[mkoesel]

Originally Posted by swamp2

And for those exact reasons I do think a CVT deserves its own category. Here is seems the OEMs and journalists also agree. CVTs are typically called CVTs not automatics. One key differentiator for CVTs is feel. Wow do they feel unique when driving them.

Like I said in my post, if anything I *might* consider singling out the CVT. I will repeat what I said earlier though - that some CVT's do indeed shift in the traditional way we think of shifting. Instead of using infiinitely varying ratios, they are fixed at some small number. So, just like with the DCT, setting apart CVTs that behave this way from any other automatic makes no sense because again they will shift through a fixed set of ratios just like a planetary, DCT, etc. However, at the same time if you also think of a standard infinitely varying CVT as just an infinte-speed transmission (it is, after all), then in fact it can be classed as an automatic too. The reason - as always - is that it chooses the ratios for you. Simple. And, just as I've said earlier with respect to other types of transmissions, if someone were to build a CVT that cannot shift through its range of ratios by itself then indeed that's now a manual transmission.

Dogmatic insistence that every single transmission fit neatly into one of two categories does a disservice in my opinion. Disservice to all who want to know what it is and how it will feel and work in addition to something about the user interface.

Let's entertain that notion for a minute.

First, this same "disservice" has been done for decades to those who want to understand the internal workings of a planetary box. DCT technology changes nothing in this regard. In fact, the anecdotal evidence regularly bears this out in that by and large, even among enthusiasts, very few appear to genuinely understand how a "traditional automatic" with planetary gear sets really works. Sure, we all learn about torque converters at some point early on, usually in the context of why they "suck" and how they sap power as compared to a clutch (increasingly outdated notions these days). But the rest gets glossed over mainly because it is quite complex, IMHO (probably the most complicated mechanical system in a car, and this was especially the case in decades past before sophisticated computer-enhanced AWD systems and differentials appeared).

But what about this notion of a "disservice"? Here you are missing the bigger picture. The fact is, categorization can take place over a number of different properties or attributes. Our debate boils down to whether the set of all transmissions can be partioned over the properties "automatic" or "manual". Maybe it can't, so for the sake of argument, we'll also add in your "automanual" term as well. Remember, just because we know that it is elementary to alternatively classify transmissions via how they operate internally, does not mean we cannot pick some other partition that is also perfectly valid as well. This is no different than observing that while we might typically classify flowers based on their species, we could just as easily classify them based on their colors as well. Both are valid. And while a botanist might scoff at the idea of the latter in general, a group of laymen might find the color classification very helpful.

So can we effectively partition the set of all transmissions over the terms manual, automatic, and automanual? Sure we can. In fact, this takes place even as two transmissions with the same basic internal workings could land in seperate categories (just like with my flower example above, the same might happen with two of the same species of flower when grouping by color). For example, as discovered earlier, there are already both automatic (proper-automatic, I mean) DCT and "automanual" DCT on the market today. The two would then necessarily be in two different categories. And how do we classify? The criteria is simple: automatic means that user involvement in selecting ratios is never possible, automanual means user involvement in selecting ratios is possible but not necessary, and manual means user involvement in selecting ratios is mandatory. And that's it. In fact it is easy to see that these three criteria do represent a partition of the set of transmissions.

Of course, as I mention earlier, we could instead partition on the internal workings. But if we do this, we must not attempt to put the planetary box in some subset we decide to term "automatic" while putting the DCT in some other subset we've termed "dual clutch" or "eletrohydraulically clutched" or somesuch. If we do, then we end up with a fallacy of misclassification. I.e. we are trying to sort things out based on two competing criteria, and it will result in invalid subsets (they won't form a proper partition).

Also the clutchless sequential offers an interesting case. It is automatic in that the clutch is automatic. Your "bar" must then involve rising to the automatic category only if both the clutching and gear lever movements are automated?

Like I've said before, it's about the ratios and who/what chooses them. You could prove to yourself what the definition of an "automatic" transmission is to the typical driver by trying to sell them a car that you call an automatic but that still requires they be involved in selecting the gear ratio. We all know what would happen here - the majority of people would tell you to take a hike.

But even if we redefine the term "automatic", that doesn't change how a DCT and planetary box operate today, nor does it mean that we can no longer partition the set of transmissions properly with this term and the related ones I use above. Instead if just means you now have added another set; maybe call it "partially automatic" and then rename the "automatic" to "fully automatic" or whatever else you want to call them. It does not under any circumstance mean that we have to throw away the whole idea of partioning them based on the criteria of how the user interacts with them, and now insist that they can only be partioned using the criteria of how they operate internally.

Finally, calling terminology opinions different than yours a "fallacy" is a bit of a stretch...

It just needed more explanation.