Save the Manuals!
- Thread starter Beeblebrox237
- 1,025 comments
- 85,760 views
- 145
- Southeast VA
- TriumphTT900
sign me up mr. brox
ill update the siggy
ill update the siggy
- 3,915
- California
- gdwest1
Re-tried to master the Column shift+Stupidly Heavy clutch on my Grandfathers Original '57 Chevy pickup.
The worst part? I had someone with me. Bad idea. I looked so foolish.
The worst part? I had someone with me. Bad idea. I looked so foolish.
- 27,257
- United Kingdom
Continuing this from the other thread, as really it's more relevant here and the other thread is just treading the same ground as this one now.
I'd like to add something to this.
Driving a good manual is great fun. It's basically as you describe - feeling everything mesh together, like you're actually playing an integral part in what the car is doing. Even better if it's linked to a good clutch action and responsive throttle. Every blip of the gas can be perfectly timed on a downchange, you can make quick gearchanges without upsetting the balance of the car, everything like that.
However...
In my experience, so few manuals are really like that. Probably a fifth of the manual cars I've driven fit into that category. Three-fifths are astoundingly average, to the point that they do a job, but there's very little joy to be had and certainly no "interactivity" that people like to bang on about. And the remaining fifth have been truly awful, to the point where I'd question the sanity of anyone who chose it over the available automatic.
Genuinely good manuals? MX-5s of any vintage. MGB. Jag E-Type. Honda del Sol. One out of the five different E36 BMWs I've driven (the rest were a bit baggy, through age I suspect). My old Fiat Panda 100HP. My old Fiesta. My '74 Beetle, which is great once you get used to it, with a satisfying mechanical "clack" to each gear. Probably a few others. None of the cars above would be improved by being automatic instead.
Terrible manuals? Drove one on Friday - the Mercedes B-Class. Baggy shift action with absolutely no feel through the lever; soft, imprecise clutch with a biting point that seemed to vary the whole time. Really poor throttle response. I don't care whether you're an "enthusiast" or not - choosing that particular gearbox over an auto solely on principle makes you a moron. Drove an auto version after it and it was immeasurably better.
Average manuals? Basically every other manual I've ever driven. People can bleat on how they like about manuals being more "interactive" or whatever, but the vast majority of them just involve moving a fairly disconnected stick about in order to go faster or slower. I get little enough enjoyment from them that on balance I'd be tempted to go with the auto version instead.
So before people get carried away claiming manuals are automatically the "enthusiast" choices, I suggest you consider just how few cars have genuinely good manual transmissions.
I'd like to add something to this.
Driving a good manual is great fun. It's basically as you describe - feeling everything mesh together, like you're actually playing an integral part in what the car is doing. Even better if it's linked to a good clutch action and responsive throttle. Every blip of the gas can be perfectly timed on a downchange, you can make quick gearchanges without upsetting the balance of the car, everything like that.
However...
In my experience, so few manuals are really like that. Probably a fifth of the manual cars I've driven fit into that category. Three-fifths are astoundingly average, to the point that they do a job, but there's very little joy to be had and certainly no "interactivity" that people like to bang on about. And the remaining fifth have been truly awful, to the point where I'd question the sanity of anyone who chose it over the available automatic.
Genuinely good manuals? MX-5s of any vintage. MGB. Jag E-Type. Honda del Sol. One out of the five different E36 BMWs I've driven (the rest were a bit baggy, through age I suspect). My old Fiat Panda 100HP. My old Fiesta. My '74 Beetle, which is great once you get used to it, with a satisfying mechanical "clack" to each gear. Probably a few others. None of the cars above would be improved by being automatic instead.
Terrible manuals? Drove one on Friday - the Mercedes B-Class. Baggy shift action with absolutely no feel through the lever; soft, imprecise clutch with a biting point that seemed to vary the whole time. Really poor throttle response. I don't care whether you're an "enthusiast" or not - choosing that particular gearbox over an auto solely on principle makes you a moron. Drove an auto version after it and it was immeasurably better.
Average manuals? Basically every other manual I've ever driven. People can bleat on how they like about manuals being more "interactive" or whatever, but the vast majority of them just involve moving a fairly disconnected stick about in order to go faster or slower. I get little enough enjoyment from them that on balance I'd be tempted to go with the auto version instead.
So before people get carried away claiming manuals are automatically the "enthusiast" choices, I suggest you consider just how few cars have genuinely good manual transmissions.
