Quote:
Originally Posted by dcb
No matter how expensive or wasteful something is? you can't think of any case where easy to use might not be the best idea? Really? I have to spell this one out for you?
|
I don't see any bicycles in your inventory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcb
Really? that's what you think? that a human can outperform a computer at the sub-microsecond timing of injectors? Really?
The concept of technology must be very binary for you, either everything is amish or everything must be automated to the n'th degree.
|
... whenever someone uses this particular style of argument it's especially tedious to hold a serious discussion with them. You know I don't think that, but by suggesting it you're trying to undermine me with preposterous extremes based loosely upon what I said. Not productive at all.
As was obvious, my point was that you don't seem to mind some types of automation but seem quite emotionally attached to a lever you get to row back and forth while driving.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcb
Shifting is one of those things that computers haven't caught up with
|
Citation needed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcb
Like I said, autos have been wasting gobs of fuel for many decades for lack of a shifter, and the standards that we hold our fellow drivers to is abominable compared to many other countries. Technology can solve a lot of problems, and a lot of non-problems, but invariably creates new ones, weather you can see them or not.
If you only look at things in terms of dollars and at an individuals "rights" and ignore less tangible costs and responsibilities, you will be blind ignorant to a multitude of problems, even (especially) if they are now someone elses problem.
|
That's an awful lot of pessimism in one post
so wait why is it that digital controls are better for fuel management but worse for ratio management?
A car is expensive and wasteful and complicated compared to a bicycle, but you drive a car. I just don't see why you're so emotionally attached to moving a lever back and forth
I'm not trying to convince you or anyone to give up their own manual, preferences are preferences. It's just false to say that autos suck, and false to assume autos must by necessity produce worse fuel efficiency than manuals even when/if identical ratios are chosen. There's no "LET'S MAKE AMERICA DUMB AND LAZY" agenda at Big Automotive Company.. their job is to stay in business and they do that by selling cars to people, the better they can make the car look compared to its competitors the more they sell - in other words if the manual transmission car could offer satisfactory behavior and performance with the same fuel efficient highway ratio, they would use that ratio on the manuals so that their marketing brochure could report the highest possible MPG - a major selling point. I'd be willing to bet that more than 3 minutes of thought goes into picking ratios for a production car's transmission.
So think what you want but denying the possibility that machines can work quite well, isn't particularly productive.
Cheers
