Ferrari "gives up" manual trans.

RossD wrote: I agree, mostly. I think all Race Cars are Sports Cars, but not all Sports Cars are Race Cars. Merriam Webster says Sport: 1a) to amuse oneself; 1b) to engage in a sport. Racing is a sport. I will amuse myself with my 4 speed Capri this summer. My Capri is not a race car. < /semantics>

www.merriam-webster.com - Main Entry: sports car a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving

nothing about racing or auto manual transmissions

Ok, I may have taken it a little far, but none the less, the state of the art transmissions have gone away from H-gate manuals. Sports cars tend to follow the state of the art.

I still contend that most of you consider a good marketing excersie a Sports Car, just becuase of some mythical visceral feel.

BTW, the MGA was made to win races. Which it did. Just sayin. The Miata is a retro car that was built to remind people of things past, but do it in a 'better' way, which it does, hands down.

Let me remind you of where this is coming from- I race a 35 year old Alfa against brand new Miatas. I know that I'm irrational (the first step is recognition), but I personally enjoy more the idea of racing an Alfa over a Miata. Does that mean the Alfa is better than the Miata- heck no! Just because YOU think an H-gate is "more pure" than a sequential or a DSG does not make it better- just different.

BTW, if you had an autocross car with a fast shifting sequential box, and needed to use all 3 gears, you would be faster than anyone driving the same car with an H-gate, all other things being equal- take out the shift time- which is no power...

I just find it endlessly amusing how people can romaticize what their car represents, when it lags behind the state of the art. And then when challenged that it's not the ultimate version of that representation, you are ok with that, even though your car is more state of the art than the ultimate version of whatever you think is best.

You all say you want more interaction with your car, more feel, more everything- but shrink away from obvious versions of that- like the T- where you crank the engine by hand, control the throttle, spark advance, and mixture all by yourself, expose yourself to the elemetns, etc. IMHO, using a distributor to advance the spark is much akin to manual trans vs. DSG.

So, who's bringing a T to the challenge?

But, hey, those winmills are far too high tech, right, Sancho?

Eric

alfadriver said: I just find it endlessly amusing how people can romaticize what their car represents, when it lags behind the state of the art. And then when challenged that it's not the ultimate version of that representation, you are ok with that, even though your car is more state of the art than the ultimate version of whatever you think is best.

I'm not sure i agree with how you're using "State of the art."

I have been driving since 1959. In all that time with numerous cars, trucks, and motorcycles I have never owned an automatic transmission vehicle. I learned to "heel -toe", double clutch, and all the other physical gyrations involved in driving a manual transmission both on the street and on the race track.

I never even gave a thought to buying an automatic transmission vehicle. But now that I am retired and do most of my driving in stop and go city traffic, the idea of one of the "DSG" type of transmissions is appealing to me.

Let me rephrase that- what is your ulitmate definition of a sports car, and what is it about that definition represents what are key characteristics of that sports car?

And state examples- what cars do you think are sports cars and why.

Cadillac powered BMWs are sports cars, they have automatics.

Cadillac powered Beetles are sports cars, they have automatics.

Chevrolet powered Beetles modified to look like deuces are sports cars, they have automatics...

REAL sports cars hve automatics!

alfadriver wrote: Let me rephrase that- what is your ulitmate definition of a sports car, and what is it about that definition represents what are key characteristics of that sports car? And state examples- what cars do you think are sports cars and why.

I don't think that there are key characteristics of a sports car that have to be fulfilled.

But that said, MY definition of one is a small 2 seater that's fun to drive.

I don't think my Celica for an example, was born a sports car, but i've done my damndest to make it one.

Quintessential sports cars? AW11, Miata, etc etc etc. Convertibles a +1 but not necessary.

Something a "sportsman" could buy and enjoy on a backroad a track day, or just driving in general. $1million entry fees need not apply here.

alfadriver wrote: BTW, if you had an autocross car with a fast shifting sequential box, and needed to use all 3 gears, you would be faster than anyone driving the same car with an H-gate, all other things being equal- take out the shift time- which is no power...