McLaren
Premium
- 46,199
- Texas
I love people like you; highly over-exaggerating the linkage between a manual & a person, as if shifting makes the person become some kind of hybrid with the vehicle.
This is where, again, most of you manual elitists lose any sort of validity.
Yes, because that's exactly what people are driving a car for, just to sit in traffic. Rush hour traffic can't possibly be something that just happens as a side-effect of everyone working 9-5, nope, we all go looking to drive in it purposefully.
- 145
- Southeast VA
- TriumphTT900
homeforsummer
I agree. Drove my sister's 5 speed 05 civic and the clutch is the stiffest most uncomfortable thing. My 93 accord has 195k with the factory clutch and its butter. Ya.. Just cause its a standard tranny don't mean its more responsive or instantly more connected to the driver.
- 5,907
- Canada
Surely you wouldn't want a manual transmission in an S-Class or a 7 Series or an LS. And what about those who have disabilities?
- 23,800
- Philippines
So you drive a dogbox with nothing but a starting clutch then? With un-assisted steering and brakes, a manual choke, fuel pump switch and spark advance? Because if you don't you really have very little control over the mechanical aspects of your car.
A clutch is a crutch that keeps stupid drivers from stripping gears and spilling coffee because rev-matching is difficult to do in traffic. If you don't go clutchless (like I tend to do when I'm bored) on every single shift in traffic, then why bother?
And "adapted to special needs", that's cruel. Just because repetitive stress injury doesn't happen to you personally, doesn't mean it's not an issue. That's like saying tennis players don't need to tape their racket grips because... hey... not everyone has carpal tunnel syndrome... and you have better feel without...
I've got a bum ankle and a pinched cervical nerve (right side). Driving any manual transmission car for me for more than an hour is physically painful. I put up with it for work, because, hey, I love driving manuals. I love the feeling of control and involvement. I used to think ATs were for chumps, and I still recommend people buy a manual if they can, for reasons of economy. But if they can't, I understand.
My commute is two hours. Worse if I'm going to the racetrack, where I have to drive two hours going, two hours back, and eight hours straight in between. Two years in a row I've gone home with bruised ribs from doing hundreds of braking tests. Now if you're telling me the desire to have an automatic transmission for the four hours out of twelve that I'm not driving flat out is simply because I'm lazy...
- 803
- Waco, TX
- GTP_Goshin2568
- Goshin2568
The thing I hate about manual vs auto arguments, is how little people regard their cars transmissions. A lot of people treat the auto vs manual decision with as much importance as seat comfort. Or sound system options.
To me, the having a manual is just as important as having a steering wheel. It's a vital part of what makes a car a car. Being able to select a gear is just as important as being able to select how hard you brake.
If you were test driving a car, and the steering was just terrible, it was numb, heavy, unresponsive, you would choose not to buy the car, not choose to have the car do that vital thing automatically. Why aren't transmissions given the same respect?
To me, the having a manual is just as important as having a steering wheel. It's a vital part of what makes a car a car. Being able to select a gear is just as important as being able to select how hard you brake.
If you were test driving a car, and the steering was just terrible, it was numb, heavy, unresponsive, you would choose not to buy the car, not choose to have the car do that vital thing automatically. Why aren't transmissions given the same respect?
McLaren
Premium
- 46,199
- Texas
You do realize you can judge a transmission based on the same circumstances as your steering example as well, right? That people do give the same "respect"? I do.
I've driven manuals where I wasn't happy with the clutch feedback & would rather own the auto (Lexus IS250), & I've driven cars where the auto tranny is just slow & sluggish (Mustang GT) and would never consider owning any car with that kind of transmission.
- 27,257
- United Kingdom
If you'd read any of what I posted above, then you'll see exactly why what you're saying doesn't make any sense.
If you put steering feel and weight on a pedestal and rank the transmission as similarly important, then you'd come up with all the same problems I listed above - that the majority of manual transmissions add little or nothing to the driving experience, because they're equally "numb" and "unresponsive".
Sometimes, shifting gears is literally just that. Shifting gears. Many manual transmissions are completely devoid of the sort of feel and feedback that people always claim they have. I often wonder in these situations how many cars people have actually driven on which to base their decisions - I think making such a judgement having driven only one or two cars probably doesn't hold much water.
Oh, and personally, I'd rank seat comfort above the transmission choices. Whether you use manual or auto is largely irrelevant when cruising down the freeway in top gear for three hours, but seat comfort sure as hell matters in that time.
