No Standard Transmissions

[bgott]

Those automatics in heavy duty applications shift harder than a competent driver with a stick. I think they go with the auto to make it easier to find drivers. They're trying to dummy proof everything these days. I've also read where large fleets get better mileage from automatics, drivers on sticks don't upshift early enough for the best economy.

 

[Bird]

Quite an interesting thread./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif Lots of personal opinions, huh?/w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

Gear Vendors Over/Under Drive? Expensive, but I love it. Had it on my '89 Chev. 454.

Auto Volume on the radio? I knew some cars had it now, but none of mine. However, my '85 Honda Aspencade had it; worked great.

Cruise control going to max throttle? The only time I've ever seen that was on the first car my dad ever bought with a cruise control; a Buick. He'd never had cruise control so the first time I visited after he bought that Buick, he asked me if there was something wrong with it, or was he doing something wrong./w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif Needless to say, after I drove it, it went back to the dealer to be fixed.

 

[RobS]

I think you've hit the nail on the head Patrick, there are apps where the auto is optimal, others where the stick is the best and some where either will work. I tend to enjoy the driving aspect whether I'm commuting to work or dragging our camper around the country on vacation. It's all part of the journey to me and shifting my own gears allows me more enjoyment along that journey. Again, personal preference.

Regarding other's comments: The seriously heavy vehicles are still sticks 'cause there aren't autos that can handle them yet. A tour bus isn't all that heavy (compared to a triaxle dump truck) and it's weight is reasonably constant. Same with the big camper buses. Most commmercial trucks vary substantially between empty and loaded, after all that's the whole point of a truck meant for hauling a load. An auto trans doesn't have the range to support the broad spectrum of loads.

School buses, light delivery vehicles and such are all moving to autos as the weight range is narrower and the skill base of the driver pool is declining.

BTW, my most preferred mode of road transportation has a two range, 10 speed transmission for 20 total combinations. It's my very manually shifted bicycle /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

 

[patrickg]

"BTW, my most preferred mode of road transportation has a two range, 10
speed transmission for 20 total combinations. It's my very manually
shifted bicycle"

Say Rob, is that an index shifter front and back or "old fashioned" analog derailers all the way round? <<<Insert appropriate emoticons here>>>

My wife has a bike with auto tranny. It has weights on the rear wheel spokes that are forced out by centrifugal force to effect shifting. It flies in the face of conventional wisdom/practice of the "real" cyclists who like to turn a fairly constant (and pretty high) pedal RPM (cadence) shifting up and down to maintain the cadence (more or less). I have had it out for a few limited trials in our old neighborhood where there were some fairly serious hills. It works well within its limited range of speeds. As yoi approach a hill yo keep pedaling just not pressing too hard on the pedals and it downshifts. Then you can "go fot it" till the hill steepens and you want/need a downshift where yo again pedal lightly and as the rear wheel speed slows to the ehift point it shifts down and then you can pedal away. Accellerating from a stop is not too bad. You just ride and it keeps shifting up. Yes, there are folks who have trouble with derailers and never "get it" so I guess an auto tranny bike beats walking. I wouldn't want one personally if it were free.

Her automatic tranny bike basically shifts based on rear wheel RPM. I would have tried something like crank torque but not have shifted to achieve constant torque. Possibly a curve or adjustable slope, so the shift point torque would be adjustable and have different weighting for each gear and ended up with something like a constant effort or a close match to the constant crank RPM style the "real" cyclists use. Since HP is torque times RPM, constant torque at increasing RPM would increase HP required and I haven't got a personal turbo.

Patrick

 

[Egon]

Lordy am I out of date!! When did the 10 cog rear gear set come out and who makes them? What range does the cogset cover?

Egon

 

[RobS]

Egon, the 10 speed cogs are part of the Campagnolo Gruppo. It's tres-cool with carbon fiber derailer linkage, lots of titanium and carbon brake/shift levers. The chain is a tad narrower than usual though the side plates are the same thickness. I run an 11-21 set on the rear with 53/39 up front.

Allegedly, Shimano has a patent for a 14 speed cogset, but no word on any plans to produce it.

And yes Patrick, it is indexed for both front and rear. Wouldn't have that any other way /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

 

[Egon]

Rob:
I would have trouble cranking thoses gear ratio's unless there was a steep downhill with a strong tailwind.
I kinda like the 22/34 range. Grandpaw gears.

Egon

 

[Bird]

<font color=blue>The seriously heavy vehicles are still sticks 'cause there aren't autos that can handle them yet.</font color=blue>

Well . . ., not quite all. You can certainly buy an 18-wheeler with an automatic transmission, but so far it seems they just don't get the fuel economy of the manual transmissions. The company my brother drives for bought some automatics last year. I don't know much about them, but he said they were supposed to be some new type and get as good or better fuel economy as the manual transmissions, but he tells me so far they use almost twice as much fuel as the manuals.

 

[patrickg]

SISSY! Club spoil good parts, eat live!!!

Thag the Caveman

 

[patrickg]

Index shifting? That is at least semi-automatic!!!

Patrick