Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Honda is testing a manual transmission for EVs (thedrive.com)
35 points by PaulHoule 15 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 126 comments



Not really. "Honda’s synthetic manual gearbox is developed to accompany a Hyundai Ioniq 5 N-style set of fake engine noises and gear ratios."

This has been done a few times. Some high-end electric car had it about a decade ago. Toyota demoed it in 2022. There is a Chinese driver training car that has a fake manual transmission setup so people who need to pass manual transmission driving tests can practice.[1] It even simulates stalling the engine. That's probably the only one that's useful.

[1] https://jalopnik.com/this-chinese-electric-car-designed-for-...


The article does mention Toyota’s one.

On the point about manual transmissions (or simulations thereof) not being “useful”, I think you’re approaching it from the wrong perspective. The people that want them enjoy using them, not unlike how horse riders like riding horses. I guess you could say that horses are “useless” too since cars exist, but that would be missing the point.


But, to stretch the analogy, this is basically a car poorly imitating the mechanical operation of a horse, and limiting its own performance to do so.


Right, and horses are not obsolete in all applications. There are still a number of cases where they're the best tool for the job.


If you like interesting words, this is skeuomorphism: incorporating features from older designs, where those features are now completely unnecessary.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeuomorph


Because manual transmissions are not completely unnecessary, this definition does not fit.


If you read the article, apparently this isn't a real transmission, it's just simulating one (at least in its current implementation). It's basically a way to control the fake engine noises the car makes.

So that exactly fits the definition.


Not all EV's are consumer vehicles, large scale electric mining vehicles have manual transmissions.


Thanks, I agree that's an interesting tidbit. But in the context of the article—a fake manual transmission for consumer EV cars—it's definitely a skeuomorphism!


In an electric car? Really? I don't know too much about electric cars, but it's my impression that gears and transmissions are completely unnecessary in an electric car. Please correct me if I am wrong.


There is usually a speed reduction from the motor towards the wheels.

Direct drive or wheel hub motors are uncommon.

The difference is that one fixed gear ratio is usually good enough.

Heavier vehicles more or less need multiple gear ratios for EV drivetrains too.


Precisely. Electric cars almost universally have one fixed gear, with the engine smoothly providing variable torque.


This is a nitpick for sure, but as I understand it, electric motors provide pretty much constant torque throughout their operating range, which is one of their benefits. It's the speed of the motor that varies, and consequently the power, which is a function of torque times speed.


No, electric motors exert the most torque at zero RPM. That's where you can put the most current through the coil, because there's no back-EMF. It's why EVs are so zippy from a stop. The torque-speed curve is a straight line, with 0 torque at max RPM and a constant power.


For synchronous motors. Induction motors (like the auxiliary/dual motors used on something like the Chevy Equinox EV) have a different torque/speed characteristic.

https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/electrical-motors-torques...


Sorry - not constant power, obviously, since at the extremes the power is 0.


I believe multi-motor EVs sometimes tune the motors to different uses, switching between one or the other (or both) to provide a similar effect as a gear shift.


this is a cost savings feature that was enabled by electric motor torque at low speed and the consumer's willingness to sacrifice high speed operation to focus on city driving.

electric motors hugely benefit from gearboxes, they're not used as a means to simplify and encheapen.


Automatic transmission is probably the only indispensable "feature" I look for in a new car and that I'm willing to pay extra for. How some people prefer manual is probably one of the mysteries I'll take to grave with myself.

Edit: By prefer, I mean having the choice and choosing manual, obviously. Choosing manual because it is cheaper does not count.


They're more fun. You're actively operating the machinery instead of it operating itself. That probably doesn't sound fun to you, but it is to me, and I'm not alone.

Until recently, manuals were also more efficient than automatics and had more gears. That was a big factor for performance cars and places with high fuel prices, but is no longer true. Now, automatics are more efficient and usually have more gears, so people who want manuals on new cars just want the additional control or engagement.


Manual for me is fun on the track but hell in traffic.


You'd need to drive the automaic in semi automatic mode for it to be as efficient, right?


No.

The method of action is different. An automatic transmission using a torque converter loses more energy in the form of heat than a traditional manual gearbox.

The only gearboxes that have the same efficiency regardless of whether or not they're manually shifted are true automated manual gearboxes like BMW DCT or other such auto-magic boxes that use clutches rather than viscous (liquid) coupling to facilitate gear changes.


