>
> 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.
>
All I gotta say is the tranny you're imagining would cost more to build
than the car would. I have my doubts about an autostick anyway, it just
doesn't seem like you could get it work reliably, but who knows they might
work better than an auto or a stick, don't know haven't driven one. I
think I'll stick with an auto.
Bruce
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:07:54 EDT