Slashdot Mirror
Jaguar Recalls 18,000 Cars Over Major Software Fault
DMandPenfold writes with this excerpt from ComputerWorld UK "Jaguar has recalled nearly 18,000 X-type cars after it discovered a major software fault, which meant drivers might not be able to turn off cruise control. The problem lies with engine management control software developed in-house by Jaguar. The problematic software is only installed on diesel engine X-Types, which were all produced between 2006 and 2010. Some 17,678 vehicles have been recalled, as a result of the potentially dangerous problem. If the fault occurs, cruise control can only be disabled by turning of the ignition while driving — which would mean a loss of some control and in many cars also disables power steering. Braking or pressing the cancel button will not work. 'Jaguar has identified that should an error with certain interfacing systems be detected the cruise control system will be disabled and an error message displayed to the driver on the instrument cluster,' the company said in a statement."
At least the software follows the model of the rest of the car. Its a jag, everything breaks down.
Not that I'd trade what we have now for points and condensers/vacuum driven everything/carburetors. Unless you're spending like NASA does on software, the likelihood of an edge case like this is always there. It is good to see that "No customer has been affected and there had been no accidents or injuries,", per a Jag spokesperson.
It's a CAR. It doesn't need a computer in every function, ESPECIALLY not with the attitude of the software retards these days.
Sorry, test first design apparently isn't part of the Jaguar model. They do, however offer "Safety and Security" through a comprehensive range of sophisticated safety systems", which apparently don't include cruise control. It seems unconscionable to think that there would not be a safety mechanism that could override the rest - brakes has always been the default for this type of issue.
That third pedal is getting harder and harder to find these days. On anything, at least in the US. I think I can count on one hand the number of friends that I have that currently own a car with an actual clutch that's not a computer controlled dual clutch setup.
Also, with the improvements made in the dual clutch setups and slushbox efficiency, the maintenance and skill demand of that third pedal is waning quickly. There will always be purists who search it out, but we'll be paying a premium for it.
Bumper sticker: All parts falling off this vehicle are of the finest British workmanship.
Have gnu, will travel.
While that may save your life in such a circumstance, if the cruise control fails to disengage, he won't be happy with the speed decreasing; I hope their feedback control is saner than the rest of the software, but you might end having the machine revving up like crazy by itself, still not good.
Jaguar said drivers who returned their cars would need a software upgrade to their vehicle. No hardware needed to be replaced, it said.
What is worse: having to recall 18,000 cars or having the ability to get an automatic update (wi-fi...) + the risk of the car being remotely hacked?
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
It's still the other way around in a substantial part of the rest of the planet. In Europe for example, it's only by special request that you get an automatic. By default all cars I've seen on a dealer lot in every country in Europe I've been to are manual shift. Some automatics are available, but they are certainly not common. I see the same when I am in Africa... almost all cars/trucks are manual shift.
They had forgotten to add the leak_oil() function...
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Why are software solutions even being used at all? Shouldn't these things be controlled by specialized discrete circuits? Software solutions seen more expensive and more fault-prone, the worst of both worlds.
The Jaguar X-Type's software was custom built in-house, which could mean it's not even that mature or robust. Jaguar are not known for their software, why should we assume that their practices and methodology are sound enough when it comes to developing critical software systems? Do transportation safety board regulators even cover vehicle software? Are there any standards for this at all?
Twinstiq, game news
Sounds like a driver issue.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Press the clutch. Problem solved.
The move away from manual transmissions in automobiles is tragic. Not only does it dumb down both driving and drivers, it gives less control over the car, and while automatics are starting to get competitive for highway mileage, in the city a human brain can still anticipate better than any automatic. There's even some research suggesting that people driving manual transmissions are statistically safer drivers, having fewer accidents, perhaps because they are more engaged in the process and don't have their brains switched off quite as much while driving. Plus, it's just more FUN to drive a manual.
Let's stop dumbing down the world already. It's freakin' pervasive: computing, driving, hell, gaming, you name it, we seem intent on dumbing it down.
I wonder how many car accidents this failure has caused.
This is why I don't trust drive by wire systems
A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.
If the fault occurs, cruise control can only be disabled by turning of the ignition while driving
The advice is really "try turning it off and on again"?
(How about adding a soft-reset button on the steering wheel for all these drive-by-wire features?)
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
"Back in the Day," Automatics were an option on American cars, too. Nowadays, we pay a premium for the old-fashioned gearbox, which I (as a gearhead) find particularly odd and disturbing...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If the fault occurs, cruise control can only be disabled by turning of the ignition while driving â" which would mean a loss of some control and in many cars also disables power steering.
Public Service Announcement time from a decade-long car geek.
SHUTTING OFF YOUR ENGINE WILL NOT CAUSE YOU TO LOSE CONTROL OF YOUR CAR. You'll somewhat slowly come to a stop. You won't "endo". You won't flip over and crash in a ball of fire. Your wheels won't even lock up. Furthermore, once your car is moving at a walking pace, you no longer need power steering. Try it some time in a parking lot. And no, you won't lose your brakes, unless your braking system has been poorly maintained. Test this by shutting off your engine in your driveway and seeing how many times you can press the pedal before it suddenly goes hard. That's where you have lost braking assist. Even further: loss of braking assist does not mean you can't stop the car - you just have to press much, much harder.
What is dangerous: if the ignition lock on the steering column activates and you need to steer. This is why you should turn the key to the accessory-only position.
Braking or pressing the cancel button will not work
Second PSA:
BRAKING ALWAYS WORKS. With the exception of some ultrapowerful cars like the Veyron, there is an order of magnitude difference between the maximum torque your brakes can generate, and the maximum torque your engine can.
The key is that you have to stop safely but quickly, firmly, and completely, and STAY STOPPED until you've shut off the engine. If you ride the brakes, you'll keep heating up the rotors, pads, and brake fluid. If the brake fluid boils (or more accurately, the water in the brake fluid, since it's hygroscopic and people aren't good about changing their brake fluid as often as they should) or you exceed the maximum operating temperature of the brake pads (passenger vehicle pads are designed for "cold" bite, ie to be useable for panic stops), then yes, you will not have effective brakes.
