Manual VS Auto

Your 'muritard is showing.

Accept the future of autonomous electric safetyboxes while you're at it.

motorcycle fags always knew this

Not really DCT bikes are still viewed as auto
Quickshifters are manual

I like torque converters
fite me

While a computer can switch gears faster, the difference is negligible, especially when compared to driver enjoyment/involvement. The car is still moving forward, there is just a fraction of a second loss in acceleration. People act like the car is stopped completely, making computer control insanely faster, which is not the case at all.

This is true. Like stated ANY manual will beat ANY auto on the track and where ever else it matters. They don;t set quicker lap times and they don't even come close to prove what they state on paper. the experience alone makes up 10000 fold what the microseconds on the track supposedly make up.

Manual everything > Autotragic

clutchless shifting is also a thing

Well I'm not denying that the auto (with certain cars in mind, not just any old POS auto) will be marginally faster in the hands of the same driver. I'm just saying the difference is negligible and in the hands of different drivers, the manual version could easily set a faster time.

Also, since most people on Veeky Forums aren't out there setting lap times, personal enjoyment is the most important factor. So manual is best, still.

>Well I'm not denying that the auto () will be marginally faster in the hands of the same driver.
>I'm just saying the difference is negligible and in the hands of different drivers, the manual version could easily set a faster time.

........wat????

This so much.

Meaning one driver doing two laps in the same car, one with a standard gearbox and the other with the fancy auto paddle shifters set up, vs two drivers driving those same cars.

real manual is more fun, whats faster really doesnt matter unless your trying to make a perfect racecar.

Paddle shifters are not real shifting. It's a fucking button and a computer does it for you

Oh my bad. I've seen several of those laps. The fully Automatic was the slowest, then the manual/manual, and then the flappy paddle manual.

So Auto is slow, then the manual clutching, and then the flappy paddle manual. But the difference between the manual clutching (3 pedals) and the flappy paddle manual was a LOT smaller than between the fully Auto and between the two Manuals

>All of this samefagging

>First and foremost, the terms "Automatic" and "Manual" refer to the CLUTCHING and not the SHIFTING.
No. A manual has both manual clutch operation and manual gear selection.

>but they are still flappy paddle MANUAL.
No, they are automatic. No manual clutch, therefore, not a manual.

>Computer steered CLUTCHING is obviously quicker
True. Problem is, if you want to change gears quickly, you don't use a clutch at all.

>Porsche's and Ferrari's can switch gears in 1/10 of a second which is a lot quicker than you could ever do.
Nope. I own a vehicle with a sequential dogbox, which is instant-shift.

>BUT manual shifting and clutching is also outdated
Explain why Formula 1 still uses manual clutches and manual shifts then. Those instant-shift gearboxes are faster than all of those roadgoing DCT's or TC automatics.

>CVT is useless on a track even though it's best on paper.
Early tests with CVT's have already proven them. They instantly got banned.

t. Euroshit who can't afford a 0.9L 1 cylinder cuckmobile with a car note that costs less than the ass-raping insurance premium they'll have to pay.

Stay on the bus where you belong.

Automatic = auto clutch or auto shift
Manual = manual clutch and manual shift

Anything else is secondary.

>ANY manual will beat ANY auto on the track and where ever else it matters.
Not really. A modern 10-speed torque convertor auto will beat the snot out of a 6 speed H-gate manual, even if you keep it in full automatic mode.

How come they banned CVT? And what motorsport is this?

I know all muh V8 crowd won't like a CVT for their personal car but from an efficiency standpoint and eventually a power standpoint they will be the best.

Because it's an unfair advantage. Williams used it in their FW15C, which also featured traction control, ABS and active suspension (in 1993!). The FIA decided that this shit was getting out of hand, banned all of this nonsense, and demanded that cars should have a gearbox with 4 to 7 ratios, thus banning the CVT. They're similarly banned in most other FIA racing categories iirc. It's a good thing, because F1 would sound even more boring with CVT's.

>eventually a power standpoint they will be the best.
DAF has the CVT prototype used in that exact F1 car. The power isn't a problem anymore, it could take a 1990's F1 engine without major issues.

As I am sure you know F1 tech always trickles down to consumers.

Imagine how good the CVTs of todays supercars could be if the FIA never banned these wonder transmissions!

The problem isn't power, the problem is reliability. This is a form of F1 tech that will never fully mature to the consumer level unless we fix the belts/chains.

Whether you like to face it or not the future is CVT's, and for that reason I wish I would have gotten a stick!

No.

>not an argument

I personally want CVTs to be developed so they are the first pick of transmission.

They are better in everyway with no gearing, whats not to love?

Yeah people like to shift manually but having an electric car I don't give a shit about shifting, contstant power is so much better.

Once a CVT hypercar comes out that whips everything else, sort of like the Rimac the faster people will take it seriously.

>whats not to love?
Their NVH values and reliability.

and the positives

>Always in the best power band
>No gear change power loss gap
>better mpg

win win win

No, it refers to what the transmission is.
Automatic and manual transmissions are very different from one another. The quickest way to identify it is that if it has a valve body, it's automatic.

You can have manually shifted automatics and automatically shifted manuals but the difference is the transmission itself.

You don't know shit about cars.

>Always in the best power band
Always making one RPM, always droning on.

>No gear change power loss gap
Sequential dogboxes say hi.

>better mpg
If you think a series of belts and chains can get better efficiency than gears: think again.

>The quickest way to identify it is that if it has a valve body, it's automatic.
You don't know shit about cars. A DCT doesn't have a traditional valvebody as found on a torque convertor automatic, yet a DCT is obviously an automatic transmission since it does not have a manual clutch.

>You can have manually shifted automatics
Those are still automatics because they don't have a manual clutch.

>automatically shifted manuals
Those are still automatics because they don't have a manual gear selection.

CVT's are like communism: great in theory but they both suck in the real world. The same arguments apply:
>But that's not real communism!
Is the same fallacy as
>But that's not a perfect CVT!

>CVT's are like communism: great in theory but they both suck in the real world.

Tell that to my volt which gets 87mpg on a 114 mile journey

An e-CVT isn't a real CVT.

The CVT on the engine I was talking about

It's not a mechanical CVT, is it? Therefore, not a real CVT.

>Half the people in this thread
Can't believe the indoctrination on you 'muritards holy fuck.

What's it like to love with the Jewish puppet master's arm so far up your arseholes you're not even capable of forming complete sentences?

Manual for fun and great lap times, flappy paddle for fun and great lap times, automatic for heavy traffic.

>flappy paddles
Noone but those who get their car knowledge and opinions exclusively from Top Gear use the term. Good going, faggot.

No DCT under 100k is good ever. If you can't double clutch and heel toe you are soy.

>all the added price and complexity of a dct for 0. 2 seconds off your lap times
Lmao. You see better results from dropping 10kgs.