Modern torque converter automatics have lockup clutches.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque_converter#Lock-up_torqu...


Very unlikely. The default gear selection algorithm is optimized for efficiency in most cars.


Automatics usually don't plan ahead. And my experience is that responsiveness is prioritized over fuel efficiency.

There should be more coasting with no gear engaged and low gear low rpm for low loads, than what automatics chose in practice.

But I don't have any data at hand for practical fuel efficiency and modern automatics versus manual.


> Automatics usually don't plan ahead.

The latest ones do, being integrated with GPS and a terrain database to anticipate changes.


That still won't tell it if I want to accelerate to pass the person ahead or slow to keep my distance from them, or slow to let someone behind me pass, or speed up to not let them.


what, seriously?


yes.

for at least 20+ years now BMW/Porsche/VW also use the onboard IMUs and gyros and wheelspeed sensors to determine whether or not a shift should happen , say, in the middle of a long high speed banking turn.


Coasting with no gear engaged consumes some fuel to keep the engine idling; coasting in gear consumes no fuel at all.


Yes but "no gear" disconnects the transmission and engine load from the wheels so you can coast farther. In other words you remove engine braking from the equation.

Mercedes Glide Mode for example does this automatically to increase MPG (allegedly).


Yes but if you don't want to retard higher rpm in the motor gives higher losses.

I think it is accurate enough to think of each revolution as a fixed cost for 'low' or idle power.

At idle power the motor should probably only be engaged when also braking.


>At idle power the motor should probably only be engaged when also braking.

a cars' stability is aided by engine braking; if that isn't there it must be accommodated by knowledge of such a fact by the ABS/TCS/VCS systems, or a skilled driver that is expecting it.

A regular car that expects engine braking, thrown into neutral and coasting down the highway is a more fragile handling and car-dynamics situation without these precautions. The Mercedes Glide Mode accommodates this by using the ABS/TCS systems to keep the weight where it needs to be regardless of applied engine torque one way or another; the driver does not experience a differently handling car.


That seems strange. I guess the "apply motor torque to speed up wheel" dynamic stability control would be slower to apply torque when in neutral, when control has been lost?

Or is there some effect in the rubber from engine braking that make the front wheel more "prepared"?


A manual transmission is fun. An automatic is boring.

With a manual tranny, manual brakes, manual steering, and manual suspension you feel connected to the car and the road, and it's just a joy. It's even more fun when you learn to double clutch the downshift, and work on doing a perfect downshift and entry into the turn.

With practice, you can drive a stick smoother than an auto, though most never bother.

The times I prefer an automatic are in stop-go traffic, and starting out uphill. I'd also prefer an automatic in a luxury car or SUV. But for a muscle car or sports car, stick all the way!

You can't win a drag race with a stick, racing auto trans will always shift faster. But there's no skill in the latter, and so it's no fun.

I recently took up dirt bike riding. I was repeatedly offered an electric bike, which didn't need shifting. Phooey. I wanted the gas bike with the manual shifter. And I was right, managing the engine and gear adds much fun.


Ones fun is somebody elses tedium.


I know I'm an outlier.


Been driving manual all my life and having now a DSG automatic.

I love it, fuel efficiency is on par with manual. There are things that I don’t like, specifically: - Driving in traffic: If I’m inching forward, transmission suffer because it does continuously half-clutch. Much more control with a manual. - Mountain driving: I usually set it again to manual to be able to brake with the engine when going up and meeting a curve. Interestingly, it does fine going downhill. - tricky terrain: it changes wildly depending on the traction you are encountering, so manual mode helps keeping a constant rhythm and speed when traction is not optimal (snow, mud, etc)

I have to admit though that the automatic is way faster than me at changing gears, which helps keeping a constant acceleration and avoid head bobbing.


> I have to admit though that the automatic is way faster than me at changing gears, which helps keeping a constant acceleration and avoid head bobbing.

That's because a DSG gearbox has two clutches. It is basically a traditional gearbox with one clutch connected to the odd gears and one to the even gears. The system selects the next gear according to the revs of the engine and does all the physical shifting in advance. The actual gear change is then only disengaging one clutch while engaging the other one. You can overlap this so the engine continously delivers torque to the wheels. Thus, no head bobbing.


>You can overlap this so the engine continously delivers torque to the wheels. Thus, no head bobbing.

head bobbing (sudden g-force jerks) was fixed before the introduction of another clutch; that's a function of rev-matching between upshifts and downshifts. An early BMW SMG system, a manual gearbox with electro-hydraulics on top of it to handle shifting and clutch work, gets rid of the head bobbing.

