Talk:Transmission (mechanical device)

Manual transmission

Manual transmissions tend to distract the driver's attention from traffic and are associated with higher accident rates in cities and stop and go traffic.

In fact, human minds are capable of internalizing such a feat as shifting a gear so deeply and thoroughly that the shifting is nearly subconscious.

Drivers of automatic vehicles are more susceptible to "zoning out," a dangerous state of mind similar to day dreaming.

Unless someone can provide statistics for (the top sentence), I believe it should be deleted. This sentence is only valid if someone is new to driving a manual transmission, and is focusing more attention on driving than the traffic conditions outside the car. It is a well-known fact that an experienced manual transmission driver is actually less distracted, since the operation of the car comes naturally to them. Likewise, they need to have a knowledge of what the immediate traffic conditions are to prevent from stalling, being in the wrong gear, etc. One who drives a vehicle with an automatic transmission is far more likely to "let their mind wander" since they aren't having to pay any attention since the car does most of the driving for them. They don't need to worry about what gear the car is in, and therefore are more likely to not pay attention, and become more distracted by other things. In Europe (where manual transmissions are by far more popular), small accidents in traffic tend to occur less since people are paying more attention. However, until I can find statistical evidence for this, I'm not going to post that piece of information. --Hungarian83 19:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, human minds are capable of internalizing such a feat as shifting a gear so deeply and thoroughly that the shifting is nearly subconscious.

Drivers of automatic vehicles are more susceptible to "zoning out," a dangerous state of mind similar to day dreaming.

If shifting is nearly subconscious, how is that going to prevent a driver from daydreaming? What's more likely to contribute to daydreaming is traveling for prolonged periods of time at the same speed. That is not likely to be affected by the type of transmission in use—manual or automatic—since that kind of driving does not require any shifting to take place. 207.69.139.160 06:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This argument about manual v. automatic has been around forever and it's fueled by emotion. Let's go back to manual spark advance and all the other things that were necessary through history. Why stop at the transmission? Because most people can't compete with automation and they don't want to. How silly.

Sounds like someone is getting emotional..... Automatic transmissions do not permit the level of communication between the driver and the car that manuals do. I have driven both, and for advanced control around corners a manual is necessary. Gearchanging, (particularly downshifting) affects the balance of the car as well as the power going to the wheels. Autos generally have fewer ratios available, so keeping within a tight powerband is not possible, therefore straightline speed is better with manual.

With an auto you are stuck with preprogrammed responses. If autos did the job they should, they would shift at exactly the same moments a manual driver would. They don't, because (a) every driver and every situation requires a different reaction (b) They can't see what the driver sees, and so couldn't be programmed to do two different things with the same loading conditions. For example, I drive an underpowered car right now, and when stuck behind someone on a twisty road that I don't know (common in Ireland) I downshift before corners in case there is a passing opportunity around the corner. To do the same thing an auto would require planting your foot behind a slow car, so a delay would be inevitable and I could be stuck behind the slower car for another 10 miles. First example I thought of, there are many more.

I also find that autos are so simple to drive that you completely tune out of what the car is doing. Its just STOP GO LEFT RIGHT. You don't need to pay attention to engine speeds, whereas in a manual the engine speed is something you constantly subconsciously monitor, making the cars behaviour in a given situation instantly predictable. I emphasise simple, because manuals are just as easy to drive as autos after a few weeks, you just get a wealth of information and control with a manual. Plenty has already been said about zoning out of what OTHER traffic is doing, most of it true. I'm all for automation, but not when it reduces the performance you can achieve. 213.202.168.92 15:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I second all of this (and the OP). Very well said. Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Manual Makes Sense

Manual transmittion in a car does not only stop the driver from letting their mind wander but also has been known to help prevent accidents as it gives the driver much more control over the car. If brakes were to fail the car can be slowed down using the manual gearbox. Mr.Alex C 00:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Mr.Alex C, you might want to use the four tildes (~) to "sign" your name next time.

Regarding your observation, brake failure is a fairly infrequent occurrence in most modern cars. Brakes are pretty reliable. In any event, downshifting usually is possible to some degree even with automatic transmissions. That is, there is not simply one forward range (D-drive) but rather two or three additional lower forward ranges, such as second (2 or S) and low (1 or L). Usually there's also an emergency brake that can be operated with either the left foot (which is free in automatics, since there's no clutch to operate) or the right hand. 207.69.139.160 06:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Engine breaking to the extent that can be done with a manual transmission is not possible in an automatic, regardless of what gear it's in. Brake failures aside, on descending grades, an automatic will require far more braking than will a manual. I can always tell when I see another that is constantly on their breaks going down a hill, while I am not using them at all, and going the same speed (yet if I were to put the car in neutral, THEN I would need to use the brakes, and quite heavily - saves gas, but wears out the brakes haha). Firejuggler86 (talk) 04:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-automatic transmission

" A great example of this is the 7-speed sequential transmission on the Bugatti Veyron, a supercar that puts out 1,001 horsepower (746 kW) and goes 254 miles per hour (409 km/h). You can see this at howstuffworks.com. Follow this link to get to the howstuffworks.com article on sequential transmissions. [1]" sounds like a blatant plug for howstuffworks and does not really suit the factual and objective tone of the article. and agree with the manual arguments, but then i am biased. jh 23:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Purpose of a gearbox

Can any one describe in one simple sentence the actual purpose of a gearbox in technical or mechanical terms? 8-?--Light current 22:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Transmission

I always thought that the term 'transmission' included all links (inc prop shaft etc) from the engine to the road wheels. Has this changed lately?--Light current 23:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that might more properly be called the drive train, though I'm sure some would have that term also include the engine. 207.69.139.160 06:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Tiptronic?

