Beltane70 Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 Yeah, what is the fascination with paddle shifters, anyway? Sounds like it takes the skill out of manually changing gears.
anime52k8 Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 Yeah, what is the fascination with paddle shifters, anyway? Sounds like it takes the skill out of manually changing gears. They're great because they take all the work out of manually changing gears.
mikeszekely Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 Yeah, what is the fascination with paddle shifters, anyway? Sounds like it takes the skill out of manually changing gears. They do. In essence, you're not really shifting gears, you're telling a computer that it's time for it do it. Purists may decry it, the computer can shift faster than a human can, and I think there's less of a chance of accidentally screwing up your transmission.
VT 1010 Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 When done properly, they work faster and better than a regular manual transmission. There's a reason why Formula 1, IndyCar, and many other purpose-built race cars use them. They still don't have the same cool factor though...
areaseven Posted February 7, 2011 Author Posted February 7, 2011 Still love this scene, even though the Ferrari was actually a fake.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 When done properly, they work faster and better than a regular manual transmission. There's a reason why Formula 1, IndyCar, and many other purpose-built race cars use them. They still don't have the same cool factor though... When done properly. On some crappy auto-boxes (yes the torque convertor sort, not the DSGs and SMGs) where th put in paddle shifters, the damn things react about 1+ seconds after user input. Dumb @!#$%s. I belong firmly to the stick and clutch faction. Damn DSGs might be faster but I miss the fine control and the clutch down free-rolling...
areaseven Posted February 7, 2011 Author Posted February 7, 2011 When done properly. On some crappy auto-boxes (yes the torque converter sort, not the DSGs and SMGs) where they put in paddle shifters, the damn things react about 1+ seconds after user input. Dumb @!#$%s. I belong firmly to the stick and clutch faction. Damn DSGs might be faster but I miss the fine control and the clutch down free-rolling... Amen to that. Nowadays, the major car manufacturers insist on putting those flappy paddle shifters on just about any car. For example, why would a Toyota Corolla need one? Even worse are the lame alternatives to flappy paddle shifters, such as the button shifters behind the steering wheel of the new Camaro A/T.
Ghost Train Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Not a fan of Chryslers, but this commercial which aired in the superbowl was so f'ing epic that even detroit haters be like: SPARTAAAA!
reddsun1 Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Still love this scene, even though the Ferrari was actually a fake. LOL, good one. Cameron's reaction to the car's theft, and the garage odometer scenes are classics... --What'd I do? --You killed the car. Not a fan of Chryslers, but this commercial which aired in the superbowl was so f'ing epic that even detroit haters be like: SPARTAAAA! Got a "meh" from me. Struck me as less than genuine. Somehow I doubt Eminem would be caught in a Chrysler 200...a gilded, gussied up, blinged-out 300? maybe.
reddsun1 Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 When done properly, they work faster and better than a regular manual transmission. There's a reason why Formula 1, IndyCar, and many other purpose-built race cars use them. They still don't have the same cool factor though... Indeed. It would be interesting to see how the current crop of F1 hotshoes could cope with crash boxes; dog rings, and 3-pedal setups. Driver's skill with synching shifts and such would arguably play a critical role in overtaking in the passing/braking zones.
anime52k8 Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Not a fan of Chryslers, but this commercial which aired in the superbowl was so f'ing epic that even detroit haters be like: SPARTAAAA! didn't do it for me at all. Chevy had much better spots this year http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwgJzNHvJ-c
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 Indeed. It would be interesting to see how the current crop of F1 hotshoes could cope with crash boxes; dog rings, and 3-pedal setups. Driver's skill with synching shifts and such would arguably play a critical role in overtaking in the passing/braking zones. I think they tried this in the past. Put F1 drivers in WRC cars and WRC drivers in F1 cars to see how they coped. The WRC guys coped better.
Shadow Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Adding to the above statement. I'd like to see current F1 drivers in the old F1 cars from the 60s and the monsters from the 80s. Same with current WRC drivers in the old Group B machines. Edited February 8, 2011 by Shadow
areaseven Posted February 8, 2011 Author Posted February 8, 2011 Not a fan of Chryslers, but this commercial which aired in the superbowl was so f'ing epic that even detroit haters be like: SPARTAAAA! Too bad it's for the Chrysler 200, which, like its predecessor the Sebring, will forever be relegated to rental fleet status.