How? Precise rev-matching.

dual clutch systems were a means to speed the gear-shift process up, with two clutches there is no need to wait for shaft speed mismatches, you just keep the opposite clutch where you need it RPM-wise. This helps alleviate the head-bobbing, but it's more just an artifact of how the system has to work -- rev-matching is now something required in order not to blow the system up.

tl;dr : it's the rev-matching saving your neck, just like it would've been doing had you been a passenger with a race driver -- but they're doing it to save tires and keep the car stable, they probably don't care about your neck.


I used cars with automatic and manual transmissions and I prefer manual. I just don't see any benefit of using automatic transmission. Manual transmission is cheaper. Manual transmission is simpler and drastically cheaper to repair. Cars with manual transmission can be towed. Automatic transmission often makes a wrong choice, so I often need to override the selection of gear. Using manual transmission is not hard or exhausting. Also automatic transmission for some reason does not want to use engine as a brake, so I need to push my brakes more often, with manual transmission I rarely have to reach brake because I can just release acceleration and it'll slow down well, I only need to brake to make a full stop.


You're comparing an ICE-engine Automatic with an ICE-engine Manual.

An EV doesn't have a transmission in the conventional sense (1). It's just a final drive from the motor to the differential (which you'd have in any conventional ICE gearbox anyway). The motor is always connected, and can drive from zero speed to maximum in the same gear. It's a totally difference experience to an 'automatic' ICE car as there are no shifts. It's like a part of the car is just no longer there - and for good reason as electric motors can provide torque over a much wider range of speeds than an ICE engine can.

The gearbox in an ICE car is only there to cover for the inadequacy of ICE engines. It's missing from EVs because it's not needed.

Life-long petrolhead here (driven as an amateur in the WRC for reference). Bought my first EV a few years ago, and never going back. It makes zero sense for most people to have an ICE car now. If you've not driven one, reserve judgement about the transmission as most people I know who've driven mine have found it a revelation.

(1) with the exception of the Porsche Taycan AFAIK.


Hello fellow EV-head! (Is that a word?)

I loved my 15-year-old Kia Rondo with the V6 and 5-speed transmission and manual up/down override. It was very peppy and surprisingly great for a plain old crossover SUV.

Last year I went on a road trip to a friend's wedding 80 miles away. The Rondo was showing its age, so I wanted to rent a more reliable car, was curious about EVs, and found a Kia EV6 at my local Hertz outlet.

OMG. The driving experience was so different! The torque is always there when you need it.

A couple of months later I got one of my own. I was amused that the window sticker says "1-speed automatic".

Speaking only for you and me, and without any political implications, we are not going back!


> I just don't see any benefit of using automatic transmission

Not having to deal with gear shifting is a huge benefit for me. It takes out one non-trivial element from the whole driving experience and lets me focus more on all the other things you need to do while driving. It’s also more relaxing, especially combined with adaptive cruise control. And I never worry I will mess up the when starting from a full stop and have to restart the car. Especially when starting from an uphill.

From what you described you’re the type of person that likes to have full control over the car and how it behaves, and that’s totally fine. But many of us don’t, we just care to get from point A to B with as little friction as possible. Sure, it’s more expensive to get and maintain, but that’s a price I’m fully willing to pay.


>It takes out one non-trivial element from the whole driving experience and lets me focus more on all the other things you need to do while driving.

Your mind is not very busy shifting if you've been driving manual for a while.


Shifting gears manually is not harder than, say, walking or running. It becomes second nature.

I think it's more fun as you _feel_ the relationship between the engine revs and the movement of the vehicle but in congested traffic it becomes a nuisance too.

Are there any dual transmission vehicles which manual and automatic transmissions???


> Are there any dual transmission vehicles which manual and automatic transmissions???

Yes, but Koenigsegg is not a brand that's in budget for most of us.


Yes, luxury 'sport' cars. You often have automatic and sequencial.

Sequential is manual but better when doing 0-130 in 3s,a bit worse when doing regular driving.


How can it be cheaper than not having a transmission at all in an EV?


> Automatic transmission often makes a wrong choice, so I often need to override the selection of gear.

That sounds suspect. In the past 20 years I’ve found it makes far less errors than when I drive manual transmission over the same time. The set points just differ.

