![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
elfsI came across a report recently that said that the number of cars sold with manual transmissions had dropped from 18% in 2000 to 15% last year, and that driving schools across the country were disposing of their manuals and not giving classes in them anymore. This was true despite the fact that manuals are 5-10% more fuel efficient and, when push comes to shove (literally, in some cases), safer than automatics.
One of the driving school teachers stated that she had driven a manual for many years, but had switched to an automatic recently because "stop and go city driving took the fun out of a manual." I found that bewildering, because driving a stick is so instinctively easy for me that I find myself rarely thinking about what gear I need to be in. My cars for the last fifteen years have been manuals.
An automatic transmission is a computer with hydraulics instead of electronics and is powered by the torque from your engine. It's so inefficient a system that it eats a significant amount of the power your engine puts out-- more than your air conditioner, in some cases. It's also making decisions over a gross range of options-- four or five, in most cases. It doesn't take much brain power to replace that, which is why I've always been puzzled by the prevalence of automatics beyond, say, people missing their right arm.
The article went on to surmise that the reason so few people drove a manual was because in our high-tech, multitasking age, people wanted their right hand free to fiddle with their cell phones, the radio, their GPS, and their lunch. I suppose that makes sense. Not safety sense, but human sense.
I wonder, though, if you'd find a higher acceptance of manual transmissions among Linux users. Both, after all, have similar profiles: they offer more power, but to be capable of doing so you have to have a slightly higher skill level than the average user. I would think they'd have a similar amount of attraction.
One of the driving school teachers stated that she had driven a manual for many years, but had switched to an automatic recently because "stop and go city driving took the fun out of a manual." I found that bewildering, because driving a stick is so instinctively easy for me that I find myself rarely thinking about what gear I need to be in. My cars for the last fifteen years have been manuals.
An automatic transmission is a computer with hydraulics instead of electronics and is powered by the torque from your engine. It's so inefficient a system that it eats a significant amount of the power your engine puts out-- more than your air conditioner, in some cases. It's also making decisions over a gross range of options-- four or five, in most cases. It doesn't take much brain power to replace that, which is why I've always been puzzled by the prevalence of automatics beyond, say, people missing their right arm.
The article went on to surmise that the reason so few people drove a manual was because in our high-tech, multitasking age, people wanted their right hand free to fiddle with their cell phones, the radio, their GPS, and their lunch. I suppose that makes sense. Not safety sense, but human sense.
I wonder, though, if you'd find a higher acceptance of manual transmissions among Linux users. Both, after all, have similar profiles: they offer more power, but to be capable of doing so you have to have a slightly higher skill level than the average user. I would think they'd have a similar amount of attraction.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-26 12:00 am (UTC)But I still liked Neal Stephenson's linux car metaphor:
"And over there, the linux guys are making tanks. These are not old-fashioned, cast-iron Soviet tanks; thse are more like the M1 tanks of the U.S. Army, made of space-age materials and jammed with sophisticated technology from one end to the other. But they are better then army tanks. Thev've been modified in such a way that hey never, ever break down, are light and maneuverable enough to use on ordinary streets and use no more fuel then a subcompact car."
no subject
Date: 2006-07-02 07:43 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-07-02 07:45 am (UTC)