How America lost its love for the stick shift - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/05/audi-kills-manual-transmission-cars-america-lost-love-for-stick-shift.html <comment><USER2> Speaking as someone who has owned a number of sports cars with manual transmissions, I can tell you why I finally made the switch to automatic:

Adaptive cruise control in stop and go traffic.

I used to have to deal with a six-speed manual transmission in stop and go traffic for an hour every day, and it was pure torture. I mean, sure, it was fun for a weekend drive in the mountains, but it sucked the rest of the time.

Oh, and as a side note, my new car with an automatic transmission and a 400+ HP engine accelerates from zero to 60 faster and smoother than any one of my previous cars. I will never go back! And I have paddle shifters, if I ever want to manually control the gears.

<comment><USER3> I just do like the truckers do, leave it in second and crawl. It helps to not be concerned with maintaining a 6 inch gap with the car ahead.

I truly believe that stop and go is caused by automatics. All of the brake tapping tends to bunch people up at the end of long lines forcing them to a complete stop. In a manual just let off on the gas a little and the engine brakes a little, no brake lights to create cascading braking

<comment><USER4> > I truly believe that stop and go is caused by automatics.

A simple hypothesis like this is easy to test: does stop and go traffic exist in places that are predominantly manual transmissions?

I live in Asia and I can tell you unequivocally that, yes, stop and go traffic still exists even when every single person has a manual transmission.

<comment><USER5> It has been proven that one person over braking when there was no need can cause a traffic jam for hours.

<comment><USER6> But it hasn't been proven that this happens more with automatic transmissions.

<comment><USER7> But it is pretty obvious. In an automatic, you pretty much have to touch the brakes to slow down. In a manual, you have other options. Taking your foot off the gas in a manual tends to slow the car quite a bit more than in an automatic, for example.

<comment><USER8> While technically true, there is not much practical difference.

Like on a motorbike I tend to tweak slow speeds with the clutch only and leave the throttle in one position most of the time.

With an automatic car since the brakes are not binary and automatic gearboxes have often forward creeping I only tweak the brakes. Helps to force the gearbox into 2nd gear as well for even slower creeping.

In fact, I think automatic gearboxes reduces traffic jams as fewer parts to think of so less likely to accidentally make a mistake and cause congestion.

Wonder how many jams are due to accidental stalling a manual gearbox.

Traffic jams without an automatic gearbox is no fun. (or even less fun)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In Europe, the manual/automatic situation is quite the opposite of that in the USA. Here all standard, cheap cars are manual, and only the expensive luxury cars have automatic transmissions. (At least in the Netherlands) driving lessons/tests must done in manual cars, unless you have some medical reason not to (then you'll also get a note on your license, prohibiting you from driving manual cars).

Automatic transmissions are therefore regarded as either boring, or for people who do not have the skills to drive a manual.

I drive a car with an automatic transmission and people always ask me why I'd drive a 'boring' car. Then I explain it is actually 'sporty' because it has paddle shifters (which I never use), and suddenly it becomes acceptable again.

<comment> J-dawg In the UK you don't need a medical reason, you can simply choose to take an automatic test. But then of course you can only drive automatic cars, just like in the Netherlands.

Ironically I believe an American who has never driven a manual would be able to come here and rent one, because (please correct me if I'm wrong) their licences don't distinguish between the two.

I think manuals are slowly on the way out here as well, although they'll persist for a long time on cheaper cars, and a few sportier cars.

A friend's new (automatic) Audi has both faster 0-60 and higher MPG (and lower CO2 output) than the manual equivalent, so manual gearboxes are becoming more difficult to justify, even for petrolheads.

<comment><USER10> What if I have an Automatic Driving Licence (UK) and I go to America and rent a Stick Shift then the Police pull me over?

Also could I go to a developing country, get a licence there, then it is valid in the UK and America?

These questions came to mind when I read your comment.

<comment> J-dawg These are interesting questions! I don't know the answers, but I guess international law is often bad at dealing with edge cases.

<comment><USER11> Is it an international law situation?

<comment> J-dawg I am probably using the wrong terminology. I guess there are reciprocal agreements between countries to recognise each others driving licences. I'm not sure whether that counts as international law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I love driving stick, but I have no illusions that I make better decisions about what gear to be in when than good automatics/CVTs, and I know I'm not saving gas the way I drive. Now, many automatics still bother me or even feel dangerous with their sluggishness, but there are great ones out there that I am happy to drive.

But the American market is definitely to the point now where it makes total sense to just eliminate the option for a stick shift. Not enough people can drive it, and so few adults have them that their kids aren't learning either. It's to the point that it's actually difficult to find a good quality new car with a stick shift.

And then that in turn means you can't trust your car to anyone else. Valet parking is downright dangerous. My wife's car had its clutch literally melted by an incompetent valet driver, and the car was barely driveable when we got it back. We managed to limp to the dealer, and we got our insurance to pay, but it was a hassle. I'm not sure it's worth the risk if you are in a situation where you need to ever hand over your car to someone else. I will not be using valet parking anymore, that's for sure.

<comment><USER13> Learning to drive stick is still a useful skill if you want to operate heavy trucks or ride motorcycles, neither of which tend to have an automatic transmission. It's not an option that I would want to go away.

Also, I might have used valet parking once in my life. Handing my car over to someone who can't drive stick is something I'm willing to live without—especially when you remember that many car thieves can't drive stick, either ;)

<comment><USER14> Most big trucks and farm equipment are automatic now (source: family of truckers and farmers). The takeover was quite recent but I don't know any truck companies buying manuals these days other than owner-drivers who are enthusiasts about their trucks too (eg the type to modify and do them up).

I'm a massive car nut, I've owned and (amateur-)raced dozens of cars over the last 20 years and always went manual, but a couple years ago I switched to auto due to a bad leg and honestly, if my leg miraculously got better, I'd stay with an auto. Modern automatics are amazing. They shift faster than I ever could, and performance autos can still engine-brake into corners etc. I'm very much a convert for pure performance reasons as well as easy/comfort reasons.

I don't want manuals to go away though, and I don't think they will. There's lots of car manufacturers that still cater to small niche groups because these days with populations the size they are, a small niche group is still enough people to profit off. I think we'll still see performance cars and motorcycles with manuals for many years to come, but all mainstream/bulk cars will be auto only.

<comment><USER15> Indeed, even at the level of mundane passenger cars, I think automatics have gotten a lot better. My first car was a 1975 Dodge with 3-speed automatic. You kind of had to "play" it, in order to make it shift at the right time, e.g., for passing.

My family now has a Toyota minivan. The transmission shifts smoothly and intelligently, and downshifting with the gear selector when descending in the mountains seems to be no problem.

Even better, we rented a big passenger van this summer in Europe, and its transmission seemed to "know" when we were on a descent, and downshifted accordingly. It was pretty cool.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There's little argument for manual transmission anymore except in larger vehicles. There used to be an efficiency gap, in that a good manual driver was more efficient than an automatic.

But two things have happened since then, we have computer controlled transmissions and CVTs.

Manual drivers were more efficient because they learned when the vehicle would need to shift, and shifted preemptively. A computer controlled automatic can also be aware of when to shift, and shift early, but much more precisely (since it isn't based on engine noise/judder, it is based on direct electrical feedback).

CVTs are more efficient yet again because you now have "infinite gears" and they're computer controlled.

I'd happily drive a CVT until the day I die, and I learned on a manual. The only thing I wish is that they had better "off the line" response (e.g. stopped at a light).

<comment><USER17> Are manuals not cheaper to manufacture and repair? Definitely in the UK since 90% of cars are still manual.

<comment><USER18> You know why automatics are sealed these days? They don't expect them to need service. Here in the U. S., I actually had to call around to find someone that would do a clutch. When I was a Firestone mechanic lo those twenty some years ago, we'd drop a tranny and throw clutch plates in all the time (book time paid more time than it took me to do it). Neither of the local Firestones would touch it when I called.

Point is, automatics are pretty sturdy these days, and there are fewer shops in the U. S. that will work on manuals anymore.

<comment><USER19> Most modern DCTs are wet clutch which should last more or less forever. Ford/Volvo's dry clutch DCTs probably still require regular clutch plate replacements. Torque converters pretty much last forever on infrequent fluid changes or the whole unit fails.

<comment><USER20> Ford's dry clutch DCT (used only in the Focus and Fiesta, all of the other Ford/Volvo models are wet clutch) is total junk and you're lucky if the clutch lasts more than 30k miles. They lost a class action lawsuit over it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> That bums me out, but I get it. My first non hand-me-down car was a beat-up Audi A4 (manual) off craigslist that I loved for years and years as a ski bum. I am definitely one of the many "manual transmissions are more fun" people. But once I got that office job, even 15 minutes a day in city traffic with a manual angered me, so I transitioned to an automatic. Now that I am out of the city I would love a manual again, but when most people live in big cities with traffic issues, and drive to and from work every day, it makes sense that manuals are not that popular in the states.

<comment><USER22> I found that having a stick in traffic was actually easier for me. I could keep it in one gear which meant not moving my foot from brake to gas (I could just use engine breaking and use just the gas).

<comment><USER23> This is dangerous, as you aren't signaling people behind you if you are braking...

Edit: I would likely soften the "dangerous" wording above. I'm not trying to claim this is guaranteed to get you killed. Just pointing out that bypassing a well established signaling mechanism of your vehicle should be a deliberate act. Not one of convenience.

<comment><USER22> Engine breaking just means slowing down by letting the foot off the gas. You aren't really slowing down that quickly. Someone has to really not be paying attention to miss it. It would be the equivalent of someone merging.

<comment><USER24> >Engine breaking just means slowing down by letting the foot off the gas.

Given how often I've driven on stretches of road where engine braking is prohibited, I beg to differ.

