--Bob Whitmire
Certified Neanderthal
On Nov 17, 2013, at 12:37 AM, Andrew Fildes wrote:
> <snip> I was objecting to putting one in a BMW which has as its main selling
> point a rather sporty performance. The Germans, as I said, are reported to
> have been very puzzled why anyone would do anything that robbed it of power
> but found they couldn't sell them viably in the US unless they offered the
> option.
(Olde Faert Alert!) When I took Driver Education back in 1964, my high school
used full-size Dodge sedans with three-speed manual transmission mounted on the
steering column. (Three on the Tree.) I practiced on an old Dodge Dart station
wagon my father had bought on a whim. It had a three-speed manual floor-mounted
transmission. I thought automatics sucked. Revving the engine of an automatic
and pulling the lever into gear to burn rubber off the tires was sooooo much
less enjoyable (and cool) than revving and popping clutch to the same effect.
And on a suitably powered auto, such as say, oh, a 1965 Pontiac GTO, it was
possible to continue the streak of burned rubber all the way into fourth gear,
with only very small gaps where shifting the Hurst four-speed manual
transmission took place. But lest you think it was all about shortening the
life of tires, I would add that I grew up in the southern Appalachian
Mountains, where proper driving, especially at speed, _required_ a ma
nual transmission. There was a time when I actually thought I needed to know
how to heel-and-toe. <g>
Today, alas, no one learns to drive on a stick. All driver ed programs I'm
aware of use automatics. It would be interesting to see a map of the US with
transmission preferences delineated. I suspect that urban areas, especially
those of the Los Angeles variety, would be overwhelmingly automatic, whereas
areas with more topography would show more manual preferences. But that's just
a guess.
After all that, the short answer is this: 'Murkins are, as a rule, right lazy
behind the wheel. Using a cell phone, putting on makeup, reading the newspaper,
eating a bag of burgers and fries from Mickey D's are all accomplished with
much less stress if one does not also have to shift gears all the same time. We
also are not terribly accomplished drivers, as my recent trip to the UK pointed
out. Drivers there are much more disciplined than drivers here. Not sure why,
exactly, but they are. I only encountered a handful of putzes in our motoring
around Scotland, and with one exception, they all were benign. (The one was, as
I signaled and decelerated to make a right turn, a putz in an SUV behind me
picked that exact moment to overtake. If I hadn't caught a glimpse of movement
in the driver's side mirror, Joan and I might still be in hospital. Or worse,
our ashes might already have been spread on the Isle of Skye.)
> I do miss one aspect of a manual. I live in a very hilly area and often do
> slow speed manoeuvring by slipping the clutch and rolling a bit. An auto does
> not allow you to use gravity in this casual manner. Very restricting. Also it
> tends to take off suddenly when doing things like reversing uphill but that
> may be an old Honda quirk. I can't seem to squeeze on just a little power. I
> now also understand how people suddenly launch from a parking space through
> the supermarket window. It's not hard to start of in the wrong gear when you
> only use two of them and if your start program defaults to F1 grid settings,
> you're in strife.
All kidding aside, I concur completely. Slow-speed maneuvering is much more
precise with a manual tranny. One must exercise a lot of caution at very low
speeds with an automatic. Just the other day someone created a new
drive-through at a nearby Dunkin Donuts. I suspect a slip of the foot was
responsible.
--Bob Whitmire
Certified Neanderthal
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|