4 ms·

> they are loud, having to have gears is stupid, It's the beauty of driving I'm all in favour for people to stop driving if they don't like it, I can't wait f

> they are loud, having to have gears is stupid, It's the beauty of driving I'm all in favour for people to stop driving if they don't like it, I can't wait for the day where I can be among the few owners of a mechanical car that I drive when I need to relax, outside of the cities, just don't call what other people enjoy stupid, please Before anybody jumps at me, I quit driving for commute or day by day activities 7 years ago and when I need a car now I use car sharing (I spent around 25-30 euros a month, it really is nothing compared to what I used to spend when I owned a car). But please don't tell me that one of those electric smart is a real car The feeling is just not there

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gambiting 6y ago
>>just don't call what other people enjoy stupid, please I enjoy it too, my last car was a Mercedes AMG with a modified exhaust and a tune map. I loved it. But no, it was stupid. The climate is fucked and I literally had a car where the ECU would inject fuel and cut ignition just to produce the loud BRAP BRAP BRAP noise when changing gears. Literally burning fuel to make a noise and not move the car forward. Like, these two are not mutually exclusive. It was incredibly awesome and incredibly stupid at the same time. For driving experience of course I would pick the AMG over my electric car. But it's not a sustainable position to be in.
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  > The climate is fucked Not because of manual gears... Or because people love to drive But because we move too many things burning fossil fuel Pleasure is never stupid, before considering driving stupid, there are many things I would call it first For example drinking beer, to quote you "you are literally burning fossil fuel to produce something that poison you" The war on ice is wrong in many ways similar to the war on drugs: it is punitive only for the final user. Do you really want people to stop using cars? Instead of putting public money in private companies to help people buy the expensive new electric cars, give the money directly to people to not use the car and see what they use the money for, so you can better understand what their needs are, instead of creating an artificial one.
  - phil21 6y ago
    > Do you really want people to stop using cars? Stop? Nope. Vastly reduce reliance? Yep. Remove all subsidy to this mode of transit? Yes. Global warming in my opinion is only the tip of the iceberg of "things car-based society has hurt". The massive sprawl induced by subsidized car infrastructure has many societal impacts, pollution is only one small item of a huge list.
    - romanoderoma 6y ago
      > Stop? Nope. Vastly reduce reliance? Yep. Remove all subsidy to this mode of transit? Yes. We agree You make an important point, the exact one that makes me doubtful that EV transition should be subsidized, again. EV incentives will go to the same actors that created these conditions and is going to pay for the same infrastructure that made our cities a living hell. Instead of banning cars, remove the need to use them. Instead of subsidize car makers, subsidize the rethinking of the entire mobility plans If people won't need cars, they won't use them If people feel that they invested in new "safe" EV cars, even the young people who show no love for cars (not wrongfully) will start using them, because they are new, they are modern, they are safe and probably smell good too and for sure they signal that you care about the environment, so you won't keep them hidden in the garage, you'll use them as much as you can (also to maximize the investment) Which will bring us to the same point we are now: much of the cities public real estate is eaten by roads and parkings while walking is disincentivized because everything useful, from IKEA to the shoe shop, are in some giant mall out of town unreachable without a car We need to get rid of cars as a social need, EV or not, it is a really bad habit to rely on them other than for fun and the occasional emergency
noonespecial 6y ago
Soon some madlad will create a kit with pedals, a shift knob, and some noise makers for under the car plus a sweet software patch that will perfectly replicate the manual petrol experiece. A bunch of purists with then argue that despite the fact they can't reliably tell the simulated electric from the original in blind a/b testing that the original is still better because it has "soul".
- gambiting 6y ago
  It's already a thing in China - they created an electric car that has a clutch and 6 gears - that don't actually do anything, they are 100% simulated, including stalling the car. Why? For a training car, so people who want a manual driving licence can train on an electric car. https://www.google.com/amp/s/jalopnik.com/this-chinese-electric-car-designed-for-driving-schools-1844071179/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/jalopnik.com/this-chinese-elect...
- romanoderoma 6y ago
  It's not about soul, it's about safety Engine braking is an important part of driving safely because it avoids losing control of the steering wheels and can be used to drive at constant speed or slow down on slippery surfaces (snow, ice, water etc.) There's a reason if trucks are still mainly manual and even the automatic transmission in trucks is not the same used in cars (it's much more advanced and it's more a computer activated gear than simply automatic)
  - gambiting 6y ago
    I don't understand your argument at all. Again, every single electric car(including my own) has a regenerative mode, where the car applies gentle resistance to the electric motors when you lift your foot off the throttle - I can absolutely guarantee that if you drove one you wouldn't see any difference between this and engine braking with a manual. It provides the same level of safety in slippery conditions as a manual would. The reasons why trucks don't usually have automatic transmissions is that the torque needed to move such a huge mass would destroy nearly every traditional hydrokinetic transmission, only recently dual clutches have started getting good enough to be installed in trucks, and indeed most new tractors you can buy now from Volvo, Mercedes or Scania are all automatic. It has nothing to do with safety, it was a technical limitation. And for braking trucks have a separate engine retarder that has nothing to do with the transmission.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gambiting 6y ago