The curve for engine breaking is also not absent, just different I regularly release the accelerator in an automatic transmission, and it will slow down to a stop


Automatic transmission doesn't know your intention in 5s, so it consistently makes the wrong choice there if you intend to slow down or cruise until a red light.


The worst feature of manual transmission is being stuck in a traffic jam and constantly pressing clutch pedal and shifting in and out of the 1st gear. Everything else is non issue, this is painful.


> I just don't see any benefit of using automatic transmission

It is automatic

I have better uses for my time and attention than matching rpms and flicking a lever, especially in stop and go traffic

> Cars with manual transmission can be towed

Automatic cars can be towed, just read the manual (for reference: https://mechanics.stackexchange.com/questions/22275/can-a-ca... )


I had to replace a handful of clutches, but never had any maintenance done on automatic transmissions (having owned 10+ manual, and 5+ automatic). For just the money I would opt for automatic, let alone the performance that is much better than with manual gear nowadays.


Automatics are more complex and harder to repair, easier breaks.

Damages that would give a manual gearbox 'personality', might make the automatic refuse to engage gear at all.

The accelerator padel in practice also becomes a shift down gear button. So you need to keep your feet at a more specific position of the pedal.

When towing trailers the automatic gear selection is usually bad.

You can't start the engine by rolling it and release the clutch when low on batteries or the starter motor is somewhat broken. I would say this is the biggest drawback of automatics.

On the other hand, automatics are nice in queues.


I remember my friend had a 70s Dodge Dart (Slant 6 automatic) and his starter went out. His father pushed the car with his truck up to 35mph and then he put it in drive...it push started. But yeah...typically that is a very bad idea for a number of reasons. Safety being a big one...plus, on a lot of automatics the pump is driven from the input shaft...so when coasting in neutral there is often no lubrication.


Manual transmission is harder to learn, and requires more work, but also gives the driver more control on the car. When driving an automatic car I always feel like I trade driving control in favor of convenience, and that makes me anxious whenever something happens that require driver action.


Because automatics can feel slow and laggy depending on the terrain, because they can only respond to load rather than anticipate it. In the UK and EU there are lots of hills and narrow winding roads where you notice this the most; whereas if you are mostly driving on the flat automatic probably feels no different. It's also more noticeable in small cars with small engines (also more common over here out of practicality) where using the right gear at just the right time is more important if you don't want to end up stuck crawling up a hill.

Most EVs are single speed transmission due to the wide range torque curve, so manual vs auto is kind of a moot point for all but very high performance vehicles anyway... Which is why this honda thing is a total gimmick, i'd happily give up manual gearbox when there is no performance and efficiency difference.


I have no data to back it up, but this is why a lot of people living in the Alps supposedly still drive cars with a manual gearbox, although generally sales of new, automatic cars are now ahead of manual ones, even in Germany.


If you're a tourist who never learnt how to manage your gearbox and use an automatic, it doesn't have any impact on danger (both for yourself and other road users), at least the first days, until you learn. The issue with automatic is that you'll never have the opportunity to truly improve.


>How some people prefer manual is probably one of the mysteries I'll take to grave with myself.

When I find myself thinking like that I try to come up with generous analogies to try and position myself in a similar mindset. With manual transmission the advantage seems to be fine grained control over the engine at the cost of more complexity and additional work. This fine grained control may be imperceptible or totally unnecessary for some people. However, I run Linux for similar reasons and enjoy tinkering with it. I also tend to prefer tools that target power users at the cost of complexity. So, even if I'm not a gearhead myself, I can easily understand the preference for manual transmission by others.


At least in Europe there have been cases where automatic transmission costs an extra 20% in the price of the car.

For several people this is an important decision.

So some people don't "prefer" manual. It just made sense at the time they bought the car.


Yes. I fully get that, living in Europe myself (Isn't 20% a bit too much by the way?)


The idea is that automatic transmission becomes part of a more luxurious packaged upgrade including other things. I think it was that way around two decades ago, now i'm not so sure.


My own personal example (back in 2018)

Hyundai Kona (the middle package) 22k euros with manual

Hyundai Kona (the middle package) 27k euros with automatic

Main point was that you could not get just automatic transmission on its own. You also had to get the 4WD drive version at the same time.


I live in France, so in a place where manual was the norm.

I hate it compared to automatic. Automatic is so much more comfortable (in my Toyota Hybrid RAV4 at least), driving in yraffic us much easier etc.

I will never buy a manual car again.


