Tesla Full Self Driving (FSD) info - interesting stuff!

[SilverSolder]

Where I am they now place a distinction on your licence if you didn't learn (or pass the exam) in an manual. In other words, you cannot drive a manual unless qualified.

In the UK, and many other places, if you pass your test in an automatic, you cannot drive a manual car. They are two completely separate classes of licence. People visiting the UK, who try to rent a car, often have hassle, because the rental companies have very few automatics in their fleet.

Seems a bit restrictive?  - after all, many can (and do) learn to drive a manual after taking their test...

[Ed.Kloonk]

Where I am they now place a distinction on your licence if you didn't learn (or pass the exam) in an manual. In other words, you cannot drive a manual unless qualified.

In the UK, and many other places, if you pass your test in an automatic, you cannot drive a manual car. They are two completely separate classes of licence. People visiting the UK, who try to rent a car, often have hassle, because the rental companies have very few automatics in their fleet.

Seems a bit restrictive?  - after all, many can (and do) learn to drive a manual after taking their test...

In that case you have to update the licence conditions. Here, you attain qualifications if you can ride a motorcycle or a operate a heavy vehicle or you can have a conditional licence where you require glasses.

But yes, the drive a manual condition is very discriminatory. We all know that it shouldn't be an issue if the driver is male.

[coppice]

Where I am they now place a distinction on your licence if you didn't learn (or pass the exam) in an manual. In other words, you cannot drive a manual unless qualified.

In the UK, and many other places, if you pass your test in an automatic, you cannot drive a manual car. They are two completely separate classes of licence. People visiting the UK, who try to rent a car, often have hassle, because the rental companies have very few automatics in their fleet.

Seems a bit restrictive?  - after all, many can (and do) learn to drive a manual after taking their test...

Then they have to put "L" plates on the car while learning to drive a manual, and you have to take the driving test again in a manual car. Its just like upgrading to any "higher" kind of licence, like one of the various truck driving licences.

There is a weird thing in the UK licence conditions. You can drive a delivery van with a car licence, but not a large truck. That seems reasonable. However, you can also drive a full sized double decker bus with a car licence, as long as nobody on board pays. If anyone pays anything for their ride you need a "public service vehicle" licence, where you get tested driving actual buses.

[james_s]

Having driven mostly manual cars I'd say having an automatic gearbox would be better. In the end shifting gears manually is just a tedious job.

What you likely mean is that driver's training in the US should be taken more seriously and the bar to pass the theoretical and practical exams should be set higher so the quality of driving skills improves.

No, I mean exactly what I said, learning to shift a manual gearbox should be required. Almost all cars here are automatic, I hate them, absolutely can't stand the feel, I like shifting gears, it feels like *driving*, with an automatic you just kind of aim. I hate that mushy, slushy disconnected feel and the car trying to guess what I want. A manual is especially beneficial in the snow as it offers much more control, and in mountainous areas such as where I live where it offers far superior engine braking when going down a mountain pass. When I got the car I currently have I could only find one with an automatic, so I yanked it out and replaced it with the manual gearbox and associated parts from the car that got wrecked. I'll give up a manual gearbox when I eventually get an EV.

[SiliconWizard]

Over here, automatic cars are the exception rather than the rule. I wonder what made them this popular in the US? What's the history behind it?

[PeteH]

...
I'll give up a manual gearbox when I eventually get an EV.

Coming from a manual transmission to an EV - the experience is very similar. Engine braking vs. Regen. Driving an EV, you feel just as coupled to the car if not more (like you're always in first gear) - depending on the make/model I guess.

[tom66]

There is a weird thing in the UK licence conditions. You can drive a delivery van with a car licence, but not a large truck. That seems reasonable. However, you can also drive a full sized double decker bus with a car licence, as long as nobody on board pays. If anyone pays anything for their ride you need a "public service vehicle" licence, where you get tested driving actual buses.

This led to what could be described as an amusing exemption for bus lanes:  some people literally bought buses to drive in those lanes.  You could find something like a small minibus and drive it around on a car licence, using the bus to skip traffic.

Councils weren't slow to update signage to "local" buses only, i.e. those registered with the local council.

[james_s]

Over here, automatic cars are the exception rather than the rule. I wonder what made them this popular in the US? What's the history behind it?

Wide open highways across vast distances is one aspect, lazy people, a period of immense affluence and technological development following WWII when all manner of fancy automatic gadgets to ostensibly make life easier were all the rage. Then there is the historically much lower fuel prices here, until the last 20 years or so an automatic transmission came with a quite significant penalty on fuel economy.

Probably 98% of the cars on the road in the US have automatics. A few years ago my uncle bought a brand new sporty BMW and he had to special order it with a manual, they did not have a single manual equipped car in stock on the lot.