VT 1010 Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) I think they tried this in the past. Put F1 drivers in WRC cars and WRC drivers in F1 cars to see how they coped. The WRC guys coped better. When was this? Do you have a link? I have to see this. Adding to the above statement. I'd like to see current F1 drivers in the old F1 cars from the 60s and the monsters from the 80s. Same with current WRC drivers in the old Group B machines. Though it wasn't in a race, Lewis Hamilton did drive one of Aryton Senna's cars on an Episode of Top Gear. I've got the feeling that if they were to actually race in the older cars it would result in a lot of dead or injured drivers. Edited February 8, 2011 by VT 1010
reddsun1 Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 didn't do it for me at all. Chevy had much better spots this year yeah, I noticed Chevy had a lot of spots this year, too. A LOT. Sure are throwin' the advertising dollars around, aren't they? I mean, did we not JUST have to bail they broke a$$es out of bankruptcy? And damned if they haven't gone back to spending money like water, advertising their overpriced trucks and mediocre cars... Chevy Volt... *hooooccckk. patoo!* how about you plug it in yer A$$, GM--see what kind of mileage you get then.
reddsun1 Posted February 8, 2011 Posted February 8, 2011 (edited) Adding to the above statement. I'd like to see current F1 drivers in the old F1 cars from the 60s and the monsters from the 80s. Same with current WRC drivers in the old Group B machines. True. True. How about this for a true test to be worthy of the "World Champion" title: Cut the number of races in the current, modern F1 cars back from 18 to say, 12 races. The remaining 6 races can be run in different, difinitive styled chassis; a.)one styled on the post-war, front engined cars like those piloted by Fangio and the other "greats," b.)the other chassis styled on the rear-engined monocoques like the Lotus 49, that heralded F1's next great leap/transition, 3 races for each type. Obviously, the cars would need to be replicas, using modern materials and safety equipment; carbon fibre cockpit structures; fuel cells; proper roll bars; modern tyre compounds (but in similar to historic sizes/profiles). While it'd make the cars look slightly different, the main thing would be: the emphasis on driving style & artistry needed to extract the most from cars that rely primarily on mechanical grip, with relatively low HP (450-500?), and no electronic nannies. Edited February 8, 2011 by reddsun1
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) Obviously, the cars would need to be replicas, using modern materials and safety equipment; carbon fibre cockpit structures; fuel cells; proper roll bars; modern tyre compounds (but in similar to historic sizes/profiles). While it'd make the cars look slightly different, the main thing would be: the emphasis on driving style & artistry needed to extract the most from cars that rely primarily on mechanical grip, with relatively low HP (450-500?), and no electronic nannies. Too expensive I guess. If you just want to test their handling of 'mechanical grip with no nannies', just slap some overweight (for a kart) production engine with 150-200hp to a go-kart and let them race. That should be fun to watch too. On that same note, got this off Jalopnik: Feds find majority of Toyota unintended acceleration cases were people hitting wrong pedal By Justin Hyde, Feb 8, 2011 05:01 PM The U.S. government's ten-month probe into Toyota validates the initially unpopular argument we at Jalopnik put forth at the start of this unintended acceleration witch hunt: This was a case of people pressing the wrong pedal. In every way, this was Toyota's beige-ification of cars biting them back, and hard. The probe by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and NASA scientists examined 280,000 lines of Toyota software, 3,054 complaints of sudden acceleration in Toyota vehicles and several dozen individual vehicles. "There is no electronic-based cause for unintended high-speed acceleration in Toyotas. Period," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. (The NASA team did find one theoretical way for a Toyota's electronic throttle control to screw up and open wide even when the brake was depressed. But doing so requires two inputs at a precise electrical resistance; any variation and the car's warning lights come on, and NASA reviewed Toyotas own warranty data and found no evidence of any such faults.) NHTSA officials said the causes were the ones they suspected all along — bulky floormats, sticking gas pedals and driver mistakes. "We found that when a complaint alleged the brakes didn't work, what most likely happened was pedal misapplication," said deputy NHTSA administrator Ron Medford. Yet the proposed solution? More electronics and more regulations. NHTSA officials say they'll now push forward with three new rules for vehicles, requiring brake-override software, electronic data recorders and new rules for keyless ignition so that people don't get confused when they have to shut down a car by holding a button for one-Mississippi two-Mississippi. NHTSA will also study pedal design, to see whether vehicles need to be designed with podiatry standards in mind. In the heat of the recalls last fall, everyone who complained of sudden acceleration had the benefit of the doubt, and even today, LaHood tried to claim that "nobody up here has even insinuated the term 'driver error.'" Why not? We know what Toyota did wrong: it's mechanical and business mistakes led directly to four deaths and several injuries, and it faces hundreds of lawsuits and a dented reputation for ignoring defects. We know what's wrong with Toyota's software: Nothing. Why avoid discussing what many drivers did wrong — mistake the gas for the brake? Human nature suggests some of those who claimed sudden acceleration problems without a defect will likely go on believing the government just overlooked something rather than admit a smidgen of responsibility. New rules for safety technology will take several months, if not years, to put into place, while the technology on vehicles will require several more years to filter into production. Even then, it will only protect those who buy new models, not the ones on the road today. Where's the call to improve American drivers? Where's the charter to make driving an essential skill rather than a chore which should be handed off to computers as much as possible? If part of the Toyota imbroglio stems from people becoming disconnected from driving their vehicles, part of the answer should be to restore that connection — rather than making every vehicle as somnambulant as the worst Toyota. Edited February 9, 2011 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
Beltane70 Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 How the hell do people even manage to hit the wrong pedal? In my 24 years of driving, I've only done that once, and that was when I had only been driving for about two months. The one thing I do have to laugh about with all this is the fact that a few car manufacturers have had the break override feature in their cars for several years.