Please help metamoderate.
So were any of the components in the cruse control system made by Lucas Industries?
If you have never worked on a British car then the humor may be lost on you but there is an entire sub culture around Lucas the prince of darkness.
Time to offend someone
This design flaw was baked in before they wrote the first line of code. Before throttle-by-wire, the brake pedal had two independent kill mechanisms: an electrical switch to open the solenoid circuit, and a vacuum valve to dump the vacuum to the throttle servo. Either was sufficient to defeat the cruise control. Now it's all single thread. I don't want to go back to coil and points, but some control systems should have multiple override.
Jaguar doesn't sell Diesels here. Like many other manufacturers, they assume that Americans are either too stupid to handle a Diesel, or they assume that Americans still think that all Diesels are the same as the terrible examples our big three produced in the 70s and 80s in response to the oil crisis.
So yeah, it sucks that Jag has a software glitch. But nobody here has to worry about it since there are exactly zero Diesel X-types in the US.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If the fault occurs, cruise control can only be disabled by turning of the ignition while driving — which would mean a loss of some control and in many cars also disables power steering.
Obviously stub writer knows approximately jack about how cars function... shutting off the ignition will "disable," i.e. shutdown, the power steering in all cars, as the power steering pump is driven by the belt assembly. However, that's hardly a safety concern at speed; many modern autos automatically shut down the power steering system when traveling at highway speeds, as it is only a useful system at low speeds.
The real problem with turning the ignition (key) to the OFF position is that the steering lock will engage, making it impossible to change trajectory until you turn the ignition back on.
FYI, the best thing to do in an "out of control cruise" situation would be to put the transmission in neutral, get to the shoulder, and stop, THEN shut the ignition off; doing so may grenade the engine, but it will also save your life.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
They mean turning the key.. which will cut power to the cruise control. You could probably just turn the key to off then back on while driving to reset it
Not if you're buying a Lamborghini:
http://usa.indiandrives.com/lamborghini-to-discontinue-use-of-manual-transmission.html
(an apparently some other makes)
I'd also be curious as to how one is going to make a stick-shift hybrid.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
The engine has a rev limiter. It might sound scary, but it isn't going to damage itself in the 30 seconds it would take to get to the side of the road and stop.
Even if you didn't throw it into neutral, the brakes are still strong enough to stop the car.
This is the Jaguar X-Type Diesel, which if I am right was until 2008, always manual, and has a clutch. (I know, because I had one of those)
Have a nice day!
You usually have a switch on the clutch as well as the brakes to disable cruise control. I have found on at least one car (vauxhall/opel corsa) that if you knock it out of gear the cruise control doesn't realise and starts increasing revs - I didn't wait to see how far it would go... For all manual cars the system should expect a correlation between road speed and engine revs (gear ratios are fixed after all) and disable the cruise control and flag a fault if this is not the case.
But some of us are not and we might have to loose speed FAST. NOW, not AFTER our brains have processed not just that we need to stop in a hurry BUT that now something is wrong and we have to do something we never really thought about doing while whatever has made it necessary to stop is approaching at 130km/h.
Or translated, I am driving on cruise control, which means I am NOT fully in control of the car because I am not expecting anything, when suddenly there is an accident in front me. I slam on the brakes and rather then them working fully against ONLY the weight of the car, they now got to work against the engine to. A Jaguar engine, not a tiny city mobile. Now I got to get my hands of the steering wheel while I am trying to avoid a high speed collision and fiddle with the keys...
Your use case only applies if a decide to disengage cruise control early on while driving comfortable with plenty of time to asses the situation and come up with a solution.
I hope if this ever happens to anyone, they will have that time and empty road ahead of them and quickness of mind to come up with your solution because I just know your average motorists is perfectly capable of doing this... why yes, I do not drive, I go by train. Why do you ask?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Nowadays, we pay a premium for the old-fashioned gearbox, which I (as a gearhead) find particularly odd and disturbing...
Why "odd"? If I make 100,000 cars of a model type. 85,000 regular automaticss. 10,000 luxury automatics, with pseudo-manual "Tiptronic". 3,000 sports models, also with pseudo-manual. And 2,000 conventional manuals. Why would you expect a system developed solely for a 2,000-car range to be cheaper than one developed for a 70,000-car range?
I suspect, eventually, it will be cheaper to put a drive-by-wire pretend clutch-pedal connected to that pseudo-manual automatic, rather than develop a real manual gearbox and clutch for the handful of people who insist on a third pedal.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
That's the thing. In theory, there's a rev limiter that will keep the engine from damaging itself. On the other hand, in theory, the cruise control will disengage when you brake or hit cancel. OOPS.
Not only that, but manual transmission cars sold in the US often have the bizzare feature that the headlights go off if you put the handbrake on. How are you supposed to do a hill start in the dark, for goodness' sake?
... why are you using the handbrake for that?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Yes, because people who can barely drive as it is should get a car where they have to worry about coordinated action of ANOTHER limb, in order to avoid an extremely rare fault.
Oh, and automatics have an even more reliable engine power cutoff - pushing the shifter forward to the stop will put the transmission in neutral... And it will stay there.
In fact, discreet circuits are theoretically harder to test than software that does the same thing and certainly harder to debug.
People like you scare me.
I'm not sure it's even possible to create software that does *the same thing* as a discreet circuit. If it is possible, it's never done in practice. Software invariably does more. (Trivial example: Memory management.) And that is where the problem lies.
Discrete controls will be assigned to one task and one task only (because making them do more makes the problem more complex, and thus involves more work). In practice, this makes them easier to test and debug.
Software will be assigned multiple tasks, for reasons unknown, but probably related to misguided thinking similar to the parent poster's. This still makes the problem more complex, but for some reason complexity in software is regarded as "feature rich".
