NEW GEN NSX in manual or auto

[FF Drifter]

Regardless of our feelings on the matter, Ted Klaus already stated explicitly at NSXPO 2013 that the next NSX will not have a traditional clutch/stick manual transmission. Even when I pressed him on it, he jokingly replied that "you stick shift drivers need to get a life" lol

 

[effer]

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 agree 100%! You are more fucused on the driving and achieving quicker laps ... But, don't consider me as a young person!

''I look pretty young but I'm just back-dated yeah!'' - The Who - Substitute

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...

Still agree 100%, as far as being quicker is priority number one and it doesn't mean that sometime we cannot enjoy driving vintage racing cars ...

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.

Let's face it Inspector SillyFaux,

OMG, over and over again, OMG:

''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?''



''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.''

I asked you to stop acting in a way that it reminds me Einstein's quote ... OMG ...


N Spec, you are just plain lame, that's it.

Pleeease, tell me how old you are or at least, let me talk with your parents ...

OMG ...

 

[N Spec]

N Spec, you are just plain lame, that's it.

Pleeease, tell me how old you are or at least, let me talk with your parents ...

OMG ...

Well, I guess I'm just plain lame haha. How old are you? How is this relevant?

 

[Silver F16]

Regardless of our feelings on the matter, Ted Klaus already stated explicitly at NSXPO 2013 that the next NSX will not have a traditional clutch/stick manual transmission. Even when I pressed him on it, he jokingly replied that "you stick shift drivers need to get a life" lol

Another classic example of Honda is smarter than the customer.

Honda to customer:

"You don't really want a stick. It is slower. All race cars use automated shifting. Only you stupid Americans still demand stick shift."

Ted's comment is disturbing because it shows a level of disconnect with some current owners and target buyer. His comment rattles me because either he is ignorant or is making excuses for Honda not wanting to commit development dollars on MT for a high powered longitudinal mount application or its just too damn hard to calibrate the complicated hybrid SHAWD torque vectoring system in a MT application when the driver's input can become another variable. Regardless of the excuses, I don't appreciate his remark.

Regarding MT and DSG, here's some perspective -

If your girlfriend or wife is feeling frisky, would you want to jump on her yourself or would you just toss her a vibrator?

A vibrator is faster and more efficient. The other feels better and is a more engaging experience.

Not too different than your transmission.

There are times when speed and efficiency counts, such as a race track. So you turn to DSG. Feeling too tired from work and don't want to deal with stop and go traffic, let automation do the work for you.

Most would agree that manual is a more engaging experience. More fun. However, some cannot shift due to physical limitations or just find no joy in shifting. That's understandable.

For those that choose to compare manual trans to old technology such as 8 tracks, manual hand cranks to start engine, adjusting the fuel mixture yourself, and advancing the timing manually, make note because there is a clear distinction here.

There are technical advances that takes care of tedious and laborious things. Those are good.

Then there are technology that removes the driver from the driving experience. Whether or not these are welcomed is a personal choice.

A technology advancement I reject is the EPS equipped Gen 1 NSX because the manual steering racks on NSX is so alive with communication, it just ups the driving experience to a higher level. Yea, its a little heavy in the parking lot but you grow Popeye arms within a few weeks. Of all people, Ted Clause should understand this one because his benchmark car is a Zanardi, which has a manual rack.

There is a reason manufacturers equipment cars with an OFF switch for the Traction control. The OFF switch is there to let the driver have full engagement in the car's throttle and yaw angle. It is more fun. Period. However, when it snows and you don't want to be on full alert mode for a 6 hour drive, traction control is welcomed. The OFF switch gives drivers a choice between an engaging driving experience vs convenience and efficiency.

There is a transmission for all occasions. As owners, we can only choose one. It nice when manufacturers give us the option to choose. As for the new NSX, the writing is already on the wall. I am disappointed and the lack of a manual rack is a serious consideration for not buying a car that has a key element of "fun" removed from the equation.

Now, for those Honda employees that still don't understand, put away her vibrator and go take care of business yourself. The manual method is much more fun.

 

[2slow2speed]

A technology advancement I reject is the EPS equipped Gen 1 NSX because the manual steering racks on NSX is so alive with communication, it just ups the driving experience to a higher level. Yea, its a little heavy in the parking lot but you grow Popeye arms within a few weeks. Of all people, Ted Clause should understand this one because his benchmark car is a Zanardi, which has a manual rack.

