Is technological regression a thing?

[kalvado]

Perhaps, although can you readily fashion a new stone axe as easily as you could purchase a new steel one?

Well, we're mostly talking about some fringe situations - broken motor on a window, reception in a obscure location..

In that sense factoring ability to drive to Home Depot is not fair, we are talking about abnormal fringe situations.

Oh no, not fringe at all–sorry that my point continues to be so unclear.

The reception issue I used to have when I lived in the Bronx–within the boundaries of the nation's most populous city. I now live 40 miles farther out than that, but I have a 50-mile antenna, readily available on the market (along with longer-distance models). This would apply to huge numbers of quite typical households.

Another example we've talked about quite a bit is telephone vs. e-mail. And you could extend the same to any textual, online method of communication, such as social media, or this forum. I don't think I need to present to you any persuasive evidence that large numbers of people use these technologies, nor that large numbers of people have seen the effects of the missing tone and inflection information that these systems lack. Indeed, it's practically a defining aspect of our society, anymore...

So yeah, not fringe cases or obscure situations at all. Even the broken car window isn't obscure–it may not happen to everyone all of the time, but the possibility of it is inherent in any cases where motorized windows are used, which is almost always in modern conventional passenger cars.

50 mile for TV is at the very edge, if not beyond, line-of-sight reception distance for a reasonable tower height.. SO yes, totally fringe of zone. And I can see whoever is in charge of broadcast towers being not too willing to put more and newer ones as cost/benefit ratio goes down as few people actually get affected.

Communications... Once again, you were talking about call transfer - option probably unused in personal communications and mostly important for business. For person-to-person communications.. In addition to free long distance calls on my cell, I can use Skype, Viber - and another half a dozen apps which offer voice, video, point-to-point or group calls.. But people often use text anyway. A emotions over text are not unheard of

Or putting things in more roadgeeky style... NMSL, if implemented today - better at 45-50 MPH - would save a lot of lives. 99.999% of the rides would benefit from increased speed - but last fraction of percent is where you loose. Percentage of killed or injured on a road is not that big - but if you are in that small group... it sucks big time..  So, speed limit increase is Elmer as well? 

[formulanone]

There is a hole bunch of typed comments up the stream about how bad convenience of electric drives actually is...

Every example I saw above was for an item that could still not function whether it was electrically-activated or not. I've had broken window cranks before, and written up repair orders for sunroofs that wouldn't open on Ford Focuses which also had a crank (back in the 1990s). My point is, they're not entirely backwards steps, as implied by "technological regression", because both could suffer failures at some point. Besides, we're about 20-40 years away from putting that genie back in the bottle.

Do you drive a manual or automatic car? For every clutch and bearing replacement, there's one hundred torque converters or valve bodies that are awaiting repairs on those slushboxes. The latter became more prevalent out of overall convenience, despite being much less reliable, and taking the best part of 50 years towards making the engine as fuel-efficient and faster-performing than a manually-operated transmission.

Theoretically, we would like one technological advancement to be free from any failures or disadvantages, but that's a joke without a punchline. In average situations...

1) unforeseen circumstances rear their ugly head
2) rushed to market before proper research and/or development
3) sub-optimal solution disguised as good idea pushed by management/government
4) undermined good/great/better idea by those with influence
5) masses resistant to "change" despite intense pleas for "better" because that means "more work"
6) people will complain about anything trivial, no matter how great the idea is

I think many of these concerns are #6. To the masses, the convenience surpassed the rare chance - literally about 1:1000 or less - it might fail.

I won't argue that digital TV was a technological step backwards, but in near-ideal conditions the picture is clearer with more definition than that of an old rabbit-ears antenna. But the reality is that it falters in most environment...as a cable-cutter, I can attest to that.

Call centers' ability to switch calls probably just vary on user and environment. I'm thinking that decades ago, a centralized call center took care of all concerns; now, there's a 1st-level call center in one city and a 2nd-tier in another state, an after-hours center in another continent, and other departments scattered around. That they can sort-of try to seamlessly integrate is more than they easily do before...of course, you wind up leaving a message at a dead-end desk for someone very specific which technology hasn't really figured out (she's on vacation in Schenectady).

[hotdogPi]

Or putting things in more roadgeeky style... NMSL, if implemented today - better at 45-50 MPH - would save a lot of lives.

No. You would have the few people who follow the speed limit at 45-50, and the majority who go 70-75 as usual, which creates a 25 mph speed differential.

[abefroman329]

Call centers' ability to switch calls probably just vary on user and environment. I'm thinking that decades ago, a centralized call center took care of all concerns; now, there's a 1st-level call center in one city and a 2nd-tier in another state, an after-hours center in another continent, and other departments scattered around. That they can sort-of try to seamlessly integrate is more than they easily do before...of course, you wind up leaving a message at a dead-end desk for someone very specific which technology hasn't really figured out (she's on vacation in Schenectady).

Which may be another example of regression: Does it matter if there's someone there who can answer your call at 3 am if they can't give you the solution to your problem?

[Beltway]

Do you drive a manual or automatic car? For every clutch and bearing replacement, there's one hundred torque converters or valve bodies that are awaiting repairs on those slushboxes. The latter became more prevalent out of overall convenience, despite being much less reliable, and taking the best part of 50 years towards making the engine as fuel-efficient and faster-performing than a manually-operated transmission.

Modern automatic transmissions win hands-down, mileage is about equal and properly maintained the trans will last the life of the car.  Other than perhaps for a sports car experience I see no reason for a manual.  Gear shifting is a process that IMO rightfully should be automated, although I can and do manually downshift in some cases.

I drove about 500,000 miles 1971-1991 in manuals and clutches lasted about 80,000 miles and the last clutch job in 1990 cost about $300 (would be 3 times that today).

I have driven about 550,000 miles since then in automatics and have not yet had a transmission repair.  One car needed major trans repairs at about 140,000 miles and I traded it in and avoided the repairs and was satisfied with that car.

[formulanone]

Do you drive a manual or automatic car? For every clutch and bearing replacement, there's one hundred torque converters or valve bodies that are awaiting repairs on those slushboxes. The latter became more prevalent out of overall convenience, despite being much less reliable, and taking the best part of 50 years towards making the engine as fuel-efficient and faster-performing than a manually-operated transmission.

Modern automatic transmissions win hands-down, mileage is about equal and properly maintained the trans will last the life of the car.  Other than perhaps for a sports car experience I see no reason for a manual.  Gear shifting is a process that IMO rightfully should be automated, although I can and do manually downshift in some cases.

I drove about 500,000 miles 1971-1991 in manuals and clutches lasted about 80,000 miles and the last clutch job in 1990 cost about $300 (would be 3 times that today).

I have driven about 550,000 miles since then in automatics and have not yet had a transmission repair.  One car needed major trans repairs at about 140,000 miles and I traded it in and avoided the repairs and was satisfied with that car.

I'd like to strike "much" from "much less reliable" but water doesn't flow uphill. I stand by my findings, though. Most EPA ratings (for better or for blindly-trusting-the-automaker) is that most automatics had slightly lower fuel economy ratings (1-2 mpg) until the last decade or two.

[J N Winkler]

Do you drive a manual or automatic car? For every clutch and bearing replacement, there's one hundred torque converters or valve bodies that are awaiting repairs on those slushboxes. The latter became more prevalent out of overall convenience, despite being much less reliable, and taking the best part of 50 years towards making the engine as fuel-efficient and faster-performing than a manually-operated transmission.

I have never worked as a service writer or a garage mechanic, but my impression is that long clutch life on manuals is a comparatively recent phenomenon, while most failures that require an automatic transmission to be opened are the result either of neglect or design error.

The last manual in the family was a 1981 Toyota Tercel.  It was 13 years/about 90,000 miles old by the time my father sold it, and I think he had had to replace the clutch at least once, possibly twice.  I have heard of clutch life of over 200,000 miles but only for vehicles at least a decade newer.

Meanwhile, in this family we have had multiple cars equipped with automatic transmissions, none of which have had to be opened for repair.  These included a 1986 Nissan Maxima that was in family ownership from new to 22 years/230,000 miles:  I changed the fluid regularly and also adjusted the throttle cable at about 60,000 miles.  The oldest transmission currently in service in the family fleet has 24 years/160,000 miles.

Edit in light of Beltway's mention of one automatic sold in advance of needed repair:  None of the automatics left family ownership as a result of pending transmission repairs.  The Maxima had to go because of wheel arch rust.  Two others were destroyed in accidents.

[kkt]

Do you drive a manual or automatic car? For every clutch and bearing replacement, there's one hundred torque converters or valve bodies that are awaiting repairs on those slushboxes. The latter became more prevalent out of overall convenience, despite being much less reliable, and taking the best part of 50 years towards making the engine as fuel-efficient and faster-performing than a manually-operated transmission.

Modern automatic transmissions win hands-down, mileage is about equal and properly maintained the trans will last the life of the car.  Other than perhaps for a sports car experience I see no reason for a manual.  Gear shifting is a process that IMO rightfully should be automated, although I can and do manually downshift in some cases.

I drove about 500,000 miles 1971-1991 in manuals and clutches lasted about 80,000 miles and the last clutch job in 1990 cost about $300 (would be 3 times that today).

I have driven about 550,000 miles since then in automatics and have not yet had a transmission repair.  One car needed major trans repairs at about 140,000 miles and I traded it in and avoided the repairs and was satisfied with that car.

I'd like to strike "much" from "much less reliable" but water doesn't flow uphill. I stand by my findings, though. Most EPA ratings (for better or for blindly-trusting-the-automaker) is that most automatics had slightly lower fuel economy ratings (1-2 mpg) until the last decade or two.

However, the EPA test for manuals prescribes shiftpoints that may not be the most efficient shiftpoints for that vehicle, and a driver may be able to do better than the EPA ratings once they've gotten used to the car.

[kalvado]

So... It is not unlikely that manual is more reliable than auto (I had 3 transmissions rebuilds within past 15 years), and most likely manual is more fuel efficient.
So automatic is a good example of Elmer.
Now.. Lets see... Those who still prefer - and actually drive - manual, please raise your hand!

[kalvado]

Or putting things in more roadgeeky style... NMSL, if implemented today - better at 45-50 MPH - would save a lot of lives.

No. You would have the few people who follow the speed limit at 45-50, and the majority who go 70-75 as usual, which creates a 25 mph speed differential.

So are you saying people still prefer more Elmerish solution of high speed, despite all disadvantages?

PS. If there was an actual goal of slowing down traffic, it would be done. Limit engine to 1.2 liter L4 for cars and 1.6 liter for SUVs, for example.  Well, second amendment would need to be repealed before that...

[Brandon]

So... It is not unlikely that manual is more reliable than auto (I had 3 transmissions rebuilds within past 15 years), and most likely manual is more fuel efficient.
So automatic is a good example of Elmer.
Now.. Lets see... Those who still prefer - and actually drive - manual, please raise your hand!

Hand raised.  Slushboxes suck, IMHO.

[kkt]

So... It is not unlikely that manual is more reliable than auto (I had 3 transmissions rebuilds within past 15 years), and most likely manual is more fuel efficient.
So automatic is a good example of Elmer.
Now.. Lets see... Those who still prefer - and actually drive - manual, please raise your hand!

I drive a manual and would prefer one in my next car.

[Beltway]

I'd like to strike "much" from "much less reliable" but water doesn't flow uphill. I stand by my findings, though. Most EPA ratings (for better or for blindly-trusting-the-automaker) is that most automatics had slightly lower fuel economy ratings (1-2 mpg) until the last decade or two.

My 2016 Buick LaCrosse weighs over 3,900 pounds and gets 30 to 31 mpg on a 100% freeway trip tank of gasoline.  Purely city driving obviously would be a lot less, but that still is a measure of efficiency and I wouldn't bother with a manual transmission just to get another mpg or two.

Modern 6-speed automatics have stepped things up in efficiency over the older 4-speeds.  Even then my 2003 LeSabre got over 30 mpg on the highway.

[Beltway]

The last manual in the family was a 1981 Toyota Tercel.  It was 13 years/about 90,000 miles old by the time my father sold it, and I think he had had to replace the clutch at least once, possibly twice.  I have heard of clutch life of over 200,000 miles but only for vehicles at least a decade newer.

I got a 1975 Chevy Nova at about 39,000 miles and drove it to about 305,000 miles.  Manual transmission, I believe I had 4 clutch replacements over the life.

Edit in light of Beltway's mention of one automatic sold in advance of needed repair:  None of the automatics left family ownership as a result of pending transmission repairs.  The Maxima had to go because of wheel arch rust.  Two others were destroyed in accidents.

That was the oldest car I bought, a 4 1/2 year old 1994 LeSabre at about 67,000 miles.  Drove to about 140,000 miles.  Naturally the transmission wear issues could have happened before I got the car.

My last 2 cars, automatics,  I bought new and that is about 355,000 miles total.

[Brandon]

I wouldn't bother with a manual transmission just to get another mpg or two.

It's not about the mpg.  It's about the control.  I'll wager anything that I, with a manual, can come to a complete stop faster in snow and ice than you can with a slushbox (even with ABS).

[Beltway]

I wouldn't bother with a manual transmission just to get another mpg or two.

It's not about the mpg.  It's about the control.  I'll wager anything that I, with a manual, can come to a complete stop faster in snow and ice than you can with a slushbox (even with ABS).

That doesn't seem to pass engineering muster.  I've never heard that transmission type had anything to do with stopping distance.

[Takumi]

So... It is not unlikely that manual is more reliable than auto (I had 3 transmissions rebuilds within past 15 years), and most likely manual is more fuel efficient.
So automatic is a good example of Elmer.
Now.. Lets see... Those who still prefer - and actually drive - manual, please raise your hand!

Hi. This is my car. It has a manual. It is a unicorn.

[Brandon]

I wouldn't bother with a manual transmission just to get another mpg or two.

It's not about the mpg.  It's about the control.  I'll wager anything that I, with a manual, can come to a complete stop faster in snow and ice than you can with a slushbox (even with ABS).

That doesn't seem to pass engineering muster.  I've never heard that transmission type had anything to do with stopping distance.

It's called downshifting.  That causes the engine to brake and turn the wheels slower.  Look it up.

[mgk920]

I wouldn't bother with a manual transmission just to get another mpg or two.

It's not about the mpg.  It's about the control.  I'll wager anything that I, with a manual, can come to a complete stop faster in snow and ice than you can with a slushbox (even with ABS).

That doesn't seem to pass engineering muster.  I've never heard that transmission type had anything to do with stopping distance.

It's called downshifting.  That causes the engine to brake and turn the wheels slower.  Look it up.

And that's what the 'L1', 'L2', 'L3', etc, selector settings are for on an automatic transmission, BTW.



The biggest thing with downshifting and engine braking is to control the car on mountain downgrades. I also like that for city street driving.

Mike

[formulanone]

I wouldn't bother with a manual transmission just to get another mpg or two.

It's not about the mpg.  It's about the control.  I'll wager anything that I, with a manual, can come to a complete stop faster in snow and ice than you can with a slushbox (even with ABS).

That doesn't seem to pass engineering muster.  I've never heard that transmission type had anything to do with stopping distance.

