View Single Post
      03-14-2011, 09:51 AM   #113

Drives: 2015 SO/CSAT F80 M3
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canton, MI

iTrader: (1)

Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Hmmm, the first sentence above seems to be something somewhat new. I know you've said things along those lines but you also strongly make the case for 2 categories only.
I've made the case for applying the algorithm for categorization in a uniform way. If there's two categories, and they form a partition, then it's legitimate to say everything falls into one or the other. If we pick three categories or more that's fine too. Whatever the situation dictates is just fine. The point I've tried to emphasize is that if we are sorting transmissions by how the user interacts at a high level, such as when using an abstract word like "automatic", then the DCT is necessarily going to be grouped with some transmissions that are not DCTs and which may happen to operate very differently internally. If instead we are talking about how the transmissions function and discussing their inner workings, then sure, the DCT could very well get its own category.

As for my preference/opinion you don't have it quite right. When in automatic mode and when speaking about the user interface alone it absolutely makes sense to refer to a DCT as an automatic. But again, IMHO, onlyunder those circumstances.
Sure but that same strictness should be applied to other transmission types too.

And such strictness is great, but for better or for worse it happens that today's coloquial term "automatic" is the de-facto way to refer to a transmission when casually talking about a car. The interface is what was important to casual people, so that's the term that stuck. And, yes, it also just so happens that this is often a misnomer since a lot of transmissions have both a manual mode and automatic mode.

Thus it is simply superior to say it has an automatic mode!
Well that's subjective too, and boils gets down to grammar, sentence structure, and language style. I'm not going to split the hairs that finely.

No, automated manual or automanual is in my view a transmission that is a "traditional manual" (or parallel manual) from the internal construction and feel/experience perspectives but due to mechatronics has an automatic mode.
Alright, fair enough then. How bout' manumatic then?

I don't care what we call it, but if we define some term to mean "a transmisison that has both manual and automatic operation" then MDCT and Steptronic are both going to fit.

Again with the wealth of transmission types and all of their associated implications (feel, performance, user interface, speed, efficiency) there is so little to be gained from forcing everything into 2 categories. Call an apple and apple and have multiple categories.
It is not a matter of forcing one or the other, it depends on the situation. Like I say, in casual converstation, typically, the user interface is how we tend to break things down.

Also, no less can be gained by grouping passenger car engines into the two categories - say, diesel and gasoline. Yet, sometimes it absolutely makes sense to do that. And of course sometimes it makes sense to break them down based upon head configuration, induction type, or piston configuration., etc.
A gen-u-ine BMW eff-eight-zero with them tandem clutches in the transmission and that dad gum sun roof on the top-a da cawr.