If I was racing competitively and professionally, I would want whatever I could afford that got me around the track the fastest and most reliable way. Nostalgia could take a hike. No problem there. Is anybody arguing that point? I don't think so.

alfadriver wrote: You all say you want more interaction with your car, more feel, more everything- but shrink away from obvious versions of that- like the T- where you crank the engine by hand, control the throttle, spark advance, and mixture all by yourself, expose yourself to the elemetns, etc. IMHO, using a distributor to advance the spark is much akin to manual trans vs. DSG. So, who's bringing a T to the challenge? But, hey, those winmills are far too high tech, right, Sancho?

So what you're saying is that if I enjoy playing video games on my Mac, I must also enjoy being able to write my own COBOL and make 4-bit graphics for my old Apple IIe? Or if I'm a gun enthusiast, I must also enjoy reloading my own shells?

Are you seriously saying that you cannot see a philosophical difference between manual controls that increase enjoyment of driving (manual transmissions) and those that decrease the enjoyment (manual spark advance, hand crank starters)?

A manual transmission has a direct effect on the speed and control of the car. Minute details like spark advance, mixture, etc. do not, except to interfere with the forward motion when you screw it up. Surely you can see the difference between managing a smooth manual brake/downshift/turn/accel sequence for pleasure and being forced to micromanage a Model T that involves all manner of additional controls, none of which have any great effect beyond simply making sure the engine keeps chugging...?

If you are skilled and enjoy driving a manual transmission, the sweeping dance of gas, brake, clutch, shift lever, and steering wheel is a pure joy, completely outside of whether it is faster or slower in decimal seconds.

Of course the same could be said of manual spark advance, mixture, etc. To a fan of antiques, I'm sure that nursing something primitive from the 20s around has its own special joy as well.

BUT I will wager that the hard core antique-lovers group is far smaller than the group that enjoys driving a traditional manual in a (relatively) modern car. Denying that there is an order of magnitude difference between the two makes me suspect you're just being contrarian.

93celicaGT2 wrote: But that said, MY definition of one is a small 2 seater that's fun to drive.

What makes it fun to drive?

(on a side, if changing your own gears is so fun, why isn't chaning the spark timing fun, too? or mixture? Or hand pumping a fuel pump? Or hand pumping the oil?)

E-

alfadriver wrote: (on a side, if changing your own gears is so fun, why isn't chaning the spark timing fun, too? or mixture? Or hand pumping a fuel pump? Or hand pumping the oil?)

The difference between a skilled dance of fluid motion and strict attention to tedious minutae.

Driving a manual transmission is minimal effort and has a huge effect on the speed and smoothness of progress. It becomes fluid like playing a musical instrument, say a nice grand piano.

Handling spark, mixture, controls, etc by hand takes a huge amount of care, effort, and attention but it has minimal effect on the progress. It'd be akin to trying to play a piece of music when you have to keep stopping to pump the organ bellows yourself and adjust the length of the runner pipes for proper pitch.

The minute details are necessary but micromanaging them by hand interferes with the immediacy and fluidity of the dance, and they rarely have much big effect.

You can't see that difference?

If any of you DSG haters stumble onto one that bolts onto a six cyl vw, sell it to me instead of throwing it into a lake. I'll make good use of it.

I've had so many clutch/syncro/dog tooth problems that I'd trade all of that for an auto anything that just 'works.' Extra effort in shifting is great until you realize it's holding you back.

alfadriver wrote:

93celicaGT2 wrote: But that said, MY definition of one is a small 2 seater that's fun to drive.

What makes it fun to drive? (on a side, if changing your own gears is so fun, why isn't chaning the spark timing fun, too? or mixture? Or hand pumping a fuel pump? Or hand pumping the oil?) E-

Changing gears is a function WHILE driving. The others, not so much. Changing gears is also not a NECESSITY for everyone. I left the definition extremely open ended for that reason, because there IS no hard-fast definition of a sport car, and anyone that thinks they can make one is crazy.

I like feeling involved while driving. I hate wrenching. That's not fun.

