Learning Manual Car in 2018 - Is There a Point?

Chael Sonnen on 26/04/2018 - 18:46
Last edited 28/04/2018 - 23:02 by 1 other user

Hi All,

Recently my sturdy Camry got written off after being rear-ended hard so now I'm in hunt for a car.

I've been driving for about 7 years now and have never driven a manual car in my life. I'm on a full licence and I'm in Victoria, and I believe I'm no longer restricted to just auto vehicles by default.

I was thinking of taking the opportunity to learn manual and just buy a manual car as practice.

My question is if it is even worth learning how to drive a manual car in 2018? Cars are starting to veer towards automatic and technology has made some auto cars more fuel efficient than manual (which I thought was one of the major benefits).

Keen to hear OzBargain's thoughts on whether learning manual is a good time/money investment.

TL;DR - Is it worth learning how to drive a manual car in 2018?

Update: Thanks everyone for the responses so far - appreciate all the great insights given by all. I've decided to take a manual driving lesson and see if I enjoy it first, then make my decision on which route to go down. Thanks again!

Poll Options

  • 444
    Yes
  • 132
    No
Automotive

Comments

  • Halo375 on 26/04/2018 - 18:56
    +45

    It depends on who you are, personally I used to love driving manual - but I have an auto company car now and I recognise the convenience an auto can bring.

    Knowing manual will mean you could drive every car out there and not be limited in your car choices. Manual also requires more attention and may limit the chance you zone out or check your phone whilst driving.

      • CocaKoala on 28/04/2018 - 08:04
        -1

        If you check your phone or 'ZONE OUT' as you're saying while you drive, the manual just seems like something to blame your problems on. Even an automatic will "catch up" with you one day while you're zoned out.

        • ronnknee on 28/04/2018 - 10:44
          +2

          Of course, zoning out and checking the phone are the root cause of the problem. All I'm saying is, because driving manual requires more attention and if your attention is somewhere else, then it's easier to cause an accident (eg. misstepping pedals).

        • Kangal on 28/04/2018 - 11:56
          +1

          @ronnknee:
          Depends on your viewpoint.

          Statistically speaking, people riding motorcycles without helmets are less likely to have an accident because they are more scared and more cautious.

          So should the narrative be that more cyclists without helmets? Or more motorists without auto?

        • Harold Halfprice on 28/04/2018 - 17:46

          @Kangal:

          Statistically speaking, people riding motorcycles without helmets are less likely to have an accident because they are more scared and more cautious.

          Lol what. "Statistically speaking"?? Which statistic shows that?

          You could just as easily claim people riding motorcycles without helmets are more likely to have an accident, because they are more comfortable with taking risks.

        • Kangal on 28/04/2018 - 18:51
          -1

          @ILikeBargenz:

          https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jan/24/bike-helmet-…
          https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/…
          http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2012/10/15/cmaj.120988
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4779790/

          TL;DR version:
          Psychologically speaking most riders are subconsciously (or sometimes consciously) more cautious to the way they ride and risks they take when they don't wear a helmet. Statistically its very hard to prove "near misses" or "potential accidents", but this point is generally accepted by the public and governing bodies internationally. However with that said, when you get into an accident, regardless of how it happened or if you were cautious or not, you are far less likely to sustain injuries if you were actually wearing a helmet. So wear a damn helmet AND be cautious (don't choose one over the other!).

        • Harold Halfprice on 28/04/2018 - 19:04
          +2

          @Kangal:

          Umm.. only one of those articles backs up what you're saying - the one from the guardian. All 3 others conclude similar results and that is:

          "Results: Not wearing a helmet while cycling was associated with an increased risk of dying as a result of sustaining a head injury"

          The 'study' done in the article from The Guardian is bogus as well.

          The pair measured the sensation-seeking behaviour and risk-taking of a group of adults aged 17-56 using a computer simulation. The 80 participants believed they were taking part in an eye-tracking experiment, and were divided into two groups and tasked with inflating an on-screen animated balloon. Half wore bicycle helmets and half baseball caps. Both sets of headgear were fitted with eye-tracking devices.

          Each inflation of the balloon let participants earn a fictional currency. At any stage participants could “bank” their earnings, but if the balloon burst all earnings would be lost. Over 30 trials, the researchers tested each individual’s desire to keep inflating the balloon and therefore their appetite for risk

          They got a bunch of people, some wearing helmets and some not, to do a completely arbitrary exercise that is in no way related to riding a motorcycle/bicycle. The activity was neither risky nor life threatening, and they're simply applying their poorly founded anecdotal evidence to a real world scenario with genuine risks (ie actually riding a motorcycle/bicycle).

          Seriously, they got a bunch of people wearing helmets to inflate a virtual on-screen balloon. The study is useless - it doesn't prove anything about the psyche of an actual cyclist whilst wearing or not wearing a helmet.

        • Kangal on 29/04/2018 - 00:17

          @ILikeBargenz:
          I can't help but agree.

          However, it doesn't change my matter on the context… "it depends".
          You can make the argument that because driving manual forces you to be more cautious, that you are less likely to be distracted by your phone/etc, reducing your chances of having an accident. Conversely you can make the argument that because driving manually requires you to be cautious that when you do get distracted, it increases your chance of having an accident.

          I don't think the two statements contradict each other. But the "overall chance" increase/decrease really depends.

        • Harold Halfprice on 29/04/2018 - 13:33
          +1

          @Kangal:

          Yeah I agree with that.

          Perhaps less likely to get distracted, but worse off if distracted.

          I think ultimately though - it's a bit silly to buy a manual car on the basis of it making you more/less likely to get distracted. I drive a manual, and whilst it's definitely harder to do things like drinking out of a bottle of water, because you need 1 hand on the wheel and 1 hand to shift, I'm not gonna pretend that I dont try when I get thirsty. Just gotta sip inbetween shifts, and rest the bottle in between my lap (or cupholder if i had one).

          I think an auto is the way to go if safety is really the true concern. Because in those crucial crunch time panic moments, there's less to think about. You don't have to worry about which gear you're in if you need to hit the accelerator to get out of the way,you don't need to worry about stalling, you can keep both hands on the wheel and 1 less foot/pedal to worry about.

    • bargainjargon on 28/04/2018 - 09:04
      +2

      Don't check the phone while driving and all but if you're the type who does that, you'll have less opportunities in a manual car. Learning manual would probably teach you to be more attentive since you have to think about being in the right gear while paying attention to all the other stuff on the road. Plus all your arms and legs are doing something.

      I have an auto and a manual car. I use the manual whenever possible since it's more engaging but it's only a 2 seater so the auto is for when I have to be practical.

      • DaiShan on 28/04/2018 - 18:06
        +2

        Agree! When I switched over to manual, I realised I had to be thinking about the drive way more, because I would constantly have to be considering what gear I would be needing and when, and what speeds I would be expecting. It definitely sharpened my reading of the road/other drivers/potential obstacles etc..

    • lgacb08 on 29/04/2018 - 12:53

      Meh, once you drive manual long enough then the gear stick nó longer be the hurdle to your tendency to use phone, if you have such tendency.

  • PissLUR on 26/04/2018 - 19:07
    -5

    No, There is no point in learning to drive manual car nowadays.

    • pixelhen on 27/04/2018 - 10:48

      lol. pipis. cant believe you are still active.

      Huge benefit to learn manual. There is always going to be a manual car. Just a good skill to have.

      • Hybroid on 27/04/2018 - 11:40
        +12

        There is always going to be a manual car.

        Not sure about that. Most manufacturers are moving to auto-only with few if any manual options. Hybrids/CVTs are growing in popularity and the EV revolution will kill it off once and for all unfortunately.

        Even most supercars and hypercars nowadays are auto with paddle shifts. Sure you get the occasional track focused manual 911 but the majority are auto.

        • Jonski on 27/04/2018 - 12:38
          +6

          different markets require different products. If you've ever been to europe you'll notice most of the cars on the roads and the cars being manufactured are predominantly manual. Australia is a different market completely

          I'm not talking about the sports car you mentioned above, i'm talking about your every day renaults, citroens vw's.

        • Hybroid on 27/04/2018 - 12:53
          +5

          @Jonski: Yes those are the ones I was talking about too. Having lived in Europe for decades, the markets at shifting towards auto. The lower spectrum cars like econoboxes are predominantly manual due to price but autos are becoming more popular in newer generations especially with traffic congestion and a closing of the gap between manual and auto fuel economy.

      • inherentchoice on 27/04/2018 - 13:41
        +9

        There is always going to be a manual car.

        Just like there was always going to be horses?

        Now society is trending toward driverless cars.

        • pixelhen on 27/04/2018 - 13:46

          Whatever the future is going to be, I dont mind really. Let that be no horses, no manual car, or even full of driverless cars.

          Im just sayin.. ya know. :)

        • Scrooge McDuck on 27/04/2018 - 17:09
          +3

          @pixelhen:

          I mind; I enjoy driving and specifically manual vehicles. :'(

        • Kangal on 28/04/2018 - 12:02
          +1

          @Scrooge McDuck:
          The niche to drive, and drive manual, will always be there.
          Even Europe is phasing out Manual cars, and going big on CVT cars. Heck, they even cost less in some markets, and maintenance is very cheap these days (CVT has come so far/matured).

          I really think they need to make driverless cars as cheap as econoboxes… then force high taxes on stamp duty, registration, and initial new-buy price.

          There's a lot of idiots I want off the road. Case in point: DashCam Australia. And even if I don't qualify as a "perfect driver"… I don't mind going to driverless cars myself for daily tasks, as I could always drive on a track or on the paddy.

        • boostpak on 30/04/2018 - 08:53

          @Kangal: stop babbling on with dribble

        • Kangal on 30/04/2018 - 10:42

          @boostpak:

          Found the P-Plater!
          jk

    • boomramada on 27/04/2018 - 17:14

      Some European car rentals you can only hire manual Inc luxury cars.

  • Orpheon on 26/04/2018 - 19:09
    +7

    Pros: Manual Cars are cheaper and more fun to drive.

    Con: Only you can drive them, i.e. you better not have any significant others who don't have a manual licence and might need to drive your car from time to time.

    • Cheapskate Paul on 26/04/2018 - 20:42
      +72

      Your con could also be a pro, i.e. no one else using your car!

      • resisting the urge on 27/04/2018 - 16:59
        +5

        Def a Pro, that one ;-)

        Others:
        You can jump start them
        Move them around more safely when working on them or just wanting to roll down the hill.
        Spin the wheels with more ease
        Make screechy noises and bee a hoon if you are into making a noise
        The thing I like most is being able to control torque through the corners. Our dumb human brain actually takes into account G-forces, changes in elevation, corner sharpness and road camber better than any auto box can, the sensory input is much better so the choice of gear can be matched to the torque necessary to balance traction and/or balance suspension sway smoothly through the sharpest parts of the corner. The timing is critical to this, and being able to select exactly the right gear in just the right time (ie in advance) cannot be beaten. Automatics are all still reactive, and don't know what's going on like the human can, assuming they are actually trying. A half decent driver in a manual car will nail one in an automatic (auto-clutch setups and/or using a sports mode will reduce the difference but it's still there, esp around really weird corners if all other things are the same.

        • syousef on 28/04/2018 - 18:09

          Till you have kids and your other half makes you sell your prize possession and drive a family car she can also drive.

          Not me personally though. My wife drives a manually. We both still have autos at the moment and aren't likely to buy a manual car.

        • Maverick-au on 30/04/2018 - 01:20
          +1

          You can jump start them

          Buy a reliable car.

          Move them around more safely when working on them or just wanting to roll down the hill.

          ??????

          The thing I like most is being able to control torque through the corners. Our dumb human brain actually takes into account G-forces, changes in elevation, corner sharpness and road camber better than any auto box can, the sensory input is much better so the choice of gear can be matched to the torque necessary to balance traction and/or balance suspension sway smoothly through the sharpest parts of the corner. The timing is critical to this, and being able to select exactly the right gear in just the right time (ie in advance) cannot be beaten.

          What utter bollocks, a DSG can change gear in the corners without affecting the balance. In your manual you have no chance of changing gear without affecting the balance of the car. You're driving on the road at 2/10ths, not in some imaginary race where you are driving at 10/10ths and every bit counts.

          Automatics are all still reactive, and don't know what's going on like the human can, assuming they are actually trying.

          Cars like the VW Arteon angle their headlights around upcoming corners in the road before the steering wheel is turned using GPS and cameras and this same tech also slows the car by reducing the throttle and dropping a gear for the same corners when using adaptive cruise control. So how again are Automatics ALL still reactive and not proactive? There are other manufacturers that also have cars that change gear to match the corner.

        • resisting the urge on 30/04/2018 - 08:58

          @Maverick-au:

          "Buy a reliable car"

          Jump starting is helpful when the battery wears out, which affects all cars at some point. We can't all throw away cars before the batteries wear out, but good for you.

          "What utter bollocks, a DSG can… "
          It's about optimising torque control through the corner, not changing gears. It's about when to select as well as how to apply power. A DSG doesn't slip the clutch like a race car driver.

          "Cars like the VW Arteon angle their headlights around upcoming corners"
          Many engineers are trying to make it work with gear-down, but it is s long way from perfect. Lots of road conditions will fool Lidar and other sensors. They have promise, but by the time these things work properly will be? They are implemented as safety features, not performance features, so a driver will always out-perform these things. Until you've lived with these emerging technologies and actually appreciate how they fail.

          Imagine a race-car driver in a supercar with the latest in this tech. Would they be letting it choose the gearing they take through the corners on the edge of traction-loss, or would they turn this off with all the other junk people buy?

    • Hasbulla on 27/04/2018 - 19:36

      less maintenance cost (less breakdowns); and
      better for the environment (fuel consumption)

    • jinny7 on 27/04/2018 - 19:58
      -7

      Manuals are cheaper to buy yes, but clutch replacement down the line kills it.
      Less likely to need to replace the tranny in an auto.

      Also depending on your driving manuals can also be less fuel efficient as well as more..

      • JMC on 28/04/2018 - 06:57
        +6

        Clutches last a pretty long time if you don't ride the clutch or neglect to rev match all the time.

      • CocaKoala on 28/04/2018 - 08:05
        +2

        If you don't now how to drive a manual properly (i.e. not to ride the clutch and rev-match your down shifts), then yes, definitely an automatic is the way to go.

      • gezza90 on 29/04/2018 - 14:20

        My 2010 Audi A3 has 99,400km on it and not once has the clutch been replaced. It goes into gear just like a new car. My dad's 99 Hyundai excel has 230,000klm and again not once has the clutch been changed in 19yrs. It all comes down to how well the driver changes gears.

        2010 Audi s3 manual Vs auto paddle shift.
        Labour to change gearbox/transmission oil at 120,000klm

        Manual: $100-200
        Auto: $1800

        Go figure. Information provided by service manager at Audi Sutherland.

        Besides, I see automatic cars simply as a bucket of crap but I'm sure many would beg to differ. I've driven auto golf R, c43amg coupe, 2012 camry, 2012 Citroen c4 (plus many other autos) And I think to myself how boring or how less engaging the driving experience is.

        • Maverick-au on 30/04/2018 - 01:23

          2010 Audi s3 manual Vs auto paddle shift.
          Labour to change gearbox/transmission oil at 120,000klm

          Manual: $100-200
          Auto: $1800

          Go figure. Information provided by service manager at Audi Sutherland.

          These figures are utter rubbish. The DSG figure is three times the real figure.

      • Brianqpr on 29/04/2018 - 19:49

        And when an auto gearbox breaks down??? Huge costs.

        As mentioned, if you drive properly the clutch should last a very long time.

        • jinny7 on 03/05/2018 - 14:30

          I'm no hoon but I do live in the city.
          I believe 100,000kms more or less will see a clutch out under these conditions with sensible driving..

          @gezza90 your old man do alot of highway KMs?

          Anyways I don't care about the negs on my post above. That's my constructive reply based upon my experience and opinion on the table. HTH someone save a buck.

          Neg away.

        • CMH on 25/06/2018 - 16:09

          @jinny7:

          I live in the city and my driving is a bit aggressive tbh.

          Even then my clutch on my last car (Corolla) lasted until 155,000 km. This despite wider and stickier tyres than stock. Replacement cost 200 + 450 labour (circa 2015).

          So no. Clutches that don't last are either a manufacturing defect or driver defect.

  • JIMB0 on 26/04/2018 - 19:14
    +3

    Are you planning to learn manual on the test drive?

    • Chael Sonnen on 26/04/2018 - 19:19
      +5

      I would be taking some manual lessons beforehand and might borrow a friend's car to just get comfortable. Once I'm confident with it, then I'd go for the test drives.

      • Slippery Fish on 27/04/2018 - 13:38
        -1

        Can't do it with a school, they can only take learners by their insurance.

        Though most trucks ect are manual, so good for that, though car to truck is very diff.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 27/04/2018 - 16:52
          +12

          I learnt to drive a manual transmission by playing Daytona.

          .

          .

          Several gearboxes later and I can now make it to the end of the street.

        • ATangk on 28/04/2018 - 01:25
          +7

          @Scrooge McDuck:
          Flick from 4th gear into 1st gear to do the wicked drifts at 320kph.

        • Eeples on 28/04/2018 - 23:08

          Link?

      • montorola on 27/04/2018 - 21:31
        +1

        Are you planning on riding a motorcycle in the future? Knowing how the gears and clutch works is a massive help

  • [Deactivated] on 26/04/2018 - 19:16
    +30

    Working vehicles are still manual. Many serious off-road vehicles are still manual.

    It's not a skill that requires hundreds of hours of time investment. It's a couple of afternoons.

    The proportion of time spent to applicable skill is favourable.

    • YellowDieselGolf on 27/04/2018 - 13:36

      A manual licence is a requirement in my job. One of the people we hired had to have lessons before he was allowed to drive our vehicles.

    • btst7000 on 28/04/2018 - 12:57
      +1

      Many serious off-road vehicles are still manual.

      That's really only for fun, unless you drive a 79 series landcruiser - which is really an agricultural vehicle and not offered with auto trans. Automatic vehicles actually offer more control than manuals offroad. Check out Ronny Dahl's youtube videos for more info

    • Third_Gear on 26/04/2018 - 19:39
      +23

      You drive auto with two feet?

      • Nugs on 26/04/2018 - 19:57
        +13

        go kart style

        • SPCTRE on 26/04/2018 - 21:43
          -6

          Left foot brake ftw!!!

    • PissLUR on 26/04/2018 - 19:44
      +11

      that is so dangerous..

      • c64 on 27/04/2018 - 00:10
        -4

        how so?

        • PissLUR on 27/04/2018 - 11:40
          +5

          Two-footed driving is extremely dangerous because during emergency maneuvers, the driver may inadvertently step on the wrong pedal, or step on both simultaneously.

        • Shwayne on 27/04/2018 - 14:09
          +1

          You should never be pressing both at the same time, so why would you use both feet.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 27/04/2018 - 15:36

          @PissLUR:

          Two-footed driving is extremely dangerous because during emergency maneuvers, the driver may inadvertently step on the wrong pedal,

          I don't see how that's any more likely than with right foot braking.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 27/04/2018 - 15:41
          +2

          @Shwayne:

          You should never be pressing both at the same time, so why would you use both feet.

          • Launching
          • Shifting weight forward while still on throttle
          • Transitioning between throttle and brake smoothly (without upsetting the suspension)
          • Warming the brakes
          • etc
        • Shwayne on 27/04/2018 - 16:03
          +2

          @Scrooge McDuck: Except when you're racing, which is going to cause massive undue wear on your brake disks, hardly appropriate or safe.

        • resisting the urge on 27/04/2018 - 17:14
          +3

          @Shwayne: Not to mention the gearbox clutch packs, fluid, etc.

          Race driving with 2 feet is one thing. Doing it on the street is a no-no because at some point someone practicing this regularly is bound to make a mistake both in normal driving or when performing strange maneuvers, because when something unexpected happens, people (statistically) jump on the brake as a automatic reaction/without thinking. That can cause trouble when two feet are in contact with 2 pedals, the level of co-ordination overwhelmed by instinct and (most commonly) both feet go down hard- so the car can lurch before it halts and that can kill pets, children, pedestrians, etc. I never used to believe this, but it happened to me once, luckily didn't hurt anyone/anything but it made me realise and I try to avoid driving two footed. Of course YMMV as some cars make this more enticing than others in terms of pedal position, gearbox and brake responsiveness, etc.

          That said, a well designed auto car will drive just beautifully with one foot.

        • Mumbles on 30/04/2018 - 13:09

          Two footed driving can make you less safe under hard braking. Is because under hard braking the driver needs a way to brace themself to stop their body sliding forward. In a normal car you'd put your left foot on the foot rest and easily hold yourself back.

          With the two foot technique the driver ends up using the steering wheel. Use of the steering wheel to hold your body back is not ideal as it means you'll have less control of the steering.

          Drivers of race cars and Gokarts don't need to worry because they are harnessed into the seat. It doesn't matter how strong the deceleration the harness will do its job and stop the driver sliding forward.

      • Nugs on 27/04/2018 - 07:47
        -2

        yes, reduced time to apply brakes is dangerous???

        • Shwayne on 27/04/2018 - 14:12
          +8

          If you're in a situation where the brakes are relevant, your right foot should already be over the brakes.

          The risk of pressing both the brake and the accelerator at the same time is not worth the minor advantage you might have in being able to brake when you're accelerating already (considering you must release the accelerator completely first).

        • Nugs on 27/04/2018 - 15:10
          -3

          @Shwayne:

          do you cover your brake with your right foot when going up a hill?

          .

        • resisting the urge on 27/04/2018 - 17:17

          @Nugs: Def a good option, though an instructor will teach you to use the hand-brake as from their POV, this is safer than teaching people there are times when two-footed is in any way, at any time, acceptable.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 27/04/2018 - 17:23

          @resisting the urge:

          Taking a hand off the wheel to cover the hand brake lever is safer?

          What a load of bullshit!

        • resisting the urge on 27/04/2018 - 17:36

          @Scrooge McDuck: Depends. The car is moving from standstill only, in 1st gear, so not bullshit. Some people you cannot teach to drive two-footed because it takes more co-ordination or consideration than they can manage. If they taught people better, maybe they could get over themselves and actually train drivers rather than guide them around the lowest common denominator laws governing transportation.

      • jacross on 27/04/2018 - 08:08

        I dont drive that way but its a bit if a myth that its wrong. Most race car drivers drive that way and many advocate for it.

        • Beanvee on 27/04/2018 - 12:18
          +10

          I don't think the opinion of race car drivers is applicable to your average joe. It's their job, while your average driver can't understand how merging works. Last thing I want drivers thinking is they've got the mechanical skill of a professional racer.

        • Shwayne on 27/04/2018 - 14:13
          +6

          Racecar drivers will spend more than one brake disk in a day, you don't have that luxury.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 27/04/2018 - 15:50
          -5

          @enceladus94:

          I don't think the opinion of race car drivers is applicable to your average joe. It's their job, while your average driver can't understand how merging works.

          That makes no sense.

          People should take advice from those who have a higher ability.

        • abb on 27/04/2018 - 15:57
          +9

          @Scrooge McDuck:

          People should take advice from those who have a higher ability.

          Ability on a race track does not necessarily translate to ability in traffic with road rules.

          It's unlikely that things like heel-toe braking while downshifting, adjusting the brake bias, pissing into a catheter, or doing a powerslide around a sharp corner at 150km/h with slick tyres are amazingly beneficial skills in a suburban traffic jam…

          Actually, the catheter may come in handy.

        • Shwayne on 27/04/2018 - 16:07
          +3

          By that logic everyone should completely disable their traction control.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 27/04/2018 - 16:08
          -3

          @Shwayne:

          Racecar drivers will spend more than one brake disk in a day, you don't have that luxury.

          4 things wrong with your comment:

          1. "spend" rather than "expend".
          2. Brake pads typically wear out much more quickly than brake disks.
          3. The proportion of racecars which need their brake disks changed within a day's racing is tiny.
          4. The comparison isn't even relevant since racecars are generally much less durable than passenger vehicles.
        • Scrooge McDuck on 27/04/2018 - 16:34
          -3

          @abb:

          Ability on a race track does not necessarily translate to ability in traffic with road rules.

          Race and road driving do have commonalities. The former is simply an extreme form of the latter.

          The racing line through a corner typically stresses the tyres the least for a given speed. At the limit of traction this yields the quickest transit, at lower speeds this provides the greatest excess of traction and thereby safety margin.

          To put it simply, the quickest driving style is the smoothest, as is the safest.

          It's unlikely that things like heel-toe braking while downshifting, adjusting the brake bias, pissing into a catheter, or doing a powerslide around a sharp corner at 150km/h with slick tyres are amazingly beneficial skills in a suburban traffic jam…

          No one has suggested any of those, and powersliding isn't even a racing technique.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 27/04/2018 - 16:37
          +2

          @abb:

          Actually, the catheter may come in handy.

          I brake with my right foot and use my left for the throttle.

          It makes my long journeys quicker by eliminating toilet stops.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 27/04/2018 - 16:43

          @Shwayne:

          By that logic everyone should completely disable their traction control.

          No, just as what suits one doesn't fit all, what fits all doesn't suit all.

        • resisting the urge on 27/04/2018 - 17:21

          @Scrooge McDuck: "No one has suggested any of those, and powersliding isn't even a racing technique"

          And required skillz for getting round car-parks, many are built with such a small amount of turning space.

        • coin saver on 27/04/2018 - 18:22

          @Scrooge McDuck: "spend" rather than "expend".. both are correct.

        • Blunglefortness on 28/04/2018 - 15:49

          @Shwayne:

          Exactly. Sure, people probably should take some advice from professionals, but only when it's relevant advice.

      • shadow7412 on 27/04/2018 - 09:01
        +2

        The only way it could be a danger is if you were trying to stop your vehicle, so you applied the brakes but forgot to lift your other foot from the accelerator.

        Otherwise, it's actually safer because less movement to apply brakes means quicker reaction time.

        • tranter on 27/04/2018 - 09:41
          +4

          Depends on where your braking foot is positioned. For left foot braking to be quicker it needs to be covering the brake pedal 100% of the time. For example highway driving with little to no braking for extended periods, your foot may have gone awol.

          In my opinion it's better to have just the one active foot for everyday driving, the other one can go to sleep.

        • bobbified on 27/04/2018 - 09:59

          I actually drove like that automatically while I was learning and no one mentioned anything to me until the day of my P's test. The instructor told me as I was driving to the RTA that I'd fail if I used both feet. So I had to learn to drive with one foot that morning!

          I do agree though - faster reaction time. I guess they would think the danger is where someone panics and pushes both at the same time.

        • Shwayne on 27/04/2018 - 14:15
          +3

          @tranter:

          Even in a manual your left foot rests unless you're actively working the clutch.

          Leaning on the clutch is a terrible practice.

        • cwongtech on 27/04/2018 - 17:30
          +2

          Otherwise, it's actually safer because less movement to apply brakes means quicker reaction time.

          Why not get a car with cruise control that can maintain your speed?

          My 10 year old Honda CC system can be active from 40km/h and up. My partners car is 2 years old, can be active from 20km/h.

          I accelerate to 40, then control acceleration with my thumb, with my right foot always hovered over the brake when CC is active and maintaining my car's speed.

          Of course this depends on the ease of use of the cruise control system, for Honda and vw, the controls for activating cruise control, raising, lowering target speed (to be maintained), deactivate the system, can be all controlled with a thumb.

          This isn't as easy to do with a lever cruise control systems as seen with mercedes.

          This method of using a cruise control system to maintain speed definitely does the same thing as the double foot method.. But removes the possibility of pressing the wrong pedal in a panic moment

        • BartholemewH on 28/04/2018 - 10:02
          +1

          @cwongtech:

          I now use radar cruise from 0km and up. The lane assist practically steers as well. As a performance enthusiast it feels like I'm turning into the laziest driver alive.

        • decr on 28/04/2018 - 10:09

          @cwongtech: Interesting, I didn't think there was a minimum speed requirement for cruise control, will need to try that on my 15yo Merc. It's really helpful though on longer drives until you hit the obligatory person doing 20 under the limit only to accelerate 20 over the limit come overtaking lane.

          Anyway, I found it interesting that the car uses engine braking and downshifts to decelerate, however the tolerance is a bit too high for my liking. Say I have cruise control at 110km/h it only kicks in at around 118km/h. Those cars aren't designed for hills I suppose.

        • cwongtech on 28/04/2018 - 14:38

          @decr:
          Yeah they use engine braking and downshift rather than brakes..

          I just disengage cc when I roll downhill and re-engage it when speed drops below target speed to be maintained

    • tranter on 27/04/2018 - 09:50

      Last time I hired a ute a couple months ago it was auto.

      • angelkulit025 on 27/04/2018 - 10:03

        Hire utes from Bunnings are all autos.

    • [Deactivated] on 27/04/2018 - 13:17
      +6

      You drive auto with two feet? holy crap. It scares me that there are drivers like you on the road

    • TheOtherLeft on 27/04/2018 - 13:33

      I've driven with both feet in my auto a few times and never pressed both pedals at once. The novelty wears pretty quick though. I found it doesn't facilitate smooth transitions between the brake and accelerate pedals

      • montorola on 27/04/2018 - 21:46
        +1

        Lol I've tried that method once just for the lulz. But with the muscle memory in my left leg to always stab the clutch, let's just say the abs kicked in when I tried using my left leg to brake in an automatic car

    • No ONE on 28/04/2018 - 09:16
      +3

      You learned driving auto cars the wrong way. Go back to driving school mate. Learn to drive with one foot on auto.

    • Yummy on 29/04/2018 - 14:43

      Aha! You must be one of those driver who brakes for no reason even their front is clear.

      Annoying as hell.

  • jjjaar on 26/04/2018 - 19:24
    +17

    If you ever hire a car in Europe you'll get significantly cheaper hire cars if you rent a manual v an auto. That's the only benefit I feel like I've missed out on as a non-manual driver.

    • Cheapskate Paul on 26/04/2018 - 20:45
      +6

      South Africa is also significantly cheaper for manual rental cars.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join