Some people might have different points of views regarding EPS, it comes down to the application of the vehicle.

On a car driven at the track having EPS is a blessing if you are driving the car on a track that is very tight with multiple constant transitions back to back, not having EPS is tiring.

Even without EPS using wider wheels/tires makes the steering feel numb and heavy, having EPS is a much needed enhancement as well due to fatigue setting in. (That is why most modern day race cars have some form of assisted power steering)



If NSX 2.0 ever comes with a version without all the complexities of the hybrid drivetrain and a properly designed cooling for the engine (water/oil/turbo's) and proper design/cooling for the transmission then I might consider getting one.

The car having a DCT or not would not be a major decision point at that time given my own personal experience with vehicles equipped with DCT's.

 

[fastaussie]

It's not better if I don't want it.

oh no, it's still absolutely better. just not preferred by you...

- - - Updated - - -

If your girlfriend or wife is feeling frisky, would you want to jump on her yourself or would you just toss her a vibrator?

A vibrator is faster and more efficient. The other feels better and is a more engaging experience.

Not too different than your transmission.

HA! I reckon that one is quite a stretch, the best yet of all the DCT vs. clutch/manual shift analogies.

you're still shifting the gears, when you want, at whatever RPM you want, just without manually operating a clutch on the floor. but, you are still 100% involved in the shifting action.

unfortunately as has been said many times, there will be no option for a 3-pedal arrangement on the new NSX. and pretty soon, no sportscars at all. so keep a generation 1 in the garage for those nostalgic days...

- - - Updated - - -

But if you read my post above wherein I explained the "shift denied" experience, you'll understand where I'm coming from.

I did read your post wherein you stated that. and I absolutely agree with you, and would be highly annoyed. the biggest annoyance in my opinion of the Audi R8, is that it will sometimes kick down a gear in manual mode like an automatic, or upshift early. which means it is obviously not completely in a fully manual mode. that is why I can't stand traditional automatic transmissions. some times you just want to hold a gear, at either high or low RPM. I don't like the computer deciding what gear I want the car in as much as anyone else here does. I'm just not as devastated about losing the clutch and manual shifter. the top cars now are fully manual with paddles, and don't shift until you shift them (unless you come to a complete stop, then it will shift to 1st gear for you). I reckon if some of you fellas drove the 458 or something similar and realised how good the DCT system is, you wouldn't be so upset about it.

but again, the realism of the times is that it's no longer an option for the buyer...

 

[JD Cross]

Perhaps we need to keep in mind the enormous cost of developing a new car.

The new NSX has been benchmarked against a number of cars - all of them using DCT transmissions.
Why would we expect Honda, on a limited volume niche product, to offer a manual three pedal set-up as well as a DCT?
Is that realistic?
I think not. The cost of offering a three pedal option for a limited number of buyers on a limited volume car would be huge.
The same people wanting the three pedal system would be the first to complain if Honda wanted say a $15 K upcharge for it.

And if Honda was to only offer a three pedal system the new NSX would immediately be labelled as outdated by the world's press

We are expecting Honda to make a car that will be competitive with the 458 and the like.
That is one tall task and I do hope Honda is able to come close.

If not having the three pedal system on the new NSX is a deal breaker for some people, I think Honda has accepted they'll have to live with those lost sales.
Porsche and Ferrari have made the same decision
It's not corporate arrogance, it's economics and common sense.

 

[FF Drifter]

I absolutely agree with you Jim but I do still mourn it a little bit. The Porsche Carrera GT still had three pedals and the Corvette continues to trudge along too ~ even adding gears to row through. I think the Corvette will be a hold-out for a while (or at least I hope so).

 

[Silver F16]

..The cost of offering a three pedal option for a limited number of buyers on a limited volume car would be huge.

What you wrote is the painful truth and I get that. I rather Ted Klaus cited development cost instead of telling some NSX owners go to get a life.

Corvette is also coming out with an 8 speed Automatic (not DCT) as they have enough sales volume to justify dual transmission. Look at all the American sports cars and Muscle cars, they all have MT, many of which is exclusively MT. I'm sure a big factor is cost to develop DCT and the other is that American car enthusiasts like to snap gears themselves.