Engine braking is usually braking by shifting to a lower gear.

<comment><USER25> In my experience, places where engine braking is prohibited tend to be with the intent to reduce engine braking by tractor trailers or other large apparatuses, which can be very loud. In much of the U.S, posted signage prohibits "Jake braking" which specifically targets tractor trailers and other large trucks. [0]

[0]: [https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/96447/why- prohibi...](https://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/96447/why-prohibit- engine-braking)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I like manuals because they feel better to me. This is totally anecdotal but to me it seems like the stick keeps me more engaged with what's happening with the car so I find I tend to be less distracted. It also occupies a hand so it definitely prevents a lot of phone usage. If this could actually be proved I'd definitely welcome a return to manual transmissions as sometimes I feel like the only person not on their phone in traffic...

<comment><USER27> We should just revoke drivers licenses for people who can't operate cars responsibly. It's way too easy to get a license and keep one in the US today. We don't even re-test.

<comment><USER28> Easy to say from the position of thinking you can't lose your license or have the financial means to deal with such a loss.

For a majority of those living in the US the places they live and work have been so fundamentally designed around cars that no alternative form of transit is usable. Busses might run once a day, no sidewalks, no bike lanes amidst 5 layer highways. Even getting out of ones housing development via anything but a car can be challenging if its a fenced in community with winding lane and a half roads parked full of cars.

I'd naturally much prefer more strict licensing and more frequent license revocation - if for no other reason than it would demonstrably save many lives - but only after we solve the car sprawl hellscape that is a majority of settled US territory.

<comment><USER29> > _Easy to say from the position of thinking you can 't lose your license or > have the financial means to deal with such a loss._

There's a villainous cycle at work here. Car supremacy produces cities in which you need a car, so that attempts to push back on car supremacy can be credibly opposed on the grounds that they hurt the poor and less advantaged, when of course the very opposite thing is true.

<comment><USER30> the opposite is true _in the long run_. In the finalized scenario, where public transport is cheap, functional, useful and maintainable, or modern cities have been totally rewritten to support pedestrian first, it makes more sense than cars. But between removing cars today, and the day public transport actually reaches such a state, is long and far, and you fuck the car-less over for the entire duration.

You can't suddenly make getting a license harder _without also changing a hundred other things too_ , if you have any intent to preserve any other lifestyle than one that does not require a car, or is not at risk of losing their license. Such a claim is indeed a self-centered one, if you aren't _also_ arguing for the other things as well, _simultaneously_.

To suggest it without the even referring to the rest alongside it is to create the image of _horror_ , to anyone who isn't already aligned with your premise. And if you weren't intending that statement for people who didn't already agree with you, then the most you could have accomplished was virtue signaling, and I don't know why you would want to do such a horrible thing

<comment><USER31> To be fair, the OP didn't suggest taking away cars from poor people, just from people who can't be bothered to learn to drive responsibly.

<comment><USER30> If you take cars away from every group equally, then the poor are the least capable of finding an alternative (because they usually cost). In fact, if you take anything from the entire population in equal measure, its bound to affect the poor the most (because they're the least capable of finding alternatives to the status quo).

So in any such argument, they'd naturally become the front of the topic.

If anyone is going to get fucked by a broad policy, it's the poor.

<comment><USER31> Then why have any standards at all, if any expectations are discrimination?

<comment><USER30> What? Who said anything about discrimination?

You're going to build blanket standards and rules without acknowledging its effects on the population, and the proportion of the effects on different groups within that population?

Without accounting for the migration process to the new standard?

Without trying to minimize damage across the groups?

Addendum:

There is a world that exists, and there is an ideal image of the world. We aren't going to suddenly transfer to the ideal version, _but we 're perfectly capable of pretending we can in law_. Congress is perfectly capable of arbitrarily requiring that all cars today meet 50mpg, and declaring it law. But _we do not want to do that_ , because it would _stupid_ , and shut down industries and cities across the nation.

Regardless of whether this is what our ideal looks like, it's not a suggestion that takes us anywhere near it. When someone goes around advocating for it to people who do not already agree with it, the first question is whats wrong with it? And the first answer inevitably features the poor, because they're the most affected. And the next question is, by how much? And again, the best example is the poor, because they bear the brunt of the negatives.

Everyone else will also eat shit, but they get the most of it, and so they show it off the most, making for the clearest example of what damages a blanket policy might incur.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Except the article doesn't answer it at all.

Why did America lose its love... when other countries (e.g. rich European countries) continue to buy majority stick?

All of the reasons given for the US presumably apply to e.g. Germany too, no? Except no transformation there...

<comment><USER33> In Germany one reason might be that basically everyone learns to drive with the stick so it's the normal. To get a drivers license it's mandatory to go to a driving school and drive quite a lot of hours under supervision of an instructor usually using a car belonging to the school. While it's theoretically possible to use an automatic car nobody does that because you then are not allowed to drive a manual one afterwards.

<comment><USER34> > While it's theoretically possible to use an automatic car nobody does that > because you then are not allowed to drive a manual one afterwards.

Same in the UK.

<comment><USER35> Same in Aus, but it doesn't stop the majority of new licence holders taking their test in an automatic. What's the difference between us?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I've been driving a manual transmission all my life, and I'm not exactly young. Why do I drive a manual? It makes driving an enjoyable experience rather than a chore. I've even changed my commute to maximize that experience. Rather than inch along the freeway mile after mile I take a state route running alongside a river. Lots of curves and pretty views. Yeah it takes a few minutes longer but my mental health is far better for it. It makes for a great transition between home/work and work/home.

</comment><comment><USER37> My brother has an R8, Viper, and Vantage (All Manual) and I would rather drive a Tesla over all 3 of them. Manual is fun and you get the feeling of control and I love driving them, but in reality, there is a reason they are on their way out. The main problem is that the replacement, automatic, make driving feel worse. The computers that manage automatic transmissions are so bad that they make automatics feel terrible to drive. EV's have their own problems, but changing gears is not one of them. Right now, my preference is:

      EV > Manual > Automatic

<comment> FLUX-YOU Get a sports car, put it in manual mode, and you get the perks of choosing gears during the drive without stalling your engine.

<comment><USER38> After a week of driving manual you will never stall the engine.

<comment><USER39> When people learn to drive it's usually the panic rather than technique that makes people stall, anyway

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> This is why my car has a 'manual gearbox preservation society'[1] decal on it :-). It is sort of a self fulfilling prophecy which I pointed out to a Subaru VP at some length, if you only offer the manual on your 'low trim' cars you double penalize it, both from the perspective of people who want a bit more luxury and the things like radio systems or navigation systems that only come in the 'higher trim' packages.

One of the things he told me was that the cost of getting a car through California smog certification had to be covered by the sales of the car, and limited production run cars have higher production costs because the assembly line has to be re-tooled during the run.

All I know is that it makes me sad, and I'm glad that Mazda, for the moment, still offers a manual on all their trim packages for many of their cars.

[1] [https://thecurbshop.com/collections/tmgps](https://thecurbshop.com/collections/tmgps)

</comment><comment><USER41> In the UK most cars are still manual. Less so for the more expensive you go but I'd guess more than 90%.

I have driven automatics a handful of times. The longest I spent was 2 weeks in a motor home touring the Rockies.

While I can see the appeal for around town driving driving up and down grades was a bit of a pain. Basically I had to learn the behaviour of the transmission and use a combination of the exact amount of throttle, hold down gears and flicking between tow haul and normal to get the gear I wanted. It was more hassle than having to change gear manually.

<comment><USER42> You've brought up a good reason why Americans should learn manual: in case they rent cars in other countries. I rented a car in Costa Rica whose clutch had been destroyed by the previous renter, which fact did not make itself plain until we were on a mountain road. Wish he had learned stick!

<comment><USER43> But... how? When no one owns a manual, you can't learn to drive stick. My dad had a manual car that he'd kept for 20 years, and I haven't seen one since that went, about 10 years ago. (I could've learned on that had I gotten things together, but didn't. Given its condition near the end, that's probably a good thing.) There's nothing around to learn on.

It's a vicious circle sort of problem at this point. Less manual cars -> can't learn stick -> can't drive stick -> no one buys manuals -> less manual cars.

In the end, I can learn the concept, but I won't really know how to drive stick unless I have a manual... and I'll never buy a manual, so the only possibility is that I'll start off ruining the clutch on some rental. (Or, more likely, I'll go out of my way to rent automatic... but that may not always be possible)

<comment><USER44> Even the people who insist on manual reinforce this cycle because the only cars that have one are older, so they buy used and then the few manufacturers who offer manuals in new vehicles look at the numbers and say, "hmm, nobody seems to want a manual."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I learned to drive stick at 34 just for fun. Now own a Mazda 3 and MX-5. Worth it.

It's not about out performing an automatic transmission it's about engagement. For some people that's not going to have any value. For others there is no going back to numb econoboxes with automatic transmissions.

It's a shame more people don't get over the hump and get to see what driving can be vs. what it is for most.

<comment><USER46> I have completely the opposite view. To me, all the "engagement" type arguments just feel like someone telling me that they still insist on using only rotary telephones, because it makes them feel more "engaged" with the telephone, "closer to the machine", etc.

So I don't find anything magical or special about having to manually manage the gears when a computer could do it more efficiently and relieve me of the need to worry about it. When I'm driving I want to be focused on the road and traffic around me, not micromanaging the way the engine is transmitting power.

Or maybe to go with a car analogy: what if we took away your accelerator pedal and replaced it with a crank attached to a fuel pump, so you had to constantly turn the crank to get fuel, and turn it faster or slower to manage the throttle and the amount of fuel going to the engine? You'd be much more deeply "connected" to your car that way, but would you rhapsodize about what a wonderful experience it was? Or would you see it for what it is: a task that can be done with more efficiency and less distraction by a different approach?

