At 02:03 AM 10/10/97 -0400, Andy Callahan wrote:
[...]
>
>The 6-speed in the Camaro and Firebird allows for about a 3 mpg increase in
>gas mileage over the auto. That's a pretty big difference. And they're a
>lot of fun too:) Got to drive a '98 Corvette 6-speed this summer (buddy of
>mine works at the Vette factory). I'd definitely get the 6-speed over the
>auto.
>
Speaking of which... Did you know that the new Corvette comes standard
with the AUTO? The manual is a hefty $815 OPTION! Unfortunately, I am
afraid we will start to see this trend take over other makes and models.
Lets face it... Most of the driving public wants an auto. We (standard
fans) are the minority now, and if we want to go against the status quo,
we're going to have to pay for it. (If the manufacturer is nice enough to
even offer a standard.)
As many of you probably know, I prefer a standard. I've seen a lot of
good points come out during the latest 5 speed vs. auto debates. :-) I
see one overall theme rising out of this whole thing. (Maybe someone has
already mentioned it, and if so, I apologize. You have first claim to the
movie rights.) ;-)
My point is: One is not better than the other; and one will never be
better than the other, especially when you factor in the emotional issues.
There are some things that are just done better by the one than the other.
Depending on the make and model of the transmission and the make and model
of the vehicle it is mated to, some transmission types actually outperform
the transmission which is commonly accepted to be better at that thing.
(Yikes; good luck deciphering that one!)
Anyway; whichever transmission we chose, it is always a compromise. We
have to compare the capabilities of the auto to the stick and make a
choice; there is no middle ground. (Lets leave "automanuals" out of this
for the time being.) ;-) (Actually, I consider the "automanuals" to be
automatics for
this discussion; IMHO, in order to be anything other than an automatic, you
have to push a clutch.) Well, while I'm on the subject of automanuals:
They're interesting, but nowhere close to the point where I would give up
a true manual to buy one. Here's the automanual I would buy:
1 3 5
| | | |P
| | | |R
| | | |N
|-----|-----|========|D
| | | |1
| | | |2
| | | |L
2 4 R
What you see is a standard manual pattern on the left, and an auto
pattern on the right. The tranny and clutch design would be very similar
to the ones already in automatics, and possibly identical to the ones in
automanuals such as the Stratus. This design would have a clutch pedal,
but it is now elecronically controlled. A potentiometer could be used to
determine pedal travel (and hence control clutch travel). Since there is
no direct linkage, why not make the clutch tension and activation zone
driver-adjustable? Three adjusters on the clutch pedal should do it; one
for tension, another for the size of the range, and another to determine
where the range starts. (You could even have one part of the zone activate
more agressively than another; options, options, options!)
When the stick is to the right of the "=======" line in the above ASCII
picture, what you have is an automatic. Heck, if you want, you could even
put a little "T" on the top or bottom of that slot to go up or down a gear
like the current automanuals, thus making 3 transmissions in one! (Sorry;
I suffer from something we programmers know as the "Creepy Feature
Creature". More features is better.) ;-) Ok, now... When the stick is
to the left side of the "=======", the stick works like a manual
transmission. You have to push the clutch, just like a "normal" standard.
In fact, it *is* a standard, its just that it is all "fly-by-wire", instead
of a physical connection. The beauty of this design is, you can protect
someone from grinding their gears; if a conflict arises (pushing stick into
1st without pressing the clutch), you can sound a warning buzzer (or play a
digitized sound of gears grinding through the stereo system?) ;-) instead
of letting the driver grind the gears. You could also just as easily *let
them* grind the gears! Why not a switch on the dash which would turn this
feature on and off? How about another switch which would allow you to row
through the gears without pressing the clutch? Now you've got an automatic
where the driver takes the place of the computer in deciding which gear to
be in. The possibilities are endless!!
Expensive to build? Probably. But... More expensive than offering an
automatic and a manual version for every vehicle? I have my doubts. You
could put this in *every* vehicle, and let the driver decide which type of
driving they want to do. After the initial development cost (which is
already greatly reduced due to all the automanual research), you start
saving money. As long as it was designed in a modular (object oriented)
manner, you don't need a different transmission for every vehicle either.
The stick, switches, and pedal mechanism are all completely seperate from
the physical tranny and clutch. They could be mated to a heavy duty truck
tranny or a sports car tranny and clutch. The tranny would have a female
computer-type recepticle (like the diagnostic port under the steering
wheel, possibly); all you do is bolt the tranny to the engine in the normal
manner and to connect it to the clutch, stick, and switches, you plug in 1
cable. Click. More cost savings.
*THAT* transmission, I would buy. :-) Any thoughts or flames? :-)
(The automanual thing was actually just a passing thought, but it sort of
grew into a monster; sorry about that. We now return to my original diatribe)
I prefer the manual for many of the things Dick Campagna mentioned
several posts back; mainly the challenge and the fun. Even if the auto did
everything better than the manual, I'd probably still take the manual, just
because of the challenge and the fun. Sure, I'll cross the line behind you
auto guys most
of the time, but who's having more fun? (You, because you're getting all
the trophies; ok, bad example.) ;-)
-Jon-
.--- stei0302@cs.fredonia.edu -- http://www.cs.fredonia.edu/~stei0302/ ---.
| DoD# 1038, EAA# 518210, NMA# 117376, USUA# A46209, KotWitDoDFAQ, RP-SEL |
| '96 Dodge Dakota v8 SLT Club Cab, '96 Kolb FireFly 447 (#FF019) |
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------'
I do not speak for the SUNY College at Fredonia; any opinions are my own.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:54 EDT