> I will never buy a manual car again.

Me after I accidentally ended up buying an automatic car for the first time.


Looks like there is future for the car makers to please everyone :)

One annoying thing with automatic cars here on France is that if you get your driving license on them tout cannot drive a manual without a special extra course (just driving his, no exam).

A driving license done on a manual allows driving both cars.


I'm so happy I got my drivers license on manual because if I stared with automatic, knowing how good it is I wouldn't be able to force myself to endure the stupidity of manual transmission to learn it.


Was the case in Switzerland too, until recently-ish when they changed it.


Using an auto feels like using a mobility aid. It's not fun so therefore it's something I'm forced to use. I don't transport heavy goods and I'm not disabled, why would I be using a mobility aid? Wall-E made a whole lot more sense the first time I drove an auto.

Having said that, manuals are harder and I have noticed people are less willing to give up something that took time and effort to learn, so take my thoughts with a pinch of salt.


It's about mechanical empathy and greater control. Mechanical empathy is where you just really know a machine with character, and know how to handle its foibles, and it's like an extension of you. Where earlier automatic transmissions were less efficient, there was greater efficiency to be had from a manual transmission, but since dual-clutch automatics, that's less true. Even So, an automatic transmission can't know what you're thinking (yet), and so can't down/upshift when you want it to.

It's like running Linux. At some point it's just another OS, so what difference does it make? And for some, it doesn't make a difference. For others, having more control, and being able to dig into the guts of a desktop Linux system and replace whatever you want let's them feel more connected to the computer, making it less of a mysterious box that operates on magic and black smoke, and more of a predictable machine.


That first part puts it really well.

I almost never know what an auto will do if I put my foot to the floor. And often just 50% it interprets as you wanting to floor it and shifts down 2 gears which is often an overreaction given the car's torque and power.

I dislike the gamble at roundabouts too. They're everywhere in the UK and they're busy - you often pull out in front of cars where there is a gap and you need to know your car will do exactly what you need it to do.

Also start-stop is trickier to control in an auto and it's linked to how hard you brake rather than the clutch pedal (it's getting harder to disable start-stop in cars these days). I never want the engine to turn off at the entry to a roundabout but if you brake too hard, it will

That said if I am regularly doing 100s of miles on motorways I absolutely love an auto


> It's like running Linux.

To me it's more like "running your own-compiled GNU Hurd Kernel", probably on your own-assembled kit :D

Linux has very "tangible" use cases, far beyond wanting the machine "be an extension of yourself". No?


Can you break down the analogy to a casual like myself? Genuinely want to be in on it as i enjoy driving and am always wanting to learn more linux to grasp a better understanding of OS’s


I'm sorry but you'll have to go into /etc/tangibles.conf and use_cases = "beyond_extension", and then run systemctl daemon-reload to get that behavior.

I mean sure. Obvs I don't speak for everyone that runs Linux. Knowing how Linux, works from Kernel to user space, from an LFS install, or simply being around it that much lends itself to being the kind of person who's able to setup, or gets paid to setup the kinds of tangible use cases others want. Like a webserver, back when it was hard. Like eg mounting files as a drive. It's just losetup then mount /dev/loop0 /mnt. That's a tangible use case where you can copy files off a dvd ISO. I'm sure you can find a program to do that on Windows, but it's basically a built in feature on Linux. Linux at the base level is workshop full of tools, it's up to you what you want to build.


It's even more fun driving a stick when you put the machine together yourself, and know every nut, bolt, shaft and gear.


I'll bet! Glad we can agree on something. :)


You’re the first person to verbalize how i feel about operating machinery, something I've always been unable to do and feel awkward about.

What are some hobbies you enjoy?


I wish I had more money and time for it, but shifter carts are pure joy (if that's your thing). For adults they come in 100cc single speed or six-speed 125cc, both under 200lb and are pure racing machine.


I learned to drive with a manual transmission so I'd feel comfortable driving any car in Europe, where manual transmissions are far more common. The transition was stressful but after a few hours it became easier and after a few days, it became second nature—just as easy as driving an automatic.

Today, my own car has a manual transmission, which I prefer for the added control. It lets me use different levels of engine braking on downhill stretches (very useful depending on where you live) and manage my speed more precisely in heavy traffic.


I moved to Europe after driving in Australia where automatic is the norm. Most people in Europe should not be driving a manual. Almost daily I'll see and hear people make basic mistakes when driving. It's baffling why they stick with manuals.


