fastaussie
Suspended
:biggrin:
NEW GEN NSX in manual or auto
- Thread starter GlowNSX
- Start date
:biggrin:
And it still not only sounds ...
Absolutely feasible, I agree, but still silly in a sense that a complete useless complex system has to be introduced only to mimic the necessity of using a clutch pedal when it is not necessary in a silly phony manner. There are Faux Furs and now you want to start a new trend: Faux Clutches !!!
IOW, since even the car maker himself knows how silly and useless such a layout would be, he would imagine a pathetic subterfuge to force driver to use their useless clutch pedal ...
However, I believe that it could be possible to offer DCT with a stick ( sequential or not ) like the Valeo System used by Ferrari with the Mondial T and the F40.
By using only the gear stick it activates sensors that engage automatically the gear change. No need for a clutch pedal.
Two different things here. The first one you mentioned ( emulating the catching point ... ) is all about fake and phony purposes, at best in a simulation spirit ... ( Would you still be satisfied if your wife simulated ? ) While the second one ( drive by wire ... ) is totally relevant as it is all about achieving the same goal in a different way and, in a certain sense, even more, in being able to customize and modify the engine input management system response to the throttle pedal input.
Well, I admit it was very funny to read you!
I mark your words and I am sure that it will not be successful in the future ... Except in grotesque and joking contexts ...
No, it's not legitimate, unless silliness and phony considerations are concerned. And usually, getting into the phony and Faux things is because you can't afford the real or in a desire to make a joke ...
Again you are describing two different realities: analog cars vs non analog ones and paddle shifters vs gear stick.
DCT is absolutely not incompatible with gear stick, and like I wrote before, like the Valeo System founded in a few Ferrari, it is possible to match them, but since the useless is useless and obviously not better than its contrary*, Valeo and Ferrari understood that there was absolutely no need for a clutch pedal ...
A nice try to convince me that your point was not silly but all I can say is that it was a silly attempt.
You are still qualified to design shopping malls machines !!! :tongue: With the option to be a consultant in the gamers department !!!
No hard feelings here, just making some fun. :wink:
*thanks for helping me create a new quote. I will keep it!
Last edited:
I can recall comments like these and others at the launch of the first automatic transmissions, the first gear shifters on the steering column, the first electronic ignitions, the first fuel injection and on and on.
Automotive technology continues to advance and in the main we have better cars for it.
It would seem the manual shifter and manual clutch with all their parts, linkages and adjustments have been left behind.
Now we have a faster and much safer method of changing gears.
Combining the two hands on the wheel seamless shifting that is offered in an automatic, with the direct power transmission and better fuel mileage of a no slip driveline is a major step forward.
To yearn for the good old days of one hand on the steering wheel, the other stirring a shifter pulling or pushing sloppy cables, one leg working a clutch with a leaky cylinder, the other heel and toeing as you come to the sharp corner at the end of the straight is fine. It's fun and definitely involves you in the driving experience. And no question it is the traditional setup in a sports car.
But no one should confuse all that activity and tradition with faster and safer driving and shifting.
I'm sure in time even those yearning for a return to the gear shift on the steering column will eventually concede the new DCT's are an improvement.:smile:
No hard feelings here, I get the joke lol.
But I suppose the gas pedal in all throttle-by-wire cars are faux pedals? Open up your mind to an idea before you knock it. Eventually, there may be almost no modern car with the classic stick and clutch combo. DCT tech may become so accessible that even the $15K new cars could start using them.
It seems like a preposterous idea, but is it anymore sillier than anyone desiring to still shift with their hand and foot over the faster, more efficient DCT tranny? Is it any sillier than playing/operating a flight simulator before you get real cockpit experience in an airplane?
LCD speedos are already making their way into cars to replace the physical analog ones. Is that silly too? It's all faux gauges and needles! They are actually just pixels rearranged on a dot matrix, not actual feedback from a sensor.