<comment> xkcd-sucks There's nothing magical about it... With a manual, there are two free parameters: Engine speed and its coupling to the wheels. With an automatic transmission, only the engine speed can be controlled by the driver.

Computers have gotten better at managing the coupling sensibly, but they still are not perfect at predicting drivers' future intentions.

<comment><USER46> _Computers have gotten better at managing the coupling sensibly, but they still are not perfect at predicting drivers ' future intentions._

This argument basically says that if the computer only does it better in 99.99999999999999999% of cases, the correct solution is to have the computer handle 0% of cases. Which makes no sense.

(also, almost all "automatics are terrible at anticipating what needs to happen" arguments are based on decades-old experiences, as if automatic transmissions are fixed in time and incapable of improving)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Ctrl-F "traffic" shows up nothing in the article - there's not much discussion of "why" other than the technology is better.

Truth is that when you are stuck in bumper to bumper traffic, stopping and starting, manuals are tedious and not a good experience.

<comment><USER48> I'd like an automatic transmission in cities and on highways and a manual one up and down hills and off-road, when I want to be sure about what the car will do. So what about a sequential transmission? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_manual_transmission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_manual_transmission) It's the one we use in videogames when we select "manual". In real cars they usually have an automatic mode. Car2Go Smarts used to have that transmission, activated by a stick.

<comment><USER43> Having that mode is pretty common these days, isn't it? I have it in my Rogue, my dad's Grand Caravan has it, Car2Gos (smart fortwo and the mercedes sedans), a friend's... something? (some hatchback, idk) had it.

I haven't actually seen a car without a sequential/manual mode for a long time, come to think of it. Used to drive a 2003 Grand Caravan that didn't have it, but it had a few different automatic modes that helped fill that void for hills.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I'll concede all of the other advantages of automatics and add getting the car moving from a stop on a hill in Seattle, but there seems to be no way to get rid of the latency when I need to downshift _right now_ , is there?

I hate that about automatics. Floor the gas, count 1,2...ok here we go.

<comment><USER50> My biggest complaint about automatics too. I hate the delay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> I've driven standard transmission for upwards of 15 years and see no need to change. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd be convinced that this trend was part of a country-wide conspiracy to take all the fun and excitement out of driving. It seems like every automotive engineering decision since the 80s has been dominated by occupant safety and comfort, and fuel efficiency, to the detriment of everything else.

It's why nearly every new car looks like the same identical boring bar of soap, and has the same vanilla handling as a Camry. Everything about driving a modern car is sedate and passive, like you're just an observer. And there's so little variety, the most aggressive option on some models is "18 inch wheels." Some manufacturers are even playing fake "vroom vroom" sounds over the speaker system because their engines are so docile. It's hard to even find a color that's not black, white, gray, beige, or navy blue.

Rant over. As a car enthusiast, modern trends make me sad.

<comment><USER52> _has the same vanilla handling as a Camry_

I hear ya. FWIW, a modern Camry would outpace a Ferrari or Porsche from the 80s, and arguably some of them are starting to give the early 90s (NSX, Supra, 300ZX, RX-7 etc) a run for the performance money. Looks not so much.

The fact that the majority of your vanilla commute-boxes (Camrys, Fusions, Accords, etc) are now shipping with 220+hp stock / 280+ sport and platforms that have gone through decades of rigidity research and tire tech, means the majority of drivers are getting way more performance potential than they can possibly wring out. A base 2018 Camry SE is now pulling 0.88g on the skidpad.

Heck your average soccer mom is now getting 300+hp in her "well-equipped" SUV for the red-light commuter drag race thanks to things like the 3.5 Ecoboost. Since when does a Ford Edge run a low-14 quarter-mile??

The last 10 years of automotive tech have been another golden age similar to the 60s IMO. Reliability, safety, and performance are all vastly superior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'm a committed manual driver, but I fully grant that dual-clutch transmissions and EV powertrains handily outclass manual transmissions from the perspective of effectiveness (although my casual understanding is that an electric motor without a gearbox is still going to be limited in its ability to provide torque at high rotor speeds). I would consider driving a car relying on either of those technologies, even though I favor the subjective experience of a manual transmission, but I still can't imagine driving any vehicle with a torque converter or a CVT (CVTs sound great in theory, but as far as I know they're still pretty limited in terms of torque tolerance). I've driven some nice autos and still find their response to torque demand from the pedal to be unacceptably slow, plus I find the way that throttle mapping works in manual transmission cars to be much more intuitively close to what I would expect from direct throttle control. Flooring it to induce a downshift feels like a crude distortion of the input space in a way that inhibits the development of an intuitive connection with the vehicle's operation.

Anyway, if you're a performance vehicle enthusiast on a budget, you're going to have trouble finding a suitable car that isn't equipped with a manual.

<comment><USER54> > although my casual understanding is that an electric motor without a gearbox > is still going to be limited in its ability to provide torque at high rotor > speeds

BTW I find your entire comment pretty interesting.

So the current top speed on Tesla Models S3X is 155MPH. The Roadster 2 is expected to have a top speed of 250MPH.

Is the 155MPH an example of what you're referencing Re: high rotor speed? Thanks.

<comment><USER53> Less top speed, which is governed by many factors (consider that maintaining any constant speed in a vehicle requires some minimum power output to counter losses to heat/friction throughout the drivetrain and between the vehicle and oncoming air, not to mention the maximum safe operating speed of the drivetrain components themselves), but rather the potential for acceleration. If you look at the torque curve for some power plant, where the independent variable is oscillation speed and the dependent variable is output torque, you'll find that (for some fixed gear ratio between the power plant speed and the wheel speed) the maximum acceleration occurs at the point along that curve where torque is maximized. Electric motors have a much flatter torque curve with respect to rotor RPM than do combustion engines with respect to crankshaft RPM, but they still see a nontrivial drop in torque as rotor speed approaches its operating maximum. Transmissions exist to maximize the driver's access to torque: if you're traveling at 60mph on the highway with your engine spinning at 2K RPM, but your engine makes maximal torque at 4K RPM, you can shift downward to maintain your same vehicle speed while increasing the speed at which your engine turns over, thus giving you enhanced ability to bring your car up to speed before you merge with the lane to the left of you where everyone is driving much faster. A car that loses available torque at high power plant speeds and that lacks the ability to use such gearing to take advantage of optimal power plant torque will be unable to produce as much acceleration at high speeds as a car that has several gear ratios available.

Caveat: I'm just an automotive hobbyist, so if an automotive engineer rolls in and calls bullshit on anything I've said above, they're almost certainly correct.

<comment><USER54> Cool, thanks!

> Caveat: I'm just an automotive hobbyist

Yeah, I'm not even a hobbyist really. (: Just interested in electric vehicles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I've been driving stick shift since I first learned to drive (10 years), and I absolutely love it. Yes, driving in traffic can be painful, but the overall benefits outweigh this problem.

I try to describe the situation like this: imagine you have two axis of control with an automatic, the accelerator and the brake. You can use these two independently of each other, and your car's actions will respond to them.

Now with a standard transmission, you're adding a clutch, adding a third dimension, which can also be used independently of the two. The ability and actions your car can take essentially take on a new dimension.

In the case of an automatic, this third dimension is executed by the system, releasing the user from control. However as great autopilot is yet a reality, the world presents more driving obstacles than what a standard automatic vehicle can perfectly account for. Thus giving a "not perfect but good enough" result.

CVTs work too I guess, but I'm also trying to have fun here.

In my personal experience, driving stick makes me more engaged with driving, and therefore more concentrated on driving, while automatics make me feel like everything is easy and I can pay less attention.

I think self/assisted driving would be the key feature to get me off the stick.

</comment><comment><USER56> You'll pry my manual transmission from my cold, dead hands. Hopefully not because you're a paramedic and I'm wrapped round a tree...

Joking apart, I'd swap my manual for an 'automatic' with paddle-shift manual controls.

If I was commuting in a city I'd definitely want an automatic though.

<comment><USER57> Doesn't most automatic transmissions have that? My old VW Touran have paddles on the wheel for changing gears. I only use it when driving down steep hills though.

<comment><USER58> Yes, but automatics with "paddle shifts" have very soft transition and very soft/delayed gas pedal reaction; whereas dual-clutch/sequential with "paddle shifts" have very fast transition and very straight gas pedal reaction.

The true automatics, or CVT, there's limited need (or fun:) in paddle shifts outside of hills, poor traction, etc.

For sequential/dual-clutch, paddle shift operation is direct... and fun :)

<comment><USER31> The only thing going away faster than the manual at this point are dual clutch transmissions. Never really perfected in most instances, and the latest slushboxes actually outperform them. Faster shifts, more reliable, cheaper. I prefer my manual very much, but I have to hand it to the engineers, they've turned what used to be a performance-killing design into the best you can buy.

<comment><USER58> Hmm Is there a car in price range of golf gti that has that level of gas pedal responsiveness? I would love to take it for a test drive and see if my skepticism is warranted :)

<comment><USER31> Well, unless you're looking to actually buy, who says it has to be in the right price range? ;-)

<comment><USER58> I am though- need to replace my manual wrx with something fun that my wife can drive :)

<comment><USER31> I can't really help, then, I'm not really familiar with what the state of the art in four-cylinder hot hatches are at this point (and in any case, Subaru will not be leading edge in that regard; I have loved all my Subarus, especially my two STIs, but automatics are definitely not something Subaru is any good at). The newer A8 and A10s that GM uses in their performance cars (and Ford in some cases), as well as the latest stuff from MB, are fantastic automatics. Until this latest generation came along, I assumed DCT was the future. Now I'd be surprised to see it hang on much more than a few more years before being phased out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Heh I just bought a new car in the US and it's a manual (and it's not even a sports car). Why? Because I don't care as much about adaptive cruise control (I bike to work so the car is mostly for long drives) and it was $1200 cheaper (of course that's also going to matter when selling the car but if I tend to drive cars into the ground, 20+ years of use or more so that's not an issue). I don't feel strongly about either automatic or manual, both have their pros and cons, but if there's a significant price difference I'll go for the cheaper option.

