Paddle shifters are superior to stick shifters in every single conceivable way. Bite me

Paddle shifters are superior to stick shifters in every single conceivable way. Bite me.

Oh shit

unless you drive a literal race car paddle shifters are for faggots

You might want to explain your autistic claim

>watching a movie
>car chase scene happening
>camera zooms in on the steering wheel
>see fingers move a bit and revs drop
how exciting

>if you're not fiddling and fumbling around with an erected stick, you're literally gay

I'm not going to bite you. i wish the Viper came with them optional for both better sales and the ability to bite super cars harder.

>dat grip

What about the shift lag?

Why did you reply to obvious bait?

It's not bait. Given current technology, there's literally no reason to buy a new car with a manual transmission. They have a take rate of less than 5% and are on their way out for a reason. But I'd still take a manual over an auto on most cars three years old or older.

I replied cause i agree with OP. all cars should be auto-only or auto with optional manual.

If you are autistic enough to purposely forego the objectively more fun experience of stick shift so you can accelerate slightly faster you should kill yourself. If your excuse is that you commute in traffic and hate shifting you should also kill yourself because your life is shit.

Paddle shifters /are/ better than manual, you get to be more efficient and have better acceleration with paddles rather than manual with a much slimmer chances of error.

>objectively more fun
>objectively more (subjective perspective)
You're legitimately retarded.

t. '02 Hyundai Elantra driver

only an autist would genuinely try to argue that paddle shifters are more fun than stick shift. kill you're self.

no they´re not.

>this manual 1996 Ford Ranger is more fun than that 911 GT3 PDK because manual

holy shit this autistic strawman

yeah that's totally what I meant good job.

Fun is a subjective quality. Have fun with your suboptimal transmission.

>suboptimal
you are autistic

You're an autist for not coming up with a counterpoint, faggot. That other user destroyed you.

Shifts are objectively better at performance and results than manual, that's a fact. Having fun in either is subjective. Learn the difference, you retard.

Paddle shifters*

Nice ad hominem. Really convincing. You seem to genuinely believe that name-calling is a legitimate way to argue your case. Perhaps you're a bit frustrated that "muh fun" is your only argument for choosing a manual transmission?

caring about slight improvement in acceleration enough to give up stick shift is something only an autist would do.

I was told that Veeky Forums use to argue (a lot) during the old days about manual vs auto and i didn't really think they were autistic enough but looking where this thread is going i believe it.

>Perhaps you're a bit frustrated that "muh fun" is your only argument for choosing a manual transmission?

no, it would seem that you're the one frustrated with this fact. and you know I'm right.

>dick shift fag's only argument is AUTISM AUTISM AUTOMATICS ARE AUTISTIC

Kek

automatics aren't autistic, the people who choose them on street cars for "performance" are.

Do you understand the difference between subjectivity and objectivity? I don't think you do.

I just know stick shift is objectively more fun than paddle shifting.

>objectively more fun

>objectively

ob·jec·tive·ly
əbˈjektivlē,äbˈjektivlē/
adverb
in a way that is not influenced by personal feelings or opinions.

Do I need to spoonfeed you any more, or do you get it now?

is this supposed to be a counter argument? you are just proving me right.

It is only your personal opinion that manual transmissions are more fun than automatic transmissions. It is only my personal opinion that both are equally fun, and a good automatic can be much more fun than a sloppy manual with long throws. "Fun" is a subjective characteristic.

But what if you need to shift from 1st to 3rd, or from 2nd to 5th?

With paddle shifters you can only move up one at a time.

>It is only my personal opinion that both are equally fun, and a good automatic can be much more fun than a sloppy manual with long throws.
lmao what a faggot

Cost, Check mate fgt.
Inb4 cost isn't a consideration. There is a reason Ferrari are built differently than a mustang.

Non existent unless its an econobox with a DCT
>looking at you Ford

>when you're autistic and would do this

Another spicy ad hominem from an eloquent and persuasive debater

>I'm a poorfag and I'm proud

Nope, since a four speed torque converter automatic co trolled with a set of shift paddles is a lot worse than a modern four-year or five speed manual. You also lack vehicle controland engagement.

For a consumer product, flappy paddles connected to a good auto are fine. However, if you're going racing, you want either a sequential dogbox operated by a stick, or an electrohydraulic manual operated by paddles.

Naw man, the Viper deserves an H-pattern dogbox, for some extra manpoints.