The novelty clutch and stick in DCT may not be a success, but a lot of it will depend on whichever manufacturer can execute and tune it well enough. OR, we could spend the rest of the future shifting from the paddles or where ever they decide to put the gear change mechanism in cars. In innovation, there will be rules broken or boundaries pushed. I was just suggesting a way to retain this arbitrary way of rowing through the gears.
- - - Updated - - -
I've never really enjoyed the shifter on the steering column, but I think it's perhaps because I learned how to drive with a stick. I think the whole move to the floor or center console for automatics was to mimic the manual layout. I suppose the tradition is really ingrained in cars, much like the wood grain that is still prevalent in modern luxury cars.
There have been posters up here and some owners I've chatted with who claim that the 458 with the paddle shift DCT is still very engaging and the experience is visceral. I haven't had time with DCT extensively or the 458
, but I'm inclined to believe the ones that have raved about it :indecisiveness:
You do not suppose well.
Unfortunately, and I suspect it is because of your propensity to win every point and to not admit your mistakes, which blinds your reasonings here and makes you appear like an inconsistent person ...
Are you really serious when making an analogy with your so called faux throttle pedals? I hope not. You totally miss the point or brilliantly prove what I suspect ...
First they aren't faux, throttle pedals are the medium by which the throttle inputs are generated, then, these informations are converted in an electrical signal, and then, sent to a wire ...
You can't remove that first step or operation ... Which was not the case with your silly Faux clutch pedal ...
You surely say to yourself.
Again you are confusing things.
Here is an Hi Fi analogy to show you how much silly is your idea and how much you confuse things:
YOU: I don't like digital music and since new music is almost only digital, as a nostalgic of the analog era, while listening to new music, I hide my digital source and show among my audio components an analog turntable and start playing it with any or even a phony vinyl record to give me the feeling of the analog technology ... To make it more realistic I could even connect a switch making impossible to only use my digital source if I do not start my useless turntable !!!
Make my words, I am confident that a lot of people will buy this new way of enjoying music!
A TRUE ANALOG AFICIONADO: I don't like digital music so I still use my analog turntable with vinyl records and could even only swear with tube gear and SET, OTL amps ... even if those equipments are not only vintage but also recently produced.
THE CRUEL AUDIO REALITY: Like those car enthousiasts prefering clutch and gear stick over automatic gear change, in the audio world there are two schools: the analog vs the digital, and today, the analog industry is going very well. You can witness the strong come back of vinyls records, turntables and cartridges ...
Unfortunately, no one is offering to customers the solution like YOU brought ... Audiophiles either take the true analog way or the digital one or both but not an hybrid one based on an illusion.
Nobody showed interest to invest in such a Faux Analog. Your silly solution would ended as a Faux Pas!
Concerning the flight simulator again you miss the point because it is a necessity in a learning context, in a simulation context ... A car enthousiast who is driving for real would not want to ... simulate.
You still miss the point, different ways of achieving the same goal ... and still a feedback from a sensor but in a digital context. LCD or analog, those gauges are necessary!
I hope again that you are not serious with these arguments ...
Not exactly, you introduced a silly solution that will not find its way to production. There is a big difference between opting for a gear stick or a paddle shift in conjunction of a DCT and your proposition:
a gear stick for a DCT added of a Faux Clutch.
I quote you again:
''They could always provide a dummy clutch in DCT cars and put a sequential shifter on the center console to mimic the clutch and stick action haha. Essentially a clutch pedal that is not connected to any thing but provides spring pressure like a typical clutch and then you can row the shifter up or down to tell the DCT to shift in manual mode I know it sounds a bit silly, but that's pretty much the fun that is described when clutching and shifting is involved. ''
Still ...
LOL
I concede already that it's technically and technologically "better." It's faster and, depending on your scenario, I suppose it's "safer." All the issues you mention, however, are moot, since a DCT will simply bring a new set of problems to the table. And, for that matter, sometime in the future when the driver is completely removed from the equation, arguments exactly like yours will be the driving "advancement" of the automotive industry in that direction.
Oh yeah?
Yeah!
You should also have mentioned:
I know that you understand my point, your example shows an hybrid system which doesn't rely on fake nor illusion. Difficult to scratch with a CD !!!
