![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
In the UK it's popular on motoring forums, on car selling platforms and sometimes in the press to refer to modern gearboxes like the Volkwagen DSG as "Semi-automatic". Though using it this way is a misnomer and an oxymoron. The phrase doesn't really benefit the automotive industry or car owners. Semi is from the latin for half, and is widely used to mean half. Such as semi-detached house. To many people, perhaps older generations, semi automatic will imply that the car will not change gears itself, and only the clutch is automatic. How the idea to label new DSG type gearboxes as "half automatic" came about is open to debate, but perhaps it is used to convey; "not as bad as a traditional automatic". In Europe and particularly in the UK, there is a deep-rooted aversion to automatics amongst car enthusiasts, they are seen as inferior to manual (stick shift) gearboxes because they lack human interaction. This view is changing, though the motoring press still can't bring themselves to endorse autos, and instead refer to the human interaction elements, which gave rise to the term "flappy-paddle". I think this page would benefit from clarifying that semi-automatic is a misnomer. CarbonPepper ( talk) 08:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Davism0703 To clarify my original point, if a car has an automated clutch and automated gear shift, then it is completely automatic. The engineering design may be different if it is a robotic element added to a manual gearbox, but that's a different distinction. The term "semi" is a poor language choice for such a design. As far as the driver is concerned, it requires no manual interaction, hence it is automatic, not semi-automatic.
Semi automatic gearboxs (e.g as fitted to buses), have an automated clutch but a manual gear shift. The driver chooses the gear at all times, but the gearbox automates the shift. That is a much better use of English re "Semi". CarbonPepper ( talk) 21:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
How the car achieves different ratios is irrelevant to all but engineers. It's the controls people interact with that matter. If the user interaction can be zero, then the system is automatic. If the user must interact or the system will fail to fully perform its function (as per buses), then it is semi automatic. Different types of gearboxes that can achieve ratio changes without any user interaction should be given their own sub-classification of automatic gearbox but, they should not be collectively called semi-automatic. I can't cite references because there are none except this page itself, but the article says it's "too technical for most readers to understand". Hopefully such a change would help. CarbonPepper ( talk) 16:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Davism0703 ( talk · contribs) has recently replace a lot of instances of "semi-automated", "sequential manual" and similar to "Automated manual". He has also done this to many other car articles. "Automated manual" is an oxymoron (a contradiction in terms). A semi-automated gearbox is a gearbox that automates part of the gearchange process (usually the clutch part) and leaves the actual physical changing of the gears to the mechanism. The choice of gear is still up to the driver. Likewise, in a sequential gearbox the driver still chooses up/down and only the physical change is done by the mechanism. Changing it to "automated manual" is against the standard name used by most of the industry, less clear then the previous names and confusing to the readers. Stepho talk 00:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
"Semi-automatic" is a misnomer and is erroneous. While it is true that these types of vehicles (DCT, AMT) can operate in a "semi-automatic (or "partially/half automatic") mode, the transmission internals of these cars are not automatic. While they are mostly automated, they do not feature a torque converter like an automatic, but they still have a clutch like a standard manual transmission, but just not a physical clutch pedal.The clutch is controlled by electronic computers, pneumatics, hydraulics, and actuators of the vehicle, which are all operated by the transmissions' servo. Like the Ferrari 640 & 641 F1 cars of the late 80's and early 90's... they didn't use an "automatic" transmission, or the erroneous "semi-automatic" misnomer, but rather the transmissions internals used were still completely manual, but they lost the physical clutch pedal, and the manual clutch was automatically actuated each time a gear shift was initiated, and the clutch was operated by electrohydraulics. Gear shifts were ordered in a sequential mode, and the whole H-pattern manual was dumped. The driver instead had two pedals (one for gas, one for break), and two paddle-shifters for gear-shifting behind the steering wheel, which automatically actuates the electrohydraulic clutch mechanism each time the driver inputs a gear change. Also similar to the Ferrari F355's "F1" transmission from 1997, even though it could operate in an "automatic" mode, it was still manual transmission with a clutch, but just minus the physical clutch pedal. It could also operate in a "semi-automatic/manual" mode, where the clutch was computer-controlled, and electrohydraulically actuated. Gear-shifting was again ordered in a sequential upshift/downshift mode, and the H-pattern gate shifter was ditched, and replaced by wheel mounted paddle-shifters. I will repeat again, this transmission was not an automatic one, as it did NOT have a torque converter, and despite it being able to operate in a fully "automatic" mode, the clutch was still operated electrohydraulically, removing the need for a third pedal. The transmission and clutch were automated, and controlled by electrohydraulics and computers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davism0703 ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
But Stepho, you do you agree that a semi-automatic transmission is an automated transmission, with a clutch like a manual transmission, but that the clutch is automatically actuated? Would you also agree that it is a manual transmission, but just automated by computer and electrohydraulics?