</comment><comment><USER60> I raced cars with non-synchronized transmissions for some years, which means you have to heel and toe (and blip the throttle) to engage a lower gear, and I always drove my MT street cars the same way. About 8 years ago though I switched to automatic with a VW GTI.

There truly is no comparison, dual clutches and in sport mode the car executes a throttle blip on down shifts so I can left foot brake all the time and always have both hands on the wheel. I only care about being precise (and quick when needed) so no, I don't miss manual at all.

<comment><USER61> What about down shifting into first gear when coming to a stop? Is it jarring with a dual clutch? On my motorcycle I almost never shift into 1st before stopping because of the engine braking (even with a throttle blip). I just grab the clutch and coast until I stop.

<comment><USER60> So if we're on the same page driving a MT: the reason we're blipping the throttle is so that we don't upset the balance (front to rear) of the vehicle, and we do our blip just before shifting to 1st from 2nd and ideally we've judged it correctly so there is no change of pitch from engine braking.

So with a dual clutch AT vehicle, under savagely hard threshold braking there is no gear related pitch change. And under normal driving there is none either. To be clear though I only tested the GTI at a small "pitch and catch" autocross style track once, but I did drive all of VW's vehicles that day, it was a manufacturers test day.

Here's a Wikipedia explanation

"[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual- clutch_transmission](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual-clutch_transmission) "

Bikes and cars have significantly different engine power characteristics. I'm guessing you ride a sport bike?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Despite the title, it never explores why this phenomenon is specific to America, except to note that "the 5-speed manual is [still] the most popular transmission in the world".

<comment><USER63> It's also pretty difficult to find a manual transmission car in Japan and other wealthy Asian countries like South Korea. And in Europe automatic transmissions are increasing in popularity, as are SUVs and crossovers. America just started transitioning to automatics a lot earlier.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> I've gotten a Nissan Leaf v.2 which comes with e-pedal. Essentially single pedal driving. Best described as someone who drove stick shift as staying in second gear but without none of the noise. Push the pedal down and it accelerates normally, but start lifting off and it goes from "neutral" to "engine braking" (regenerative) all the way to a complete stop. [https://www.nissan- global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/OVERVIEW/e_Pedal...](https://www.nissan- global.com/EN/TECHNOLOGY/OVERVIEW/e_Pedal.html)

While I do miss doing 3 -> 2 heel toe downshift for corners, trying to figure out when to lift off to scrub enough speed without touching the brakes for a corner is just as entertaining.

I think shifting gears in general, whether automatics or manual, will fade out as electric drive-trains take over.

</comment><comment><USER65> Sitting in stop and go traffic in Southern California freeways every day of the week did it for me...

</comment><comment><USER66> I grew up in India and loved driving stick shift. Once I moved to US, I transitioned to Automatic.

Biggest reason I miss Stick shift is that, it just felt that I had a stronger connection with the car and the acceleration was more predictable. With automatic you might not be in the right gear and the car might upshift too soon or too late.

A potential side effect of the stronger connection is that more involvement leads to more spirited driving and potentially traffic tickets.

Then I got a Tesla. Beauty of Tesla is that it has just has one gear, so you are always in the right gear. So this avoids the biggest issue with Automatic. OTOH, because I am not manually changing gear, this avoids the spirited driving issue. It is now an appliance and just works.

</comment><comment><USER67> America lost its love of more than just the stick shift. I regularly find myself around people who just simply can't drive safely. They don't use their mirrors, they don't know how to stop rapidly in emergency situations; I'm not surprised no one drives a manual anymore.

On top of this, we pretty much hand out drivers licenses like fucking flyers in this country. Just stand in line and earn yours.

If you've ever been on a road in Europe you'll see a dramatically different scenario. Free flowing traffic, everyone seems to see everyone else around them; people are paying attention and know their cars.

The market for automated vehicles is ripe because we're fucking morons behind the wheel, and somehow we're ok with that.

<comment><USER68> Driving in the US is infuriating. Nobody is paying attention and nobody seems to understand basic rules like faster traffic keep left.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> Sitting in traffic did it for me.

<comment><USER70> 4 way stop at the top of an icy hill for me.

Interesting they chose a picture of a floor shift automatic for the article.

<comment><USER71> I always had an easier time getting up snowy/ice hills (in Boston) than my friends did in their autos. I remember once driving up a hill in front of a friend so he could use my tire indentations to get up behind me.

<comment><USER70> Getting up was fine. Stopping at the precipice at a 4 way stop, then trying to start again was the tricky bit. With an auto you can hold the brake while you slowly press the accelerator, then release the brakes.

Need a third foot to do that (or a hand brake) with a manual.

Edit: Hill lock definitely sounds nice. Didn't exist when I was young, poor, and had crappy old American made manual shift cars...

<comment><USER72> Not sure how old you are, but on my grandpa's 1950 Ford there was a hand operated parking brake (under the dash). I had to use it once after stopping to get gas and the driveway to get back onto the main road went down into a steep ditch and then out onto the road.

Of course some nitwit pulled up right behind me as I was trying to pull out into the road. I tried easing up on the foot brake and allowing the clutch to grab some as a quick test but the car still started to creep back. I said screwed it and yanked the parking brake as hard as I could while getting off the foot brake and meshing the gas while at the same time letting up on the clutch and undoing the parking brake. Not the hardest thing, but mainly made an issue by modern drivers getting right on your bumper...

<comment><USER70> It was cars with a foot operated emergency brake that locked into place with a separate lever to release it. Not useful in these situations. Even on cars with a hand brake, it was still a bit dicey, because they only operated the rear brakes, and could be mis-adjusted/weak/etc.

Pretty common on late 60's, 70's, and some 80's cars.

<comment><USER72> Whether foot operated or hand pulled, you will have to use your hand to disengage it so not seeing the difference.

<comment><USER70> You had to reach down pretty far, and look down to find the release. A handbrake is a one handed operation you don't have to look at.

<comment><USER72> I agree is sucks. But the option is there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> OK, European here, maybe it's just the title wording, but the article left me somewhat confused. For as long as I can remember ('80s child) I was convinced that the US car market (and consumer preferences) were almost exclusively automatic. Even popular culture reinforced this (I don't remember ever seeing a manual transmission car in American movies and TV shows). Now this article suggests that even recently there was an actual competition between the two, that America even had love, no less, for stick shift. I don't know what to believe anymore, is there a reality even...

<comment><USER74> The American car market as a whole are almost entirely automatic due to overall consumer preferences. However, there is also a minority of enthusiast drivers who greatly prefer manuals and are very vocal as such. Cars that are marketed more towards the enthusiast end of the market are those that you'll find stick shifts in more often, e.g. Miatas, Porsches, Corvettes, etc. These days though, even the enthusiast cars are selling many more automatics than manuals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER75> Manual transmissions are great anti-theft devices, though! ;)

<comment><USER76> In your country maybe. It is very much a cultural thing. In the Netherlands to get your driving license, you learn to stick shift by default. If you don't want or cannot learn to stick shift, you can get your license but you get a notice in your driving license that you are only allowed to drive automatic transmission. Learning to drive automatic is still very much an exception here.

Most consumer cars in the Netherlands are still sold as manual transmission, probably because the price was usually lower compared to automatic transmission. But we won't have a choice forever, since we are heading to an hybrid/full-electric future and almost all electric cars have a CVT anyway.

<comment><USER77> I've tried three times to rent a manual car at Schiphol, and ended up with an automatic each time. I also noticed that my Uber drivers almost always drive automatics in Amsterdam.

I know, plural of anecdote is not data.

Oh well. My 1998 Tacoma with a five speed will die soon enough, and I'll end up buying an automatic, probably.

I will have :wq! on my headstone, though.

<comment><USER78> As an Emacs user, that's the only VI command I know!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> One thing I'd love to see in modern manual transmission sports cars is a lockout to prevent mechanical over-revs. It would be extremely cheap and simple to engineer—knowing the current RPM and gear ratios, it would just be a matter of a servo motor actuating a bar, physically blocking the shifter from engaging gears that would cause a mechanical overrev. If done right, the driver wouldn't even notice it was there, until they were going around a sweeping right-hander on the track, up-shifting from third to fourth, and find the car prevents them from accidentally pulling it into second instead...

Of course, most drivers don't track their cars, and it's pretty hard to mis- shift when you're not on the track if you know what you're doing. (Or even on the track, if you're careful.) But sometimes it only takes one, and given how simple it would be to implement something like this, it seems like a no- brainer for companies like Porsche, especially given we're already seeing things like auto-blip for manuals (which I'm far less keen on, fwiw, but fine with as long as it can be turned off!)

<comment><USER80> If that servo fails to unlock, though, now you can't shift into certain gears. I thought that a centrifugal clutch disengage mechanism would solve this. Centrifugal clutches are already common in scooters - the clutch engages gradually as you rev above idle rpms. My theoretical feature is basically the opposite: a centrifuge that disengages at a given RPM. You _can_ shift into 1st at 100mph but your clutch will quickly disengage as your revs approach redline. You may burn out your clutch but those are cheaper to replace than engines.

Of course I have zero mechanical engineering background so who knows the feasibility of this approach.