This is one thing I enjoy so much about my Kia Ev6.

For accelerating, I just use the go-pedal (which I still call the "gas pedal"). It gives me precise gentle control for normal driving around town, especially with passengers, or immediate zoom-zoom when I need it in a traffic situation or just for fun. I don't have to think about gears or any of that.

For slowing down, there two paddles on the steering wheel to select the regen level, just like the paddle shifters on some gas cars. A higher regen level is like a lower gear that gives you more engine braking.

Regen level 0 is like coasting. Level 1 is like being in "drive" with an automatic transmission. 2 and 3 are like downshifting further. There is also "auto-regen" and "i-pedal". I tried them all and found level 2 is my sweet spot.

If I'm going downhill and need to slow down even more, I can either go to level 3 or just use the brake pedal. If I do use the brake pedal, I won't be engaging the friction brakes. It just tells the car to pump energy back into the battery, unless I really mash down for an emergency stop.


I’m convinced learning on an automatic first and moving to manual from that is the right way to learn. Clutch control and gear shifts are extra mental load for new drivers, and pretty natural for experienced drivers.

In a car I learned manual first and it was a mission, on a bike I learned automatic first and switched to manual from that, and it was much easier.


That's what I did for learning to drive and it worked beautifully for me. I also got my license later than most, so when an opportunity came up to get lessons I just wanted to pass the test to get my provisional license ASAP so I could actually get around by myself with the intention to learn manual later. I did have a go at learning manual at first but it was going to take me a lot longer. I just needed to get my P plates! Where I am you don't need to retest for manual once off your provisional license which is great.

When my husband and I needed to replace his car (a little manual shitbox, god bless it) I suggested we replace it with an another manual, and I wanted a hot hatch. Proper hot hatch wasn't really in the budget so we got a (luke)warm hatch instead lol. A suzuki swift, manual, which I have delusions of upgrading so I can take it on track days now that it's my daily driver. He's got the CVT gig car for his daily driver now.

Anyway, I highly recommend learning automatic first and learning manual later. It's such a good skill to have anyway. I live in a bushfire prone area so knowing that if I have to evacuate I know I can confidently drive any car I have access to is nice. As long as it's synchromesh lmao


What I love about electric is that there is normally no transmission. Automakers realized it was cheaper and simpler to simply ditch the transmission in favor of a stronger motor.


> How some people prefer manual is probably one of the mysteries I'll take to grave with myself.

Fun facts, the new high performance Toyota GR Corolla has a new automatic gear that's proven faster than the manual version.

I really hope similar things happening for programming languages with GC since D language got a lot of flak by making GC as the default.

To rephrase your perplexity, how some people prefer manual memory management is probably one of the mysteries I'll take to grave with myself.


More like " how some people prefer manual memory management for non-performance-critical applications".


According to the press release, the GR DAT is not "proven faster than manual", but is rather supposed to be competitive with dual-clutch transmissions.


It's faster, they time both at the Toyota testing race track using the same professional driver.


Same reason I don’t like FSD even though as an engineer it’s cool technology: I enjoy driving.

It’s like cooking your own meal versus going to a restaurant. I enjoy cooking a lot.


You 'murican? Anyway, you feel closer to the machine with a good manual (e.g. MX-5), it's for sports cars having the pleasure of driving as main purpose. It's also cheaper, lighter and more reliable.

Auto should be used for all the other cars (including performance cars, where you want your mind focused on stuff other than shifting; true sequential is king there, though).


In the US, it's often more expensive to get a manual if you are at all picky about options - very few are made, so gearheads end up scouring the entire country to find a car in the right color, right options package, etc. You might end up with another $2000 in shipping, and the dealers have little incentive to move the cars off the lot (they don't have many if any, and some manual-transmission lover will pay near sticker).

I've driven manual cars but never owned one. Other than transmission fluid changes (rare), though, I've never had to fix an auto transmission. They're pretty reliable. My current one is at about 260k km, 24 years old (previous owner burned out engine and transmission at ~100k km on car by not using towing mode to tow, so car has more on it than that).


I was watching a sort of car review channel and they said 4% of (new) car sales in the US are manual. I was wondering why so few of the amazing sports cars they were reviewing were manual; they just couldn't get their hands on manual versions. There was one astounding model (can't remember) that simply didn't make a manual version at all. It's probably quite silly how shocking I find all of this.