- 23,800
- Philippines
On many modern diesel trucks, one ought not bother with the manuals. The gearshifts are clunky, imprecise and physically brutal, and the clutch is usually atrociously heavy. Not heavy in the sense that you can't depress it, but heavy in the sense that the springback action makes holding it just at the biting point a hit-or-miss affair. Incredibly uncomfortable, both for drivers and passengers... especially when you consider the insane turbo ramp-up on some of these vehicles.
Last year we tested several diesel ATs and MTs back-to-back. And short of breaking off a drive-axle, we couldn't match the launches of the ATs at all. The manuals were clunky, slow and impossible to power-shift.
Then again, you have new Mazdas, which have wonderfully direct and mechanical gearboxes. On those, you'd be a fool to go for the slow-acting autos over the manuals.
Last year we tested several diesel ATs and MTs back-to-back. And short of breaking off a drive-axle, we couldn't match the launches of the ATs at all. The manuals were clunky, slow and impossible to power-shift.
Then again, you have new Mazdas, which have wonderfully direct and mechanical gearboxes. On those, you'd be a fool to go for the slow-acting autos over the manuals.
- 5,768
- USA
- TPC_Raccooon23
- CRaccoon23
After driving automatic for 4 years, I want a manual, simply because it's more fun to use. While I get a degree of enjoyment out of my automatic Integra, sometimes I think I would have more fun with the car if it were manual instead.
I saw a few posts on here mentioning traffic being an issue for manuals and in that case, automatics are better.
I think that's only relevant depending on where you live, where you go on a regular basis, how traffic normally behaves, etc. I know traffic isn't a huge issue where I live. It's moderate for the most part and I rarely run into stop and go traffic in normal day to day life. Running into bad traffic is inevitable, but it's not severe enough for me to not buy a manual.
But as for the auto vs. manual debate, I think people should just drive whatever they want whether it be auto, manual, paddles or anything else. I know I could care less what other people decide to drive.
I saw a few posts on here mentioning traffic being an issue for manuals and in that case, automatics are better.
I think that's only relevant depending on where you live, where you go on a regular basis, how traffic normally behaves, etc. I know traffic isn't a huge issue where I live. It's moderate for the most part and I rarely run into stop and go traffic in normal day to day life. Running into bad traffic is inevitable, but it's not severe enough for me to not buy a manual.
But as for the auto vs. manual debate, I think people should just drive whatever they want whether it be auto, manual, paddles or anything else. I know I could care less what other people decide to drive.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,334
- Mile High City
All of my first thoughts for responding to this violate the AUP. I want you to imagine that a car that doesn't allow you to select how hard you brake exists. It has one brake mode... on. You push the pedal and the car brakes as hard as physically possible without breaking the tires loose. Want to pull into your driveway? Damned near impossible due to the fact that every time you go too fast you have no choice but to slam on the brakes. Want to drive in traffic? Good luck not getting rear ended.
So imagine that car exists... and so do regular automatics with regular brakes, but manual transmission cars do not. You need to buy a car. Which one would you choose?
YOU'D CHOOSE THE AUTOMATIC!
Why? There's no difference right? No difference whatsoever. Why would you choose the automatic? Now without responding to this post, slap yourself in the face.
Automatics are more painful in some cars than others. In cars with relatively little low-end torque - that require that you maintain revs above a certain threshold (vtec?) to get good power from the engine, you're naturally going to want more control over which gear you're in. If you have a car with plenty of low end power you're going to care a lot less.
- 803
- Waco, TX
- GTP_Goshin2568
- Goshin2568
No, you are completely missing my point. It shouldn't matter whether the "manual transmissions are completely devoid of the sort of feedback that people always claim they have." It's part of the car. Again, if most cars had very numb steering you wouldn't choose to buy a car with automatic steering. You would just drive the car anyway, or find a different car.
My point is that the reason I push owning a manual isn't elitism. It's not because it "adds to the driving experience", it's not because it forces you to focus more on driving. While all those things are true, again the most important thing is that having control over the gear is just as important as having control over the steering, throttle, and brakes.
You are missing my point too. What I'm saying is that a car with an automatic transmission is just the same as a car with automatic steering, throttle or brakes. Would you want want of those things to be controlled automatically? NO!
This is what gets me PO'ed.
Imagine me asking you these questions.
Would you want automatic steering: No way!