This article lists "Tiptronic" as a semi-automatic system, however the Tiptronic article itself states "A Tiptronic is not a computer controlled clutch-manual transmission or semi-automatic transmission." Which is it? Actually, some distinction between an automatic transmisision that can be overridden by the driver and a manual system which can have a computer make the gear changes is needed. --Xyrrus 16:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Manual and Automatic - relative popularity

These two sentences, which appear in the article only a few lines apart, seem to be mutually contradictory:

• Manual transmissions dominate the car market outside of North America.
• Most modern cars have an automatic transmission [...]

Is there something I have overlooked? Does North America comprise a large enough majority of the global car market that both these sentences can be true at the same time? Or is the second sentence intended to mean "most modern cars are available with automatic transmission". TomH 21:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

re-wording

I'd like to re-write the following statement (towards the end of the article):

"Hydraulic drive systems can be controled in an excellent way, but in fact it is an extra transmission between motor and f.i. wheels."

But I have no idea what "f.i." wheels are. Anyone? --Paul 00:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

rpm

this article describes an automoble tire spinning at 2500 rpm. Not likely. Please do the math and take another look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.62.231 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be about 160-200 mph, given that street tires turn 737-918 revs per mile (461-571 revs per km)[1]. Not too far off for the upper limit for the hottest street cars, as in the article's statement "the car's wheels rotate between 0 rpm and around 2500 rpm" referring to the need for a transmission. Gzuckier 15:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

has everybody forgotten how to use a calculator? 918 rpm for a 2ft dia. tire is only 5508 ft. If a mile still has 5280 ft in it, thats below 60 mph. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Could somebody monitor the nutballs please? This is getting tiresome.

Dear "do the math" -- I did the math. I agree with the above 2 respondents that 2500 rpm is very likely for some racing cars. Here, check this calculation:

diameter d of a typical tire is very roughly 2 ft (Formula One tyres).

So circumference c of a typical tire is roughly π*d = 6 feet.

Revolutions turned r is distance / circumference.

In one mile, we have

revolutions/mile = 1 mile / 6 feet = 5280 ft / 6 ft = 880 revolutions per mile.

At 200 mph (Indy 500 cars often go slightly faster than this -- Indianapolis 500 Records), we have

rpm = revolutions / minute = (200 miles/hour)*(880 revolutions/mile)*(1 hour / 60 minutes) =

rpm = roughly 3000 revolutions / minute.

WP:MASTODONS. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear I did the math. You did the math for Formula 1. We're talking about unspecialized vehicles. Sorry to be so late getting back to you, but this article is bad every time I look at it. Could we get an expert to look at it please.69.122.62.231 (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

deeply confusing

This article badly needs to be written. It's written in a style that implies that the reader knows exactly what transmission is already. Look at the first sentence "Early transmissions included the right-angle drives and other gearing in windmills, horse-powered devices, and steam engines, in support of pumping, milling, and hoisting." It starts off by talking about early transmissions when the casual reader doesn't even know the basics of what transmission is, never mind "right-angle drive". This really needs to be rewritten by for the layman. 213.202.159.241 (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

transmissions allow power to go both ways

The manual transmission article all too briefly mentions "deceleration fuel cut-off (DFCO)", which involves power flowing from the wheels into the engine.

Is there some other article that goes into more detail? If not, is this "transmission (mechanics)" the best article to explain how transmissions allow power to go both ways, or would some other article be better? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear DFCO, I think the term DFCO is particular to some area of the automoble that is tangential to this discussion. Generally speaking, transmissions are not connected to automobles exclusively. The explanation of what a transmission is, therefore, is not helped by introducing other concepts. I would like to see a seperate article on DFCO if you feel it's worthwhile. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.62.231 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

image that may be useful...

Perhaps someone who knows more about transmissions could find a way to integrate this image in an advantageous way if it seems appropriate.--Emesee (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not a transmission; it's a differential. Another Stickler (talk) 09:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think a more useful image would be a simple (starting) animation showing actual gear shifting; instead of the (static mechanic) irl VW Golf (which could also appear somewhere else). At least, to maintain consistency with the other illustrations; if not improved clarity and understanding. 190.148.140.12 (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Article name should be moved to avoid misunderstanding

Mechanics is a branch of physics, not to be confused with mechanics, the people who work on cars. The article name "Transmission (mechanics)" needs to be changed to avoid the misunderstanding that this article has something to do with physics or people. I suggest "Transmission (mechanism)". Please say if you second this name change, or suggest a different name below. Another Stickler (talk) 09:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

carbibles.com link

user:Another Stickler re-added the carbibles link, stating: "It's a comprehensive article on transmissions with lots of good illustrations, and this is the WP transmission article. It's an appropriate link here, not SPAM."