<comment><USER79> Re-engineering the clutch sounds like a lot more work than adding a little servo. (Or two: one for 1/3/5 and one for 2/4.) And yeah, like anything in the car I guess it could fail, but something so simple could be made very robust—and if it did fail, it wouldn't be catastrophic. Would also be simple enough to add a mechanical override screw accessible under the shifter boot or something like that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> > Take the Subaru BRZ. The popular sports car was once sold only with a manual > transmission, but sales are now 90 percent automatic, Fiske estimated.

I find this a bit difficult to believe.

The automatic option has a reputation for being pretty good, but the manual is excellent. It was certainly never even a matter of choice for me, and for the growing number of (BRZ/(GT)86/FR-S) enthusiasts I know.

Yes, I'm in a niche, but so is the car.

<comment><USER82> Surprised me too!

Only reason I can think of is that the real enthusiasts bought them early on. Now, most people buy them because they want a 'sports car'; only 10% are actual enthusiasts.

<comment><USER81> I can see that, but I choose to remain unrealistically optimistic in the face of reality anyway. :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> I'm American and I learned to drive in a stick shift. My first 13 years of driving was with a stick. But it got to a point where it was just too difficult to find a stick version of the cars I wanted to get, so now I drive automatics.

I get the reason why some people insist driving sticks. You feel more "in tune" and "in control" with your car. But for the vast majority, this is completely unnecessary. Most people just want to get from point A to point B in one piece. For these people, feeling more in control of your car is as unnecessary as feeling more in control of a hand-cranked window over a power window.

Eventually we'll all be in self-driving cars and this whole debate will seem silly and trivial. "Automatics" will eventually include automatic turning and automatic braking and all things automatic.

<comment><USER84> I would love to drive a manual, but I think automatics are just better "UX" for city commuting, especially if you often need to inch forward.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> My father bought me my first car, under the conditions that it had to be a stick, since he wanted me to learn in general, and since you have to pay attention more to the road, your likelihood of getting into an accident decreases significantly.

Now I drive a manual Golf GTI and I'm firmly of the "cold dead hands" camp with having it. I always wonder why other people don't like driving, and then I drive their cars. Having the stick turns my 45-minute commute from a chore to something I legitimately somewhat look forward to. My lease runs out next year and it seems like 2018 is the last year for many stick-shift models.

Definitely going to miss it when we all go full electric. Even then I hope to have a "fun" car to drive around.

<comment><USER86> > since you have to pay attention more to the road

I'm teaching an attention-impaired teenager to drive, and we're doing stick for exactly this reason: extra cog load reduces daydreaming? Perhaps that's a controversial idea. But for him, so far so good.

<comment><USER87> Super hard to talk/text and drive when you have to shift as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER88> I made the switch to automatic a year ago, mainly so my wife could use my car --and I still suffer from Phantom Clutch Syndrome. I am tempted to switch back by the time my kids are old enough to drive so I can teach them, that is if humans are still driving cars then.

<comment><USER89> > I still suffer from Phantom Clutch Syndrome

Based on personal experience, it takes about three years to get over that. YMMV.

</comment></comment><comment><USER90> I have a feeling that driving a manual will eventually be akin to learning to ride a horse - people who love the sport will still do it and pay for it, but the general public will regard it as something far from their lives, whereas it once was a common skill.

Driving a manual, especially on a track teaches you a lot about the physics behind the machine you are operating. For example, few people consider how weight transfer when cornering can either help you or send you into a spin - electronics handle most of this for you and when decelerating, computers won't let you shift.

I do have to wonder if texting and driving would be a lesser concern if both hands were occupied... Probably not, but one can dream!

</comment><comment><USER91> I bought my first automatic in 2011. Prior to that I drove all manual transmission cars from before I was able to legally drive in 1986 until 2011. In 2011, my truck configuration was only offered with automatic transmission. I really hate how automatic transmissions shift, usually not where I want them to and sometimes inexplicably (possibly for emissions reasons) when you are not in the power. While 6 speed automatics are better I still find the gear spacings and shift points to be really irritating (even on luxury cars).

Also, I vastly prefer the control a manual gives you in low traction situations over automatic transmissions with electronic traction control.

</comment><comment><USER72> Not sure what "audi" (a German company) has to do with America but what ever.

For my own tastes, once my 2000 Ford mustang's automatic tranny started acting funny sometimes (after 15 years and 200k miles), I bought a used manual tranny, flywheel, and clutch pedal set from a wrecked mustang of the same year and did a swap. Much happier now. I also feel more "invincible". If my starter goes out, I won't be stranded, I can just do a push start! Heck even if your battery is dead you can normally still push start. Nothing can stop me! Heck it even has a spare tire unlike all these "modern" cars. Truly nothing can stop me!

<comment><USER19> Supposedly, it's newsworthy because Audi was going to discontinue manuals much sooner, but one of their execs pushed for continued offering because of "demand in the US".

Porsche got a lot of backlash in the US when they discontinued manuals, to the point where they engineered a brand new manual gearbox with parts sharing with their PDK just because of US demand for the latest generation.

Audi thought there was also demand for Audis with manuals, apparently there wasn't.

<comment><USER92> Audi may have been confronted with the lesson that BMW already learned to its chagrin: there's no demand for _crappy_ manuals in the US.

That said, the only reason cars have a transmission at all is because of a serious flaw in the way internal combustion engines work. That means that the best transmission would be no transmission at all... and the transmission that best approximates _that_ state of affairs is, more or less inarguably, PDK.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> I love my stick shift, and echo others that it increases my engagement level, but I'm at the point of buying my next car and I know it'll be automatic.

Too many companies don't try to push any advanced technology into their manuals; if you want any kind of active safety features you need to go automatic. Honda was probably the outlier; I test drove the Civic Hatch and it had everything except for low-speed follow available in manual. But others like Subaru, Mazda, etc won't put any of those features (adaptive cruise, etc) in manual packages, at least in the Canadian market.

<comment><USER45> Ouch... I ended up with Mazda for one of my cars because in the US market it had the full range of safety features, and was available with manual transmission. Automatic braking and collision detection at low and high speeds, pedestrian collision detection, rear cross traffic alerts, radar cruise control

I did notice that trend which is unfortunate. The tendency for sporty cars to forgo safety equipment. I hate it.

It looks like the Mazda 3 sedan is now available in CA with the same equipment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> If you've had the misfortune of walking or biking on American roads recently, another reason becomes obvious. Drivers don't have a hand for a stick when one hand is on the wheel and another is texting.

</comment><comment><USER95> Drove nothing but manuals for the past 16 years. Got my first car with a dual- clutch automatic this year. It's faster to shift, easier to drive, has a crazy number of ratios, and still manually controllable. That said, if they still exist, I will go back to a manual for my next car. I think there is a level of engagement lost even with something controllable like a dual-clutch. I can see the appeal of a dual-clutch or even the newer torque converters and I can't fault people for choosing it over a manual, but for me it's not the right fit.

</comment><comment><USER96> My biggest gripe with most automatic transmissions is a feature commonly referred to as creep. Let off the brake pedal and the car moves forward. Depending on the car it's more pronounced. Rarely do you have an automatic that will actually remain at a constant speed or slightly slow down when you lift off the gas.

This is a huge issue and I'll contend it's a major contributor to traffic in urban environments. In a manual vehicle or a DSG/DCT vehicle (read: something that has a clutch or clutches and avoids a torque converter like common automatics) you can let off the gas pedal and your vehicle isn't going to continue to accelerate. Combine that with the ability and knowledge that downshifting is going to force the engine to behave like a brake and you have much more precise control over your speed.

I rarely use my brakes. I own a 6-speed Mustang and my wife has a 6-speed STI. I drive very fluid, estimating (or doing my best to) the perfect avg speed during traffic so I can roll along and smooth out disruptions in my lane. Meanwhile the vast majority of other drivers are constantly battling their vehicles natural tendency to move by tapping on the brake pedal like a moth banging on an outdoor light.

Brake lights cause other people to brake. Even if there is no logical reason to do so, people will respond and then a chain reaction of unnecessary braking is happening all the way down the highway. It's not the only cause of traffic but it's a significant variable in an algebraic shitstorm of other issues.

I'm also pretty convinced that having extensive experience with a manual vehicle makes you a better driver. For instance a lot of folks have no clue what the 1/2/3 or +/\- buttons do on their auto transmissions. They aren't aware of engine braking down a steep grade. They're able to cruise along (thanks to creep) in traffic with their foot never coming off the brake pedal and their attention primarily on a phone. It kills me to see this.

Anecdotally the best drivers I know drive or have driven manual cars. The worst drivers I know don't share this experience.

It's tragic they are going away. The irony here is that worldwide America is one of the few places where it's still appreciated. A lot of high end European auto makers have ditched manual entirely abroad yet still offer it as an option here (on certain models).

I realize automatics are becoming more efficient and have definitely surpassed manuals as far as shifting speed but I still love my stick shift. I wish more people could appreciate it. Unfortunately they're so rare now and carry such an elitist stigma that a lot of people will never even have the opportunity to row the gears and truly _drive_ a fun car.

<comment><USER97> I used to love my stick shift, now I love my electric car. It has the same lack of creep and built-in engine braking.

<comment><USER96> What kind of vehicle is it, specifically?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> As mentioned at the end of the article, I hope all complicated car transmissions go away, and are replaced with dead simple reduction gears in electric cars. Transmissions are expensive to repair and replace, and are often the part that junks an otherwise servicable car when things go awry.

While I empathize with car enthusiasts' loss of manual control, as a used car buyer, and person who enjoys cleaner air, I'm ok with moving past manual (and even automatic) transmissions.