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
The Honda CRz is a manual hybrid. The electric motor simply adds torque/hp to the gas one. It is declutched just the same as the gas.
I'll keep driving my old carbureted vehicles. They just plain work every time. I only owned one fuel injected vehicle and it was the worst vehicle I ever owned. Carbureted vehicles with no computers just plain work every time, so that's what I'll stick with. Technology is great and I enjoy working with it in my career, but I flat out do not need a computer or any fancy electronics in my vehicles.
Stop using the auto headlamps, and turn them on yourself, Problem solved.
"Clutch by wire" won't happen or already is, depending on how you look at it. I predict that all of these options will be replaced by a CVT or a dual clutch setup at some point on most mainstream vehicles. A computer controlled dual clutch setup gives most of the sporting aspects that those with sporting aspirations wish for, but can be computer controlled for those who wish an automatic.
if you except a drive by wire*(excluding good old steel cable) clutch - then you are not one of the people looking for the third pedal
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
1. Apply handbrake while keeping clutch pushed in.
2. Move foot from brake pedal to accelerator.
3. Slowly release hand brake while simultaneously easing off the clutch, and pushing the accelerator.
Without a hand brake, you'd start rolling backwards if the hill is too steep.
On a more gradual slope, you don't need the hand brake. Just release the clutch enough that you can let go off the foot brake.
Nowadays, we pay a premium for the old-fashioned gearbox, which I (as a gearhead) find particularly odd and disturbing...
Why "odd"?
For starters... 'cause I'm old skool, dammit!
Seriously, though, I fully comprehend the economic theory that increasing production of a certain product decreases costs, but automatic transmissions are far more complex than standard gearboxes, and thus cost more to manufacture regardless of output rates.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
it's easier for people who don't heel/toe well
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Probably the same way Lamborghini is handling it: A dual clutch transmission.
This would be funny if Ford hadn't owned Jag at the time these were built.
most cars do not have a rev limiter that is exists before the natural one of something failing..
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Try Birmingham or Coventry in the UK. :)
Soon add Wolverhampton to the list.
which would mean a loss of some control and in many cars also disables power steering.
SHUTTING OFF YOUR ENGINE WILL NOT CAUSE YOU TO LOSE CONTROL OF YOUR CAR.
TFA was referring to a loss of some control, which is exactly what happens when you lose power steering/brake assist. It was not referring to a total loss of control or "endo"...
Test this by shutting off your engine in your driveway and...
Don't. With modern vehicles, letting the engine rotate while powered off may damage the catalytic converter when it is reached by non-burned/liquid fuel. You should only do that for a 10-20 meters in case of an emergency start (e.g., depleted battery due to age/cold temperatures).
Braking or pressing the cancel button will not work
BRAKING ALWAYS WORKS
TFA, again, is correct since it is explaining that braking will not work for the purpose of disabling cruise control.
If you think manual transmission makes people drive well, pleeeeease visit India
Everyone has excellent control over the cars, but road sense is a different story
Even here in India, automatics are reserved almost exclusively for the luxury segment
I miss the days when it had to be perfect the first time, think about it, in the days of old, it seems like now people have no issue releasing half done games (I'm looking at you EA!) because "we can just patch it later". Gone are the days when that would have cost so much it had to be right the first time. I kinda miss those days.
brickspeed.net for your old Volvo performance addiction
My foot starts on the brake, and on the clutch. I move my foot from the brake to the gas as I engage the clutch, which holds the car steady (you can stand on a hill this way, but it will wear your clutch). In less than one second, power is smoothly applied as I finish engaging the clutch.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Actually, newer ones with full digital engine management tend to.
I searched far and wide and found a modern pickup truck with a manual transmission.
It is very disappointing.
The modern all aluminum overhead cam engine has no low end torque. That makes a huge difference in the enjoyment of rowing your own gears. My previous vehicles had old American push rod V8's that put out peak torque right off idle.
Oh how I wish I could buy a compact 4x4 pickup with a diesel engine and a manual transmission.
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
Yeah, because the ability to drive has everything to do with knowing how to use a clutch.
Yes, that's what I said will work on a gradual incline. If the hill is steep, you cannot hold the car with the clutch alone, but you'll need some extra gas as well. At least with gasoline cars. Diesels have much more torque, so you can start them on a steeper incline with clutch alone.
Of course, you could still do it quickly, and you'll only roll back a little bit, but that's considered bad style, and could be hazardous if someone is behind you. Where I live, starting on a hill is part of the driver's test, and you get points deducted for rolling back during the process.
Further to this, I only ever saw one manual drive car made in the USA and it would not even start the engine unless you put your foot on the clutch. I was told this was standard for manual drive (but I've lived most of my life in Europe and never heard of such a crazy thing) to stop you starting up in gear.
This is totally incompetent real-time programming and hardware design. There should be a stall timer in the hardware, and it should only be reset after all the safety-related conditions have been checked on each cycle. Safety-related functions and non-safety-related functions must be strongly isolated, preferably in different CPUs. This is all well understood. Some people need to be fired.
I worked with some of the people who designed the Ford EEC IV, which controlled most Ford cars in the 1980s. Backup systems included 1) a hardware stall timer, 2) a hard-wired dumb control unit for "limp home" mode if the software failed, and 3) limited throttle authority for the computer-controlled actuator. The program was etched onto the CPU chip (not Flash, not EPROM, not PROM, permanently masked onto the custom Intel 8061 CPU chip during manufacture) and was unchangeable. A bolt-on ROM module held the constants for the vehicle model. The design life for the hardware was 30 years. Massive amounts of effort went into verifying the correctness of the software. Everything from proof of correctness to checking behavior during an EMP spike from a lightning strike was used. I've been in the Faraday cage used for that. No recall was ever necessary, and tens of thousands of Ford vehicles from the 80s are still running that software.