Would you want automatic brakes: NO.
Would you want automatic gas: No!
Would you want automatic transmission: Oh, sure.
Why? Why is the transmission so much less important than those other three? It shoudn't be.
Last edited:
- 5,907
- Canada
What do you want a car to do? Go, stop, and turn at your command. I fail to see how the transmission changes this.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Uh... Does an automatic transmission car drive itself? Nope.
You, as a driver, still have perfect control over your car's speed, when it accelerates, when it decelerates and when it cruises.
If you don't have the sense and level of control that allows you to coerce your AT to kick down a gear to overtake, then the ability to make it upshift to cruise by letting off just that tiny bit... then you're not a very good driver.
And this comes full circle back to my question. Do you have manual control over your idle speed? over your spark advance? Over your brake bias? These are arguably very important functions... I actually do have control over these for my car (except brake bias... but I'm working on it). But you don't. and you won't get that for any modern, road-going cars. Why? Because the computers can do it for you, and better, without having to distract the driver from the act of piloting the car.
Don't get me wrong. I love MTs and for the sheer joy of driving, few ATs come close... But for everyday driving and even the occassional emergency, ATs do everything you need. The only thing they can't do for you is figure out which gear the next corner exit should be taken in, but then, that's what flappy paddles are for.
You, as a driver, still have perfect control over your car's speed, when it accelerates, when it decelerates and when it cruises.
If you don't have the sense and level of control that allows you to coerce your AT to kick down a gear to overtake, then the ability to make it upshift to cruise by letting off just that tiny bit... then you're not a very good driver.
And this comes full circle back to my question. Do you have manual control over your idle speed? over your spark advance? Over your brake bias? These are arguably very important functions... I actually do have control over these for my car (except brake bias... but I'm working on it). But you don't. and you won't get that for any modern, road-going cars. Why? Because the computers can do it for you, and better, without having to distract the driver from the act of piloting the car.
Don't get me wrong. I love MTs and for the sheer joy of driving, few ATs come close... But for everyday driving and even the occassional emergency, ATs do everything you need. The only thing they can't do for you is figure out which gear the next corner exit should be taken in, but then, that's what flappy paddles are for.
- 6,041
- Puget Sound
- Crash852
Do you think ABS, stability control and launch control are all bad things? What about drive by wire systems? What about cruise control? Should people not use these systems ever?
Actually, sure, why not? I think having automatic brakes and gas or having automatic steering could be fun. I would buy a car that controls that stuff automatically.
By the way, automatic brakes already exist on mass produced vehicles, and yes, people do buy them and use them.
- 27,257
- United Kingdom
No, I'm not. For the following reason:
...Your last point precludes your first one.
Some manuals simply don't add to the driving experience. With some, even the element of control is debatable, because the transmissions are so devoid of feel, with poor throttle response and a mushy clutch.
The above considered, what exactly does shifting your own gears add to that experience? If I can't feel the gears meshing, if the revs don't rise and fall according to exactly what I'm doing with my right foot, how is it any more about the "driving experience" moving a vague stick through a gate?
As Danoff has stated ad nauseum, gears are simply a way to allow the engine to make the most of its torque at any speed. A good manual gearbox is great, but a manual gearbox isn't automatically better than an auto simply because you can shift gears yourself. A great many autos are better than a great many manuals.
- 31,917
- Buckwheat City
- Dennisch
For daily driving, none of them do. Shifting the stick becomes something you do without thinking about it. The only time a stick does anything is when you have sporty road rage, or when you are on the track, and even that is debatable.
- 27,257
- United Kingdom
I drove a bunch more manuals and autos today at an event and as far as the manuals went, it was about 50/50 to whether they were fun/intuitive to use or not. Current MINI is pretty good. Current Civic also good. Alfa Mito not bad, Peugeot 208 fairly floppy and poor.
In contrast, the dual-clutch auto in the Alfa Giulietta I drove actually added to the experience in a way a manual probably wouldn't have done. It was a diesel, and I usually find diesels a bit of a pain in the hole with manual gearboxes, as progress is broken up by shifting to keep in the torque band. A nice DCT slurs between those low-ratio changes really smoothly and quickly. It's actually quite satisfying.
- 17,873
- United Kingdom
The way I look at it, on a daily drive of maybe 20 miles, I'll change gear because I want to maybe a handful of times... the other 100-odd shifts are out of necessity. When I'm driving an auto, I never have to shift out of necessity, and for the handful of occasions when I would like to to be in a different gear (invariably down a gear or two), there's kickdown, or manual selection of 2-3-4. I can see manuals have the potential to be more fun, but it's not a deal-breaker for me.