[bdunham7]

Over here, automatic cars are the exception rather than the rule. I wonder what made them this popular in the US? What's the history behind it?

Large heavy cars with large displacement engines were common 5 decades ago and manual transmissions were impractical and not offered in those models.  My first car had a 7.5 liter engine.  People just got used to them, I guess.  Then when cars got downsized, manuals did make a comeback for a while, but automatics were almost always at least an available option if not the predominate (or only) configuration.

[tom66]

Large heavy cars with large displacement engines were common 5 decades ago and manual transmissions were impractical and not offered in those models.  My first car had a 7.5 liter engine.  People just got used to them, I guess.  Then when cars got downsized, manuals did make a comeback for a while, but automatics were almost always at least an available option if not the predominate (or only) configuration.

I don't buy the idea that a large and powerful engine makes a manual transmission impractical.

If anything it makes a traditional automatic problematic - you need a large torque converter and more cooling.  Whereas a manual transmission can probably get by without cooling the clutch and with just a bit more metal in the gears. 

In fact, some of the most powerful vehicles were offered with manuals only if you look back in history, e.g. old Lamborghini and Ferrari models.

The use of automatics was purely down to customer convenience & low cost of fuels in the USA.  Truly an interesting difference in how policies can shape an entire market.  Higher taxes drove Europe to smaller, more efficient cars.  It's not a bad outcome!  The USA will get there eventually as fuel passes $8 a gallon.

[james_s]

Large heavy cars with large displacement engines were common 5 decades ago and manual transmissions were impractical and not offered in those models.  My first car had a 7.5 liter engine.  People just got used to them, I guess.  Then when cars got downsized, manuals did make a comeback for a while, but automatics were almost always at least an available option if not the predominate (or only) configuration.

There's no technological reason manuals were not offered in many of those. The biggest trucks have always been manual, most are even today. Plenty of big V8 powered muscle cars were available with manual, race cars have always been almost exclusively manual.

[CatalinaWOW]

Practicality of transmission was definitely not the reason for automatic adoption in the US.  Americans liked them, and the penalty in fuel consumption wasn't enough to drive folks away.  I have never seen real numbers, but I would guess that in the auto transmissions of the era the penalty was under 20%, perhaps way under.  And that is comparing to an optimally operated manual transmission, something the average driver seldom if ever achieves.  By the seventies whatever difference there was started growing smaller as lockup torque converters began being adopted, and currently the advantage goes the other way because the computer and a large number of gears can operate the drive train more optimally than all but the best drivers.  Cost of acquisition is another factor in this decision, and initially favored manual transmissions.  But as more and more people chose automatics the economies of volume overcame the intrinsically lower cost of manufacture of the manual transmission.  Finally, maintenance costs tend to favor automatics in my opinion.  Solely because the average driver, and especially the driver who believes he is a king of speed absolutely murders clutches.  The manual has no intrinsic defense against this, while automatics do somewhat protect themselves.  The manual transmission itself is far cheaper to maintain.

While I learned on a manual, and have driven a wide range of manual gearboxes, including those without synchromesh I definitely prefer an automatic.  I drive to get somewhere, and having less to do is a plus for me.  I will stipulate that there are those who enjoy shoving levers around.  But then there are those who rue the loss of manual spark advance and manual chokes.   I enjoy the ability to start on a hill without skillful feathering of the clutch (particularly in a rental or other unfamiliar car).  I like not having one hand tied up with a shift lever.  It doesn't surprise me that many other people feel the same way.

[james_s]

I have never seen real numbers, but I would guess that in the auto transmissions of the era the penalty was under 20%, perhaps way under.  And that is comparing to an optimally operated manual transmission, something the average driver seldom if ever achieves.  By the seventies whatever difference there was started growing smaller as lockup torque converters began being adopted, and currently the advantage goes the other way because the computer and a large number of gears can operate the drive train more optimally than all but the best drivers. 

When I swapped a manual into my mom's 1986 Volvo 240 about 25 years ago the mileage increased from 24mpg to 29mpg so it was pretty significant. My current 1990 740 Turbo went from about 20mpg to 26mpg when I swapped in that and that's without putting any great effort into maximizing fuel economy. The difference was substantial, and the car feels so much more responsive. I don't think the fuel economy gap closed until the mid 2000's and even then a manual will typically do a little better if one knows what they're doing.

Modern manuals pretty much all have automatic hill hold, I could take it or leave it, shifting gears and starting on hills and whatnot is second nature for me, it's like walking, I don't even think about it.