So the ideal sports car would have a fully automatic trans. F1 used to almost have these until they changed the rules to mandate that a shift must occur within a certain time of clicking the paddle. and they only used the paddles due to the rules in place. They would have lost them years ago if the rules allowed them. And the ideal sports car would have a full complement of driving aids. ABS, traction and stability control. So you would pretty much be responsible for hitting your brake markers and turning the car. You can mash the brakes or gas as hard as you want and let computers and engineers who programed them keep you from any tire slipping and they will keep the engine in the powerband for maximum thrust. Me, I would rather drive a car that allows my skills to shine or lack of skills to be apparent. There is something appealing about winning because I was better that day vs winning because I downloaded the better maps into my ECU. Maybe that is why I would rather race something like a Formula Vee vs a Nissan GT-R. Lap times be dammed, I just know that the Formula Vee or Spec Miata guys are having more fun.

Although, I value everyone's opinions, I'm still right .

Duke wrote:

alfadriver wrote: (on a side, if changing your own gears is so fun, why isn't chaning the spark timing fun, too? or mixture? Or hand pumping a fuel pump? Or hand pumping the oil?)

The difference between a skilled dance of fluid motion and strict attention to tedious minutae. Driving a manual transmission is minimal effort and has a huge effect on the speed and smoothness of progress. It becomes fluid like playing a musical instrument, say a nice grand piano. Handling spark, mixture, controls, etc by hand takes a huge amount of care, effort, and attention but it has minimal effect on the progress. It'd be akin to trying to play a piece of music when you have to keep stopping to pump the organ bellows yourself and adjust the length of the runner pipes for proper pitch. The minute details are necessary but micromanaging them by hand interferes with the immediacy and fluidity of the dance, and they rarely have much big effect. You can't see that difference?

It's all relative.

Somewhere in the definition of a sports car, everyone draws their own lines- I personally know people who do prefer the simpler sports cars of the 20s and 30's. As I think I know people who draw the lines at full DSG, paddles, etc etc.

What I don't get is that you all have to draw such a deep line in the sand for just the trans. Can't you see that?

Like your example- knowing some of the organ players here in MI, I'm sure there are some who would jump at the chance of running a full manual pipe organ, and there are others who would rather it be electronic, as they can express themselves better that way.

I'm not saying what kind of trans a sports car MUST have, I'm saying that it doesn't matter, noting that the fastest of the fast had 100% auto shifting tranmissions until the sporting world decided that it was not enough work for the drivers.

What I'm trying to do is point out that many of you have double standards so that you can fit your definition of a sports car, and then shun everything that does not fit it. I have no problem with an auto shifting Ferrari that has all the driving aids any more than I have issues with a '30's era Sculdaria Ferrari 8C2900, which has odd pedals, cable brakes, and friction shocks.

Your line is arbibtrary, don't you see that?

Eric

Paul_VR6 wrote: If any of you DSG haters stumble onto one that bolts onto a six cyl vw, sell it to me instead of throwing it into a lake. I'll make good use of it. I've had so many clutch/syncro/dog tooth problems that I'd trade all of that for an auto anything that just 'works.' Extra effort in shifting is great until you realize it's holding you back.

Lack of DSG doesn't hold you back. I don't know why you are having problems, but in general manual trans are very reliable.

The only time a DSG is a benefit over a manual is during competitive events where your competition has it and you don't. ABS is a greater advantage in lap times then auto gearboxes and F1 cars still go pretty well.

When I autocross my miata, I may save 1/2 second on the one and only shift that I usually need to make on a run. If I am 1/2 second slower then the next guy and auto manual gearboxes become legal, then I gain a 1/2 and my competitor gains 1/2 second and I am no better off. In fact, I lose a good opportunity to make up time if my competition would mess up that shift.

alfadriver wrote: Your line is arbibtrary, don't you see that? Eric

Bingo. It all is. It's all opinion. I'm one of those that prefers a "normal" h-gate shifter, and you can pry that thing out of my cold dead hands.

We all have different opinions and thoughts, and nobody likes their baby called ugly.

Nobody here is right, unless they're applying it only to themselves.

Rusnak_322 wrote:

Paul_VR6 wrote: If any of you DSG haters stumble onto one that bolts onto a six cyl vw, sell it to me instead of throwing it into a lake. I'll make good use of it. I've had so many clutch/syncro/dog tooth problems that I'd trade all of that for an auto anything that just 'works.' Extra effort in shifting is great until you realize it's holding you back.