Let's substitute ABS braking systems for DCT.
Better yes, faster yes, safer yes, the new problems, perhaps more maintenance?
Your overall conclusion?
Magnetorheological suspension?
Faster and safer for sure, but potentially more maintenance too.
Your conclusion?
History shows that with each step the automobile industry (or any industry) takes to make a better machine, a segment of the potential market will resist the changes.
And in a few rare cases that resistance is warranted but in the main I say thank goodness the managers and engineers have had the courage to innovate despite discouraging words.
You point is well received. But suspension and ABS are not really the types of things I was talking about. Suspension and braking improvements enhance the fun factor. The harder a car CAN take a corner, the more fun it is to drive. I have spent a lot of money upgrading the suspension, chassis and brakes on my car in order to increase the fun factor. Shifting gears through a clutch and a shift lever is simply fun. Paddles are boring. And while the car will technically be faster, the sensation of speed/acceleration is not improved (its still the same amount of torque/horsepower turning the crank), so, when the fun is compromised, or shall I say, as long as there is a traditional manual available in either the new or used market, that will always be higher on my list than a paddle shift system. For me, it's not about "better." Its about "funner."
fastaussie
Suspended
this conversation is definitely about the individual's preference. sadly enough however, the true manual transmission and three pedal arrangement will be gone forever in new cars very soon boys. it's simply a matter of sales, or lack thereof. but if you haven't yet tried the new (let's call them) paddle shift systems from Ferrari or Porsche especially, don't fret too much.
I drive a Ferrari 458 at the race track literally every weekend as a racing instructor. I drive my manual 5-speed NSX to the track some days, and I ride my manual 6-speed sequential transmission Ducati motorbikes (I have 4) the majority of the time. and some days I ride in a commercial jet liner.
I may be younger than some blokes on here, and that may cause some disparity in my thoughts, but for me hustling the Ferrari around the race track at the limit and shifting with the insanely good DCT system in the 458 takes absolutely nothing away from the experience. in fact, in my honest opinion, it absolutely enhances the experience. it truly makes you feel like an F1 race car driver. it's speed and execution is absolutely flawless, and it is unbelievably exhilarating how ludicrously fast it can change gears and continue to put the power to the ground and push you forward with almost 600 horsepower. I would fully expect the new NSX's DTC transmission to equal or surpass what is currently on the market from the other leading manufacturers. would I ever take an old school NSX in an automatic transmission, hell no!
but the question I will ask myself and honestly answer. would I want the Ferrari 458 in a 7-speed true clutch on the floor manual for track use or canyon driving? no...
I drive a Ferrari 458 at the race track literally every weekend as a racing instructor. I drive my manual 5-speed NSX to the track some days, and I ride my manual 6-speed sequential transmission Ducati motorbikes (I have 4) the majority of the time. and some days I ride in a commercial jet liner.
I may be younger than some blokes on here, and that may cause some disparity in my thoughts, but for me hustling the Ferrari around the race track at the limit and shifting with the insanely good DCT system in the 458 takes absolutely nothing away from the experience. in fact, in my honest opinion, it absolutely enhances the experience. it truly makes you feel like an F1 race car driver. it's speed and execution is absolutely flawless, and it is unbelievably exhilarating how ludicrously fast it can change gears and continue to put the power to the ground and push you forward with almost 600 horsepower. I would fully expect the new NSX's DTC transmission to equal or surpass what is currently on the market from the other leading manufacturers. would I ever take an old school NSX in an automatic transmission, hell no!
but the question I will ask myself and honestly answer. would I want the Ferrari 458 in a 7-speed true clutch on the floor manual for track use or canyon driving? no...
Last edited:
I can give you one simple analogy to yours. You sound like the guy in the commercial that says my phone actually has physical buttons! Ever since Apple executed the touchscreen buttons with such grace and then haptic feedback was introduced, everyone jumped on the bandwagon. Blackberry, seemingly the only champion of physical buttons, struggles to be relevant in today's tech. I guess the dummy, dynamic buttons on any touchscreen phone is phony and silly.