[CatalinaWOW]

I have never seen real numbers, but I would guess that in the auto transmissions of the era the penalty was under 20%, perhaps way under.  And that is comparing to an optimally operated manual transmission, something the average driver seldom if ever achieves.  By the seventies whatever difference there was started growing smaller as lockup torque converters began being adopted, and currently the advantage goes the other way because the computer and a large number of gears can operate the drive train more optimally than all but the best drivers. 

When I swapped a manual into my mom's 1986 Volvo 240 about 25 years ago the mileage increased from 24mpg to 29mpg so it was pretty significant. My current 1990 740 Turbo went from about 20mpg to 26mpg when I swapped in that and that's without putting any great effort into maximizing fuel economy. The difference was substantial, and the car feels so much more responsive. I don't think the fuel economy gap closed until the mid 2000's and even then a manual will typically do a little better if one knows what they're doing.

Modern manuals pretty much all have automatic hill hold, I could take it or leave it, shifting gears and starting on hills and whatnot is second nature for me, it's like walking, I don't even think about it.

So by your numbers one car was 17% better, the other 23%.  Sounds like my 20% guess wasn't too far off.

I am happy that you have no difficulty on hills.  Is this true in every new car you get into?  When I get into a new manual vehicle it usually takes me a day or two to get used to the different clutch and engine torque characteristics.  Did you ever drive a Mazda rotary?  I owned one for a a year or two and driving characteristics were totally different than any other car I have owned.

I am also happy to hear that you are one of the superior drivers who can still best a current automatic.  I suspect though that the gas mileage for the overall population is better with current automatics.  Even though well over three quarters of the population is sure they are better than average drivers.

[SilverSolder]

The last generation of big American cars were not that bad on fuel...  I have an elderly 6 passenger Buick from 2000, with a V6, it does 35mpg on the highway at a steady 60 - 65.   It has an automatic with a lock-up converter, and very tall gearing...   It actually gets better mileage on the highway than my Escape hybrid!   - obviously once you are in town, things are very different...

[RJSV]

   Loved my Mitsubishi - Jeep hatch back manual.  The little car was light enough so clutch action on uphill wasn't hard, and big hatch door allowed for some oversize loading.  Approx 28 mpg for that 1991 model.
Also seen as Dodge Colt versions.

[SilverSolder]

Fuel economy actually hasn't got much better since the 90's - 00's for average cars.   Obviously there are some stellar exceptions, e.g. the Prius et al., that really upped the game on that front significantly.

[madires]

Neither does the SUV mania in Europe help to decrease fuel consumption.

[james_s]

So by your numbers one car was 17% better, the other 23%.  Sounds like my 20% guess wasn't too far off.

I am happy that you have no difficulty on hills.  Is this true in every new car you get into?  When I get into a new manual vehicle it usually takes me a day or two to get used to the different clutch and engine torque characteristics.  Did you ever drive a Mazda rotary?  I owned one for a a year or two and driving characteristics were totally different than any other car I have owned.

It varies, usually it takes a day or so before I'm really comfortable in a different car, but it's not often that I drive something unfamiliar with a manual, there just isn't much to choose from. Occasionally I drive my mother's Volvo 850 and sometimes I borrow a diesel flatbed truck from my friend's business, both of those are manual but the're both familiar to me now. I drove the same car for 17 years and when it got totaled I got another similar one and put the transmission from the wrecked car in it so it's been quite a long time since I've had to get used to a new car that I was driving regularly.

I never have driven a rotary but I'd love to try. My parents had a RX5 but it got rear ended and totaled before I was born. I'd like to try driving a semi or a bus with a 2 stroke Detroit too, looks like fun. I like driving all sorts of random stuff, probably the most unusual was a Yugo GVL, it was not a fantastic experience by any means.

[james_s]

Coming from a manual transmission to an EV - the experience is very similar. Engine braking vs. Regen. Driving an EV, you feel just as coupled to the car if not more (like you're always in first gear) - depending on the make/model I guess.

Yes I drove my dad's Tesla around for a couple weeks after he passed away and I quite liked the way it felt. It had that same sort of instantly responding "connected" feel where the speed of the powerplant is directly tied to the speed of the vehicle. Essentially the same as a manual except no gearbox is needed due to the very wide operating range of the electric motor. It felt really nice, even though I hate the lack of physical switches and knobs on the dash I would seriously consider buying one if I drove enough for it to matter anymore.

The absolute worst experience I've had is a CVT, those things are awful and just feel weird. Many if not most car makers program them with fake shift points now to mimic the feel of a conventional automatic which is IMO the worst of both worlds, the unreliability CVTs are notorious for without the economy advantage of infinite ratios.

[tom66]

It's worth trying something based on an e-CVT architecture.  Examples include Toyota/Lexus Hybrids and the original Volt.