Globally, most mid level sports cars still offer MT. Whereas high end sports cars place a higher priority on excess Hp and outright speed. Therefore faster shifting transmissions are employed exclusively.

For drivers, the bright light is that cars like Cayman, entry level 911s, and the upcoming s2000 replacement will still offer a manual option.

 

[JD Cross]

I rather Ted Klaus cited development cost instead of telling some NSX owners go to get a life.

I listened to Ted's talk and heard that remark.
At the time I thought that here's a man charged with developing the next halo car for Honda Corp worldwide. He's studied all the competition, he knows the trends in engines, transmissions, suspensions, and computer controls. He knows the design trends coming within Honda and other companies. He has to put it all together in a package that is competitive with Ferrari and others but at a price point achievable for a Honda. A daunting task to be sure.

When he commented about the transmission, I sensed he was trying to say, "Look, we've been round and round on this internally, the future is clear, its DCT only, let's not continue the debate."

 

[stuntman]

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

The NA1's ABS was the first production car with 4-channel ABS. Despite this, it is archaic and I really do not care much for it. The 2nd generation ABS (not sure when they came online) is leaps and bounds better and similar in performance to the S2000 ABS. I like it a lot and will be installing it on my 92 and recommend it for anyone who has the 1st Gen ABS for street or track.

The Elise/Exige's traction control is pretty terrible as well. Sure it's better than the NSX's system and being adjustable is cool, but its awkward and useless for driving fast.

IMO the argument is a bit pointless. ABS, Traction Control, Power Steering, Power Assist Brakes, Sequentials, Dual-Clutch Transmissions can all be viewed as 'nannies' that take the driver away from the true driving experience, but who cares?

I like the newer NSX ABS system better than no abs. The NSX TCS is still useless but if you have an aftermarket ECU like Motec or AEM Infinity and properly calibrate TCS (and have it be adjustable) it's badass -and I plan on it for my own car. I appreciate the non assisted rack but it makes it harder to drift and not as convenient as an assisted rack for parking. DCTs are by far faster and if you havn't driven a 458, GTR, Audi R8, M3 DCT, etc... you really need to drive one for a while before criticizing it. They are quite good and engaging especially in a fast car.

The world keeps turning despite someone's desire for 3 pedals or a small light car. Safety standards and the need to go faster will drive cars away from 'purebred' machines like the original NSX, Miata, Elise, etc... So buy and drive what you want or modify it until your happy. That's part of liking cars....

 

[jwmelvin]

The Elise/Exige's traction control is pretty terrible as well. Sure it's better than the NSX's system and being adjustable is cool, but its awkward and useless for driving fast.

My brief experience with the Exige made me appreciate how much better it was than the NSX. I guess your point is that the least-interfering setting on the Lotus is still overly limiting on slip angles? Or is it that the system's modulation is overly enthusiastic and slow to recover? I would say the latter is the main problem with the NSX.

IMO the argument is a bit pointless. ABS, Traction Control, Power Steering, Power Assist Brakes, Sequentials, Dual-Clutch Transmissions can all be viewed as 'nannies' that take the driver away from the true driving experience, but who cares?

I'm guessing that when the car moves the steering wheel for you or modulates throttle/brakes to hit the optimum corner entry speed, you start to care. Are those the only two elements that you consider essential to leave to the driver? I'm not sure I feel otherwise but I think this is what we've been talking about: people have various places they draw the line for what they will accept being handled for them. And I completely agree with you that the marketplace (including old and modified cars) allows for a variety of approaches. The upper range of sports cars are designed to maximize speed with minimal driver training, and the DCT is unquestionably better for speed.

My point is that new technologies, by removing tasks from the driver, erode from the skill set of the population by no longer requiring those skills. Does that matter? No. I'm just glad that I have a chance to learn some of them.

... if you have an aftermarket ECU like Motec or AEM Infinity and properly calibrate TCS (and have it be adjustable) it's badass -and I plan on it for my own car.

For street or track use?

 

[stuntman]

My brief experience with the Exige made me appreciate how much better it was than the NSX. I guess your point is that the least-interfering setting on the Lotus is still overly limiting on slip angles? Or is it that the system's modulation is overly enthusiastic and slow to recover? I would say the latter is the main problem with the NSX.

It is step in the right direction and better than the NSX's but that's not saying much. There's still a lot left to be desired in terms of assisting the driver rather than catching the drivers mistakes.

I'm guessing that when the car moves the steering wheel for you or modulates throttle/brakes to hit the optimum corner entry speed, you start to care. Are those the only two elements that you consider essential to leave to the driver? I'm not sure I feel otherwise but I think this is what we've been talking about: people have various places they draw the line for what they will accept being handled for them. And I completely agree with you that the marketplace (including old and modified cars) allows for a variety of approaches.

The car still does not know what the optimum entry speed is or where the apex is. That is still left up to the driver. Even the GTR will vary torque and brakes in response to the drivers inputs in a way that seemingly defies physics to get the car to do some impressive stuff. But again, they are responses to the drivers inputs. I still really like tracking GTRs and while different, they are still engaging in a different way.

The upper range of sports cars are designed to maximize speed with minimal driver training, and the DCT is unquestionably better for speed.

My point is that new technologies, by removing tasks from the driver, erode from the skill set of the population by no longer requiring those skills. Does that matter? No. I'm just glad that I have a chance to learn some of them.

Not exactly. The Porsche CGT, 918, R8, Mclaren P1, 12C, LaFerrari, 458, etc.. are all very driver involved cars that require skill the same way F1 drivers from the last decade are hardly considered unskilled. There's a reason why we don't double-clutch downshift h-pattern gearboxes. It's slower. If you like to stick to that past then buy a car from that era. Street cars are getting to levels of incredible performance and technology and still need a very talented driver. Sure a beginner can drive a GTR within lets say 80% of a pro while being only 50% in an NSX, 458, or Elise, but it still takes that 20% of talent to drive a GTR fast and that last 5% to drive one very fast.

 

[jwmelvin]

I appreciate your comments and agree with anything you say that I have a way of evaluating (e.g. I have not driven many fast cars and therefore cannot comment or evaluate comments on them). I guess, however, that you are referring to those cars with stability control off. It's that bit of recent technology that fills in for some driver skill and therefore obviates some degree of skill. Don't you think that with all systems engaged, there is a reduced demand on the driver?

Regarding entry speed, etc., I don't imagine it would be too difficult for a GPS-based system to know what entry speed it thinks is appropriate. Obviously depends on tires and environmental factors but an OEM safety system could make some conservative assumptions.

 

[stuntman]

The stability and traction control of most production cars are far too intrusive to go fast. In the last decade or so, most are now at the point where they can save a driver on the track rather than wrecking them, but it's still slow. There are a few super/hyper cars out there where TCS is so good that its faster to use it than not, same for F1 and many top level sports car racing, and I think having and adjustable traction control that can perform at that level is pretty cool and still fun. Same goes for motorsport grade ABS systems.

It's all a double edged sword and can be viewed as both good and bad. A guy I race against kind of said it best. To paraphrase: Racing in the 80s and 90s was a lot easier, people made more mistakes, you weren't at 11/10ths all the time, and often had to take care of some aspect of the car (engine, gearbox, brakes, suspension). While in todays racing, you're constantly running qualifying laps. It's far more intense for the driver and a drivers fitness is far more important these days. Heck, 24 hour races (daytona, LeMans) are now 24hr sprint races where as before you could spend a couple hours changing out a gearbox, or most of the race driving at 90% and taking care of the car.

If you don't like all the technology, then watch NASCAR (Cup and Nationwide) road course races. Those cars have 600-900hp, h-pattern dog ring gearboxes, no TCS, no ABS, no traditional 'technology' and are as raw as you can get. Plus the racing is very entertaining.

At the end of the day, racing and the cars themselves are different. Pick something you like and enjoy it. Both cars and racing will never be like they were 'in the good old days'. The future is in turbos and hybrids and we will be seeing a lot more of these cars soon.

 

[naaman]

Perhaps we need to keep in mind the enormous cost of developing a new car.

The new NSX has been benchmarked against a number of cars - all of them using DCT transmissions.
Why would we expect Honda, on a limited volume niche product, to offer a manual three pedal set-up as well as a DCT?Is that realistic?
I think not. The cost of offering a three pedal option for a limited number of buyers on a limited volume car would be huge.
The same people wanting the three pedal system would be the first to complain if Honda wanted say a $15 K upcharge for it.

And if Honda was to only offer a three pedal system the new NSX would immediately be labelled as outdated by the world's press

We are expecting Honda to make a car that will be competitive with the 458 and the like.
That is one tall task and I do hope Honda is able to come close.

If not having the three pedal system on the new NSX is a deal breaker for some people, I think Honda has accepted they'll have to live with those lost sales.
Porsche and Ferrari have made the same decision
It's not corporate arrogance, it's economics and common sense.

Honesly, there is so much I don't like about the new NSX that even if it DID come with a three-pedal system, I still would not buy one (and if I got one for free, I'd probably trade it for a C7 Z06). For me, this is not about the new NSX. It's simply about the automotive industry going in a general dierection that I do not prefer. I don't really care what comes on the market from any given manufacturer in the future. In the same way that there are people with 50-year old muscle cars in their garages making gobbs of power and torque with "obsolete" technology, I will likely be one of those guys who keeps "classics" in my garage from the late 90s/early 2000s, and the wife can dive whatever suits her fancy---flying automated transporation that teleports it passengers to Mars, etc...

What I like about driving has less to do with technology and more to do with the activity of driving. I'm not looking for a faster lap time. I just want to have fun. Paddles are less fun. Would I enjoy driving a Ferrari? Most certainly. But that has more to do with it being a Ferrari than it having a DCT. Put a DCT on a Civic Si or a Ford Taurus instead of a clutch/lever and all of a sudden, it's not so magical.

 

[N Spec]

Not exactly. The Porsche CGT, 918, R8, Mclaren P1, 12C, LaFerrari, 458, etc.. are all very driver involved cars that require skill the same way F1 drivers from the last decade are hardly considered unskilled. There's a reason why we don't double-clutch downshift h-pattern gearboxes. It's slower. If you like to stick to that past then buy a car from that era. Street cars are getting to levels of incredible performance and technology and still need a very talented driver. Sure a beginner can drive a GTR within lets say 80% of a pro while being only 50% in an NSX, 458, or Elise, but it still takes that 20% of talent to drive a GTR fast and that last 5% to drive one very fast.

I really like the way you put this. I agree. It would still take higher levels of skill/talent to extract the full potential of these modern supercars with their "easier to operate" DCTs. Just because Joe Guy can drive a car like the GTR really fast, does not mean that he has the understanding, reflexes, or focus of a professional driver. The two drivers are still in totally different leagues.

This talk about the car doing all of the driving for you is interesting. The whole idea of an automobile is to take over all of the labor intensity of becoming mobile on a grand scale and thus get somewhere faster than feet power. So saying one would prefer to indulge in a particular "labor", say one that involves a foot and hand to shift versus a finger or two if given the option would essentially contradict the very idea of an automobile.

At the end of the day, you are still controlling the car. You turn it left or right and you make it accelerate or brake. You cut the car on and you can choose to cut it off at anytime. Lastly, which is a refined vital detail, you tell it when to shift. There may be some labor assistance to turn the car or to modulate the throttle, gears, or brakes, but you (the driver) are ultimately in control of where the vehicle is going.

Now, there may be a point one day in the future where a car will become so smart that it can understand a road layout almost instantly and then can calculate the most efficient line to effectively navigate the course, deciding when to brake and accelerate, with minimal input from the driver, but that is also as believable as machines taking over the world and be able to make cognitive decisions and interpretations. We are still very far from that point in the processor/AI realm.

 

[naaman]

I really like the way you put this. I agree. It would still take higher levels of skill/talent to extract the full potential of these modern supercars with their "easier to operate" DCTs. Just because Joe Guy can drive a car like the GTR really fast, does not mean that he has the understanding, reflexes, or focus of a professional driver. The two drivers are still in totally different leagues.

This talk about the car doing all of the driving for you is interesting. The whole idea of an automobile is to take over all of the labor intensity of becoming mobile on a grand scale and thus get somewhere faster than feet power. So saying one would prefer to indulge in a particular "labor", say one that involves a foot and hand to shift versus a finger or two if given the option would essentially contradict the very idea of an automobile.

At the end of the day, you are still controlling the car. You turn it left or right and you make it accelerate or brake. You cut the car on and you can choose to cut it off at anytime. Lastly, which is a refined vital detail, you tell it when to shift. There may be some labor assistance to turn the car or to modulate the throttle, gears, or brakes, but you (the driver) are ultimately in control of where the vehicle is going.

Now, there may be a point one day in the future where a car will become so smart that it can understand a road layout almost instantly and then can calculate the most efficient line to effectively navigate the course, deciding when to brake and accelerate, with minimal input from the driver, but that is also as believable as machines taking over the world and be able to make cognitive decisions and interpretations. We are still very far from that point in the processor/AI realm.

This is true for a daily commuter or an otherwise purely utilitarian vechicle. That is the reason there is a market for cars like the Prius or the Accord. But then again, sometimes, it's nicer to walk than to drive. Sometimes, running or biking brings a thrill or fulfillment that driving does not. A sports car is not solely about transportation or A to B conveyance. While it may be capable of serving that purpose, so does a bus (which I don't have to drive at all) or a subway train, etc. A taxi will give me door to door service. Frankly, when I drive a sports car, its not even for the purpose of reaching a preselected destination. And red lights are my friend, beacuse it gives me another opportunity to pull through first gear.

This is really a matter of opinion, here, and I don't think anyone is really debating whether a DCT can outperform a person shifting manually. But telling me that ketchup tastes good isn't going to make me all of a suddent like it. Sure: it's great for those who like it. But me? I'll pass. At least for now.

Regardless of which side of the fence you stand on, here are a few videos that I'm sure we'd all enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqkyWhVBSKU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLJ2lw0bCkk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4CPBfpnye0

The preferecne for each of the drivers seems to be for the cars sporting traditional manuals, but... that's predictible given who some of them are.

 

[N Spec]

This is true for a daily commuter or an otherwise purely utilitarian vechicle. That is the reason there is a market for cars like the Prius or the Accord. But then again, sometimes, it's nicer to walk than to drive. Sometimes, running or biking brings a thrill or fulfillment that driving does not. A sports car is not solely about transportation or A to B conveyance. While it may be capable of serving that purpose, so does a bus (which I don't have to drive at all) or a subway train, etc. A taxi will give me door to door service. Frankly, when I drive a sports car, its not even for the purpose of reaching a preselected destination. And red lights are my friend, beacuse it gives me another opportunity to pull through first gear.

This is really a matter of opinion, here, and I don't think anyone is really debating whether a DCT can outperform a person shifting manually. But telling me that ketchup tastes good isn't going to make me all of a suddent like it. Sure: it's great for those who like it. But me? I'll pass. At least for now.

Well, I think the "for now" is a good thing. At least you haven't shut out the option completely and closed your mind to it. You are just not convinced at the moment*

I can't disagree with you in that rowing into gear and catching the clutch just right with the throttle is really fun and personally rewarding. However, as we all know, the whole point of having a 500+ hp car is basically to go very fast. The question is this: Are you driving to have fun or are you driving to go really fast?

-Fast is definitive and tangible. It can be measured. You can't deny or dispute what car A and car B have physically done on a road.

-Fun is subjective and can't be truly quantified. To some people, fun is going as fast as possible when possible. To many, it's just the satisfying fact that you operate a coveted/expensive product. To few, it may involve the hands and feet as much as possible. To others, it may just be watching or spectating.

So, it's all state of mind when it comes to the actual interpretation of fun or tasty as you would put it. To put it in food terms. You have food that are tasty and slow to cook. You have food that are tasty and expensive. You have food that are not as tasty but the nutritional values and health benefits are amazing. However, if you ate the same thing every day, every time, you would become bored and tired of it. So why not have that "fun" vehicle and also the newer modern, amazing vehicle? There are people who can eat the same stuff everyday. That's simply not me however.

- - - Updated - - -

Regardless of which side of the fence you stand on, here are a few videos that I'm sure we'd all enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqkyWhVBSKU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLJ2lw0bCkk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4CPBfpnye0

The preferecne for each of the drivers seems to be for the cars sporting traditional manuals, but... that's predictible given who some of them are.