I don't care if there is a faux clutch or no clutch. I can live with DCT and I'll still always own a true manual tranny car. One can have more than one car in the stable. Besides, the bike forefront will always stay manual tranny it seems, so I don't see myself missing the the clutch and shifting action.
I have no hard feelings with you or anyone on this forum. I don't know you personally and so it's never personal. You may try to ridicule me and say you're joking, but the fact is, this Industrial era we live requires dynamic changes for the best, even if it overrides tradition. The problem with tradition is that it can hold back progression. It's good to honor it, but we can always compromise to do both. This has nothing to do with right or wrong, because the debate is very subjective. I simply like to exercise the idea of debating and try to offer objective arguments.
- - - Updated - - -
We may disagree and debate on occasions, but I can say this: I envy your profession or lifestyle. I wish I could drive the 458 on a regular basis as an instructor, even just for fun. We are both motor enthusiast, even tho we disagree on various standards, but I can respect the enthusiasm. I hope you don't take my posting as personal as I certainly don't.
I can give you one simple analogy to yours. You sound like the guy in the commercial that says my phone actually has physical buttons! Ever since Apple executed the touchscreen buttons with such grace and then haptic feedback was introduced, everyone jumped on the bandwagon. Blackberry, seemingly the only champion of physical buttons, struggles to be relevant in today's tech. I guess the dummy, dynamic buttons on any touchscreen phone is phony and silly.
ROTFLMAO, you simply don't get it !!! Is it because whether you are desesperately stubborn or simply mentally unable to make some simple reasonings? Or both?
You do not understand my point: Phone buttons can be physical or touchscreen, PROVIDED THAT THEY ARE USEFUL.
Again, you just don't understand what I am saying ... TERA LOL !
Because I consider your idea of defending and promoting the use of a Faux clutch totally silly, you, in a probable complete deficient mental reasoning, think that I consider silly the non analogic approach. Which is totally false. I just don't want something useless. Get it?
And worse, despite my numerous explanations you still don't get my point and pursue your false assumptions in a way that it makes me think about Albert Einstein:
''Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.''
Over and over you said:
''LCD speedos are already making their way into cars to replace the physical analog ones. Is that silly too? It's all faux gauges and needles! They are actually just pixels rearranged on a dot matrix, not actual feedback from a sensor.''
''But I suppose the gas pedal in all throttle-by-wire cars are faux pedals?''
''I can give you one simple analogy to yours. You sound like the guy in the commercial that says my phone actually has physical buttons! Ever since Apple executed the touchscreen buttons with such grace and then haptic feedback was introduced, everyone jumped on the bandwagon. Blackberry, seemingly the only champion of physical buttons, struggles to be relevant in today's tech. I guess the dummy, dynamic buttons on any touchscreen phone is phony and silly.''
It is very alarming that you just can't differentiate form from substance. May I ask you how old you are?
I do care if there is a Faux Clutch because it is silly and useless in the aforementioned context. This is where we do not agree. On your side you seem not understand it and it also seems to amuse attract and interest you !!! LOL
This is another place where we disagre !!! A Faux Clutch would not confuse me nor satisfy me ...
To call a spade a spade, yes, your idea:
''They could always provide a dummy clutch in DCT cars and put a sequential shifter on the center console to mimic the clutch and stick action haha. Essentially a clutch pedal that is not connected to any thing but provides spring pressure like a typical clutch and then you can row the shifter up or down to tell the DCT to shift in manual mode I know it sounds a bit silly, but that's pretty much the fun that is described when clutching and shifting is involved.''
''It sounds silly, but depressing the dummy clutch fully could electronically unlock the ability to shift into another gear. So in a sense, if you don't activate the clutch switch, the rowing of the shifter will not change gears, except you will at least not damage the tranny like you would in a traditional stick car.
That's the nice thing about electronics. You can do a lot of extra stuff with customization. They could even emulate the catching point of a real clutch, just like the throttle-by-wire idea where the throttle cable is completely eliminated, but the peddle feel is still nice in the NSX.