These have the smoothness of an EV but have a conventional petrol engine too.  They are ridiculously smooth because the pairing of the motor-generator set acts like an electronically variable torque converter with nearly infinite ratio modulation, and very rapid control of this ratio.  A planetary gearset and clutch effectively connects the engine directly through a single ratio once over about 40 mph, so they are pretty efficient too for highway driving.

http://prius.ecrostech.com/original/Understanding/PowerSplitDevice.htm

I do really like the regen braking on my car though (Golf PHEV with a regular 6-speed DSG automatic),  it becomes a game to regen exactly enough to come to a stop at the red light or so on.  The brake pedal gets touched only when truly necessary.  I've been giving my partner driving lessons in it, and she's hooked and wants something electric as her first car.  Thinking an e-Up or e-Golf or maybe a newer Leaf/Zoe. 

[nctnico]

Fuel economy actually hasn't got much better since the 90's - 00's for average cars.   Obviously there are some stellar exceptions, e.g. the Prius et al., that really upped the game on that front significantly.

Yes and no. Cars with small, turbocharged engines and hybrids have a significantly lower fuel consumption compared to similar sized cars so progress has been made. It is just that the gas guzzling options are also still for sale. My next car is going to be a hybrid (for various reasons). Most likely a Toyota. For me fuel costs are by far the largest costs of a car so fuel economy is important.

[james_s]

It's worth trying something based on an e-CVT architecture.  Examples include Toyota/Lexus Hybrids and the original Volt.

These have the smoothness of an EV but have a conventional petrol engine too.  They are ridiculously smooth because the pairing of the motor-generator set acts like an electronically variable torque converter with nearly infinite ratio modulation, and very rapid control of this ratio.  A planetary gearset and clutch effectively connects the engine directly through a single ratio once over about 40 mph, so they are pretty efficient too for highway driving.

Hybrids were an interesting stopgap that made sense at the time, but they are quickly becoming obsolete except for a few edge cases where people really need more than 300 miles or so without a break for charging. If I were still commuting to an office I'd buy an EV, I've driven them enough and know enough people who drive them that I'm sold, quite simply they work, well, and carrying around a gasoline engine and all the mess that goes with that is totally needless for anyone that has a garage, driveway, or charging available at the office, a perk that is becoming more and more common. With the way fuel costs have been increasing it makes sense to dispense with fuel entirely. It cost me around $90 now for 300 miles on my gasoline car, and around $10 for 300 miles on a Tesla Y. It would be an absolute no brainer if I drove more than the 2,000 miles or so a year I do these days. Good friend of mine just bought a 2013 Tesla S, the original battery in that is going strong, so that pretty much alleviates the concerns I once had about longevity.

[SilverSolder]

It's worth trying something based on an e-CVT architecture.  Examples include Toyota/Lexus Hybrids and the original Volt.

These have the smoothness of an EV but have a conventional petrol engine too.  They are ridiculously smooth because the pairing of the motor-generator set acts like an electronically variable torque converter with nearly infinite ratio modulation, and very rapid control of this ratio.  A planetary gearset and clutch effectively connects the engine directly through a single ratio once over about 40 mph, so they are pretty efficient too for highway driving.

Hybrids were an interesting stopgap that made sense at the time, but they are quickly becoming obsolete except for a few edge cases where people really need more than 300 miles or so without a break for charging. If I were still commuting to an office I'd buy an EV, I've driven them enough and know enough people who drive them that I'm sold, quite simply they work, well, and carrying around a gasoline engine and all the mess that goes with that is totally needless for anyone that has a garage, driveway, or charging available at the office, a perk that is becoming more and more common. With the way fuel costs have been increasing it makes sense to dispense with fuel entirely. It cost me around $90 now for 300 miles on my gasoline car, and around $10 for 300 miles on a Tesla Y. It would be an absolute no brainer if I drove more than the 2,000 miles or so a year I do these days. Good friend of mine just bought a 2013 Tesla S, the original battery in that is going strong, so that pretty much alleviates the concerns I once had about longevity.

I think you just nailed the use case for gasoline:   Low miles driven.   

The overall costs are what matter.   E.g. I recently bought an older used "primitive" gasoline car for $5000...  it is in beautiful shape, no rust, low miles, comfortable, quiet.   Sure, it drinks copious quantities of gasoline costing $5 per gallon...   but on the other hand, there are no monthly car payments,  and very little depreciation. 

Electric cars just haven't been around long enough (in large enough quantities) to be able to do something similar with one of those...   but the day will come, of course.

[CatalinaWOW]

Just to pound SilverSolder's point home, assuming his gas guzzler gets 10 mpg, and using james_s 2000 miles per year you would be paying $1000/year in fuel costs.  It would take 25 years to break even on a $30,000 EV, even assuming electricity is free.