gearbox shouldn't even be able to downshift if you were hooning properly at the lowest gear available and ready to exit the turn as quickly as possible. Give your tranny a break, it's not its fault if you don't know how to drive fast

>more efficient, better
>thinks upshifting while climbing and accelerating is the right thing to do

>>16668670
>>16668753
>>16670429
>>16670635
>>16670766

guys, guys. driving a manual is very easy to learn, and can be mastered with a bit of practice. just tell yourself that you can't do it - yet! :)

File: 1443051955062.jpg (111KB, 755x755px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 755x755px

>>16668670

I've had both manuals and conventional autos. Autos are good for towing applications. Or for allowing your girlfriend to drive your drunk ass home. Otherwise, they are a vast empty sea of regret. Well...Sometimes the girlfriend too. I've never said to myself "sure wish I'd bought the automatic" but I most assuredly have lamented not trying harder and finding a manual in stock. Sad.