>>just don't call what other people enjoy stupid, please I enjoy it too, my last car was a Mercedes AMG with a modified exhaust and a tune map. I loved it. But no, it was stupid. The climate is fucked and I literally had a car where the ECU would inject fuel and cut ignition just to produce the loud BRAP BRAP BRAP noise when changing gears. Literally burning fuel to make a noise and not move the car forward. Like, these two are not mutually exclusive. It was incredibly awesome and incredibly stupid at the same time. For driving experience of course I would pick the AMG over my electric car. But it's not a sustainable position to be in.

romanoderoma 6y ago
> The climate is fucked Not because of manual gears... Or because people love to drive But because we move too many things burning fossil fuel Pleasure is never stupid, before considering driving stupid, there are many things I would call it first For example drinking beer, to quote you "you are literally burning fossil fuel to produce something that poison you" The war on ice is wrong in many ways similar to the war on drugs: it is punitive only for the final user. Do you really want people to stop using cars? Instead of putting public money in private companies to help people buy the expensive new electric cars, give the money directly to people to not use the car and see what they use the money for, so you can better understand what their needs are, instead of creating an artificial one.
- phil21 6y ago
  > Do you really want people to stop using cars? Stop? Nope. Vastly reduce reliance? Yep. Remove all subsidy to this mode of transit? Yes. Global warming in my opinion is only the tip of the iceberg of "things car-based society has hurt". The massive sprawl induced by subsidized car infrastructure has many societal impacts, pollution is only one small item of a huge list.
  - romanoderoma 6y ago
    > Stop? Nope. Vastly reduce reliance? Yep. Remove all subsidy to this mode of transit? Yes. We agree You make an important point, the exact one that makes me doubtful that EV transition should be subsidized, again. EV incentives will go to the same actors that created these conditions and is going to pay for the same infrastructure that made our cities a living hell. Instead of banning cars, remove the need to use them. Instead of subsidize car makers, subsidize the rethinking of the entire mobility plans If people won't need cars, they won't use them If people feel that they invested in new "safe" EV cars, even the young people who show no love for cars (not wrongfully) will start using them, because they are new, they are modern, they are safe and probably smell good too and for sure they signal that you care about the environment, so you won't keep them hidden in the garage, you'll use them as much as you can (also to maximize the investment) Which will bring us to the same point we are now: much of the cities public real estate is eaten by roads and parkings while walking is disincentivized because everything useful, from IKEA to the shoe shop, are in some giant mall out of town unreachable without a car We need to get rid of cars as a social need, EV or not, it is a really bad habit to rely on them other than for fun and the occasional emergency

noonespecial 6y ago

Soon some madlad will create a kit with pedals, a shift knob, and some noise makers for under the car plus a sweet software patch that will perfectly replicate the manual petrol experiece. A bunch of purists with then argue that despite the fact they can't reliably tell the simulated electric from the original in blind a/b testing that the original is still better because it has "soul".

gambiting 6y ago
It's already a thing in China - they created an electric car that has a clutch and 6 gears - that don't actually do anything, they are 100% simulated, including stalling the car. Why? For a training car, so people who want a manual driving licence can train on an electric car. https://www.google.com/amp/s/jalopnik.com/this-chinese-electric-car-designed-for-driving-schools-1844071179/amp https://www.google.com/amp/s/jalopnik.com/this-chinese-elect...
romanoderoma 6y ago
It's not about soul, it's about safety Engine braking is an important part of driving safely because it avoids losing control of the steering wheels and can be used to drive at constant speed or slow down on slippery surfaces (snow, ice, water etc.) There's a reason if trucks are still mainly manual and even the automatic transmission in trucks is not the same used in cars (it's much more advanced and it's more a computer activated gear than simply automatic)
- gambiting 6y ago
  I don't understand your argument at all. Again, every single electric car(including my own) has a regenerative mode, where the car applies gentle resistance to the electric motors when you lift your foot off the throttle - I can absolutely guarantee that if you drove one you wouldn't see any difference between this and engine braking with a manual. It provides the same level of safety in slippery conditions as a manual would. The reasons why trucks don't usually have automatic transmissions is that the torque needed to move such a huge mass would destroy nearly every traditional hydrokinetic transmission, only recently dual clutches have started getting good enough to be installed in trucks, and indeed most new tractors you can buy now from Volvo, Mercedes or Scania are all automatic. It has nothing to do with safety, it was a technical limitation. And for braking trucks have a separate engine retarder that has nothing to do with the transmission.