>there's literally no reason to buy a new car with a manual transmission.
CVT's exist, manuals have better resale (especially in an automated future), manuals won't age conceptually (a modern autobox will), and finally, you can still upset a gearbox' control unit by downshifting if it expects an upshift. Hell, even modern VAG stuff, touted to be the best in the industry, doesn't fix that. If you want consistency, get a manual. If you want fun, get a manual.

>They have a take rate of less than 5%
Burgerland =/= the world

Paddle shifters are completely dependant on the gearbox they're connected to. Old Tiptronic units for example are utter shit. Ever played with the six speed Volvo autobox? Utterly unresponsive.

Even with modern units, there are still chances of error, and they're about as big as with a trained manual user.

I wouldn't call having a separate operating system that actively saps power efficient.

What is a design consideration?
Cost is one.

1. You never need to
2. You pull the paddle two or three times instead of 1

Modern automatic transmissions pretty much universally have better fuel economy than manual-equipped versions of the same car, unless we're talking about some cancerous 1990s holdover 4 speed slushbox.

Funny. I've compared a few car makers mis-sized sedans:
>Volvo: No difference in MPG between the 6spd manual and 8spd auto
>Alfa: same thing, except for the QV
>Mercedes: Guess which C180 is more fuel efficient, the 6spd manual or 9spd auto? Yup, the manual. Same goes for the C200.
>Audi: 1.4TFSI uses 0.1l/100km more in 7spd auto than it does in 6spd manual. The 2.0 TDI uses 0.2 more in auto form.

Seeing a trend here? All else being equal, a manual will be more fuel efficient than a modern automatic.

>ford is dime a dozen, dirt cheap beater, you don´t have to worry about few dents and scratches
>gt3 is insanely expensive and you propably won´t afford to keep it running for a significant amount of time
>ford has clutch gt3 does not
>you can beat the ford around on narrow twisties, practise drifting and doing whatever you want. If you bump into something no big deal
>gt3 you´d be too scared of financial reprecussions to take it anywhere near its limit
>you can go round the track as fast as possible in ford without worrying about money, If brakes melt you go to junkyard and get new ones
>gt3 will bankrupt you after a few fast laps

Being able to buy a car =! being able to afford it.
If I was given a choice of these two based on my income it´d be ford all day erry day. Gt3 would be simply too expensive to be anything other than a garage queen and status symbol

by that logic an automatic 96 ford ranger is more fun than a manual 911

Where, exactly, do you think you are dipshit?

Most morons believe that modern automatics are more efficient because on many vehicles the auto is mated to an engine with cylinder deactivation.

Manual is better yo.

>abstract example for an argument relating to transmissions
>poorfag storms in with his teenage revelations about budgeting and muh income stories
Who gives a shit what you personally can or cannot afford?

>faster shifts
>manual shifting when you want to have fun
>no clutch
>automatic mode for when you just want to relax

best of both worlds

ikr? That's what makes it so great!

>Can't cut clutch doing skidz.
>Can't force the car to upshift on ice and snow.
>Can't preload the torque converter for launching.

It has none of the things I like in either tranny.

>Can't cut clutch doing skidz.
dont need to, you can still slide fine without touching the clutch
>Can't force the car to upshift on ice and snow.
yes you can
>Can't preload the torque converter for launching.
yes you can

>but what if you need to grenade or lug the shit out of your engine

All these autotragic faggots who are so insecure about their own sexuality that they think about men's penises while driving a manual car

Sure thing, friendo.

How am I supposed to preload a torque converter if there isn't one?
And what functional auto tranny holds itself in a higher gear the low side the $80k?

Paddle shifters are boring as fuck vs manual but fun for daily commutes. I drive a Mazda3 and always use paddles when going to work. But my 90s Civic shitbox is more fun. Nothing more fun than slam-shifting a Honda out of a turn

Here's my 2c

Most posters on Veeky Forums have no experiance with 500+whp cars. Much less 750+whp cars. If you had then you would understand why auto can be better.

Better drag times, stronger drivelines, when you acceleration is that intense you really don't want to be fucking around with a stick. Often times slamming gears will chirp tires. In a 750-1000hp street cat that's bad fucking news.

Just as an example the mustang in that picture likes to blow up oil pump gears when you have a high hp standard with a SC.

>hurr can't drive
>muh tradition

Stick has its place, but it certainly isn't on high power muscle cars, supercars, luxury cars, or many other uses.

>performance car
>any kind of automatic that isn't a clutch-less PDK straight from Stuffenwatzent

"""Fun"""

kys