<comment><USER99> I was chanting "electric cars", "electric cars" in my head the whole article and found the end of it very rewarding. :-)

Had a Mazda 3 Astina manual before, lovely car. I'd love a Civic Type R manual but most realistically my next car will be an electric one. Not in the market for one now, cars make you fat compared to other modes of transport, and currently using other modes is viable for me so sticking (sorry!) to that for now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER100> This is kinda sad, and hope it doesn't happen in Canada. I understand that some people prefer automatics because they are easier to drive, but I personally find manuals more fun. I also feel in more control, especially in winter weather. Being able to use the engine to slow down (downshifting) is very useful in icy conditions, when ABS gets retarded. Also my personal opinion, but being able to drive a manual feels more manly ))

</comment><comment><USER101> I recently made the mistake of buying a CVT WRX because of traffic and yada yada. Very fun car but the CVT just kills it. I wind up driving the thing with paddle shifters most of the time. And I've almost convinced myself to trade it up for a manual STI in near future. This whole experience makes me sad sometimes because I know that most fun cars these days only come with paddle shifters these days. This is such a joy kill.

</comment><comment><USER102> There's no point for stick shift other than entertainment these days. When computers can synthesize porn they can definitely shift gears better than a human.

</comment><comment><USER70> I had no idea it had skewed this much. Even Corvette buyers overwhelmingly buy automatic now.

From [http://www.corvetteblogger.com/2017/06/09/production- statist...](http://www.corvetteblogger.com/2017/06/09/production-statistics- for-the-2017-corvette-model-year/)

For 2017, a total of 25556 paddle shift automatics, and a total of 7226 manual shift.

<comment><USER103> I was looking around the lot at my local Porsche dealer 2 years ago. Tons of 911s. Number with manual xmission: 0. That is a crime against humanity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> I've been an engine mechanic for 12 years now and the automatic transmission is a mainstay. Most parents and commuter drivers aren't exactly feathering the clutch like Rossi on the way to band practice in their Hyundai. They just want a cheap easy car that works without a lot of expense, and the automatic transmission takes less maintenance over the life of the vehicle than a manual.

<comment><USER105> I find the last statement surprising. Yes, manual transmissions do require the occasional clutch replacement but also have less moving parts. So I would have assumed less maintenance.

<comment><USER104> Ah, but you're forgetting clutch plates, rollback arrestors, springs, and seals. The longevity is as expected dependent on driver and style as well

Labor has overtaken parts in terms of expense for service like this as well. I can easily bill the cost of a compact car for work done on a high end manual car (Porsche and high end mustangs for example)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> When I learned to drive (early 90s) there was already really no need to learn to drive a stick. None the less, my dad insisted that I learn to drive stick. I liked it so much I bought one a few years later.

I'm also really glad he made me learn, because 15 years later I finally got to Europe and had to rent a car there. It was impossible to find an automatic, but luckily I knew how to drive manual.

</comment><comment><USER106> I like a stick shift, but I'm most likely never going to buy a new car, so I'm at the mercy of its popularity amongst new-car buyers.

</comment><comment><USER107> I think the average non car enthusiast driver would rather drive something as easy to operate as possible. The market for performance 6 speeds has never been better though, Richmond, Tremec and Getrag make superb gearboxes that really liven up the engine that is driving them, increasing performance and driving pleasure for people who are interested in that sort of thing.

</comment><comment><USER108> I still have a manual transmission car, and am in the process of teaching my sons how to drive it.

Granted they are not popular, but I prefer them. Sadly the market does not. And electric cars, which seem to be the next iteration of the automobile, don't have transmissions at all, so the ability to drive a manual is really looking like it will soon be a fairly useless skill.

</comment><comment><USER109> I love driving a stick shift. I also love Morse code. They're both probably anachronisms but I don't care.

My 19 year old niece bought an old F-350 and taught herself to drive a shift. She told me that it was retro cool because so few in her generation know how to drive one. I may have to teach her Morse code ;<).

</comment><comment><USER110> For me, it is commuter traffic and the powertrains getting much better.

Recently, I drove a little Hyundai round trip between Portland and Seattle. MPG for the trip was 54mpg! I drove upper middle of the pack, in terms of speed. Not poking around.

The decisions it made were insane good. I will sometimes data log my cars and try for peak fuel efficiency. So, I am really good at squeezing mpg out of a car. I get my communte optimized each time I use a new car. Been doing that for years. It is just a bit of fun.

That car nailed the usual oppirtunities for gains. Well done.

Honestly, I am not sure I could beat that car in a manual transmission version. At the least, doing so would require way more attention than I am willing to give.

Given the compute and greater efficiencies possible today, manual for fuel economy makes less and less sense. Electrics are coming too.

I love manual cars, but do not love them as daily drivers anymore.

Did not think it would happen. It has.

</comment><comment><USER111> One thing I've noticed over the last 10 years is how action films with car chases in have started cutting to shots of the driver shifting gears. It's as if the manual gear change is becoming an exotic thing, used only by getaway drivers.

As someone who lives in a country where automatics are still in the minority, it's very odd.

<comment><USER112> It always rubs me the wrong way when in a movie there is a dialogue scene in a car going at a steady pace, and yet in the background you get a recording of a motor revving up and shifting back down in a loop. Like a Shepard tone, but with a car.

</comment></comment><comment><USER113> Manuals have been selected out of the marketplace by dealer sales managers. I would love to own at least one manual transmission vehicle. Most that Ive considered in recent history were available with a manual, and the ones that are available as a manual are impossible to find or special order only.

<comment><USER81> There was a story somewhere (I can't find it now) about how a big part of the lack of car color options in the US is that consumers are used to buying cars directly off dealer lots.

According to the article, this makes the consumer into the customer of the dealer, and not the manufacturer. As such, the dealer is the manufacturer's true customer, and their demand is what drives production and availability.

The dealer, naturally, optimizes their inventory for the best sellers, which are generally grayscale colors, so that's what they order from the manufacturer. When the customer shows up, the limited choices often force compromises, which turn into statistics used to further optimize inventory.

The way out of this loop is for the customer to insist on the exact desired configuration.

The problem is that many (most?) people don't care enough to wait for three months instead of driving home in their new car the same day. This is further exacerbated by the dealer's willingness to offer a better deal on a car that's on the lot than one that has to be ordered.

I wouldn't be surprised if transmission availability plays into this to some extent, though probably not quite as much. After all, manuals are still generally cheaper in terms of MSRP, but dealer pricing may negate and even reverse that advantage.

<comment><USER114> Wait three months and pay list price in all probability if you order custom rather than take a car on the lot. Not always with high demand vehicles but I've always bought a car off the lot st a discount.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER115> Related news: Americans spend considerably more time in traffic as well. (Here's a comparsion from 82 - 92 - 02: [https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/executive_summary...](https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestion_report/executive_summary.htm))

I'm not sure there's a significant market for cars in the US where traffic isn't a factor or hasn't grown significantly in the last generation.

Given that automatics are much nicer to drive in traffic, I sense that is a huge reason why there's just not much of a market for manuals. Unless the manual was going to be massively cheaper (and it's not), I can't think of a large group of people who would desire manual transmissions.

</comment><comment><USER116> I preferred stick because it allowed me to accelerate faster and better control my driving. Now that most cars offer some sort of turbo and manual- like like transmission option, I much prefer our new future of automatic.

</comment><comment><USER15> I used to prefer manual. It was interesting and gave a feeling of skill. But the thrill is gone because the thrill of driving is gone, thanks to congestion.

Economy seems to be a wash. And quite frankly, I've observed that stick shift cars tend to be driven in "fun" mode, which is probably less economical.

I like... automation. I'm waiting eagerly for a self driving car. Meanwhile, my next car will probably be electric.

While my family still has one stick-shift car, my kids will learn to drive it. My daughter already has, and my son will, after he figures out how to drive the automatic car safely.

</comment><comment><USER117> This article missed the franchise dealer economic factors. Due to the floorplan financing system, US dealers for volume brands don't want to take custom orders anymore. They live or die by inventory turnover rate and so they want to sell you a car that's on the lot _today_. Thus they mostly stock only the most popular combinations of options. Most buyers who would prefer a manual are also willing to buy an automatic, but buyers who want an automatic won't buy a manual. So the dealers don't stock manuals.

</comment><comment><USER118> So sad to see this.

I just bought an A4 with the manual transmission and it was tough to even locate one...most Audi dealerships get only a few each year.

Oddly, the dealer said Audi was ramping up its manual offerings next year.

</comment><comment><USER119> I have a little 6-speed BMW right now that's _so_ fun to drive around, but I think my next car will probably be a Model 3.

Shifting is fun when the roads aren't a disaster, but between traffic and the fact that ICEs are pretty much untenable in the long-term, it's hard to justify buying another manual. Plus, the options for new stick shift cars seem to be dwindling every year anyway.

I'd like to be able to continue driving a standard, but it just makes less and less sense (for me, at least).

</comment><comment><USER120> If you look at all the modern muscle cars (or in the case of the Corvette and Camaro ZL1) hypercars and supercars camouflagef as muscle cars, they all come with the manual transmission as the standard option, and most of the enthusiasts choose that. I watch Youtube car videos constantly and have seen a very encouraging uptake of manual transmission cars in America by generation Y. It's like a new era is dawning. Very encouraging.

</comment><comment><USER121> The major downside, I think, of the US totally abandoning the stick shift is that in my experience the majority of rentals outside of the US are stick. I'm very aware of this in Europe, and I guess it would also be true in even less developed countries. I recognize that this is a somewhat niche problem but when the time comes and you can't drive any of the rentals on the lot, that's going to be a real pain!

</comment><comment><USER122> It is crazy that 95% of all cars sold in India (one of the largest in the world) are stick shift with very less growth in automatic vehicles.

One is the perception that automatic vehicles have significantly worse fuel efficiency than stick shift. And the second is that the newer CVT based automatic vehicles have not been introduced in India.. and the older AMT automatic vehicles is what have been half-heartedly used by manufacturers.