- 1,347
- The Netherlands
- GTP_Undutchable
For me they do add to the driving experience. I love driving smooth and I adjust my shifting moments and time to the situation on the road. Being able to enjoy driving, I can stay focused on driving and I don't get distracted by things and thoughts that negatively influence my driving. Although it doesn't require a great amount of attention (I can still keep track of what's going on around me), I DO think about my shifting.
Driving a manual also allows me to be a better defensive driver, simply because I have more possibilities in deciding my rate of ac- and deceleration, with or without using the brakes.
But as homeforsummer pointed out, some manuals really don't add to the driving experience. All the Kia's, Hyundai's and Dacia's I drove had terrible stick and pedal feel. Although I'd recommend any car enthousiast to stay away from those manufacturers in the first place, I'd probably prefer an auto if I had to drive one of those cars for whatever reason.
I don't comdemn people who buy an auto, since I can see the advantages. I always try to avoid traffic jams and when I'm in one, I always use the inner lane. Simply because the trucks try to keep on rolling as well, allowing me to use the clutch less. On top of that it's often the fastest lane as well. If you can't avoid traffic jams, going for an automatic really makes sense.
However, I'll never buy an auto as long as I have the choice and am not a grandpa yet..
- 30,517
- Bratvegas
And that's what it boils down to.
To each, their own. I personally prefer manuals, but if someone wants to use an automatic, then that's fine. It doesn't and shouldn't make you think any less of them as a driver. It's just a personal preference. Like electric windows and mirrors. Or a CD player, tape player and iPod jack.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,334
- Mile High City
Manuals are dying for a reason... and it's not because the average buyer is a moron who doesn't care about driving. It's because they're being passed up technologically. Manuals are a dead technology, the automotive world is moving on, and I think that's an excellent thing. The fact that you can hit all three pedals with two feet to blip the throttle to match revs before a turn, having to take one hand off of the wheel to slide a lever into the right position before dumping the clutch does not mean that this is a good driver's interface.
I know that what I described is driving nirvana for many of you, and I have experienced the perfect heel-toe downshift on a few occasions while tackling one of my favorite mountain roads, so I know what you're getting at. I hear you, I feel you, and I understand where you're coming from.
It's always rewarding to do something difficult. When you're trying to land your playing card in the hat, it's rewarding when you pull it off. It's rewarding when you get the pingpong ball in the plastic cup, or when you land the quarter in the jar. This does not make these things worthy pursuits.
If you're a driving purist, you should be lamenting the lack of focus on the apex of the turn for need of dancing around trying to get your stupid transmission into the right gear beforehand. You should not need 3 feet and 3 hands get into the right gear. That's a bad interface. Indeed, today we have developed technology that does it 100 times faster, takes maybe 2 fingers total, and never ever screws it up. This frees you up to focus on driving.
I know that some of you love the hoops that the manual has you jump through and consider it to be part of driving, people loved the pops and scratches on record players too, they loved typewriters, they loved horses, and some people still think swords and bows and arrows are real weapons while guns are lazy and stupid.
But technology moves on, dancing around trying to get your car ready for a turn is wasted effort. It's a wonderful skill that I have learned that I consider to be mostly wasted and forced on me by a poor interface. Rev matching is no more driving than adjusting your seat or rolling your windows. It is not an essential part of the experience. It is a challenge, and it's something that you can get good at and enjoy doing, but it's not really driving.
I know that what I described is driving nirvana for many of you, and I have experienced the perfect heel-toe downshift on a few occasions while tackling one of my favorite mountain roads, so I know what you're getting at. I hear you, I feel you, and I understand where you're coming from.
It's always rewarding to do something difficult. When you're trying to land your playing card in the hat, it's rewarding when you pull it off. It's rewarding when you get the pingpong ball in the plastic cup, or when you land the quarter in the jar. This does not make these things worthy pursuits.
If you're a driving purist, you should be lamenting the lack of focus on the apex of the turn for need of dancing around trying to get your stupid transmission into the right gear beforehand. You should not need 3 feet and 3 hands get into the right gear. That's a bad interface. Indeed, today we have developed technology that does it 100 times faster, takes maybe 2 fingers total, and never ever screws it up. This frees you up to focus on driving.