Retracting Head Ter Ter Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) What is a brake over-ride feature anyway? Throttle closes when brakes are hit? In any case, unless your car has way too much power or your brakes are crap, slamming on the brake pedal even with the accelerator floored should still stop the car. Edited February 9, 2011 by Retracting Head Ter Ter
Vifam7 Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Where's the call to improve American drivers? Where's the charter to make driving an essential skill rather than a chore which should be handed off to computers as much as possible? If part of the Toyota imbroglio stems from people becoming disconnected from driving their vehicles, part of the answer should be to restore that connection — rather than making every vehicle as somnambulant as the worst Toyota. It's difficult to improve driver standards. Especially in America where the car is considered indispensable. Raise the standards and I'll bet you'll hear the biggest protests from the worst drivers -> teenagers, the elderly, and SUV drivers. The problem isn't the cars IMO. It's people who are unwilling to take any responsibility for their mistakes. Ie. "It's not my fault. It's XXXXX's fault. It's time to sue somebody."
reddsun1 Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Too expensive I guess. If you just want to test their handling of 'mechanical grip with no nannies', just slap some overweight (for a kart) production engine with 150-200hp to a go-kart and let them race. That should be fun to watch too. Kinda figured it would go a long ways towards eliminating some of the debate--at least one side of it, anyway--over whether modern drivers could cope with the demands/skills needed for grand prix cars of old; but of course, whilst making concessions to safety so as to not repeat those dreadful days, when nary a season passed without striking one (usually more) name(s) of the fallen from the rosters. Alas, we'd never satisfy the other side of that endless debate, i.e. whether Fangio, Nuvolari, Hill, et. al. could match times with drivers like Hamilton, Senna and Schumacher in modern cars. But I suppose it's a moot point? I think a very large part of what made grand prix/sports car drivers so heroic back in the day was the very fact that they plied such a dangerous trade. As Denis Jenkinson put it, they were after all "diceing with Death" every time they took to the track. I guess a Lotus 49 or Alfa 158 with a carbon tub, fuel cell, roll bars, and radials just wouldn't be nearly as thrilling to watch?
Snail00 Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 fcuk me ! I am a big fan of the Hyundai Elantra Since I have 2 2003 GTs and I hate the new design but the 2011 Elantra oh man this car looks sweet I am saving up for a hyundai Vera Cruz but I might get this for my wife! I do miss the hatchbacks too bad they are not continuing with them
anime52k8 Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 that is one of the ugliest things I've ever seen in my life. F*ck... I think I just threw up a bit in my mouth...
David Hingtgen Posted February 13, 2011 Posted February 13, 2011 Looks to me like they angled/curved every button and switch in an attempt to look "cool" with no thought given to ergonomics.
emajnthis Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 I'm unsure how ergonomic the car really is until i test drive one, but at face value, i'm going to have to disagree with anime52 and say that the car looks pretty sweet. It's not as a good as the Sonata (especially now that the Sonata has a 276hp turbo motor), but for its marketed price range and competition, for the first time it's actually looking like a competitor.
areaseven Posted February 14, 2011 Author Posted February 14, 2011 Yeah, I gotta admit that the new Elantra looks really good. Hyundai's been on a roll with their redesigns. First the Tucson, then the Accent and Sonata, and now the Elantra. Kia also has some of the best redesigns today.
eugimon Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 i think it looks fine. Not sure what people were expecting on 15000$ car but I think it holds up well against the 2011 civic.
mikeszekely Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 i think it looks fine. Not sure what people were expecting on 15000$ car but I think it holds up well against the 2011 civic. This. Hyundai, with the possible exception of the Tiburon, has sort of struck me as a budget-conscious, blandish sort of brand. Starting with the Genesis, though, their designs have been better. Personally, I'm sticking with Mitsubishi, but I'd rather have the new Elantra than a Corolla.
reddsun1 Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 fcuk me ! I am a big fan of the Hyundai Elantra Since I have 2 2003 GTs and I hate the new design but the 2011 Elantra oh man this car looks sweet I am saving up for a hyundai Vera Cruz but I might get this for my wife! I do miss the hatchbacks too bad they are not continuing with them No sir, I don't like it. Maybe it's just me, but those character lines (is that what they're called?) on either side of the grill give the front end an even more exaggerated visage of a grinning face, like cheeks or something. Reminds me of that green-goblin face on the front of the killer KW in Maximum Overdrive.
Ignacio Ocamica Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 fcuk me ! I am a big fan of the Hyundai Elantra Since I have 2 2003 GTs and I hate the new design but the 2011 Elantra oh man this car looks sweet Ford Focus 2011 for the Argentine market. They look similar right?
derex3592 Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 I like the looks of both of those.... ....this from a man who hates Ford...
areaseven Posted February 15, 2011 Author Posted February 15, 2011 Motor Trend takes the new McLaren MP4-12C for a spin.
jenius Posted February 15, 2011 Posted February 15, 2011 The side vents just aren't big enough on that thing. C'mon McClaren, if I can't gobble up pedestrians in my side vents then what's the point?
Recommended Posts