That's what you want down at the safety related levels. The "infotainment" software can be as sloppy as most web programming, but the low level stuff has to just work, no matter what.
I've been driving manual cars/trucks for 20 years and I've never had to do what you describe. We have some very hilly areas around here...
I'd wager if you had to do that you should be driving an automatic.
Come to think of it, if you take a driving test with a manual car and do that you'd probably rack up demerits here... (not in Europe)
Huh? I have been driving manual transmission cars in the USA for about 40 years and I have never once seen that "feature". In fact it appears that this would not even be legal, since you have to be able to turn on your headlights while parked.
And why do you need the emergency brake to start on a hill? Can't you coordinate your heel/toe and the clutch properly? I have driven quite successfully, many times, through one of the hilliest cities in the world - San Francisco - with absolutely no need for the emergency brake to hold me (and no, I didn't burn my clutch holding it that way). You heel/toe the brake and throttle, and the other foot on the clutch. Just takes coordination.
Brett
Not really. I guess it depends on the car. If you have plenty of torque, you can do a lot with just the clutch. In Europe, engines are typically smaller and only have 4 cylinders. Gasoline engines are quite eager to stall at low RPMs.
Nor do artists who "draw" pictures always pull their writing implement. Language evolves and words take on more general definitions.
I've done it on a steep hill (standing to pedal on 700c x 32 wheels with 30 teeth up front and 32 in the back, and still struggling). My Mazda3 can do it, though I haven't tried to stand on my clutch. I move from the brake to the gas smoothly. There's no rollback.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I've being taught to drive the stick in my home country, and doing what GP described was a required exercise in the road exam.
Get a modern manual transmission that has a hill-holder clutch.
Michael J.
Root, God, what is difference?
My car has a fail-safe device... to disconnect the engine from the drive wheels. It's called a clutch. You should have one on your car.
I do have a similar thing in my auto transmission car - it's marked "N".
It doesn't make me look all macho in a dick-measuring contest the way stick does, though. Such a pity.
Oh you Americans... surely the enjoyment is in revving the engine a bit!
If you want low end torque get a diesel.
This obsession with getting low end torque from a gasoline engine is why all your vehicles get shitty mileage. It doesn't work that way...
No sig today...
That's exactly the problem, somebody decide automatics are 'luxury' so all the Americans instantly started demanding nothing less.
In reality automatics are for people who can't be bothered to get involved in the interesting part of 'driving'.
No sig today...
I'd wager if you had to do that you should be driving an automatic.
I'd wager that if the hill was steep enough that an experienced manual driver was worried about rolling back then the automatic transmission will probably do the same thing.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
What car(s) have you seen this behavior on???
This is the first I've every heard of this.
I didn't see it on my Vette (6speed) nor a fairly recent mazdaspeed miata....
Can you give links or cite models you've seen this on??
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Well...having to shift DOES kinda help keep one awake and more alert when driving home after drinking a few....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
No it isn't, it's common sense.
It lets you take your time over it instead of driving like a boy racer.
When I took my driving test, *any* backwards movement of the car on the hill start was grounds for a fail.
No sig today...
True, but all modern cars have brake reserves as well as rev limiters. Even if it did over-rev and didnt get limited...and the engine blew, you'd still have a brake reserve...and not die. :-P
In any case, even if the brakes didn't disengage the CC, you should still be able to overpower the engine with braking power and come to a stop.
There are a million and one ways out of this scenario. It really comes down to the amount of time the driver has, as well as their state of mind.
Jaguar's have always had automatic gearboxes only, at least as long as I remember. I know the reason I never would buy any of their sport models is because they only have an auto option. The only exception I know of was the "XKR-R" which was cooked up by their engineers in their spare time, and was never actually made.
Not in the traditional sense, but diesels are all fuel injected. Turn off the key, fuel injection stops.
ie. Every car sold in the last 20 years.
No sig today...
Actually, I remember reading somewhere that, according to the head of BMW's M division, there is more demand for a row-your-own M5 in the US than in Europe. Apparently the dual-clutch "manumatics" are really popular across the pond.
Left foot on clutch. Left side of right foot on brake pedal. Right side of right foot partial throttle. Let off clutch pedal far enough for the clutch to bite and transmit enough power to have the car straining forward just a bit. Roll right foot gradually off the brakes and onto the gas while continuing to let off the clutch. With just a little practice, you can pull this off with _zero_ backward rolling. You can do it quickly to get a fast start, or slowly to get a nice slow roll.
Problem... Solved.
Furthermore, once your car is moving at a walking pace, you no longer need power steering. Try it some time in a parking lot.
Eh, actually, it's the other way around -
He IS saying it the right way around, just going from the opposite direction. He is saying once you get to a walking pace FROM ZERO, then you no longer need the power steering. I also made that mistake on the first readthrough.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
You're also modifying the car/cabin itself to fit the linkages and physical requirements of the extra peddle and conventional gear-stick. Essentially the manual version is more like a modified custom car (much more so that the "sports" model, which probably sells in higher numbers anyway.)
And it will only get worse. Like I said, it is probably already cheaper and easier to fit a fake third pedal that to do all the redesign necessary for a real clutch and manual gearbox.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Tata already owns Jaguar, so i don't know that they can outsource it any further. Maybe to China?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
It's called daylight running lights.
Headlights are basically on all the time.
It's stupid.
Putting the hand brake up one click disables the feature.
Hollywood uses this trick all the time to ensure daytime scenes aren't littered with stupid out-of-place headlights.
Jaguars have two gas tanks. Just keep the second one empty, and switch to it if your cruise control won't disengage.
I thought driver issues were actually PEBSWAS : Problem Exists Between Steering Wheel And Seat.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
Agreed. That third pedal is moving rapidly from being a "cheaper alternative" to being a "premium, added-cost sports option". At least that seems to be the case in the United States anyway. YMMV, quite literally.
hand breaking a hill start on a rear wheel drive sounds more like eating a clutch for reason, than "common sense"
to each's own but you don't have to use a hand break to have no backwards movement on a hill start.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
I have to assume you have no real idea what benefits there are to a manual transmission ( or even what the real differences are ), or the whole idea of putting a fake pedal on the floor would *never* have occurred to you.
And cars have been designed to accommodate both an automatic and a manual since time out of mind, so, no there would be no modifications, and the car would not be a modified custom car.
emt 377 emt 4
I agree 100% with the conclusions you make, but could offer a couple of technical thoughts:
Even on most automatics, with the ignition shut off, the transmission is still driving the engine. Even though the engine isn't 'running' it's still pulling a vacuum, and driving accessories. So long as you do not put the car in neutral, your vacuum assist power brakes will still function normally. Same is true of the power steering.
Neither power steering nor power brakes should be necessary on most modern cars. As you mentioned, power steering has zero impact once the car is moving, and in fact, steering feel can be improved by disabling it (done on many race cars.) Power brakes are more useful, but it's possible to stop the car by pressing on the brake pedal with both feet, and doing so is much more effective than trying to over-power the engine, especially if you have a rear wheel drive car.
In the case of a rear wheel drive car, your strong brakes are up front, and the engine can easily overpower the weaker rear brakes. This is especially true since most modern RWD cars are either sports cars, or larger trucks. If you attempt to overpower the engine using the brakes, you can induce rear-wheel spin, especially at low speed, which will result in over-steer, and probable loss of control.
Not some models as they've gone to fully electric shifting (shift by wire). Means there's no physical connection between the auto-stick and the transmission anylonger so if the damn computer decides to kill you (Exterminate! Exterminate!) you're S.o.L
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
Seconded. If you have to use your emergency/parking brake to drive, you're doing it wrong. Even on the steepest of inclines, it's a rarity that I'd roll back more than 4 inches.
It is, but it isn't the rule here.
I have a 2000 Jetta, VR6 standard. I can start it just fine in gear, it will happily smash its front end into a wall.
My girlfriend has a 2003 Jetta, 2.0L I4 standard. It will not start without the clutch fully depressed to the floor.
My car is the only car I've ever seen do it, but I've seen plenty of 4x4's that do it, too.
I have to assume you have no real idea what benefits there are to a manual transmission
Chill dude, you'll give yourself an ulcer. I wasn't advocating anything. I was just explaining the economics of why manuals are more expensive for car companies to produce, in spite of being mechanically simpler, and thus why you're seeing less of them offered.
"And cars have been designed to accommodate both an automatic and a manual since"
Right, and the manual was the mass produced base model, while the automatic was the expensive luxury model. The auto was the "modified" version, hence more expensive, hence reserved for the luxury or executive version.
Now the automatic is the base model, and the luxury and sport models have dual-clutch semi-autos. So for the manual, they need to produce an entirely unique production line, with little product overlap, for an entirely different non-luxury model, for a shrinking market which can't be advertised to.
And as dual-clutch autos increasingly filter down to the base model in more and more brands, do you expect to see more manuals?
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Oh you Americans... surely the enjoyment is in revving the engine a bit!
Well, it's hard to drive an underpowered car when you've got a cheeseburger in one hand and a gun in the other, right?
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
I don't want driving to be "interesting". I want it to get me where I need to go.
Yep, double clutch transmissions can change gears faster and more smoothly than any human and the weight penalty is so inconsequential that they use them even in F1. The biggest barrier has been cost and complexity, as they move down the model range costs have been reduced and the reliability has been worked out to where it should never be an issue for the vast majority of owners.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Ooh, I have one of those! It's called "Neutral"!
"The auto was the "modified" version, hence more expensive, hence reserved for the luxury or executive version"
and
"So for the manual, they need to produce an entirely unique production line"
Not really, the car is designed to accommodate both, it is just a matter of what is fitted. The automatic is more expensive because there is more to it ( in general ). There is no different production line ( except for the transmission itself, of course ).
"And as dual-clutch autos increasingly filter down to the base model in more and more brands, do you expect to see more manuals?"
Manuals as in not dual-clutched autos? No, I don't expect to see more of them.
emt 377 emt 4
The goal of a journey is not always to arrive. There is something to be said about the joy of driving. Not everyone appreciates it, but there are many that do.
And a properly appointed vehicle. I think I've had exactly one that was set up to heel-toe easily.
I'm not sure it's even possible to create software that does *the same thing* as a discreet circuit
That would be quite easy. It's the opposite way that's often impossible. Problems that can be easily solved in software are often too complex to solve in hardware.
Software which *includes* (proper superset) the features of a discrete control solution is easy, sure. But software that does *the same thing* as a discrete control (mutually inclusive)? Not so much. Certainly if you're programming anything fancier than a fairly simple microcontroller, you're going to start doing a lot more things that weren't happening before.
Complexity breeds failure. Complex software doing complex things is going to be less reliable than simple solutions doing simple things. If you want a robust system, design many small parts doing simple things, and strive for high cohesion and low coupling. That way, when the system running the catalytic converter tuning fails, the cruise control is completely unaffected.
That does mean you don't get to have a single computer controlling every aspect of the car, though. Higher costs and less sexy.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
You heel/toe the brake and throttle, and the other foot on the clutch. Just takes coordination.
Well yes, you *can* do it that way, but the handbrake method gets the job done just as well and with a lower risk of error.
True. Outside of North America and prosperous parts of East Asia, automatics are not very common.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Think further back - the iconic E-Type, which "some say" is the most beautiful car of all time? Yep, 4 speed manual.
Christ... There is no enjoyment in waiting for an engine to wind up past 6000 rpm before it makes any power. Try driving something with the GM 3800 supercharged engine. It's a hell of a lot of fun, and gets 35mpg (for me anyway) doing 55 on the highway.
Not everyone wants to make a game out of driving. Driving can be fun, but usually it is a chore.
Automatic transmissions are sufficiently advanced now that the automatic version gets better gas mileage.
A few decades ago you may have had a point. But guess what - an automatic transmission is smarter and better than anything you as a meatbag can do. You may have more direct control over your transmission, but you're shit compared to a machine.
I will concede that automatic transmissions are--within the last 5 years or so--finally approaching the fuel economy manual transmissions have give drivers for decades. However, until my car can read my mind, I prefer to control when my car shifts. Without traction control or the like, you can prevent a car with a manual from slipping on ice by putting it in a higher gear, etc... Traction control has it's uses but in certain situations--muddy, rutted roads for example--it's also a good way to get stuck. The road I live on is crap. It's a sloppy mess every time it rains and it takes the plow several hours to get there after a snow storm. Having the extra control is nice.
It's the same mentality as people who are against anti lock brakes.
Anti-lock brakes are great on the highway or on a paved surface. Compare anti-lock to non-anti-lock on a gravel surface some time. On gravel, assuming it is not too loose, you can stop faster by intentionally locking the brakes.
Or people who hate fuel injectors and want carburetors.
I can replace the entire fuel system in any of my carbureted cars (including the fuel pump) for the price of the fuel pump alone on your fuel injected car. When you have to start diagnosing and replacing sensors on an EFI car using the guess and check method--the diagnostic computers don't work worth a shit. ever.--your repair bill can get out of control very quickly. I'll stick to the simple to troubleshoot and cheap to fix carbureted solution.
And don't tell me how bad my fuel milage is either. My '72 Volkswagen Type 3 automatic gets 35MPG and my full-sized '54 Plymouth with a 3spd manual gets 25.
Or people who demand to crank their engine manually.
[humor]With a crank a dead battery or starter will never leave you stranded.[/humor] Seriously though, sometimes a simple solution--while a little bit more work--is more reliable in the long run.
Any automatic transmission can disconnect the engine from the drive wheels by shifting into neutral or park (go to neutral so you keep power steering). There is no safety issue.
Wrong. Many newer cars use a drive-by-wire system to shift the transmission. I stopped to help a lady whose Prius got stranded a couple of months back. She was having some sort of electrical trouble and it took 20 minutes of fooling around turning the key on and off and pressing buttons to get the damn thing in neutral so we could push it off the road. The owner knew what buttons to press, but the computer refused to shift the transmission.
A manual transmission is by no means more reliable (indeed, it is subject to idiots manually wrecking shit up), and in many cases is not even cheaper any more.
Wrong. Manual transmissions do not need coolers in the radiator or coolant lines. Loss of coolant from a ruptured line or a damaged radiator can quickly kill any automatic transmission if it is not noticed right away. Automatics are a lot more complicated both electronically and mechanically and simply have more parts to fail. A manual transmission won't stop working because of a broken wire but a modern automatic (made in the last 25 years) will.
Performance and fuel economy benefits are slim at best, and are typically only there because manual transmissions are more finely tuned, and often have an extra gear vs the automatic counterpart, specifically in order to sell to gearheads
Or they have the extra gear because it is not as costly to install as it would be in an automatic and it results in better fuel economy.
"Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
I had not even thought about it. Thinking about it I do use the hand brake quite often. So yes some people with manual gearboxes do use it. Most of the world do not use automatic gearbox's
In reality automatics are for people who can't be bothered to get involved in the interesting part of 'driving'.
I drive 80 miles to work and 80 miles home. In traffic. Every day. The "interesting" part of driving would become extremely uninteresting about halfway to work the first morning I drove my "interesting" car.
The singular manual transmission car I've had in the US which behaved in the manner you describe (a mid-90's Chevy with DRL and automatic headlights) also had a real, honest-to-god headlight switch:
Turn it on, and the lights are on.
Key in, key out, any position, engine running, engine stopped, parking brake engaged or not. You want lights? Turn them on.
*shrug*
Kid-proof tablet..
"TFA was referring to a loss of some control, which is exactly what happens when you lose power steering/brake assis"
Again: Wrong. Brake assist continues as normal until you've used up the vacuum reservoir, which requires pumping the brakes repeatedly; you could stop your car SEVERAL times from highway speeds based off the vacuum reservoir alone (which, incidentally, is 'charged' from engine vacuum. Guess what happens when you turn off the ignition? You've got a closed throttle and a moving engine, which equals...ENGINE VACUUM.) If you have hydraulic assist (some older Audis and VWs), you have about THIRTY pushes of the brake pedal before you lose brake assist.
Power steering does virtually nothing at highway speeds.
Please help metamoderate.
Bah. I switched my BMW from an auto to a manual.
Everything was already there, including the metal clips on the body that hold the hydraulic clutch line in place.
One just replaces the transmission, driveshaft, and starter, and a few snap-together interior parts. One adds a clutch pedal (the factory pedal assembly already has a place for it, even on an auto) and some plumbing. One also performs a small amount of easy wiring changes to get the reverse lights to work, the engine into the "in-gear" mode, and to keep the car from starting without the clutch pedal depressed (and some of this can be done with software instead of wiring, from an manufacturing perspective).
Bleed the hydraulics, test the wiring, and done. (Bonus points are awarded for replacing the differential to keep a sane overall gear ratio, but the rest of the rear-end stays the same.)
Please note the lack of drilling, cutting, and irreversible modification in this process.
This is not the sort of change that requires "an entirely unique production line." The two chassis are identical, and the parts are interchangeable. One just takes the car apart, and puts it back together differently.
(The problem with generalizations is that they're generally often wrong.)
Kid-proof tablet..
Also, I lose power steering, which could make keeping control of the car much more difficult.
No, it won't. I meant it when I said that at highway speeds, your power steering is doing virtually nothing. Plus: you don't need to do much steering to stop your car.
You actually get MORE feel and control, because the power steering won't be hiding the steering feel. Most modern cars these days can be driven practically with your pinky finger.
Please help metamoderate.