I know that some of you love the hoops that the manual has you jump through and consider it to be part of driving, people loved the pops and scratches on record players too, they loved typewriters, they loved horses, and some people still think swords and bows and arrows are real weapons while guns are lazy and stupid.
But technology moves on, dancing around trying to get your car ready for a turn is wasted effort. It's a wonderful skill that I have learned that I consider to be mostly wasted and forced on me by a poor interface. Rev matching is no more driving than adjusting your seat or rolling your windows. It is not an essential part of the experience. It is a challenge, and it's something that you can get good at and enjoy doing, but it's not really driving.
- 8,481
- P_Balance
If driving is simply the act of controlling a car by whatever means around some turns, then I don't like really driving. I like operating a transmission and operating a steering rack and a gas pedal.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,334
- Mile High City
That's weird... I assume you have a steering rack, gas pedal, and transmission set up in your basement so that you can manipulate them with a big grin on your face. Also I assume you hate motorcycles and would never want to drive one.
- 803
- Waco, TX
- GTP_Goshin2568
- Goshin2568
This. 👍
If you start changing things because of "technology advancing", it stops becoming the actual thing that we love. Driving.
I don't know what on earth the first part of that meant, but as for the second part, yes. You of course were being sarcastic, but riding a motorcycle is not driving. Yes, you can like both, but just because you like driving doesn't mean you like riding motorcycles. The two actions are completely different.
- 27,257
- United Kingdom
Danoff is suggesting that if you simply love the act of moving a stick about a gate, then you can do that without a car entirely. A flippant comment perhaps, but then PB's comment was also.
Myself, I like both manuals and autos. I both agree with Danoff and disagree with him at the same time. But really I err a lot closed to his opinion than I do people who believe autos are for people who "don't like driving", and I'd disagree even more that it's impossible to have a fully interactive experience in a car without a traditional manual gearbox.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,334
- Mile High City
I didn't know it was impossible to drive a motorcycle.You're doing something extremely common on GTPlanet, confusing the concept of driving something (lots of things can be driven, golf carts, go karts, bigwheels, plastic barbie corvettes, motorcycles, bicycles, recumbent bikes, segues, even cars)... you're confusing that... with the interface.
Think about the word "drive" for a moment - can you use it to describe riding a motorcycle? Can you use it to describe controlling a go-kart? What if that go-kart had only one control, a joy stick. Push the joy stick forward - kart goes forward, pull it back - kart goes back, side-to-side - kart turns. Can you not "drive" that go kart? Can you not drive a riding lawn mower? Can you drive a tractor? A Zamboni machine? A fork lift? Note the terminology at the top of this page:
http://www.ehow.com/how_2002028_drive-forklift.html
Of course you can, because "drive" is not specific to cars. Otherwise you'd never have need of the phrase "driving a car". You'd just say "driving" (which, admittedly, people do, but they also say "driving a car" to differentiate from driving something else).
I understand that you guys love the manual transmission interface. But don't confuse it with driving. Driving is what formula 1 drivers do despite not having a stick shift, it's what motorcycle racers do despite not having a steering wheel, stick shift, or gas pedal. It's g-forces, lateral acceleration, apexing, overtaking, etc.
(hmmm, some of that is racing actually, but you get my point)
One could make a very good argument that motorcycles are the most pure driving experience to be had given that it's as close to just you and the turn as you can get without running... and running is not driving (driving implies that you're controlling some other object that is providing the motion).
As far as interfaces go (and the manual transmission is exactly that), stick shifts kinda suck. Any interface that requires 3 feet and 3 hands is not exactly perfect for creatures with 2 feet and 2 hands. It's hard, sure (though not so hard that millions of people can't figure it out), and rewarding when you accomplish that difficult task. But it's a crappy interface, and it's not driving.
Edit:
So where does that leave us? It leaves us with people who are attached to manual transmissions for nostalgia reasons. Perhaps it was because they grew up driving stick, or perhaps it was because they watched Vin Diesel shift in Fast and Furious (they always had another gear when the writers wanted them to speed up didn't they?). Whatever the reason for the nostalgia, that's why people can't handle the death of the manual.
It's very much like people who love their record players despite CDs doing a better job. It's like people who are attached to wine corks even though the screw tops do a better job. There are a bazillion examples of this throughout all kinds of products and activities. It's an extremely common emotional reaction to progress - but it's futile because the next generation will look at it rationally.
Last edited:
