Hacker News Reader

Comment by emodendroket | Hacker News Reader

People always say this, but frankly I find stop-and-go traffic isn't that bad if you put the car into neutral instead of holding down the clutch the whole time. I haven't looked back since I bought my first manual car. I never use cruise control at all though, even when I had an automatic car.

View on HN

I'm not sure you understand persistent stop and go traffic -- shifting between neutral and first gets awfully tiring after 45+ minutes when you have to do it every day. Putting the car in neutral doesn't really solve that problem.

Adaptive cruise control with stop-and-go support is not really the same as cruise-control in free flowing traffic. I rarely use cruise-control in normal traffic, but the stop-and-go cruise control is a luxury I never realized I wanted until I had it.

I used to drive from Connecticut to Queens every single morning. I am familiar with the concept of traffic. Nobody in their right mind enjoys driving in heavy traffic no matter what car they're in.

> I used to drive from Connecticut to Queens every single morning.

That doesn't seem like a bad drive. Try two hours from Western SF to the Golden Gate Bridge (roughly six miles).

It's like sixty miles. It takes 90 minutes without traffic.

> It's like sixty miles. It takes 90 minutes without traffic.

At an average of 40 miles per hour that's not particularly bad. The people complaining about driving in stop-and-go traffic are almost certainly in much worse traffic than that.

The example I gave of getting from one end of San Francisco to another happens pretty much every holiday weekend. Average speed? About 3 mph. The worst part is the uphill approach to the GG Bridge.

Or you can look at the other SF bridge. In traffic (which has gotten so bad you'll see it like this on pretty much any weekend afternoon) it'll easily take an hour to get from the 280/101 interchange to the Bay Bridge approach (about 7 miles).

Traffic like that is why I rarely commute by car, but also why many people simply don't want to drive a car with a manual transmission.

> At an average of 40 miles per hour that's not particularly bad.

I gave you the time it would take if you drove at mid-day, not at rush hour (hence the "without traffic" qualifier). A lot of people commute to New York, as you might imagine (and you have to go through toll booths and there was non-stop construction), but my hours were variable at that particular job so I didn't always get the same experience. It wasn't part of my normal commute, but I assure you the George Washington Bridge isn't any better than the Golden Gate, and I have also driven over that in heavy traffic.

Anyway, I've done that and I've commuted on Massachusetts highways (allegedly among the worst in the country). I didn't enjoy it but my point is that driving an automatic car didn't make it any better.

Question: why do you drive? You could easily walk that distance in 2 hours, and driving just makes the problem worse for everyone.

> Question: why do you drive? You could easily walk that distance in 2 hours, and driving just makes the problem worse for everyone.

Agreed 100%. About the only time I drive within the Bay Area is if I'm going outside the SF / Oakland / Berkeley urban core. This Labor Day I was going to Marin and planned poorly (driving the day of instead of leaving earlier).

Once you get out of that urban core (or if you're traveling late at night) public transit nearly evaporates. Without traffic that would have been around a two hour bus ride. However there are no dedicated lanes for buses along 19th / Park Presidio so that would've been easily a 3-4 hour bus trip with a few untimed transfers thrown in for good measure.

I would love adaptive cruise control for Seattle area traffic. What kind of car do you have?

I had a Mazda, but gave it up a few months ago when I moved to the Seattle area... Now I commute by bike (which has manual shifting, but no cruise control :-)) Though my Eastside commute is nothing at all like my old Bay Area commute, not nearly as much traffic.

Here are some other car models with full range adaptive cruise control:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_cruise_control_syst...

And here's what looks like a more complete list of 2018 models supporting it:

https://www.cars.com/articles/which-cars-have-self-driving-f...

The key word in the parent post is "adaptive". With adaptive CC, you don't do anything in stop and go traffic other than minor steering. The car just keeps about a car length distance with the car in front. It is very nice convenience feature.

I'm familiar with the concept, but I can't imagine I'd use it any more than I use regular cruise control on an empty highway.

You may not be able to imagine it, but the GP is saying that they actually do

Yes, he's sharing his experience. I am sharing mine. I'm not seeing the issue here.