I just do not at all understand the point of a so-called sports car (especially the expensive ones!) that's not a manual! What's the point?! I genuinely do not understand why anyone would want an automatic sports car. I don't have to understand; I'm not the arbiter of anything let alone others' enjoyment of cars. I am still confused tho lol


Isn't it an actually American thing to "feel closer to the machine"?


Why would you think that? True sports cars (not muscle cars) are an European and Japanese thing. Cf https://paulgraham.com/usa.html really.


Better fuel efficiency for one. And I, for the time being, am much better at anticipating the required power output and optimal gear 5-10 seconds ahead.

And of course for a lot of driving (highways) theres very little shifting anyway.


This is not the case anymore with modern transmission having 8 to 10 gears available. See https://www.theautopian.com/heres-exactly-when-automatic-tra...

I drive a BMW with a 8 gear automatic, it's always in the gear I want it to be, and I was a stick advocate for many years, no need for it anymore.


You won’t get better fuel efficiency unless your manual gearbox has eight (or even nine or ten) gears like the automatics have now. For example, BMW says that the manual BMW M2 does 10.0–10.2 l/100km and the eight-speed automatic does 9.6–9.8 l/100 km. It’s also slightly slower and has higher emissions (since it burns more fuel too).


Either of those use way too much. As sibling points out, 4.7 is more in the range of what I drive and expect. I have a Skoda Rapid with just 5 gears, and I manage to get it under 5L/100km.


The BMW M2 is a sports car powered by a three-litre twin-turbocharged inline-six with a bit under 500 horsepower.


The VW Golf manual does 4.7L/100km


On highways i just use cruise control, for the rest shifting has pretty much become automatic for me.


I prefer it for better control of the shift points and I have an admittedly unfounded theory that manuals are more reliable and longer lasting than automatic transmissions.


Not having an automatic transmission means there are less ways in which a manufacturer can screw up your car's performance in the name of emissions.

This is obviously less relevant in America where you can still buy fast cars without being murdered by taxes.


Stick shifts are the original fidget spinners. I loved mine. I'd happily have another.


Mimicking sound and run of ICEs id the most absurd pro-reactionary move possible, sorry.

BTW since current motors ad high speed have heating issues having a REAL mechanical "extra gear" (3 gears actually, one very short for very steep passages and tight parking, a normal one, a high one) might be interesting, but to understand that engineers need to drive EVs. Today they seems not doing so.

It's the same history for p.v. missed integrations: most engineers and decision makers seem not to have p.v. at home, so they do not feel the need and the opportunity of such integration.


Even ICE vehicles have fake sounds nowadays. The engines are quiet and the cabins are so well insulated that the engine sounds some people love don't carry.

So they play fake sounds through the stereo.

https://www.bimmer-tech.net/blog/item/137-bmw-active-sound-d...


I used to think this was a dumb idea, but when you think about it: The only person who wants to hear a car's vroom-vroom noises is the driver. So it makes sense to play the fake noises back through the internal speakers--they're only there for the entertainment of one person.

You should be able to turn it off if you don't care about vroom-vroom.


> Mimicking sound and run of ICEs id the most absurd pro-reactionary move possible, sorry.

It is really silly ye. I think Cintroen did it for their old cvc gearboxes too to match expectations. But I think that people know that EVs sounds different.


The only thing I am truly desirous of in life is that Honda E! Am so bummed they won't actually mass produce it. The next best thing would be plopping a Tesla powertrain into a Nissan Figaro. China has some adorable small EVs right now, but that Honda E is the whole package.


Even as I cyclist I must agree that it's one of the nicest looking electric cars out there. So few people actually need a massive SUV which often even doesn't have that much extra loading capacity. For transporting a piece of furniture around town a cargo bike is the easier choice anyways.


>Even as I cyclist I must agree that it's one of the nicest looking electric cars out there.

cars and cyclists aren't mutually exclusive, even if popular media and outlets would have you think otherwise.

> For transporting a piece of furniture around town a cargo bike is the easier choice anyways.

wait, is this satire? if not then your definition of 'town' and 'furniture' are way different than mine -- and I own an electric cargo bike.


Imagine putting a cute little bike rack on top of the cute little roof.



It's a truly fantastic car (having only test-driven, not owned one),

but in terms of car-buyer logic the Honda e basically cost SUV-amounts of money, so why not just buy an SUV, which is a much bigger and therefore better car?


Cause it's not an SUV! It's a tiny cute little bug mobile.