<comment><USER123> I believe extra cost plays a big role.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> For me, I prefer manual over automatic based solely on price. I also appreciate that manuals are less complex and more easily serviced. I think disposable automobiles is an affront to decency and I despise obsolescence of perfectly fine autos.

I'm eagerly awaiting the first 'open design' auto that uses easily acquired and interchangeable parts. I would also like to see the same in lawn mowers.

</comment><comment><USER124> ... and the article features a stock photo of someone grasping an automatic transmission shifter that vaguely looks like a stick. The end is nigh

</comment><comment><USER125> I loved my manual transmission cars, and wasn't even that bothered by the "1st-2nd-1st-2nd..." highway congestion that I'd encounter every now and then. But when my driving got to be a little more adventurous (lane and a half wide gravel forest service roads on steep hills) I reluctantly gave in and got an auto. Some day I hope to own another fun manual car...

</comment><comment><USER126> This is somewhat tangential, but I think there may have been an increase in the two-footed driving of automatics. On a highway with smoothly-flowing traffic, there is rarely any need to touch the brakes, yet I see a constant flickering of red in front of me, together with the occasional car that has its brake lights lit most of the time.

</comment><comment><USER127> It used to be a form of saving money and better control of your car, but now is more of an acquired taste to want to use manual shift. For me, the fun is in doing perfect rev match down shifts or doing a goo toe-heel move before a tight turn. Otherwise comparing to all the AI and radars, there isn't much practical use anymore.

</comment><comment><USER128> My advice to British learner drivers - just take the test in an automatic car. Yes you won't be able to drive manual cars but who cares about that?

It's 2018 people! Leave obsolete technology behind. You want to learn how to drive a horse drawn cart too?

EDIT - This was meant as a reply to a related comment. Oops.

<comment><USER129> My advice to British learner drivers - take the test in a manual car and do your utmost to get an automatic car. Especially so if existing family cars are manual.

The vast majority of cars around are manual, unfortunately. This means that you won't be able to drive most cars around. In the case of one person I know, they had to retake their driving test a couple of years later because they were forced to drive a manual car. In addition, if you are buying a car as a young adult, it is likely that price matters, and the number of cheaper, used manual cars vastly outnumbers cheaper, used automatics.

It isn't much extra effort to learn manual, and you can let the skill atrophy afterwards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER130> Cities and freeways are one thing, but I think it's more about suburbia. Stop signs over yields by default, four way stop signs, and roundabouts (circles) being a completely alien concept. These things are kinda fine in an automatic but vastly less comfortable in a manual.

</comment><comment><USER131> Please may the day come soon when we can say that America lost its love for the automobile in general.

</comment><comment><USER132> My wife and I would prefer a manual transmission. However, we want to have a station wagon, and when we last went shopping for a car, the only station wagons with a manual transmission were Audi and VW. So we have an Accord (rebadged Honda) with an automatic transmission.

</comment><comment><USER133> The photo in the article is not of a stick shifter. That's an automatic transition gear changer.

</comment><comment><USER134> I will never choose a car with stick shift to drive around. Not in Los Angeles with the stop/go traffic freeway. Nope.

But it is a useful skill to have. What if you go abroad and have to drive a stick shift. Looks like in many nations, stick shift is sometimes the only option.

</comment><comment><USER135> Eh, driven both. The PDK in my Porsche is faster then I am. All my friends that screamed and yelled about being smarter then the PDK I took out for a ride on a long fun Mt road. At the end they said the PDK was better. This is and should be a task for a computer.

<comment><USER81> "Better" is a tricky word.

I have no doubt PDK (and even far less sophisticated (semi-)automated transmissions) is _faster_ and less likely to make a mistake, but what if outright performance isn't the ultimate goal?

I had the pleasure of driving a 991.1 GT3 with PDK, and it was blisteringly fast (both the car and the transmission). But I was definitely more of a passenger than in my 2004 6-speed manual Miata, and the fact that I noticed that is pretty telling about my preferences.

In a multi-car garage I certainly wouldn't complain about a great (semi-)automated transmission in a daily driver (PDK, DSG, DCT, or even ZF's lauded 8-speed auto), but next to it would have to be a toy with a good manual.

Here's a fun short video about this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaUCdAdaaj8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaUCdAdaaj8)

</comment></comment><comment><USER136> Automatic gears are much better for parking, etc. in particular when you have to park in a gradient. I've always longed for an automatic, bought the first when I could, and convinced the rest of the family to do the same with "test drives".

<comment><USER137> Ya, I have no idea how someone parallel parks a manual (w/out hill assist) on a 15% grade; I personally have to keep one foot on the break and one foot on the accelerator!

<comment><USER81> You can use the e-brake as you lift off the clutch pedal and press on the accelerator. With some learning, I'm now pretty OK at it after some 13,000 miles of manual driving total.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER138> I bought the new JL Wrangler. For a vehicle that is about fun and adventure I was between the automatic and manual. When it came time to order and saw the automatic was a $2k option, it was an easy choice. I could have gone either way.

<comment><USER139> I've got a JL rubi.

Low speed/rock crawling/grades I feel would suck with a clutch, though. On fairly basic rough stuff like cutting through woods over logs and what not to get to my camping destination I often need 2 hands on the wheel to gently fight mud/etc pulling them in the wrong direction. The easier control of your torque w/ manual is probably nice, though. When you're doing this stuff you're typically locked to under 15mph because of the sway bar disconnect (it pops back on if you hit 17mph) & lockers, so you're not even changing gears out of 1st so maybe it's not even a problem.

Anyway hope you're able to get some adventuring in it, I moved to the big city and haven't put many miles on mine since I bought it in May. Just a few offroad trips. Hopefully a caravan to Overland expo next year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER140> Something to add about why some automakers still offer manuals: they help bring down the lowest advertised base price (still significantly enough cheaper) and they help lower CAFE (still a bit of a fuel efficiency benefit).

</comment><comment><USER141> Sad to see it. I love manual transmissions, they can make driving more fun.

My last car (a Subaru STi) had a nice 6 speed. I replaced it this spring, with a newer ride that came only with an automatic. Probably is the wave of the future.

</comment><comment><USER142> Manuals just make driving fun IMO. I've been trying to find a manual 2013 to 2016 Audi A4 for weeks/months now, and its dishearteningly difficult to find any without expanding my search to be nationwide.

</comment><comment><USER143> Manual transmission s basically the command line of cars. It does have its utility, like if you are a sysadmin, but for most part a GUI is much better. Further, as with GUI, automatic transmission poses new problems that need innovative solutions, and this is always a fun thing to happen.

Automatic transmission is a godsend for developing countries like India where roads are too crowded, and filled with bad drivers with bad driving etiquette, and the start-stop driving happens for more than one reason. Its a shame that the market hasn't grown here, at least AFAIK. On the flip side, making it easy to drive might worsen the bad driving and make it accessible to even more incompetent people, as has happened with gearless scooters. It would be interesting to see how things unfold.

</comment><comment><USER144> I have an S2000. It only ever came in manual. It is insanely fun to drive.

</comment><comment><USER145> Real reason is simple: can drive manual implies can drive automatic which means that automatics are more marketable and dealers adjust inventory accordingly. Negative feedback loop ensues.

</comment><comment><USER146> A popular topic on HN is how Europe does XYZ better than the US. Particularly in traffic, actually. But here, the Americans truly got it right.

Most people just want a car to get them from A to B. Manual has little to go for it among non-car-geeks, other than "people think it's normal" (in Europe). Automatic is sold as an expensive option here but that makes no sense to me - how can a chip be more expensive to produce than a physical gear box? I assume it isn't and the auto companies just charge what they think people are willing to pay.

I'm glad that EVs are taking hold because then, finally, automatic will become the default. It breaks a ridiculous habit that benefits nobody.

<comment><USER147> > Automatic is sold as an expensive option here but that makes no sense to me > - how can a chip be more expensive to produce than a physical gear box?

I'm not sure what you mean by "chip" here -- all cars have gear boxes (in some form -- you need to have a way of converting the engine's rotation into wheel rotation without stalling or overworking the engine) the question is how they work and what controls the gear ratio. A manual gearbox is actually very simple conceptually and mechanically, resulting in cheaper hardware (and the repair costs are quite cheap too).

Common automatics use a fluid coupling as their gearbox with a torque converter, which is a more complicated piece of machinery (with more significant repair costs in the medium-term -- a clutch replacement is $1000 while an automatic transmission rebuild is $5000). So it makes some sense that they are more expensive -- though it's not always the case that automatics are more expensive to buy (it's only really the case of cheaper cars that they're always more expensive).

The only kind of automatic I can think of that is a "chip" would be a double- clutch transmission (which might appear like an automatic to a user), but as the name suggests under the hood it is two manual transmissions with a computer trying to predict the future to know what gear is needed next). Those are even more expensive because they are ridiculously complicated, and probably require some sort of license from the manufacturer to sell.

<comment><USER146> O wow, call me filter bubbled. I just plainly assumed that automatic gear shifting would be software controlled. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER148> I don't drive stick because I don't want to have to do extra work to drive my car. It would be very annoying. Just a personal preference.

I had no idea that it was becoming so rare, though.

</comment><comment><USER149> After decades of driving shift I was forced by circumstances into Honda with auto. I still drive with my left hand on the wheel and right on the shift.

Some of us really do prefer to drive stick.

</comment><comment><USER150> Switching to a manual finally killed my habit of "quickly replying" to a text or e-mail. Sad it took that, but I'll accept my longer lifespan now.

<comment><USER76> > habit of "quickly replying" to a text or e-mail.

Once you are on the highway and driving at 80 km/h or above, in most manual cars you are already shifted to the highest gear. In my Hyundai Matrix I am already shifted to the highest gear at 55 km/h.

Oh, and regardless which car you have, please, do not touch your mobile phone.