Lack of DSG doesn't hold you back. I don't know why you are having problems, but in general manual trans are very reliable. The only time a DSG is a benefit over a manual is during competitive events where your competition has it and you don't. ABS is a greater advantage in lap times then auto gearboxes and F1 cars still go pretty well. When I autocross my miata, I may save 1/2 second on the one and only shift that I usually need to make on a run. If I am 1/2 second slower then the next guy and auto manual gearboxes become legal, then I gain a 1/2 and my competitor gains 1/2 second and I am no better off. In fact, I lose a good opportunity to make up time if my competition would mess up that shift.

He's talking from a drag racing perspective i suspect.

A: A depressed clutch

Q: What do you get when your MT car finds out you're considering a car with a DCT/DSG?

Yes, drag racing, but I only make three shifts in 12 seconds.. you have quite a few more to make in a higher speed Auto-X or on a road course, and they're not just one direction and at a very set time/mph. How is having a free foot (that you can hit the brake with) and both hands on the wheel not a good thing?

DSG is for me.. just too much $$!

alfadriver wrote: It's all relative. Somewhere in the definition of a sports car, everyone draws their own lines.

Did I not just say that? I said that there are undoubtedly people for whom the minutae is fun.

alfadriver wrote: What I don't get is that you all have to draw such a deep line in the sand for just the trans. Can't you see that?

And I explained that too. It's all bout amount of effect per unit of effort. Learning to shift a 3-pedal stick manual is not hard, nor does the physical operation require much effort. Yet that small effort has a BIG effect on the dynamics of the driving experience.

Learning the details of when, which way, and how far to adjust the spark timing quadrant on a Model T is much more difficult, and keeping it constantly properly adjusted requires much more effort, than driving a manual transmission. Yet that huge effort has a SMALL effect on the dynamics of the driving experience.

That's a pretty clear difference. I'm sure you see it.

alfadriver wrote: Like your example- knowing some of the organ players here in MI, I'm sure there are some who would jump at the chance of running a full manual pipe organ.

Covered that already.

alfadriver wrote: I'm not saying what kind of trans a sports car MUST have, I'm saying that it doesn't matter, noting that the fastest of the fast had 100% auto shifting tranmissions until the sporting world decided that it was not enough work for the drivers.

And why, pray tell, did the sporting world decide that? Because the driver wasn't involved enough. Coincidence? I think not. Note, also, that I have already said in professional racing nostalgia can be damned, I would want the fastest legal car. I've also said that they enjoyment of the traditional-manual dance is not in the decimal seconds of the stopwatch.

alfadriver wrote: What I'm trying to do is point out that many of you have double standards so that you can fit your definition of a sports car, and then shun everything that does not fit it. Your line is arbibtrary, don't you see that?

And what I'm trying to point out is that it is not nearly as arbitrary as you want to make us think it is.

LOL- you start out by confirming that everyone draws a line of what is a sports car, and then end by saying that YOUR line is the most important line, since it's obviously less arbitrary than all the other lines. Hilarious.

Arbitrary is arbitrary.

You just pretend that it's a big deal to make you feel better about it. It's fun to YOU. That's the point. Your definition may be less fun to some, since it's not enough, or less fun to others, since it's too much.

Why people get all up in arms about a simple H gate is beyond me. It's one of MANY parts of a car that make it a car. YOU (and a lot of others here) put a lot of importance on it. Good for you. But since you keep insisting that the hand controls on a T are too much a PITA to be that great, is it OK for Model T owners to sneer at you like you do to DSG drivers? You can say all you want about what you THINK is the benefit of leaving it auto, but it's still just an opinion.

(oh, and when F1 banned auto shifting trans's, and made them shift with the paddles- late 90's was it? It wasn't about FUN, it was about SPEED)

Hey, like I say, as long as you can feel superior to others, that's all that really matters, doesn't it, since your arbitrary line is so much more important?

E-

Jeebus. Can i vote this topic DOWN?

alfadriver wrote: Arbitrary is arbitrary. You just pretend that it's a big deal to make you feel better about it. It's fun to YOU. That's the point. Your definition may be less fun to some, since it's not enough, or less fun to others, since it's too much. Hey, like I say, as long as you can feel superior to others, that's all that really matters, doesn't it, since your arbitrary line is so much more important? E-

Wow.

You {~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~} My point.

I give up. You can feel superior to me too if you like.

I thought FUN was what sports cars being used as such were all about. That may mean something different to each and every person.