You make fun of it now, but mark my words, it's a legitimate possibility in the future for those who are feeling nostalgic in DCT cars. It'll never be the same as engaging a real clutch and pulling cables to change gears, but they can still convey the action. Something is better than nothing. There will be a link between the DCT and the old fashion clutch and stick versus the quicker paddle shifter. Someone will do it.''
is RIDICULE. I don't know you personally, so I don't know if you are also genuinely ridicule, but at first glance, you seem stubborn and unable to admit your mistakes, even at the price of modifying what you previously said and misinterpreting on purpose what people say ...
No hard feelings but to call a spade a spade ...
I agree but again you are confusing things. Offering a Faux Clutch à la Inspector SillyFaux* is not the way compromises will be done in this context. Think about Occam's razor please if you want to perform a serious debate and true objective arguments.
Please, before replying, stop making me think about Einstein ... Thank You.
*funny isn't it? :smile:
The DCT equipped car will not only be technically faster, it will be actually faster. Shifts will be faster, power will be put down faster, steering input in the corners will be performed using two hands which will be more controlled and precise, braking can be applied with the full pressure and feel of the foot........
In short everything that you argue is more fun, faster cornering etc will be better in the DCT car.
It sounds like your preference for a manual clutch and shifter is based more on you enjoying all the activity that is involved. You are right that this will get more nostalgic in nature as more cars become either DCT or regular torque converter automatics.
Last edited:
Let's face it effer. You're an extreme purist. You see things in black and white. I see the grey and the mix. We don't view things the same way. You're still stuck on the faux clutch because I used the word dummy to describe the clutch in a joking manner, even if the idea has legitimate grounds. Do people feel silly these days when they activate the electronic parking brake with a button instead of pulling a stiff lever that used to be connected to a cable?
Look, it would be nice if the new NSX was offered in manual tranny. Perhaps a bare-bones type R version will be RWD solely with a proper stick? But you must be really bent on the manual tranny if you would go to these lengths to ramble about a proposed concept that you vehemently don't like. You may not like it, but someone else may. When the 20 and 30 years old turn 65+, they will still be playing some form of video games to stimulate their minds while the current 50+ year old groups of today find it silly and useless in their mind. That's generational differences.
You and Bugatti would have gotten along nicely tho. He believed in no compromise and the idea that components had to have such high tolerance that they never needed gaskets or excessive mediums. It's an admirable idea, but very cumbersome, wasteful and expensive at the end of the day.
Well, what I was saying there about cornering was relating to the suspension, not the transmission. A transmission (or, rather, a clutch) does not improve the capacity for the tires to grip or the suspension to modulate. Two hands on the wheel may make a difference, but that could also be addressed with variable steering ratios and improving the "tightness" of the steering wheel. And of course, the driver could simply select the appropriate gear prior to corner entry, and make the turn with both hands on the wheel.
So, what I was saying is that magnetic suspension and ABS are not really a proper analogy to the DCT because the DCT eliminates an activity (like you said) that is, in my opinion, critical to the enjoyment of driving the car.
With regard to the comment in bold, if the clutch is engaged, then power is getting to the ground, DCT or three-pedal system. Everything is mechanically linked. So unless you're talking about the reduction of shift lag, I fail to see your point, here. Further, unless the clutches themselves use some kind of new material or are otherwise lighter than an "old fashioned" system, then they are actually imposing more parasitic losses (which may be eclipsed by the reduction/elimination of shift lag). Now, as for "new material" we know that even if every manufacturer adopts this technology, the stuff in a Ferrari is not going to make it into every DCT by every manufacturer. In the same way that a 360s manual (non-F1) transmission shifted better than a Mustang's, a 458s will (should) shift better than a (future) Mustang (with DCT), as well. So it's probably too early to judge how nice the DCT is in a global sense, since not every manufacturer has adopted it yet (variations in quality have not had a chance to proliferate).