<comment><USER150> That's true, but most of my driving isn't highway. I think if it was, I'd be less interested in a manual as it wouldn't change much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER151> When horse saddles were first invented, I'm sure some people still preferred bareback horse riding because "you feel more connected to the horse"

</comment><comment><USER152> I'm a far more distracted driver since going automatic

</comment><comment><USER153> I've always owned a stick for years. Then gave up my last one cuz my wife won't learn. And I got tired of 10 - 12 hour drives myself. Miss them.

</comment><comment><USER103> Anybody planning on renting a car in Europe is going to have trouble if they don't know how to drive with manual transmission.

</comment><comment><USER154> I still drive a stick shift, and still love it.

</comment><comment><USER155> Not all of us don't love it. I have a Chevy HHR with a stick and it's my "millennial anti-theft device".

</comment><comment><USER156> [https://www.cydiaguru.com/](https://www.cydiaguru.com/)

</comment><comment><USER157> Nothing, and I mean _nothing_ will give me the same sense of control that manual driving gives me.

</comment><comment><USER158> I still prefer a manual transmission, not the least because it reduces the likelihood of auto theft.

</comment><comment><USER159> for me - the first sign of stick shift death was the GM LS1 set of vehicles. I honestly don't know how it was before them, but I know the Camaro Z28, Pontiac Trans Am, and I believe even the Vette with the LS1 sold the automatic for the same price as the manual.

</comment><comment><USER160> Stop and go traffic, when suffered long enough, will drive anyone to an automatic.

</comment><comment><USER161> Is Toyota hybrid an automatic transmission, or completely different beast?

</comment><comment><USER162> Anecdata: this is the second article on HN this week for which I have seen another article in one of the national newspapers of the European country I live in. 2minutes to fall asleep like the military was the other one. Both had some kind is sensationalist vibe.

Ah, globalisation.

</comment><comment><USER163> Horses -> Stick Shift -> Automatic -> Self Driving Cars. Nice.

</comment><comment><USER164> I went to the junkyard got a manual and pedal and put it in my car.

</comment><comment><USER165> My EV has a manual transmission. 1 forward gear and reverse :)

</comment><comment><USER166> next step is no transmission... aka electric cars... (I'm glad Musk was not able to add a transmission to its cars...)

</comment><comment><USER167> Not even Ferraris come with sticks anymore. It's sad.

Anyhow, a stick is turning into a great car theft prevention device.

</comment><comment><USER168> This article completely misses what I have observed as a major factor in nearly everyone switching to automatics:

Drunk driving became illegal, then agressively enforced.

This created a powerful incentive for having a vehicle _anyone_ can drive.

All my friends growing up were gearheads of some kind, and drove manual cars. Now they have automatics, so they can continue to get drunk when out and have someone sober (their wives, generally) drive them home.

Don't forget letting the female half of the population drive in the US is a relatively new development as well...

<comment><USER18> _Don 't forget letting the female half of the population drive in the US is a relatively new development as well..._

Do you mean to say "new" as in "before this old man who is bordering on retirement was born"? Maybe you city folk kept the ladies in the passenger seat, but out on the farm and you don't drive stick, you're not much use. My long-dead grandmother drove everything from the farm truck full of livestock for the sale barn, to driving us kids to church on Sunday when we stayed with her. Were I to guess, if there were a time women didn't generally drive, it was maybe the '50s and before. Sure wasn't the 60s.

Besides, as I was discussing with my wife (who shifts more smoothly than you do) this weekend: manuals aren't what kept women from driving, it was lack of power steering. You can teach a seven-year-old to drive stick.

<comment><USER168> Any societal shift I can clearly see in my lifetime beginning with my grandparents spanning into my generation I consider relatively new.

Hell it's still a novelty to see coverage of women in automobile racing. Even when they aren't competitive, the media will broadcast their image just for participation alone.

Culturally, it's still fairly common to hear comments about women drivers being inferior.

So I think we're clearly not even out of the woods yet today.</comment></comment></comment>


Touristiness heatmap by number of public photos - <AUTHOR> http://maps.google.com/maps/mpl?moduleurl=http://www.bluemoon.ee/~ahti/touristiness-map/touristiness-map.xml

<comment><USER2> Cool idea, but I think the data is skewed by population density, for example, the map shows Juarez as being more touristy than the Grand Canyon. A better approach might be to map the ratio of photos to population density.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, it pretty much follows population density. Some notable exceptions are Utah, Colorado, Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon, the Smoky Mountains (on the border of Tennessee and North Carolina), the Carolina beaches, Vermont, northern New Hampshire, and the Adirondacks of New York.

<comment><USER4> Another exception is the Oregon Coast (where I grow up) It's bright yellow but pretty much no one lives there (relatively speaking). For example, the county I grew up, Lincoln County, is roughly the size of Rhode Island but has only around 45,000 people (figures from memory).

But it is extremely touristy. Highway 101 grinds to a stand still most summer days, especially when it's really hot inland in Portland / Salem / Eugene.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Great idea.

Wouldn't have expected the USA to be that much less touristy than Europe, though. And within Europe, western France seems to attract fewer photographs than even rurual Turkey.

<comment><USER6> I think that it depends on what is being photographed. In rural Turkey, it will be toursists photographing each other, in Western France it will be tourists photographing the Eiffel tower.

Plenty of very highly visited areas are not that memorable by themselves other than that they receive a large amount of sunshine and this alone will attract large numbers of tourists from the North West of Europe.

<comment><USER7> I don't think panoramio includes photos of people taking pictures of one another.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Would be nice to see this by time of the year so you can plan your trip when everybody else is _not_ at your destination.

<comment><USER8> Winter.

<comment><USER6> Not for the Alps :)

And not in the Southern hemisphere either.

<comment><USER9> They have winter in the southern hemisphere too. ;-)

<comment><USER6> Tricky question, is winter when it is cold or is winter when it is December ?

<comment><USER10> Not tricky at all. Winter is in June, July, August

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you like that site then you may find the Geograph project interesting:

<http://www.geograph.org.uk/>

The have high resolution (100m x 100m) resolution photo heat maps of the UK. (Note the amount of green in Scotland, meaning no pics at all of that grid square).

</comment><comment><USER7> Why is yellow the 'hottest'? That sort of goes against every other map of this type, no? Also, it seems to be in need of some calibration. The Alps get lots of tourists, but Venice gets way more. Oodles of them.

That said, I love the concept and the clever use of public data to make a guess about something else.

<comment><USER11> From December to April the Alps get a hell of a lot of visitors - the big ski resorts (especially the French ones) are _huge_.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I know - I lived in Innsbruck. Nothing like any day of the year in Venice, though.

<comment><USER11> 3 Valleys, Espace Killy, Paradiski....

I'd go with the Alps

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> How about making it detect clusters of photos at locations. So I can look within say 20 miles of my area and find certain locations where there are a lot of photos?

</comment><comment><USER13> Dang. While it works well in Indiana (it detects the Metamora artists' colony), it pretty much maxes the meter in Western Europe and Puerto Rico (the latter basically looks like a glowing hot brick).

</comment><comment><USER14> Surprisingly, Pyongyang looks pretty bright.

One could argue that North Korea is safer than (say) Thailand now, but I still wonder why go there if you aren't a researcher or spy.

</comment><comment><USER15> I would've thought all Irerland to be colored in. What's with the stretch of N60 between Ballyhaunis and Castlerea? The N5 just to the south and west of Lough Gara as well.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'd like to know what this has to do with "touristiness". Were only photos used that were tagged eg "vacation"? Germany is a land of spammers and contribution-freaks (as in "I must add an photo here, I will be the first") but I highly doubt it is such a popular holiday destination.

<comment><USER17> I get your second point (although I think desire to 'level up' is nothing particularly German) but 'land of spammers'?</comment></comment>


Easily open websites from the terminal - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/eavgerinos/popme

<comment><USER2> This does the trick on OSX:

      open http://google.com</comment>


Kill Your Startup Idea - <AUTHOR> http://foundercode.com/kill-your-startup-idea/

<comment><USER2> "Does your idea solve a problem that people actually have?"

It's too easy to believe people have problem X when you toying with a new idea. I would much rather ask.. "Does your idea solve a problem that YOU actually have?"

</comment><comment><USER3> > Does your idea solve a problem that people actually have?

Also make sure to talk to your target customers. Make sure they agree that your product solves a problem for them.</comment>


Fibonacci benchmark - <AUTHOR> https://crystal-lang.org/2016/07/15/fibonacci-benchmark.html <comment><USER2> Author could do worse than to read [http://jvns.ca/blog/2016/07/23/rigorous- benchmarking-in-reas...](http://jvns.ca/blog/2016/07/23/rigorous-benchmarking- in-reasonable-time/)

I think another good benchmarking resource was on HN recently but I didn't find it right away.

fwiw, in my own benchmark, pypy, python2, python3, and c++ were all within a factor of 3 (6-18us per fib(300) on an i5-3320M) using 100,000 repetitions (timeit's autotuned repetition count). Since most of the time in fib.cr was probably startup time, it's not directly comparable to any of their figures (691us to invoke fib.cr and calculat fib(42) once)

.. and I see now that the "big" fib was 300_000 and not 300</comment>


Ted Kaczynski - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kaczynski <comment><USER2> Interesting...I remember him being arrested in '96, and his primitive lifestyle, but I didn't recall the detail that he specifically targeted technologists.

</comment><comment><USER3> The computer scientist David Gelernter wrote _Drawing Life: Surviving the Unabomber_ about his experience.

</comment><comment><USER4> What about him?

<comment><USER5> He's not wrong.

<comment><USER6> And these days, he's increasingly popular among both the radical left and right

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> @dang, thought there was a new policy regarding random Wikipedia articles being submitted?</comment>