Considering the Fiat E was around the same ballpark price and people somehow bought those over 14 years ago, I think there would've been a market simply because there's not much else like it in the US. But that's only my opinion, and even though I just recently got a new boring SUV, I would instabuy a Honda E or equivalent adorable kei EV for my use case.


Oh I totally get that and fully agree, but the revealed preference of the car market at large is to buy the physically largest vehicle within a given price range. And that makes the situation for smaller cars in the market quite tough.


I just don't see the point, and I say this as someone who loves manuals in ICE engines.

Control over the transmission allows me to adjust the torque curve to my liking for the current situation. A direct drive electric motor has no torque curve, so a transmission is pointless.

I wish they would focus more on the things that I enjoy about driving an ICE car that actually apply to an EV - steering feedback and throttle response, for instance. Those are what currently prevent me from daily driving an EV. As an attentive and engaged driver, I feel less safe when I have slower or missing feedback from my controls.


> A direct drive electric motor has no torque curve, so a transmission is pointless.

Actually it does, but it's much flatter than that of an ICE. For a brushed DC motor, it's a straight line, from max torque at stall to zero torque at no-load full speed.

The original Tesla roadster had a 2-speed transmission, because the motor didn't have a high enough operating speed range. That worked badly. The jerk at shifting was high, and the transmission wore out. Tesla finally developed a water-cooled motor with more speed range, got rid of the 2-speed, and retrofitted their first cars.[1]

Variable speed electric motors with smooth acceleration are an artifact of smart control. The motor itself is not that well behaved. DC electric traction motors used to have "transition controllers", where the windings were switched from series to parallel. That's what the "throttle notches" on electric locomotives did. Here's a locomotive which works that way, a common Diesel-electric locomotive in India.. This loco is an old Diesel-electric, where the Diesel runs at a governed constant speed and driving is done on the electric side.[2] This is the true electric equivalent of a manual transmission. The big white handle on the left is the transition controller, and the two levers in front of the driver control engine and train brakes. This setup is workable for slow-accelerating trains. Watch the driver work the white handle like a shifter. This takes some training and practice. If you move that lever too fast or incorrectly, fuses will blow or the train will stall. That really is a manual control.

Streetcars, which spend much of their time accelerating or decelerating, had an good electrical "automatic transmission" by the 1930s.[3] That's a large electromechanical device which uses transition switches and resistors to smoothly control acceleration. The driver just has an accelerator pedal, and all that machinery manages the motor torque. That's the power train of a PCC car, the base model San Francisco still uses on Market Street. The controller has speed and pedal position as inputs, so, like an automatic transmission, it's following what the power train is doing. Stomping on the pedal will give you normal full acceleration, and will not hurt the machinery. So this really is an automatic.

Modern electric cars with AC motors have a similar function, created with electronic controls. Older golf carts demonstrate how electric drive lurches without some smarts in the controller.

So that's what the electric motor equivalent of a "shifter" really does.

(I'm really bored this week. Hence these long posts. I'm waiting for a open source project to fix something they broke in a new release, and my main project is stalled on that. They're in denial at the moment.)

[1] https://www.autoblog.com/news/breaking-tesla-has-a-solution-...

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRWMaykHDzg

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqnsNhDVefs


Wow, that was really interesting information that I didn’t know! Thank you for the enlightenment.


I can't tell what is meant by a "synthetic manual transmission"? They're writing about it in the same sentence as "fake engine noises" but I assume they mean something more than "gear stick that changes current sound track"?

The "obvious" option (short of putting a real manual gear box in the drive train?) is it just changes the mapping of accelerator position to acceleration rate so in first gear you accelerate faster than in fifth with the accelerator in the same place? maybe with some other silly gimmicks/limiters to force you to "shift" correctly?


Sounds like something between "Fake controls for car heads" and something to match expectations from some people?

The purely electronic way of having gears is to have a controllable configuration of poles on the engine, for lower gears you have less poles, for more gears you have more poles. But I think you could do something like 2 or 3 gears tops using this


While I think the motivation described in the article is stupid, some EVs would benefit from at least one additional gear ratio.

I own a 2023 Nissan Leaf, the max RPM of the motor, and the gearing chosen by the manufacturer limit the top speed (to ~90mph). While it's pretty high, it would occasionally be useful to have a higher speed for momentary maneuvering.


Don't know why it's needed I mean im perfectly hapy with the way my kia eniro drives with just one foot and self drives on the motorway.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: