This error is found almost universally though. It is the leading cause of the statistical difference between the two. It's like saying that the pull-out method is almost as effective as condoms for contraception. Yeah, but only under perfect conditions. These conditions are rarely if ever met in the real world so ignoring their effects paints a vastly different picture of the efficacy of each.

And yeah, that's the gist of how a manual transmission works but most people everybody, depending on your level of measurement still fuck it up. Just like with everything else, people will occasionally slip and forget something even if they have mastered the technique, so that's one source. But the biggest one is when to shift. Even if you know all the technical data, it's still next to impossible to get it as precise as a computer does. It's the same reason we get robots to build our cars, human hands just don't do it as well as a computer can.

See now you are back pedaling. I stated that you get more engine performance out of a manual transmission because you claimed automatics are faster. You then try to make my statement sound as if I am saying that all drivers should be driving manuals and red lining them. Your claim that manual transmissions wear down more than automatics is wrong and invalid. Automatics are much more complex and with more moving parts which increases chances something will fail over time. Not to mention that to repair a manual transmission it is MUCH cheaper than an automatic's. You would know this if you actually bothered to read the article i linked. I honestly don't have time trying to talk to people that want to be right so bad that they will not read material opposing their point of view.

1. If you can find where I said automatics are faster than manuals, I'd love to see it.

2. You brought up redlining. I brought up that it's not a valid reason to warrant a manual.

3. I've read the article. It even makes a point of saying that most people don't know how to drive a stick properly which leads to a number of problems, especially with the engine. A manual will have less transmission issues but incorrect usage will absolutely demolish your engine, which can lead to much more costly repairs than transmission work. You don't have this problem with automatics. There is a much higher risk of catastrophic failure using manuals. In addition, a manual transmission is typically less stable because of its simplicity. I don't know if you've ever been in a car when the transmission dropped but believe me it's fucking terrifying I consider myself very lucky to be alive right now . You don't get this automatics which for me is reason enough to avoid manuals. Yeah, overall maintenance with automatics can be more expensive but if you have an issue it probably won't be as big a deal as it is for manuals.

4. I'm a mechanical engineer who frequently works with a performance racing team on the side. I've rebuilt, modified, and straight-up designed transmissions and yes, the team still uses manuals , so believe me, I'm pretty familiar with transmission systems even without your article you found after a 30 second Google search. I know the ins and outs of each intimately, I can assure you that the average consumer is better off with an automatic transmission.

This error is found almost universally though. It is the leading cause of the statistical difference between the two. It's like saying that the pull-out method is almost as effective as condoms for contraception. Yeah, but only under perfect conditions. These conditions are rarely if ever met in the real world so ignoring their effects paints a vastly different picture of the efficacy of each.

And yeah, that's the gist of how a manual transmission works but most people everybody, depending on your level of measurement still fuck it up. Just like with everything else, people will occasionally slip and forget something even if they have mastered the technique, so that's one source. But the biggest one is when to shift. Even if you know all the technical data, it's still next to impossible to get it as precise as a computer does. It's the same reason we get robots to build our cars, human hands just don't do it as well as a computer can.

The cars that you are referring to catching up to with pros are racing cars and extremely expensive super cars. They have transmissions designed to be upshifted at much higher RPMs than are recommended to gain maximum power utilization from the engine. It does not take a pro to get more power out of their engine than an automatic transmission. Here is an article that will explain it to you: www.wikihow.com/Choose-Between-a-Car-with-Automatic-or-Manual-Transmission

This is the quote in question: "if you own a car that receives 200 horsepower @ 7,000 RPM, but your automatic transmission will up-shift under full throttle at only 6,000 RPM, you probably will never feel the full amount of power that your engine was made to offer. So, your engine may be stamped with a 200 horsepower rating, but because your car is equipped with an automatic that up-shifts too soon, you may be missing up to 20% of available power. On the other side, with most manual transmissions, you can usually take the engine revs to red line or past it. This enables you to get the most power possible to the front, rear, or all 4 wheels under full throttle take-offs.".

No matter how you want to up talk automatic "sports modes" they do not allow to bring the engine to a hard redline like you can in a manual. No manufacturer in their right mind is going to program a sports mode that red lines a car every single time it upshifts that cause wear and tear over time. That would be a recipe for disaster. Just face it, consumer grade automatics can not beat manual transmissions for delivery of power or reliability. The only true advantage of automatics is ease of use, and ability to multi-task.

I've never argued that point. My point has always been that for the average consumer automatics will exceed their own capabilities with stick. The average consumer isn't redlining which is fucking moronic unless you're on the track, but that's beside the point , he's driving to and from work and the grocery store. He doesn't need that little bit of extra power. If he were to use it, he'd be adding undue strain on the vehicle. For standard driving conditions, the automatic will outperform the manual. Automatics shift smoother and more precisely than most people can which means smoother acceleration, better mileage, and less wear on the engine and transmission. There isn't a practical reason for the average driver to drive stick. There are some very good reasons for them in some cases, but they aren't the norm.

I really don't know what you're getting at. I'm well aware there are situations that a manual is better for. The fact of the matter is none of these are situations the average consumer needs to worry about. That's who I'm trying to inform. If you're looking for information about cars on FunnyJunk, you're probably fine with an automatic.

See now you are back pedaling. I stated that you get more engine performance out of a manual transmission because you claimed automatics are faster. You then try to make my statement sound as if I am saying that all drivers should be driving manuals and red lining them. Your claim that manual transmissions wear down more than automatics is wrong and invalid. Automatics are much more complex and with more moving parts which increases chances something will fail over time. Not to mention that to repair a manual transmission it is MUCH cheaper than an automatic's. You would know this if you actually bothered to read the article i linked. I honestly don't have time trying to talk to people that want to be right so bad that they will not read material opposing their point of view.

1. If you can find where I said automatics are faster than manuals, I'd love to see it.

2. You brought up redlining. I brought up that it's not a valid reason to warrant a manual.

3. I've read the article. It even makes a point of saying that most people don't know how to drive a stick properly which leads to a number of problems, especially with the engine. A manual will have less transmission issues but incorrect usage will absolutely demolish your engine, which can lead to much more costly repairs than transmission work. You don't have this problem with automatics. There is a much higher risk of catastrophic failure using manuals. In addition, a manual transmission is typically less stable because of its simplicity. I don't know if you've ever been in a car when the transmission dropped but believe me it's fucking terrifying I consider myself very lucky to be alive right now . You don't get this automatics which for me is reason enough to avoid manuals. Yeah, overall maintenance with automatics can be more expensive but if you have an issue it probably won't be as big a deal as it is for manuals.

4. I'm a mechanical engineer who frequently works with a performance racing team on the side. I've rebuilt, modified, and straight-up designed transmissions and yes, the team still uses manuals , so believe me, I'm pretty familiar with transmission systems even without your article you found after a 30 second Google search. I know the ins and outs of each intimately, I can assure you that the average consumer is better off with an automatic transmission.

This error is found almost universally though. It is the leading cause of the statistical difference between the two. It's like saying that the pull-out method is almost as effective as condoms for contraception. Yeah, but only under perfect conditions. These conditions are rarely if ever met in the real world so ignoring their effects paints a vastly different picture of the efficacy of each.

And yeah, that's the gist of how a manual transmission works but most people everybody, depending on your level of measurement still fuck it up. Just like with everything else, people will occasionally slip and forget something even if they have mastered the technique, so that's one source. But the biggest one is when to shift. Even if you know all the technical data, it's still next to impossible to get it as precise as a computer does. It's the same reason we get robots to build our cars, human hands just don't do it as well as a computer can.

If you are driving a manual properly your transmission will last you longer than an automatics. With a manual you can do things such as coast down hills in neutral and use brakes to avoid using your transmission. You can also do the opposite and engine brake if necessary (your brakes stop working). It is also possible to push start a manual car (something and automatic can't do). Only recently have automatic transmissions started to surpass manual transmissions in racing competitions. Certainly not as early as the 90s. The automatic cars that are capable of shifting better than professional manual drivers are typically only found on racing cars and extremely expensive luxury vehicles. Sorry to say, but the sports mode on your 2014 consumer grade car does not typically achieve this.

Right, but the problem is most people don't drive a manual as well as the computer can unless they are professionals. The average driver has been better off with automatic for a while now. It's still got catching up to do with the pros, but the average consumer has been better off with automatic for a while now.

And have you ever driven an automatic? You have a lot more control than I think you realize. You can shift into neutral and ride the breaks with every automatic I've ever seen. Same goes for jaking. And yeah, you can push start automatics, had to do it last summer actually. It's admittedly a little harder, but far from impossible. But anyway, even if they weren't found in autos, none of these are things that the average consumer is using to be using frequently enough to affect their purchasing decision.

If you're a professional driver, by all means use a manual transmission. But unless you are, I can guarantee that any current-generation automatic transmission will outperform you. The sports mode on any consumer model will certainly outperform any driver purchasing a consumer model.

The cars that you are referring to catching up to with pros are racing cars and extremely expensive super cars. They have transmissions designed to be upshifted at much higher RPMs than are recommended to gain maximum power utilization from the engine. It does not take a pro to get more power out of their engine than an automatic transmission. Here is an article that will explain it to you: www.wikihow.com/Choose-Between-a-Car-with-Automatic-or-Manual-Transmission

This is the quote in question: "if you own a car that receives 200 horsepower @ 7,000 RPM, but your automatic transmission will up-shift under full throttle at only 6,000 RPM, you probably will never feel the full amount of power that your engine was made to offer. So, your engine may be stamped with a 200 horsepower rating, but because your car is equipped with an automatic that up-shifts too soon, you may be missing up to 20% of available power. On the other side, with most manual transmissions, you can usually take the engine revs to red line or past it. This enables you to get the most power possible to the front, rear, or all 4 wheels under full throttle take-offs.".

No matter how you want to up talk automatic "sports modes" they do not allow to bring the engine to a hard redline like you can in a manual. No manufacturer in their right mind is going to program a sports mode that red lines a car every single time it upshifts that cause wear and tear over time. That would be a recipe for disaster. Just face it, consumer grade automatics can not beat manual transmissions for delivery of power or reliability. The only true advantage of automatics is ease of use, and ability to multi-task.

I've never argued that point. My point has always been that for the average consumer automatics will exceed their own capabilities with stick. The average consumer isn't redlining which is fucking moronic unless you're on the track, but that's beside the point , he's driving to and from work and the grocery store. He doesn't need that little bit of extra power. If he were to use it, he'd be adding undue strain on the vehicle. For standard driving conditions, the automatic will outperform the manual. Automatics shift smoother and more precisely than most people can which means smoother acceleration, better mileage, and less wear on the engine and transmission. There isn't a practical reason for the average driver to drive stick. There are some very good reasons for them in some cases, but they aren't the norm.

I really don't know what you're getting at. I'm well aware there are situations that a manual is better for. The fact of the matter is none of these are situations the average consumer needs to worry about. That's who I'm trying to inform. If you're looking for information about cars on FunnyJunk, you're probably fine with an automatic.

See now you are back pedaling. I stated that you get more engine performance out of a manual transmission because you claimed automatics are faster. You then try to make my statement sound as if I am saying that all drivers should be driving manuals and red lining them. Your claim that manual transmissions wear down more than automatics is wrong and invalid. Automatics are much more complex and with more moving parts which increases chances something will fail over time. Not to mention that to repair a manual transmission it is MUCH cheaper than an automatic's. You would know this if you actually bothered to read the article i linked. I honestly don't have time trying to talk to people that want to be right so bad that they will not read material opposing their point of view.

1. If you can find where I said automatics are faster than manuals, I'd love to see it.

2. You brought up redlining. I brought up that it's not a valid reason to warrant a manual.

3. I've read the article. It even makes a point of saying that most people don't know how to drive a stick properly which leads to a number of problems, especially with the engine. A manual will have less transmission issues but incorrect usage will absolutely demolish your engine, which can lead to much more costly repairs than transmission work. You don't have this problem with automatics. There is a much higher risk of catastrophic failure using manuals. In addition, a manual transmission is typically less stable because of its simplicity. I don't know if you've ever been in a car when the transmission dropped but believe me it's fucking terrifying I consider myself very lucky to be alive right now . You don't get this automatics which for me is reason enough to avoid manuals. Yeah, overall maintenance with automatics can be more expensive but if you have an issue it probably won't be as big a deal as it is for manuals.

4. I'm a mechanical engineer who frequently works with a performance racing team on the side. I've rebuilt, modified, and straight-up designed transmissions and yes, the team still uses manuals , so believe me, I'm pretty familiar with transmission systems even without your article you found after a 30 second Google search. I know the ins and outs of each intimately, I can assure you that the average consumer is better off with an automatic transmission.

This error is found almost universally though. It is the leading cause of the statistical difference between the two. It's like saying that the pull-out method is almost as effective as condoms for contraception. Yeah, but only under perfect conditions. These conditions are rarely if ever met in the real world so ignoring their effects paints a vastly different picture of the efficacy of each.

And yeah, that's the gist of how a manual transmission works but most people everybody, depending on your level of measurement still fuck it up. Just like with everything else, people will occasionally slip and forget something even if they have mastered the technique, so that's one source. But the biggest one is when to shift. Even if you know all the technical data, it's still next to impossible to get it as precise as a computer does. It's the same reason we get robots to build our cars, human hands just don't do it as well as a computer can.

I'm sorry but I have to call bullshit on this chart. I work for ATK customer service and nine of my coworkers have masters degrees and seven have bachelors but everyone works for $13/ hr. I've only gone to high school have an a+ certification and I make $19/hr.

There isn't anything to call bullshit on, these are the actual numbers. This is data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They're pulling data from the entire US population of over 300 million. You're pooling a sample of 17 people at one call center. Congratulations on making more money than them, but that's not what happens normally. As a general rule, higher education equals higher income.

well shit that means the rest of the US is just as lucky as you.

"My particular situation does not fit the graph which presumably uses the incomes of thousands of Americans to find a suitable mean. The graph is wrong."

Ok, how's this, I've never met anyone that did not go to an Ivy League school that makes what their degree is worth. My best friend has the exact same degree as our CEO and makes $13 an hour. The only difference is that my friend went to mizzu. My CEO went to Yale.

holy shit Costco makes vodka? God damn my costco is clearly inferior to yours

Because you want what's best for the world.

*The following is not a reflection of my own beliefs*

You believe religious thought is hindering our progress as a society. You see how the Church sought to quiet Galileo and the Creationism vs evolution debates as evidence that religion is holding us back from our full potential. Even when not in direct conflict you still see problems. You see every hour spent in church as an hour that could have been better spent feeding the hungry or developing new technology. Instead of working to better our world, they're focused on getting onto a cloud and spending eternity with a guy who looks like a ZZ Top roadie. If only you could get them to see the foolishness of their ways, the world would be a much better place for us all.

Because this www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUI_ML1qkQE
TL;DW religion negatively affects the world
Personally I don't try to argue religion out of people, because it will never work, but i can see the logic

I don't see any relationship between these and the quoted sentence. Have you seen the video? Just go from 6:10 to about 21:10, 15 minutes of your day. Sure, religion might make people feel a little better about themselves sometimes but clearly its presence in the tangible world has been more negative than positive.

Alright what about the fact that in salt lake city 40% of homeless teenagers are gay, most of them homeless because of coming out as gay to their religious parents?

You are at an impressive point of denial to deny religion has any part in that. Tell me how exactly it is that religion has ONLY positive repercussions, given these;
Atheist parents are denied custody of their children explicitly on the basis that they are atheist.
Biology classes all over America still have to battle to teach evolution, which by now is a fact with overwhelming evidence. Evolution is the most fundamental basis for humans to understand humans.
Thousands of people die of aids in Africa because the catholic church is teaching them that using condoms will make them burn in hell. Tell me whose fault that one is.
I could go on but moral of the story is religion DOES have a negative impact on the world. Of course religion doesn't kill people: It needs people, stupid people like the catholic priests who rape children and tell them that it's the will of god, like the parents of those gay kids, to carry out its stupid rules, like "no homos aloud" and so forth. Saying that it's not religion's fault, saying what you JUST SAID, is like saying "Hitler didn't kill any Jews. The Nazis did. Therefore, Hitler had no hand in the holocaust."

Yes, but explaining complicated scientific principles where a vast number of people don't study sciences has to be simplified.

The outside of the head is in high compressive stress due to the contraction of the particles as they cool. This puts the inside in high tensile stress. The tail is also in high tensile stress (I don't know why). Cracks propagate through tensile-stressed materials easier than compressive-stressed materials (for a lack of more accurate terminology) because if the material is compressive-stressed then any small cracks that form are forced closed. Cracks in tensile-stressed parts of the material are forced open and forced to propagate. The tail is in tensile stress so, as well as what I said before, the material fractures much more severely than it usually would.