Terminology issue: Manual vs. "Automatic" these days

[MR2 Fan]

I've seen a lot of conversations in other places debating the idea of manual vs automatics, when they're really referring to, most of the time, clutchless manual/sequential manual with paddle shifts.

I know the definition is kind of blurred as there are some car companies offering shift paddles but still shift slower than someone with a clutch and 6-spd.

Should we be referring to these real ones, that shift faster than a traditional manual as "automatics". Does it depend on whether they have an automatic mode? I mean, you can't call a car with paddle shifts that you HAVE to use, an automatic.

Thoughts?

[The359]

I think cars with torque converters fall under automatic.

Dual-clutch cars or other various cars that have a clutch but electronically controlled I tend to refer to as semi-automatic.

But you're right, there is a huge difference in the paddle shift capability of a Chevy Malibu and the paddle shifters in a Nissan GT-R.

[Freude am Fahren]

"Manual" is a stick shift, end of story on that side, as far as I'm concerned. I don't think you can buy a car less than 10 years old that has manual only automated transmission (like early sequentials, or race cars), that point is kinda moot.

"Automatic" is a bit blurrier. I've seen journalists refer to PDK, DSG, etc. as auto's. I don't mind it on second reference, but if something says off the bat, a car has an "automatic" I assume torque converter (and planetary gears?).

For those, I like Semi-Automatic, or in most cases, "dual-clutch" will be appropriate. I dno't think there are many single clutch semi-auto's out there.

[novicius]

I prefer using the Common Man's definition: "D" for Drive = Automatic, period. :D

GM/Ford's new 10-speed slushbox is going to be used in the "track ready" 2017 Camaro ZL1. Will be interesting to see if it can take the heat.


Additional highlights (http://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2016/may/0511-10speed-gm.html):


Creative packaging – The 10-speed is approximately the same size as the six- and eight-speed transmissions, minimizing changes to vehicle interfaces.



Quicker shifts than a dual-clutch transmission – Testing has shown faster upshift times than the Porsche PDK dual-clutch transmission. In fact, the 1-2 upshift is 36-percent quicker than the PDK, while the 2-3 and 3-4 upshifts are 27-percent and 26-percent quicker, respectively.



Reduced spin losses – Thanks to only two non-applied clutches – the same number as the eight-speed – as well as other design features, the 10-speed automatic has lower friction that contributes to greater fuel efficiency over GM’s six- and eight-speed automatics. New ultra-low viscosity transmission fluid also reduces friction, while an internal thermal bypass allows the transmission to warm up faster – attributes that enhance fuel efficiency.



GM-developed controller – It is the latest transmission to use an all-new, GM-developed control system, with performance calibrations tailored specifically for different vehicles.

[thesameguy]

More gears and less slipping should result in a dramatic reduction of heat.

[Yw-slayer]

Let me have a go.

A manual gearbox is one where there is:

(1) A full mechanical and physical link (i.e. no non-mechanical/physical link can exist in the middle) at every stage between the gearstick and the gearbox; AND
(2) The user needs to physically and manually operate a clutch with a biting point in order to change gears.

Now it's 4:17am and I need to leave the office, so you guys have fun poking holes in this one.

[thesameguy]

#2 I find interesting.

In my head, I feel that "manual" is one where I need to change the gears, and "automatic" is one where I don't. So, a PDK is an automatic because if I don't, it will. But a 727 with a manual valve body is a manual because I must. A Saab Sensonic is a manual gearbox with an automatic clutch, but it's still a manual because it can't change the gears by itself. Personally, I don't care how it works or what's going on - if I gotta move a lever to get another gear it's a manual, if I don't it's an automatic. You know, because one is manually done, the other automatically done. The clutch, clutches, torque converter, hydraulics, gears, chain or band is just a technicality... the gear changes are the defining characteristic.

[Yw-slayer]

But in a normal PRND you still need to move the lever to get into another gear. :p

[speedpimp]

To me if it has a clutch then it's a stick. I've driven an automated manual in a few trucks, not really a fan, but in a car I won't pass judgement until I drive one.

[Yw-slayer]

But there are automatic cars with an automated clutch. Hence why I insisted on (2) above. #lawyerpowah

https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/does-an-automatic-transmission-have-a-clutch

That's why I think it's easier to try and define a manual gearbox as I did above. Everything else is "not a manual gearbox".

[Rare White Ape]

What if it's a semi-auto like Formula 1 cars had back in the early 90s - the first generation flappy-paddles. None of the assists of today, just a button connected to a few solenoids at the gearbox, and perhaps a millisecond-long engine cut-out. They used to change gears in the blink of an eye, which is an age compared to the full electronic gearboxes they have now. They're probably very close to what MotoGP used before they went with seamless shift gearboxes only a few years ago, although MotoGP still uses a linkage between the gear lever the the actual gearbox.

The main philosophical difference, I guess, is whether the car has the ability to override your inputs (or lack of inputs) and do the gear changes by itself. Old F1 semi-autos had no override feature, but it wouldn't be too hard for someone to install, say, a Raspberry Pi in between the steering wheel buttons and the solenoids which did the actual shifting, and write some software which handles all of the gear changes. On the flipside, a conventional automatic gearbox with a small +/- lever tacked-on is definitely NOT doing any manual shifting, no matter how much it is trying to masquerade as one.