But, yes, you are correct: I prefer to shift with a foot and a hand rather than flick the paddles which may choose to override my choice because it assumes I'm some punk teenager who doesn't know what he's doing.
We agree that when a clutch is not engaged, power is not being put down.
If a DCT shifts faster and re engages the clutch faster then power will be applied faster and the car will be faster, whether cornering or not.
This has nothing to do with suspension or clutch material, it's just physics.
Enjoying a three pedal system is surely a driving pleasure but it is not faster which is my only point.
Ah, I see. Yes, I agree with you on that.
I still contend that "faster" is not a justification for removing or reducing the driver's contribution to the equation, since the primary reason for sports cars to exist is that they are fun to drive. I will concede, though, that some may find paddles more fun than pedal and lever. The only thing that I "fear" (for lack of a better term) is the complete (or nearly so) removal of the driver from the equation using justifications such as the ones you opted for in an earlier post (safety, efficiency, etc). I feel that paddles might be a step in that direction, since atuo trannys use paddles now, too. Eventually the car will be so "smart" that it can calculate the most efficient/safest/fastest shift possible, eliminating the "need" for a human being to time the shifts...
fastaussie
Suspended
JD is correct, the modern DCT system (at least in the top cars currently produced) is hands down, far and away better in every way than a human being shifting gears through a floor mounted clutch and center console manual shifter. and I would say, guarantee actually, it is absolutely making the same car go around the track quicker than if it were equipped with the normal manual tranny set-up. not only are the shifts heaps quicker, and can be made mid-corner without upsetting the car, but you're also putting power to the ground sooner. and something most people tend to forget, you can also brake so much deeper into a corner now it's a massive advantage in every part of the lap with DCT. it definitely makes some aspects of driving the car easier, but in doing so I feel it redirects that amount of concentration, focus and skill to driving the car even faster with increased entry, corner and exit speed. so in that regard, I still believe you have 100% driver involvement.
whether or not paddles or traditional shifting is more fun is solely up to the individual. I don't mind it either way. in a car like the 458, after having driven it quite a bit on road and track, I'd never want it in a pure 3-pedal manual. it's just so damn good the way it is.
let me put it like this, which is just my opinion. i would never buy or even want to drive a current model NSX with an automatic. would never even think of it. but if the 458 in its current set-up is a perfect 100 (which most people agree it is), driving the car with an old school floor clutch and center console shifter would honestly feel like a 90 to me. it would feel inferior and a step backward.
the primary reason DCT technology has found its way into sports cars is because it's faster, and that's what sports cars are all about. some form of going fast and racing. but again, the reason old school manual transmissions are rapidly disappearing from sports car is because almost no one is buying them so equipped...
whether or not paddles or traditional shifting is more fun is solely up to the individual. I don't mind it either way. in a car like the 458, after having driven it quite a bit on road and track, I'd never want it in a pure 3-pedal manual. it's just so damn good the way it is.
let me put it like this, which is just my opinion. i would never buy or even want to drive a current model NSX with an automatic. would never even think of it. but if the 458 in its current set-up is a perfect 100 (which most people agree it is), driving the car with an old school floor clutch and center console shifter would honestly feel like a 90 to me. it would feel inferior and a step backward.
the primary reason DCT technology has found its way into sports cars is because it's faster, and that's what sports cars are all about. some form of going fast and racing. but again, the reason old school manual transmissions are rapidly disappearing from sports car is because almost no one is buying them so equipped...
Do the people who criticize paddle-shift (& DCT) transmissions track their cars with ABS and traction control?
You can argue that ABS and traction control are 'nannies' that disconnect the driver from the car just like a DCT.
DCT is faster than a stick, no way around that, and they are faster than sequential single-clutch transmissions. There really aren't any top level sports cars, prototypes, or formula cars that have anything other than paddle shifters anymore. Unfortunately sticks are going the way of the carburetor.
You can argue that ABS and traction control are 'nannies' that disconnect the driver from the car just like a DCT.
