:lmao:bloody 'ell
The Future of Motorcycles as we know it.
- Thread starter Evol
- Start date
That's not something I'd be bragging about.
Riding a motorcycle is about more than transportation from point A to point B. It is about the riding experience, that experienve includes things like shifting gears, and many other things of course. Driving a car on the other hand, for the majority of the population, is about transportation. This is one of the reasons cars are the way they are and bikes the way they are and it will be a challenge for electrics.
As for the electric bikes, what will suck large in the GTA, any road of interest exceeds the range of the bike. Without super fast recharging on a plugin electric what is the point. I like hydrogen fuel cell better for this reason.
As for the electric bikes, what will suck large in the GTA, any road of interest exceeds the range of the bike. Without super fast recharging on a plugin electric what is the point. I like hydrogen fuel cell better for this reason.
I've grown up driving manual transmission, and have been driving manual for many years. It's probably one of the things I'll miss about driving. But it's being phased out, even the new Super Cars coming out the Lexus LFA, the Acura NSX, the Nissan GT-R, Audi R8; they are ALL automatic tranny now. It's just part of the future. And with electric there's no need for a tranny, it's something I'm willing to accept although I will miss it. I would imagine enthusiasts trying to hang on to the ICE age with whatever they can before moving on to EV.
I remember teaching a couple of my friends how to drive stick, even now some still come to me asking to teach them how to drive manual. Though, it will be obsolete in the near future, at least they can enjoy whatever time they have left with manual transmission.
Last edited:
Even the 18 wheelers are doing it. A friend drives a Volvo I-Shift or something.
It was true for many many years that automatics shifted slower than a skilled, trained driver could manage. However, within the last decade or so, the technology has simply improved to the point where that's not true, mostly due to all the advanced sensors and computerization.
I wonder if it's cheaper to build a car with an automatic but the manufacturers price the automatics higher because it makes marketing/profit sense.
Remember 20 years ago when everyone ran dot matrix printers because ink jet was so expensive? Anyone priced a dot matrix lately?
Remember 20 years ago when everyone ran dot matrix printers because ink jet was so expensive? Anyone priced a dot matrix lately?
there are some auto engineers that lurk here so I expect someone would know, but the auto has got to be less than manual to produce now just on critical mass . There are so many vehicles that have no manual option. I think manual will be around a while just because its fun, but its got to be at least a break even.
I'd feel like a putz if I drove standard solely because it's fun. I do drive standard but have nothing against automatics except I didn't feel like paying the premium when buying new and also heard a few anecdotal stories about super expensive auto rebuilds. I feel I may be stuck in the past. All I need from a car is to roll down the road at max 100km/h. That hasn't changed in decades. Why do I need a space shuttle to do that?
The new twin-clutch automatics probably cost more than manual cars as they essentially start with a manual transmission, then add another clutch and electronically controlled shifter mechanism (instead of a rod attached to my arm). Normal automatics are now squeezing in 8 (or 9?) speeds, this can't be cheap. If you compared a 4 or 5-speed conventional automatic to a 5-speed manual, the auto may cost less to build, but when taking into account what they are actually selling, I think manual will still be cheaper.
A small block with a centrifugal clutch and single speed should do that, fuel economy would suck though.
Haha. It's my personal belief that cars should be developed for fuel efficiency and low emissions. Decent brakes, suspension, crumple zones etc. are good too.
The way cars are built today is bogus. Complexity for the sake of complexity. You don't need 10,000 individual parts in 4000lbs to carry one or two human beings. The ratio between the cargo and the cargo carrier in terms of parts, weight, complexity, difficulty of self service is out of whack. But that's the trend isn't it? Separating the individual from reality whether it's computers, electronic gadgets, food source, housing........I'm surprised there isn't a gov. mandated movement afoot to somehow scuttle the DIY home repair.
I'm no engineer but can't completely agree. Look at motorcycles, how complex they have become. I don't believe too much of that is government regulations driven. Thank god cars and bikes are generally very reliable so it's not really a big issue most of the time.
Right. We've come a long way since grandma's push-button hydramatic. For that automatic to beat a skilled human, it needs to be complicated with substantial computerization. All that complexity is much more expensive than a conventional 5-speed manual, both in terms of manufacturing and in terms of engineering, development, and testing.
Of course no matter what you make, having two separate transmission designs in production will cost more than either option singly, which is why many cars no longer come in manual. Just having both options costs the manufacturer more.
I don't think manual cars are going to disappear, but they may become a high-end option only available on sportier cars.