I used to own a compact Ford 4x4 pickup with a manual transmission and unfortunately the towing capacity was very low. Automatics are just a lot more heavy duty than the manuals they put into mass market trucks. As I recall the gross combined weight rating for the manual trans was some half a ton below that of the automatic.
I know from experience that it's doable if you turn your right foot sideways. You can hold the car on the brakes while keeping the gas on so it won't stall and still have full control of the clutch with your left foot.
Still, using the handbrake is a lot easier. If it works...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Don't know where that is, but a hill start using the handbrake is part of the test in the UK. Except for Peterborough, allegedly.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
A manual gerbox and clutch is simpler than an automatic, and the idea of having an automatic then putting in fake gear levers and fake clutch pedals is simply ludicrous.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Oh how I wish I could buy a compact 4x4 pickup with a diesel engine and a manual transmission.
On this side of the pond, most trucks/pickups are manual diesels, although why anyone other than a farmer or builder would choose one to drive as an everyday vehicle is beyond me.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
I don't want driving to be "interesting". I want it to get me where I need to go.
If you are in control of a vehicle, you should be fucking interested in what is happening.
If you just want to get somewhere, get a train or a taxi.
Having an automatic transmission does not make problems caused by other driverss, weather conditions, road surface imperfections, cyclists, pedestrians, truck drivers, motorcyclists, traffic lights, road markings, speed limit or other road traffic signs or the state of your own tyres, brakes and suspension all magically go away.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Ford tried this kind of calculation with the Pinto, and look what it got them, legal/financial trouble even if one doesn't care about the ethics.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
... why are you using the handbrake for that?
Says someone who has obviously never driven a manual car.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
His beef is probably with the expression "regular automatics", and not with the reason why a manual shift cars are more expensive.
MMO Vampire Role Playing
Huh? I have been driving manual transmission cars in the USA for about 40 years and I have never once seen that "feature". In fact it appears that this would not even be legal, since you have to be able to turn on your headlights while parked.
And why do you need the emergency brake to start on a hill? Can't you coordinate your heel/toe and the clutch properly? I have driven quite successfully, many times, through one of the hilliest cities in the world - San Francisco - with absolutely no need for the emergency brake to hold me (and no, I didn't burn my clutch holding it that way). You heel/toe the brake and throttle, and the other foot on the clutch. Just takes coordination.
Brett
You haven't had to heel/toe in manual cars since they invented synchromesh, so most cars aren't really designed to do so.
In the UK, doing a hill start without using your handbrake would probably mean you failed your driving test, certainly if you rolled backwards at all.
And the reason it's a good idea to use your handbrake on a hill or when stopped for a while at traffic lights or whatever is because it's safer if there's an accident and someone hits you. If you get hit when you're holding a car on the clutch you're probably going to lose control.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Also, WTF is the point of cruise control? So you can go to sleep while you drive?
I've only ever driven manual cars in the UK, automatics are generally the choice of old ladies and obese businessmen.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
No, it doesn't, but it does make for one less problem I have to deal with.
When the train goes where I want to go and it fits my schedule, I generally do. Unfortunately, it generally doesn't meet those conditions.
The problems with taxis are that a) I have to wait 15-20 minutes for one to be dispatched and b) they're damned expensive. If weren't for those two facts, I'd probably take them everywhere. As it is, I drive.
Unless the surface is slipping, it makes no difference which wheels are driven (or which wheels the handbrake works on); they turn at the same rate.
You actually put less strain on the clutch because you're only pulling away from a static position rather than having to overcome backward momentum - which there will be, no matter how fast you can swap your feet around. Perhaps you just haven't noticed that you do it - a lot of drivers don't.
P.S. Brake, not break.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I've seen the ratings suggest such things. Not often, mind you, but a few times. Lock-up torque converters have made the auto as efficient at highway/motorway speed as manuals. Perhaps design has been evolved to lock up the TC between shifts now too (in the past, the TC lockup would only happen in high gear.), which would also contribute to the efficiency in town. Someone closer to the industry would have to speak to that idea, tho.
CVTs definitely appear to have an advantage, seeing as how it can keep the engine in it's torque band all through the acceleration process.
I am curious as to the weight difference between the options: CVT, Regular automatic, dual clutch, and regular manual. I haven't seen any data about that. My gut tells me that there's a weight advantage with the regular manual as it doesn't have near as much in the guts, but the others could be built lighter because the shifts would be predictable as they are controlled by hardware instead of direct user input. As with all things efficiency related: less weight means less work and less power required to do what is requested.
heel/toe is using one foot on both brake and throttle - you don't have the moment of swapping to allow for backwards momentum.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Lamborghini's offering robotized manuals, which are true manuals but the shift is performed automatically with the push of a button.
A stick-shift hybrid would be easy to make - off the top of my head, one idea would be to connect the electric motor directly to the driveshaft (this is how F1/ALMS KERS works) and with the use of an E-throttle, it would be possibly to have a hybrid with a traditional manual gearbox. It would require way more driver skill to operate than anything else you can buy off the showroom floor but it's theoretically possible.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
They have been doing lock-up in lower gears for a while. My old-ass Pontiac (97) locks up in third and fourth. I am assuming they have done more with that in the intervening years, but I don't know. Even though there is an inefficiency in the torque convertor, it does have the advantage that it also allows the engine to turn somewhat more independently of the wheels. I rented a Ford Ranger a while back, and was amazed at how narrow of a band it kept the engine turning in. I think where automatics have really gained in efficiency is via throttle by wire systems. The engine management can direct the gears, spark, throttle and fuel injection to act as efficiently as is being requested by the driver.
As for the weight advantage, I think manuals still have it, but with electronic controls, it isn't nearly as distinct as it used to be. I just looked up a Hyundai Elantra, and the difference between the 6 speed manual versus 6 speed auto is 40 to 57 pounds. (I have no idea why they list it as a range.) And the mileage estimates are identical.