It's called downshifting.  That causes the engine to brake and turn the wheels slower.  Look it up.

And that's what the 'L1', 'L2', 'L3', etc, selector settings are for on an automatic transmission, BTW.



The biggest thing with downshifting and engine braking is to control the car on mountain downgrades. I also like that for city street driving.

Mike

I get a few cruddy rental cars with P-R-N-D-L and that's it, not even an overdrive-OFF selector...I'm always unclear if I'm going from 5th to 1st down a steep hill, but I'm guessing the transmission control module is smart enough to prevent drastic over-revving of the engine. Most do seem to have some up/down functionality, in varying methods of operation and shift reaction times. I'll admit that some do a better job than others at programmed shift logic, making it easier and even a little engaging by letting the drive make their own choices. And other 'boxes that make selecting ranges a chore and making gear selecting a bit of a chore. There's long-throw trucks which make this obnoxious for manual gear selection. (But don't get me started on CVTs!)

My point was more of that the automatic was a few step backwards for the sake of convenience, but it took a good while to make it more reliable, more seamless in operation, a little less wasteful, get more out of the engine, and such. Technological regression sometimes catches up and surpasses the previous technology, but there's always going to be those who have a personal preference. Such as the tactile feel of paper maps...the gentle printed halftones, slight wear on the edges, the ability for mark-up, the varying font weights signifying importance, versus looking at squiggles, lines, and numbers on a computer.

[/also raises manual transmission hand]

[jon daly]

I'm 50 and I  never learned how to drive a stick shift.

[J N Winkler]

So... It is not unlikely that manual is more reliable than auto (I had 3 transmission rebuilds within past 15 years), and most likely manual is more fuel efficient.

(Flips hand from side to side)

Manuals are more forgiving of abuse, but the tradeoff is that periodic replacement of an expensive wear item (the clutch) is necessary.  In comparison, regular replacement of fluid in an automatic transmission is much easier and cheaper (even with $10/quart boutique synthetic ATF) and is adequate for indefinitely long life.  In terms of cost and reliability, not just convenience in city traffic, automatics can be a win overall.

I suspect the problem is that car owners, as a group, tend to be very neglectful of any routine maintenance other than engine oil and filter changes, though I have not been able to find any freely available statistical data for owner compliance with manufacturers' recommended maintenance schedules that could be used to confirm this intuition.

Three transmission rebuilds in fifteen years strikes me as bad luck and possibly the result of a combination of design problems and buying used cars that were neglected or abused by their previous owners.

[Big John]

I'm 50 and I  never learned how to drive a stick shift.

Same here.

[vdeane]

I also have a manual and plan to switch only if the car companies force me to.

With regards to downshifting, on an automatic, you're telling the computer that you want to downshift, but the computer makes the final decision.  With a manual, you do.  Automatics certainly allow things like shifting with both of your hands busy (like while changing lanes, which many people do to quickly accelerate to the speed of traffic from a near stop) and sitting in stop and go traffic without holding a clutch down.  Personally, I'd rather not be somewhere where I needed either on a regular basis, which is why I hate tourist season here.

Finally, I appreciate how I'm reading a thread referencing "Elmer" after reading the glue thread.

[hbelkins]

I've driven a stick, but not very often, and would not want to drive one today. Driving should be made easier, not more difficult, and in my opinion having to shift when the car could do that for you is an unnecessary task. Besides, I prefer to have my hand free and since I've discovered roadgeek photography, even more so.

My Saturn Vue has an "automatic manual" in that you can actually put it in a gear that allows you to push a button and shift up and down, although the car will automatically upshift if you are in danger of red-lining the engine. This vehicle is specifically listed as one that's allowed on the Mount Washington Auto Road because of this feature.

As for stopping on snow and ice, a trick I learned years ago is to put the car in neutral. This completely eliminates engine power to the wheels. Downshifting still means the wheels are being turned.