DCT is faster than a stick, no way around that, and they are faster than sequential single-clutch transmissions. There really aren't any top level sports cars, prototypes, or formula cars that have anything other than paddle shifters anymore. Unfortunately sticks are going the way of the carburetor.
That's interesting. The whole thing with the NSX is just that the pre-2000 ABS is slow and clunky, right? But after that, and with modern cars, it seems like a good thing. In my '97, I do sometimes benefit from even the marginal ABS on track.
Traction control is a bit more iffy. The NSX traction control is crude and causes more problems than it solves on the track. I would not use it. But in more modern cars it's not intrusive and can be quite reasonable. Like the Exige for example, which has a great knob to adjust the traction control from 1-10 or something, basically setting the max oversteer slip angle permissible with the throttle. Takes away an aspect of driver skill but doesn't interfere with getting the most out of the car.
I guess the truly modern stability-control systems are something like that but more advanced and can induce rotational torque to control slip angle, in either direction. That's faster but feels like it deprives one of the skill required to balance the car's weight in order to induce or mange rotation.
As a novice on the track, I am really enjoying learning the feel and touch of controlling rotation with the throttle and brakes. It would be a shame to me for that to be handled by the car. Of course it would be faster. At bottom, I guess I'm glad I am learning to drive in a car that demands a fair bit of driver input. While not all the skills will remain relevant as technology develops, I'd like to think I will find a way to use/practice them still.
-Jason
Let me elaborate on my most recent post:
What I was saying at the end there was about the "creep" of computer intervention. As technology "improves," cars will get faster, more efficient, etc, until the point that the human element is rendered completely obsolete, at which point, a sports car becomes completely irrelevant. Allowing the car to do the work of the driver simply because it does it "better" defeats the primary purpose of a sports car (to be fun and exhilerating to drive, as opposed to ride in).
Now, I'm not saying that DCT effectively removes the driver. And as you state, the driver can be more involved in other aspects of the driving. I don't dispute that. But if you read my post above wherein I explained the "shift denied" experience, you'll understand where I'm coming from. Also FWIW, the NHRA disallowed automatics in drag racing for certain classes because it essentially eliminated a critical element in the nature of the competition, which was the precision with which the driver could operate the car.
It's not better if I don't want it.
Another thing comes to mind:
If we can have features like "hill assist" on mondern clutches, why can't we improve the precision and shift speed of the traditional clutch pedal with computer assists as well? If the computer could anticipate the clutch timing, it could "blip" or even reduce engine rpm. Actuators could comp for errors in pedal release, etc. Short throw shifters can reduce shift lag, or, we could use electronic shifters which are not mechanically linked to the transmission, but still preserve the kinetic experience. Then, the driver can throw the stick into position as fast as he pleases without any mechanical issues to worry about. This, of course, moves in the direction of reducing the significance of the driver, but the driver is still the one making the decisions. This would STILL be slower than a DCT, but I think it would provide a happy medium for folk like me (because it would be faster than mechanical shifting). Unfortuneatly, it'll probably never happen.
If we can have features like "hill assist" on mondern clutches, why can't we improve the precision and shift speed of the traditional clutch pedal with computer assists as well? If the computer could anticipate the clutch timing, it could "blip" or even reduce engine rpm. Actuators could comp for errors in pedal release, etc. Short throw shifters can reduce shift lag, or, we could use electronic shifters which are not mechanically linked to the transmission, but still preserve the kinetic experience. Then, the driver can throw the stick into position as fast as he pleases without any mechanical issues to worry about. This, of course, moves in the direction of reducing the significance of the driver, but the driver is still the one making the decisions. This would STILL be slower than a DCT, but I think it would provide a happy medium for folk like me (because it would be faster than mechanical shifting). Unfortuneatly, it'll probably never happen.
E.g., the manual C7 corvette (optionally) rev matches on downshift.
The driver makes the decisions for a DCT too.
I say if you are want the kinematics and ergonomics of an old car then buy one. My point above is that learning to drive fast in a nonassisted car makes you a more skilled driver. But sports cars are made to be fast and safe, so it's a bit odd to think they will leave technology on the table in that pursuit.