Your inability to imagine something is hardly an experience worth sharing.

"I rarely use cruise control" was in the first place a parenthetical concession until someone felt like "correcting" me.

How many hours per day do you spend in stop and go traffic? I spent 20+ years driving stick in hour-long commutes (each way), and I can tell you that there is no free lunch to be found in N.

I love having a manual car in traffic simply because it gives me something to do to pass the time. I can play around with the gears, the shifting etc keeps me engaged and focused on the road. I imagine with an automatic it is much easier to mess with the radio or gps and, god forbid, a cell phone.

Yep exactly. I rarely have issues in stop and go traffic. And if its just slow moving traffic, just keep it in first.

I love manuals, and everytime I drive an automatic I just hate it. It never does what I want.

I used to feel that way, I was a die-hard manual guy for a long time. Then I decided to get a car that only came with an automatic, and it was a good automatic, and all my gripes about autos went away.

The car in question was a used Audi A8. In "S" mode it would shift pretty much the way I'd shift my manual Audi S4. In D mode it was more sedate, but if I needed to downshift in order to be ready when a gap opened in traffic, I could pull on the left paddle twice and it would downshift. I thought that worst case if I hated it I could just use the paddles or the same thing on the shifter. It had a mode where it would not shift unless you told it to as well. I tried that a few times, but in the end just used D most of the time and S for the twisties.

Now I'm not sure what I have. Is a Tesla a Automatic or a Manual? It is direct drive, so you don't touch it once you "shift into gear", but it isn't making gear changes for you either. Hmmm. :-) It's also fast and smooth and absolutely no lag, either through induction/turbo or through gear changes. I worried as a car guy that I would find it too isolating, but the things I like about good cars, this has in spades (smooth, responsive, powerful engine).

That's what you are supposed to do, isn't? I think most (all?) car clutches are dry, so that means that not going to neutral at a stop would eat your clutch in a few months.

From what I have observed, many people do not, which would explain how they talk about their legs killing them. I don't like driving in heavy traffic, but I don't like it any more in an automatic car.

It's more effort to push the clutch in and out between stops (keeping the pedal in doesn't take much effort, it's moving the pedal that takes work).

I guess it depends on what you're driving, but that certainly hasn't been my experience.

It might depend on your size? I am tall and long-legged, so the effort of using the clutch is lifting my leg above the pedal and feathering it. Holding the clutch to the floor is no different than resting my foot on the dead pedal next to it. The only reason I would not want to hold the clutch for a long time is if I am worried I would be distracted and forget I was in gear.

I would never put my manual in neutral unless I am about about to set the parking brake. It represents a mode shift in my attention and vigilance. I always did this startup sequence (and its reverse for shutdown): foot on clutch, foot on brake, start engine, release parking brake, transmission into gear, foot off brake and over gas pedal, feather clutch to pull away.

Like many on this long thread, I eventually compromised and got an automatic because of the narrowing options in the new car market here in the US as well as to make my wife comfortable sharing the car.

I am learning to enjoy the extra gears and the aggressive automatic shifting program that gives a quiet, comfortable cruise. With a manual, I would never shift my way so close to the idle speed when cruising, because my ear would be telling me it is time to downshift. But, knowing that the computer is handling it means I enjoy the comfort and can be impressed by the fuel efficiency in this mode.

I do miss the engine braking though. I think automatics are tuned to an irritating preference for coasting. I'd much rather have to keep the gas pedal depressed in order for it to sustain speed, and to have it automatically downshift and slow the car when I start to raise my foot. I'd like the automatic to do this all the way from highway speed down to the slowest crawling speed in the lowest gear, without any other inputs.

I'm pretty short. Maybe that's it. Otherwise it's kind of mystifying to me.

Newer electric cars (with regenerative braking) have a "one pedal" mode like you're describing (it engages some amount of regenerative braking by default, unless you have the accelerator depressed a little, so you can just take your foot off to slow down).

Captain Pedantic here, and it looks like you might have facts confused, citizen. Sitting with the clutch pedal pushed in will shorten the life of the throw out bearing, but the clutch plates (which are generally what get “eaten”) will be fine because they’re not touching anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com