Davism0703 ( talk) 08:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Davism0703
You can't just delete "semi-automatic" and say it's wrong. Many reliable sources use the term, or clutchless manual or automated manual or semi-automatic manual. People probably are confused, and they come here to clear that up. That's why you tell them who uses which terms and why, and unless some big authority in the sky denounces one term or the other, we can't have the final say. If significant sources use a given term for two different things, we don't pick the winner, we merely describe the situation. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
-- YBSOne I do agree with you that automated manual or "AMT" is NOT an oxymoron, like you said, it's a conventional manual transmission, but the clutch and other mechanisms are automated, or computer-controlled, despite other people saying that that's an oxymoron. Most of the time, these "semi-automatic" transmissions are in fact manual transmissions, but just with automated or electrohydraulic operated clutches. The mode they can operate in is a "semi-automatic/manual" mode, but I wouldn't consider "automated manual" to be a misnomer, nor it to be erroneous. It describes the function of the transmission. There's the single-clutch type, electrohydraulic automated manual, and a dual-clutch type automated manual, both are manual transmissions with clutches that are automated via hydraulics, electronics, & computers. I'd still be more inclined to refer to the transmission as Automated manual, but would you consider "Semi-automatic" and "Automated manual" as synonyms? I still wouldn't say that "Automated manual" is erroneous or an oxymoron, it refers to the exact same thing. It's simple, a manual transmission, but everything is actuated automatically, or automated. What do you think Davism0703 ( talk) 21:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Davism0703 ( talk) 21:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Davism0703, I'm going to give a bit of history to show where the misunderstand has come from.
For most of the 1950s to 2000 there were only 2 common types of transmission - the manual with clutch and sliding rail gears, and the automatic with torque converter and epicycle gears. There were others but these 2 dominated. Therefore, in most peoples minds, a clutch equated to a manual and a torque converter equated to an automatic. Davism0703, I believe that you still equate these. However, there are many forms of transmission outside of these. Manual means only that the driver has to do the work, regardless of the mechanism used. Automatic means that the gearbox does the work, regardless of the presence of a torque converter, an electric or hydraulic clutch or fairies. The name comes from the function, not the presence of a clutch.
The article is titled "Semi-automatic transmission". This is a perfect acceptable name used and understood by the majority of the industry. Most readers have an intuitive grasp of manual and automatic in terms of function. Most readers have an understanding the semi means half. So it is not a stretch for most people to understand that semi-automatic means partly automatic (ie the machine does some stuff by itself and the driver has do some stuff). This is straight forward.
However, some bastard in marketing came up with the oxymoron term automated manual - and it is an oxymoron because the 2 halves mean the opposite of each other. What does the reader think when they see this term. It's an automatic! No - it's a manual! No - it's .... something! The term does not describe itself and leaves the reader clueless. I accept that some companies have used it. But it still has only a minority use.
So, back to the article title. To start with an self-descriptive article title, then throughout the article use a term that is not self-descriptive and only in minority use in industry, and to not use the term used in the article title does not seem an nice thing to do to our readers. It is confusing and counter productive.
Far better to keep the existing title, to keep using the term that matches the title, to keep using the term that is self-descriptive, to keep using the term that is well used in the industry but to make a small mention that one of the alternative names used by some companies is "automated manual" seems a much kinder and instructive thing to do.
Stepho
talk
22:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
So, what do you guys think? Transfer some of the existing information from the semi-automatic transmission article to a brand new article? Or just transfer some of this existing info from that article to the Electrohydraulic manual transmission page, possibly just adding some cited sources, and including some of the other existing names like "Automated manual" and "Clutchless manual" onto the one Electrohydraulic manual page, maybe including like "also known as," the name of the transmissions, etcetera. Thoughts? Davism0703 ( talk) 09:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
No one's perfect, so just cut me some slack please guys! I haven't come here to cause harm, rather I've come here to share some of my knowledge to Wikipedia to expand, and try and make it better, not to worsen it. Lets try and work together and establish some sort of communication. Andy, you brought up some interesting prospects originally, about whether a revert to a month ago should take place, or whether a new subsection should be created on the existing page, I though the latter idea was good. YBSOne later further elaborated, and said there should be 3 new sections under the current "Semi-automatic" article, "Automated-clutch manual," "Electrohydraulic manual," and "Dual-clutch." I agreed with YBS, and said I thought this was a neat proposition, and I think it would be useful for the readers to create new subsections within the existing page, just to elaborate on the already confusing "semi-automatic" transmission, as there is more than just one type. I thought the latter idea you brought was good, as YBSOne said, it "is not by function but by build," and the Valeo transmission was not any sort of automatic anyone, it didn't have an automatic mode. We haven't gotten a response from anyone regarding that, I thought his points were extremely valid and relevant. You need to realize I'm not here to argue or make enemies with anyone, I'm trying to improve Wikipedia, and we can't do that by constantly debating. Stepho said he wouldn't mind subsections within the page, so did YBSOne, I also said we need new subsections with those 3 or 4 different transmission types mentioned above, but we need some agreement and communication. You claim it's "chaos," but it doesn't need to be if we cooperate. I also left a message on your page Andy, saying I thought the latter prospect you brought up was a good one, but you never replied. Come on buddy, you're more experience using Wikipedia than I am, you've used it for years. Reverting is okay, but is that really helping and making it comprehensible for the readers? Hello? lets have some type of communication please! Davism0703 ( talk) 23:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Andy Dingley Did you read my whole comment? Come on man, stop basing everything off one sentence, read the whole darn comment. I made a change and added a cited source, so what? Who cares? I've also heard the transmission called an auto-manual, so I thought that should be included. I'm not "piling ahead making as many changes as possible," I added a cited section about Porsche with sources, because it didn't contain one, big deal, I cited a source for "auto-manual," big deal, get over it, stop basing this around everything I edit, Two other people edited it, but you don't speak about them. Now, Stepho and I both agreed, and we personally liked YBSOne's ideas of adding a few new subsections within this article, now I kindly left an message on your page, stating I liked your second proposition you made, and knock on wood, you didn't reply, or share your updated, current opinion to this thread. I just want us all to come to an agreement, no need to argue, but you haven't posted an updated comment on what you think should happen. This comment sections either seems likes its stalled, or we're stuck in neutral. Come on, share your thoughts, open up, three of us have spoken already. I want to help, but we can't do that if we don't get your feedback. :) Davism0703 ( talk) 19:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
So what is consensus here? Are changes to "automated manual transmission" via piping like [4] consistent with consensus? ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I've put another post in the above paragraph. Sorry, I'm not a very accomplished user yet. Re this long read - Aren't we waiting for evidence of a negative re the use of "semi". We can't cite a reference that doesn't exist and I think that enough time has elapsed for one to show. I think there are already enough references and citations at the bottom of the article to justify that Automated Manual Transmission is the better term. and this article could readily fit the description of automated clutch. The term "Manual gearbox" is not useful in the automatic world, yet although automated manual is an oxymoron, semi means "half" and a half automatic is definitely unhelpful. One of the world's largest gearbox OEM manufacturers uses the AMT term on their web page [5]. ZF produce vast numbers of gearboxes [6] If we want to entirely drop the term "manual" why not adopt direct shift gearbox? Semi has to go though, because the term is spreading and causing harm CarbonPepper ( talk) 17:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi folks. The 1940s included some transmissions which seem to be in a grey area between "semi-automatic" and "automatic"; they were not fully automatic in their operation, but intended to make driver inputs not required during typical driving conditions. Therefore, I am seeking input about whether other people consider them as semi- or fully-automatic:
Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 03:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. The term "semi-automatic transmission" is quite ambiguous, having been used at various times for unrelated transmissions. This has probably led to this article having large overlap with the sequential manual transmission and automated manual transmission articles, as well as some folks mistakenly adding content about fully-automatic transmissions.
Therefore, I propose that this article be renamed to Clutchless manual transmission. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 04:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose: I strongly disagree with renaming to clutchless transmission, as I think it would be a misnormer. In addition, per the guidelines, I believe it is not a common name for semi-automatic transmissions. I'm not an expert, but I have had an interest in transmissions for a while and I'm trying to navigate the landscape. I understand that it can be confusing with the vast number of types of transmissions, where many parts also can vary between the types (adding even more combinations; e.g. straight cut gears vs helical cut gears). But I think we should be careful to not add any more confusion. To my understanding, all multi-speed transmissions have some sort of clutch(es)? Typically at least dog clutches inside the gearbox connected with the gears of non-synchronized (for example sequential) gearboxes and synchronized manual gearboxes, in addition to the clutch between the engine and transmission (although the latter is not always used on a sequential racing transmissions except when going from neutral to first gear). Both these types of gearboxes have clutches, but they can be implemented with an automatically controlled clutch (usually electronically, but can also be done mechanically), which in that case makes it a semi-automatic gearbox. Conventional automatic transmissions have no clutch pedal, but I would argue that they do in a way have some form of clutch with the torque converter. A torque converter is a type of fluid coupling, and coupling seems to me to be synonymous with clutch in some European languages. At least that seems to be the case in the Norwegian language, where kobling (coupling) is sometimes used as a synonym for kløtsj (clutch). To say the least, it is my understanding that the hydraulic coupling in a conventional automatic and the clutch in a conventional manual in the end do approximately the same job. Some automatic gearboxes (perhaps most modern?) have the ability for the driver to specify the gear selection (available under various names, such as for example tiptronic), making the automatic transmission semi-automatically controlled. Then you have dual-clutch transmissions (DCTs) which have two cluthes, but no clutch pedal! (At least that is the most common implementation, but I believe DCTs can be implemented with one or two clutch pedals as well). So there is a distinction beteween having a clutch vs a clutchpedal. It is my understanding that all the aforementioned transmissions can be implemented as semi-automatic by letting the user select gears, and having a computer do the gear change - clutch or no clutch. A more technically correct new name for a semi-automatic transmission would thus be "clutchpedal-less transmission", but it is also something I have never heard, probably making it not a common name, and thus not an acceptable name according to the guidelines. On a side note, the proposal reminds me about the term " serverless computing", where the user does not have to set up the server, but the computing still is indeed done on a server - making it another example of a misnormer in my opinion (but unfortunately it is now a common name). I thought that might be interesting to mention. In the same way, renaming semi-automatic transmission to clutchless transission might only add more confusion. If people read this article I believe it's because they are technically interested, I mean it does not hurt at all to find information that semi-automatic gearboxes indeed do have some sort of clutch mechanism. Renaming it clutchless would only add confusion, as all (or at least most) semi-automatic transmissions do indeed have a clutch. The only clutchless transmission I can imagine would be a single-speed transmission. If people are misinformed and add wrong content to this and other articles, then perhaps the articles should be improved accordingly with factual information laid out in a pedagogic way to solve the misinformation. Two wrongs doesn't make one right. :) Semi-automatic is perfectly descriptive: The user selects the gears, but does not have to interract with a clutch pedal, rev matching, etc, which makes it a middle-thing between manual and fully automatic gear selection. Sauer202 ( talk) 06:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Cars from the 1960-1980s often had a "semi-automatic" option that was just an automatic gearbox without the self selecting part - ie a torque convertor and an epicyclic gear train but no smarts (and no clutch pedal). The driver still had to select the gear ratio but was at least freed from thumping a pedal up and down. It was cheaper than a fully automatic gearbox and easier to drive than a full manual. It also had no physical clutch mechanisms inside whatsoever. There is also the concept of manualised automatics. This was often done to muscle cars with automatic transmissions - the smarts part was disabled but the torque converter and epicyclic gear train was left intact. This was stronger than a typical manual gearbox, so the big hp guys loved them. See Autostick. Stepho talk 08:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
In the UK it's popular on motoring forums, on car selling platforms and sometimes in the press to refer to modern gearboxes like the Volkwagen DSG as "Semi-automatic". Though using it this way is a misnomer and an oxymoron. The phrase doesn't really benefit the automotive industry or car owners. Semi is from the latin for half, and is widely used to mean half. Such as semi-detached house. To many people, perhaps older generations, semi automatic will imply that the car will not change gears itself, and only the clutch is automatic. How the idea to label new DSG type gearboxes as "half automatic" came about is open to debate, but perhaps it is used to convey; "not as bad as a traditional automatic". In Europe and particularly in the UK, there is a deep-rooted aversion to automatics amongst car enthusiasts, they are seen as inferior to manual (stick shift) gearboxes because they lack human interaction. This view is changing, though the motoring press still can't bring themselves to endorse autos, and instead refer to the human interaction elements, which gave rise to the term "flappy-paddle". I think this page would benefit from clarifying that semi-automatic is a misnomer. CarbonPepper ( talk) 08:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
@ Davism0703 To clarify my original point, if a car has an automated clutch and automated gear shift, then it is completely automatic. The engineering design may be different if it is a robotic element added to a manual gearbox, but that's a different distinction. The term "semi" is a poor language choice for such a design. As far as the driver is concerned, it requires no manual interaction, hence it is automatic, not semi-automatic.
Semi automatic gearboxs (e.g as fitted to buses), have an automated clutch but a manual gear shift. The driver chooses the gear at all times, but the gearbox automates the shift. That is a much better use of English re "Semi". CarbonPepper ( talk) 21:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
How the car achieves different ratios is irrelevant to all but engineers. It's the controls people interact with that matter. If the user interaction can be zero, then the system is automatic. If the user must interact or the system will fail to fully perform its function (as per buses), then it is semi automatic. Different types of gearboxes that can achieve ratio changes without any user interaction should be given their own sub-classification of automatic gearbox but, they should not be collectively called semi-automatic. I can't cite references because there are none except this page itself, but the article says it's "too technical for most readers to understand". Hopefully such a change would help. CarbonPepper ( talk) 16:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Davism0703 ( talk · contribs) has recently replace a lot of instances of "semi-automated", "sequential manual" and similar to "Automated manual". He has also done this to many other car articles. "Automated manual" is an oxymoron (a contradiction in terms). A semi-automated gearbox is a gearbox that automates part of the gearchange process (usually the clutch part) and leaves the actual physical changing of the gears to the mechanism. The choice of gear is still up to the driver. Likewise, in a sequential gearbox the driver still chooses up/down and only the physical change is done by the mechanism. Changing it to "automated manual" is against the standard name used by most of the industry, less clear then the previous names and confusing to the readers. Stepho talk 00:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
"Semi-automatic" is a misnomer and is erroneous. While it is true that these types of vehicles (DCT, AMT) can operate in a "semi-automatic (or "partially/half automatic") mode, the transmission internals of these cars are not automatic. While they are mostly automated, they do not feature a torque converter like an automatic, but they still have a clutch like a standard manual transmission, but just not a physical clutch pedal.The clutch is controlled by electronic computers, pneumatics, hydraulics, and actuators of the vehicle, which are all operated by the transmissions' servo. Like the Ferrari 640 & 641 F1 cars of the late 80's and early 90's... they didn't use an "automatic" transmission, or the erroneous "semi-automatic" misnomer, but rather the transmissions internals used were still completely manual, but they lost the physical clutch pedal, and the manual clutch was automatically actuated each time a gear shift was initiated, and the clutch was operated by electrohydraulics. Gear shifts were ordered in a sequential mode, and the whole H-pattern manual was dumped. The driver instead had two pedals (one for gas, one for break), and two paddle-shifters for gear-shifting behind the steering wheel, which automatically actuates the electrohydraulic clutch mechanism each time the driver inputs a gear change. Also similar to the Ferrari F355's "F1" transmission from 1997, even though it could operate in an "automatic" mode, it was still manual transmission with a clutch, but just minus the physical clutch pedal. It could also operate in a "semi-automatic/manual" mode, where the clutch was computer-controlled, and electrohydraulically actuated. Gear-shifting was again ordered in a sequential upshift/downshift mode, and the H-pattern gate shifter was ditched, and replaced by wheel mounted paddle-shifters. I will repeat again, this transmission was not an automatic one, as it did NOT have a torque converter, and despite it being able to operate in a fully "automatic" mode, the clutch was still operated electrohydraulically, removing the need for a third pedal. The transmission and clutch were automated, and controlled by electrohydraulics and computers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davism0703 ( talk • contribs) 02:35, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
But Stepho, you do you agree that a semi-automatic transmission is an automated transmission, with a clutch like a manual transmission, but that the clutch is automatically actuated? Would you also agree that it is a manual transmission, but just automated by computer and electrohydraulics?
Davism0703 ( talk) 08:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Davism0703
You can't just delete "semi-automatic" and say it's wrong. Many reliable sources use the term, or clutchless manual or automated manual or semi-automatic manual. People probably are confused, and they come here to clear that up. That's why you tell them who uses which terms and why, and unless some big authority in the sky denounces one term or the other, we can't have the final say. If significant sources use a given term for two different things, we don't pick the winner, we merely describe the situation. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
-- YBSOne I do agree with you that automated manual or "AMT" is NOT an oxymoron, like you said, it's a conventional manual transmission, but the clutch and other mechanisms are automated, or computer-controlled, despite other people saying that that's an oxymoron. Most of the time, these "semi-automatic" transmissions are in fact manual transmissions, but just with automated or electrohydraulic operated clutches. The mode they can operate in is a "semi-automatic/manual" mode, but I wouldn't consider "automated manual" to be a misnomer, nor it to be erroneous. It describes the function of the transmission. There's the single-clutch type, electrohydraulic automated manual, and a dual-clutch type automated manual, both are manual transmissions with clutches that are automated via hydraulics, electronics, & computers. I'd still be more inclined to refer to the transmission as Automated manual, but would you consider "Semi-automatic" and "Automated manual" as synonyms? I still wouldn't say that "Automated manual" is erroneous or an oxymoron, it refers to the exact same thing. It's simple, a manual transmission, but everything is actuated automatically, or automated. What do you think Davism0703 ( talk) 21:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Davism0703 ( talk) 21:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Davism0703, I'm going to give a bit of history to show where the misunderstand has come from.
For most of the 1950s to 2000 there were only 2 common types of transmission - the manual with clutch and sliding rail gears, and the automatic with torque converter and epicycle gears. There were others but these 2 dominated. Therefore, in most peoples minds, a clutch equated to a manual and a torque converter equated to an automatic. Davism0703, I believe that you still equate these. However, there are many forms of transmission outside of these. Manual means only that the driver has to do the work, regardless of the mechanism used. Automatic means that the gearbox does the work, regardless of the presence of a torque converter, an electric or hydraulic clutch or fairies. The name comes from the function, not the presence of a clutch.
The article is titled "Semi-automatic transmission". This is a perfect acceptable name used and understood by the majority of the industry. Most readers have an intuitive grasp of manual and automatic in terms of function. Most readers have an understanding the semi means half. So it is not a stretch for most people to understand that semi-automatic means partly automatic (ie the machine does some stuff by itself and the driver has do some stuff). This is straight forward.
However, some bastard in marketing came up with the oxymoron term automated manual - and it is an oxymoron because the 2 halves mean the opposite of each other. What does the reader think when they see this term. It's an automatic! No - it's a manual! No - it's .... something! The term does not describe itself and leaves the reader clueless. I accept that some companies have used it. But it still has only a minority use.
So, back to the article title. To start with an self-descriptive article title, then throughout the article use a term that is not self-descriptive and only in minority use in industry, and to not use the term used in the article title does not seem an nice thing to do to our readers. It is confusing and counter productive.
Far better to keep the existing title, to keep using the term that matches the title, to keep using the term that is self-descriptive, to keep using the term that is well used in the industry but to make a small mention that one of the alternative names used by some companies is "automated manual" seems a much kinder and instructive thing to do.
Stepho
talk
22:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
So, what do you guys think? Transfer some of the existing information from the semi-automatic transmission article to a brand new article? Or just transfer some of this existing info from that article to the Electrohydraulic manual transmission page, possibly just adding some cited sources, and including some of the other existing names like "Automated manual" and "Clutchless manual" onto the one Electrohydraulic manual page, maybe including like "also known as," the name of the transmissions, etcetera. Thoughts? Davism0703 ( talk) 09:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
No one's perfect, so just cut me some slack please guys! I haven't come here to cause harm, rather I've come here to share some of my knowledge to Wikipedia to expand, and try and make it better, not to worsen it. Lets try and work together and establish some sort of communication. Andy, you brought up some interesting prospects originally, about whether a revert to a month ago should take place, or whether a new subsection should be created on the existing page, I though the latter idea was good. YBSOne later further elaborated, and said there should be 3 new sections under the current "Semi-automatic" article, "Automated-clutch manual," "Electrohydraulic manual," and "Dual-clutch." I agreed with YBS, and said I thought this was a neat proposition, and I think it would be useful for the readers to create new subsections within the existing page, just to elaborate on the already confusing "semi-automatic" transmission, as there is more than just one type. I thought the latter idea you brought was good, as YBSOne said, it "is not by function but by build," and the Valeo transmission was not any sort of automatic anyone, it didn't have an automatic mode. We haven't gotten a response from anyone regarding that, I thought his points were extremely valid and relevant. You need to realize I'm not here to argue or make enemies with anyone, I'm trying to improve Wikipedia, and we can't do that by constantly debating. Stepho said he wouldn't mind subsections within the page, so did YBSOne, I also said we need new subsections with those 3 or 4 different transmission types mentioned above, but we need some agreement and communication. You claim it's "chaos," but it doesn't need to be if we cooperate. I also left a message on your page Andy, saying I thought the latter prospect you brought up was a good one, but you never replied. Come on buddy, you're more experience using Wikipedia than I am, you've used it for years. Reverting is okay, but is that really helping and making it comprehensible for the readers? Hello? lets have some type of communication please! Davism0703 ( talk) 23:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
Andy Dingley Did you read my whole comment? Come on man, stop basing everything off one sentence, read the whole darn comment. I made a change and added a cited source, so what? Who cares? I've also heard the transmission called an auto-manual, so I thought that should be included. I'm not "piling ahead making as many changes as possible," I added a cited section about Porsche with sources, because it didn't contain one, big deal, I cited a source for "auto-manual," big deal, get over it, stop basing this around everything I edit, Two other people edited it, but you don't speak about them. Now, Stepho and I both agreed, and we personally liked YBSOne's ideas of adding a few new subsections within this article, now I kindly left an message on your page, stating I liked your second proposition you made, and knock on wood, you didn't reply, or share your updated, current opinion to this thread. I just want us all to come to an agreement, no need to argue, but you haven't posted an updated comment on what you think should happen. This comment sections either seems likes its stalled, or we're stuck in neutral. Come on, share your thoughts, open up, three of us have spoken already. I want to help, but we can't do that if we don't get your feedback. :) Davism0703 ( talk) 19:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
So what is consensus here? Are changes to "automated manual transmission" via piping like [4] consistent with consensus? ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I've put another post in the above paragraph. Sorry, I'm not a very accomplished user yet. Re this long read - Aren't we waiting for evidence of a negative re the use of "semi". We can't cite a reference that doesn't exist and I think that enough time has elapsed for one to show. I think there are already enough references and citations at the bottom of the article to justify that Automated Manual Transmission is the better term. and this article could readily fit the description of automated clutch. The term "Manual gearbox" is not useful in the automatic world, yet although automated manual is an oxymoron, semi means "half" and a half automatic is definitely unhelpful. One of the world's largest gearbox OEM manufacturers uses the AMT term on their web page [5]. ZF produce vast numbers of gearboxes [6] If we want to entirely drop the term "manual" why not adopt direct shift gearbox? Semi has to go though, because the term is spreading and causing harm CarbonPepper ( talk) 17:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi folks. The 1940s included some transmissions which seem to be in a grey area between "semi-automatic" and "automatic"; they were not fully automatic in their operation, but intended to make driver inputs not required during typical driving conditions. Therefore, I am seeking input about whether other people consider them as semi- or fully-automatic:
Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 03:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. The term "semi-automatic transmission" is quite ambiguous, having been used at various times for unrelated transmissions. This has probably led to this article having large overlap with the sequential manual transmission and automated manual transmission articles, as well as some folks mistakenly adding content about fully-automatic transmissions.
Therefore, I propose that this article be renamed to Clutchless manual transmission. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk) 04:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
Strong oppose: I strongly disagree with renaming to clutchless transmission, as I think it would be a misnormer. In addition, per the guidelines, I believe it is not a common name for semi-automatic transmissions. I'm not an expert, but I have had an interest in transmissions for a while and I'm trying to navigate the landscape. I understand that it can be confusing with the vast number of types of transmissions, where many parts also can vary between the types (adding even more combinations; e.g. straight cut gears vs helical cut gears). But I think we should be careful to not add any more confusion. To my understanding, all multi-speed transmissions have some sort of clutch(es)? Typically at least dog clutches inside the gearbox connected with the gears of non-synchronized (for example sequential) gearboxes and synchronized manual gearboxes, in addition to the clutch between the engine and transmission (although the latter is not always used on a sequential racing transmissions except when going from neutral to first gear). Both these types of gearboxes have clutches, but they can be implemented with an automatically controlled clutch (usually electronically, but can also be done mechanically), which in that case makes it a semi-automatic gearbox. Conventional automatic transmissions have no clutch pedal, but I would argue that they do in a way have some form of clutch with the torque converter. A torque converter is a type of fluid coupling, and coupling seems to me to be synonymous with clutch in some European languages. At least that seems to be the case in the Norwegian language, where kobling (coupling) is sometimes used as a synonym for kløtsj (clutch). To say the least, it is my understanding that the hydraulic coupling in a conventional automatic and the clutch in a conventional manual in the end do approximately the same job. Some automatic gearboxes (perhaps most modern?) have the ability for the driver to specify the gear selection (available under various names, such as for example tiptronic), making the automatic transmission semi-automatically controlled. Then you have dual-clutch transmissions (DCTs) which have two cluthes, but no clutch pedal! (At least that is the most common implementation, but I believe DCTs can be implemented with one or two clutch pedals as well). So there is a distinction beteween having a clutch vs a clutchpedal. It is my understanding that all the aforementioned transmissions can be implemented as semi-automatic by letting the user select gears, and having a computer do the gear change - clutch or no clutch. A more technically correct new name for a semi-automatic transmission would thus be "clutchpedal-less transmission", but it is also something I have never heard, probably making it not a common name, and thus not an acceptable name according to the guidelines. On a side note, the proposal reminds me about the term " serverless computing", where the user does not have to set up the server, but the computing still is indeed done on a server - making it another example of a misnormer in my opinion (but unfortunately it is now a common name). I thought that might be interesting to mention. In the same way, renaming semi-automatic transmission to clutchless transission might only add more confusion. If people read this article I believe it's because they are technically interested, I mean it does not hurt at all to find information that semi-automatic gearboxes indeed do have some sort of clutch mechanism. Renaming it clutchless would only add confusion, as all (or at least most) semi-automatic transmissions do indeed have a clutch. The only clutchless transmission I can imagine would be a single-speed transmission. If people are misinformed and add wrong content to this and other articles, then perhaps the articles should be improved accordingly with factual information laid out in a pedagogic way to solve the misinformation. Two wrongs doesn't make one right. :) Semi-automatic is perfectly descriptive: The user selects the gears, but does not have to interract with a clutch pedal, rev matching, etc, which makes it a middle-thing between manual and fully automatic gear selection. Sauer202 ( talk) 06:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Cars from the 1960-1980s often had a "semi-automatic" option that was just an automatic gearbox without the self selecting part - ie a torque convertor and an epicyclic gear train but no smarts (and no clutch pedal). The driver still had to select the gear ratio but was at least freed from thumping a pedal up and down. It was cheaper than a fully automatic gearbox and easier to drive than a full manual. It also had no physical clutch mechanisms inside whatsoever. There is also the concept of manualised automatics. This was often done to muscle cars with automatic transmissions - the smarts part was disabled but the torque converter and epicyclic gear train was left intact. This was stronger than a typical manual gearbox, so the big hp guys loved them. See Autostick. Stepho talk 08:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)