I removed it, and I removed it from other articles too. While there appears to be a decent amount of information, there's no credibility behind it. The site, is run by one guy (Chris Longhurst) who adds it to many articles. It's a self-published source not matching the WP:RS standard. Note there has been another discussion about the factual accuracy of some material on another page where the carbibles.com link appeared. tedder (talk) 12:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Something lost to you and the chatters in the other discussion is that it's not being used as a citation or a reference; it's just an external link, a pointer to somewhere else that covers similar information. WP:RS doesn't apply to external links. Your arguments on those grounds are inappropriate and misguided. Content of external links is not subject to wikipedia's editing guidelines. When you leave wikipedia, you leave what little quality control we have here. The reader is always responsible for using critical reading skills to weed out mistakes in external articles, just as when reading wikipedia articles. The externally linked HowStuffWorks site has errors too. If complete factual accuracy were required of all information behind every link, then all internal links would have to be deleted. The content behind the external link includes some accurate information not covered here, especially the illustrations, and is in the high end of quality of the plethora of results of an equivalent google search. It is therefore a valuable external link. Your removal of the link from multiple articles is deletion SPAM. -- Another Stickler (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RS may not apply directly, but I'm confused by the personal attack and calling it "deletion spam". The second sentence of WP:EL says "Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic". It isn't accurate, pure and simple. tedder (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What personal attack? Regarding WP:EL, it does contain further research that is on-topic and it contains some accurate information not included here. The illustrations are especially good and can't just be lifted and put in here for copyright reasons. An external link seems like the best way to connect to it. -- Another Stickler (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

too technical, short, long

how about hashing this out here instead of templates. Wdl1961 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Lead#Length, an article this size should have an introduction of two to three paragraphs, which seems fitting for this type of article. The introduction should touch on the basic theory, different types, applications, etc. The introduction should summarize the article. Wizard191 (talk) 13:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There was confusion before. What would be your solution?Wdl1961 (talk) 14:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not knocking your previous edits, they were needed. Even prior to your edits the introduction was too small, I just never noticed before. The solution is simply summarizing the article to make the introduction long enough. Wizard191 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am happy with what is there now and biased to keep things simple ref to my user page. Instead of a template change or add to the article .Wdl1961 (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Granny Gear

I would like to include mention of the "granny gear" somewhere around a gear ratio section. GlassCobra suggested I mention this here for discussion. Currently, apart from the redirect here for the Granny gear page, there is only mention of a granny gear being on bicycle gearing. Any thoughts? Foxmuldr (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it, especially if granny gear redirects here. Wizard191 (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Added granny gear references to intro section. Please review. Was not logged in when did it, but it was me. Foxmuldr (talk) 00:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. I just moved it to the manual section as it fits better there. Wizard191 (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Manual transmission

Is a "sliding mesh" manual transmission the same as the one found on the Victoria KR21 Swing ? --> http://members.home.nl/motor-fan/klassiek/Victoria/KlassiekVictoria.htm ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.185.184 (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comparison of transmissions

A Comparison of transmissions article should be made and a section should be created for this page aswell; the article should detail the advantages and the disadvantages so that one can determine which trensmission is best for each particular task.~ ie a CVT shifts quicker, does not require a clutch and has a broader range of gears. It is more complicated to design, and is much less durable as a manual transmission a manual transmission requires a clutch, shifts less quick, and has a more limited range of gears. It is however much more durable than a CVT ... 91.182.225.206 (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Move CVT to Common types and automated manual to uncommon types.

Cvts are far more common than Automated Manual transmissions in today's cars. CVTs are also being introduced into industrial machinery and other vehicles. CVT should be moved into common types of transmission and Automated Manual should be moved to uncommon types. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:582:8100:2130:B5D0:C238:2DC0:4623 (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hydrostatic

I see 'hydrostatic' used in respect of HYDRAULIC power transmission for motive power quite a bit. However, the only time it is a hydroSTATIC system is when it's not moving - the clue is in the word STATIC ! NOT MOVING ! I see nothing wrong in referring to the power system being referred to as hydraulic - as it is everywhere else ! And that includes 'hydraulic motors' ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E223:201:25AC:9A3A:D120:C794 (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Article name

As this page seems to be about gearboxes, can it please be renamed as such ? Even the article points out the error in referring to a gearbox as a 'transmission' by pointing out that it relates to only part of a transmission. Of course, it really means 'mechanical power transmission' too - for clarity. The content could be relocated under gearbox and a redirect placed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c5:e223:201:25ac:9a3a:d120:c794 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox text

Hello. Does anyone mind if I remove this recently-added text [2]? It is mostly unsourced and has broken the Infobox template? Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

X750, thank you for making this change. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah no worries mate MrsSnoozyTurtle X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 07:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)