The Z28 vs. GTR was a good video. These two cars have a lot more in common than the Corvette vs. GTR actually and I never really thought about it that way. I was surprised by the track numbers. I suppose the better brakes and true RWD handling compensated for the shear acceleration difference. I've driven a 2010 Camaro SS extensively, and I can say that I did not enjoy the handling, brakes or shifter for that car (esp. when compared to the 95 NSX-T that I owned at the time) but I imagine the Z28 is a totally different animal.

The R8 vs ZR1 video was interesting also. I usually don't agree with the opinions on that show, but it's always fun to watch. The video actually reinforced my questions about how driveable a 500+ hp car really is and the still current state of unrefined products, especially at such high costs still. I can't imagine the new Z06 with similar power to the ZR1 will be that much easier to drive, but we shall see.

I do however, do not agree with his suggestion of choosing the ZR1 over the supposedly better R8. I would still choose the Gallardo out of the three

 

[naaman]

Well, with regard to the ZR-1 vs Audi, I'd take the Corvette on looks alone without even bothering to test drive the two cars. The Audi is that ugly to me. LOL! I also happen to think the GT-R is ugly, although, I'd sooner take an R34 M-Spec or V-Spec than the 2014 Z28. Although, since owning a Camaro, I've grown fonder of the domestics in general.

Nonetheless: it's interesting that a car with less power and a three-pedal layout beat the paddle/auto ("faster") shifting, AWD, computer aided car. Even though it was a marginal victory, it goes to show that there is much more to going fast than eliminating shift lag/human error/obsolete technology, and that driver involvement doesn't necessarily come at the cost of speed (the racecar driver kept noting that he felt "more involved" with the Chevy than he did with the Nissan). In other words, on paper, the GT-R is "better" in the same way that a DCT Ferrari is "better" than a three-pedal Corvette (or NSX or whatever). Yet, the Camaro manages to remain competitive on the track, where absolute performance is the only thing that matters.

 

[fastaussie]

tell me if you think Clarkson prefers the Corvette (or any other car for that matter) after watching this?:

http://youtu.be/xgKjp1pq7iI

pay extra special attention at 3 minutes and 30 seconds in...

 

[effer]

As I always said before, the Ferrari 458 is where Honda should have ended the first generation NSX.

 

[fastaussie]

if only...

 

[Craigy]

This is thread is pretty hilarious. Computer-simulated fake three pedal systems and the still ongoing comparison of DCT technology to the button-shifted automatics in GM shitboxes.

I couldn't fathom buying a brand new digital all wheel drive hybrid electric turbocharged mid-engined japanese supercar with a stick.

If you really want that pure three pedal experience, why not buy a pure car? There are plenty of old cars out there with three pedals (or more!). The old guys have it in their head that a stick = sporty and the young guys want to look cool with their hand on the shift knob. Sure there's a dual clutch box or two out there that isn't the greatest, but they're typically attached to cars that aren't worth buying.

It sounds like Acura has confirmed there won't be a manual in the new car so this thread is moot pending some new revelation from the manufacturer.

 

[Silver F16]

Rumor came out late last week that a 3 pedal version of a mid-engine sports car is coming from Honda. Rolled at vtec.net is also making the same noise. Get a load of this. The car is supposed to use a Gen 2 NSX transverse engine chassis. This is the original chassis for the Gen 2 but was later revised for longitudinal engine mount. So now that Honda already have the MR transverse engine chassis, they will use it as the basis for the so called next generation "S2000".

There are multiple rumors flying most of them are saying 2.0L Turbo with around 350 Hp. Some reported close to 400Hp with the hybrid. RWD only, hence hybrid version will only power rear wheel. 6 speed manual and DCT available. My take based on a compilation of what I gathered is that the Hybrid will make closer to 400hp and will be mated to DCT. Whereas the non-hybrid variant will be available with a manual trans. This more affordable mid engine car will use some existing parts (presumably from Gen 1 NSX) to save cost compared to the NSX 2. I can see Honda carry over the 6 speed from the Gen 1 NSX to this car.

Price range from $60-$75K.

If that doesn't float your boat, then Google Cayman GT4. 1-2 years away sporting the same philosophy as the 911 GT3, but applied to the Cayman. It will be exciting time in a few years getting to decide what to buy.