Probably the closest you can get, as a member of the general public, in terms of a device which blurs the lines between manual and auto, is a motorcycle with a quickshifter. It's essentially a proper manual 'box with a sensor that cuts engine power if the gear lever is moved. You can hold the throttle wide open and not use a clutch, simply change up by flicking your foot upwards. I mean, you can buy them and install them on virtually any motorcycle for a few hundred bucks.

[TheBenior]

I prefer using the Common Man's definition: "D" for Drive = Automatic, period. :D
Agreed.

[Yw-slayer]

My non lawyer friends said

3 v 2 pedals
Can stall v Can't stall

Makes sense. I earlier thought there were cars with hand operated clutches but if there aren't then 3 v 2 works. Stalling v not stalling also works in any case.

[neanderthal]

To me a manual is one where the clutch and gearshift have to be done, ... manually.

An automated manual would be those that can change gears by themselves but their construction closely resembles a manual. PDKs, DCTs etc

An automatic is the CVTs and planetary geared transmissions etc

[IMOA]

Speaking from an industry perspective it's if it changes gears automatically it's and Automatic (so this includes dual clutch) and if you have to waggle a stick about it's Manual. Whether or not a clutch exists is irrelevant and at least in the car world there's no such thing as an automated manual any more. This offends my mechanical perspective as I see dual clutch as distinct from torque converter automatics but I gave up on that argument about 8 years ago.

[Yw-slayer]

Speaking from an industry perspective it's if it changes gears automatically it's and Automatic (so this includes dual clutch) and if you have to waggle a stick about it's Manual. Whether or not a clutch exists is irrelevant and at least in the car world there's no such thing as an automated manual any more. This offends my mechanical perspective as I see dual clutch as distinct from torque converter automatics but I gave up on that argument about 8 years ago.

PRND involves waggling a stick around. :p

[thesameguy]

I think Shakespeare said it best... :p

[21Kid]

Automatic
Semi-Automatic
Manual

[dodint]

So, would my 6 be the first two? I have flappy paddles but no clutch pedal.

[21Kid]

IMO, it depends on how it acts.

My BMW was an auto, unless I wanted to use the paddles. So, I'd consider it an auto.
If you have to use the paddles, I would think it's semi. Because you have do something to shift.

[thesameguy]

Cue YW....

[Yw-slayer]

Nah it's ok, I'm good.

[MR2 Fan]

Cop: Why were you speeding?
Driver: Testing my Semi-Automatic
Cop: *draws gun* GET OUT OF THE CAR NOW!!

[samoht]

Is this the right room for an argument ?

For me, what I care about is that the ratio between engine speed and wheel speed is under the explicit control of the driver.
So a manual counts, because it's fixed until the driver puts the clutch in and chooses a different ratio.
A DSG counts, assuming it has a 'manual' mode where it stays in the gear the driver picks. Ok, on initial getaway it slips the clutch for you, but once moving it can be directly controlled.
A normal auto fails on two counts, not only does it change gear automatically but the torque converter also allows for engine and wheels to 'float' relative to each other, unless kept locked up.

Basically I like tackling a sinuous road and easing the throttle on and off to trim the car's line, which only works properly if the ratio is fixed (including under deceleration, ie engine braking).

[SportWagon]

My non lawyer friends said

3 v 2 pedals
Can stall v Can't stall

Makes sense. I earlier thought there were cars with hand operated clutches but if there aren't then 3 v 2 works. Stalling v not stalling also works in any case.If the road conditions are wet, turning traction control off might help reduce the probability of stalling. If the traction control system was designed assuming an automatic transmission.

[Yw-slayer]

But it's not possible to stall an auto engine surely, even with TCS on? Admittedly I've never tried.

[thesameguy]

I'm not immediately sure how you could stall any engine with TCS.

[SportWagon]

With a clutch, if the TCS works by cutting power to the engine when wheel slippage is detected, if the TCS detects a little slippage as the clutch is first being engaged (e.g. because of a wet road), it can cut the power below what is needed to finish engaging the clutch without stalling. (Because the TCS design is assuming an automatic tranmission, i.e. torque converter).

[thesameguy]

Are you talking about a car that has been transmission swapped? If a totally factory car has TCS, whatever module controls TCS is certainly going to be aware of what type of transmission is equipped. Nobody would send a car out into the world programmed for incorrect parts.

Except maybe Fiat, because that seems like something they would do. :p

[SportWagon]

The transmission has not been swapped.

The basic assumption of the overall TCS design is presumably an automatic transmission (no clutch).

Perhaps the TCS does use different parameters for a known manual transmission/clutch, but its parameters seem to be such that I find it easier to avoid stalling when attempting to start moving in the wet by turning that TCS off.

[Yw-slayer]

Isn't the point that a car with an "auto" transmission can't be stalled, TCS or not?

[thesameguy]

Perhaps the TCS does use different parameters for a known manual transmission/clutch, but its parameters seem to be such that I find it easier to avoid stalling when attempting to start moving in the wet by turning that TCS off.

It's likely psychological - TCS kicks in and you try to manage throttle and clutch and end up fighting each other. You gotta learn to trust it and forget about managing the clutch. I had a devil of a time with TCS in my CTS-V - 400hp, RWD, crappy run-flats, and wet roads made even surface street driving feel very slippery. Once I learned to drive normally and let TCS do what it had to do, things went much better. Cars definitely never hit showrooms with "almost right" software - they have been coded to specific equipment and thoroughly tested accordingly. With the exception of maybe very early systems (eg, Mercedes) they work very well if you let them. It's not some half-assed afterthought.