I can't drive an automatic safely, because I can't compensate for the transmission doing stupid shit. My 2008 Chevy Cobalt spent 7 full seconds at 6250RPM climbing up a hill accelerating slowly, in 4th gear, before downshifting. It also tended to upshift immediately if you backed off the gas, then delay down shifting--which caused problems on the highway in heavy traffic if the next lane to the right was moving 10mph faster and you tried to merge (I floored it and couldn't gain speed).
I've come off the highway at 20mph floored it, and not matched speed with 40mph traffic at the end of a merge lane and so had to hard brake to stop. Didn't like that. Worse, in heavy expressway traffic merging was a pain because the car always went into the highest gear. Stuff would happen like I'd pick an opening that's considerably wide, signal, accelerate up to the rear of the next car ahead of me and then back off while the opening comes up; then I back off the gas so I don't rear end the dude ahead of me, merge over, and floor it to match speed with traffic. PROBLEM: When I back off, I'm in 4th (overdrive), and the car refuses to downshift. I can't accelerate, and the 3 car length opening quickly becomes some guy slamming on his brake to avoid rear-ending me.
I refuse to drive automatics. I bought a manual transmission and it took me an hour to get home 6 miles away... 10 minutes of which was figuring out how to turn the engine on. Taught myself to drive it. Read books, read web sites. I've tried the handbrake thing but it's terminally complicated and involves too much ridiculous crap--the handbrake is for parking and I haven't learned nor do I care to feather it, just like the clutch is very coarse grained and I can't use my left foot to control the brake (not enough fine control) and don't care to. I can even shift clutchless, but don't care to--bumping the synchros is no fun (works, but pointless), and even if you get it you have to go straight into gear or shifts in engine or road speed will have you grinding gears. I try to rev match it right when I'm shifting into a gear to reduce stress on the clutch and avoid disrupting the vehicle dynamic, but that's about it.
And now I do my daily commute to work on 24 gears all manual without a clutch.
Everybody hates it because I'm the only person that can drive a clutch. They figured I'd have burned it out or mangled it by now.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Weirdly, if you check EPA fuel economy estimates on some of the higher mileage small cars (Ford Focus & Fiesta?) the automatics come up with higher mileage, or are very close behind. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/best/bestworstNF.shtml
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
That's what heal-toe (gas&brake) is for... though it's been a long time since I had to do it. My '86 VW Jetta was the last time. My next car was a Subaru with their 'hill-holder' clutch (let it out a tiny bit and it engages something to keep the car from rolling backward).
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
So you're basically one of the morons who believes they're better than the machine and thus demand more control so they can feel special.
Traction control systems can typically be turned off if driving in mud or sand or whatnot.
Stopping fast on gravel by locking your brakes? What a joke. The difference would be so marginal that it would be covered by the extra effort it took you to stomp on your brakes. And why are you driving so fast on gravel in the first place? Because you live in bumfuck nowhere? Over 99% of the nation's roads are paved.
And your defense of carburetors is basically "I don't understand them thar electronical fuel jetson thingies and my mechanic don't neither."? Mileage? Who gives a fuck? Your 72 VW has shit performance, shitty emissions, and a shitty top speed of fucking 80 MPH. But hey, it can kind of keep up with a modern car in MPG!
The fact that someone's car was unable to switch to neutral does not mean that switching to neutral does not disengage the engine. Clearly there was a prior fault, as you've stated, that caused the issue in the first place.
You're basically arguing against superior shit because you understand old shit, and you're using stupid .001% of the time cases to try to justify it. Protip: You AREN'T special, you AREN'T a better / more demanding driver than 99.999% of people, and you're just clinging to shit you're familiar with because you're familiar with it. Might as well not have power steering or braking or inflated tires or headlights or the fucking care itself. Just ride a horse around. It gets like 20 miles per carrot.
Traction control systems can typically be turned off if driving in mud or sand or whatnot.
I have seen plenty of cars where it could not. 4x4s and sports cars usually allow for this. Cheaper cars sometimes do not.
Stopping fast on gravel by locking your brakes? What a joke. The difference would be so marginal that it would be covered by the extra effort it took you to stomp on your brakes.
Care to back that up with a fact or two? With anti-lock brakes you are supposed to stomp on the pedal as well.
And why are you driving so fast on gravel in the first place? Because you live in bumfuck nowhere?
How fast is "So fast?" 20MPH, 50MPH or 100MPH all require the use of brakes. A panic stop to avoid a wild animal crossing the road will lock or engage the anti-lock brakes at any of those speeds. As far as bumfuck nowhere, pretty much. None the less I still have better internet speeds than half of the US so it's not that far out there.
Over 99% of the nation's roads are paved.
Bullshit. It's 65%.
And your defense of carburetors is basically "I don't understand them thar electronical fuel jetson thingies and my mechanic don't neither.
My defense of carburetors was factual and valid. I can sum it up for you in a nice list if you would like:
I am my own mechanic. I understand EFI systems and have done a lot of successful troubleshooting on EFI systems. My experience was very negative. Sensors fail for no apparent reason and often cost hundreds of dollars in parts alone to replace. When an EFI car runs like crap it is often difficult to determine what sensor is faulty without the aid of a diagnostic computer. Sadly, unless you take it back to the dealer, the diagnostic computers give a guess. Almost always you start with the 02 sensor. If it still runs crappy you replace the TPS or whatever sensor the computer finds next. Rinse and repeat until you have found the culprit. That is if you are lucky. The most fun is when the computer says everything is A-OK and the car dies every time you stop at a stop sign. The issue is not a lack of understanding, but a lack of wanting to deal with all of the bullshit involved.
You're basically arguing against superior shit because you understand old shit, and you're using stupid .001% of the time cases to try to justify it.
I understand old and new "shit." As someone who works in IT, Prefer not to trust my life to a computer with little in regards to failsafes. I strongly disagree that "new shit" is superior. The emissions are better but that is the only way they are better for my use. I'm saving more in greenhouse gas emissions by driving the old cars and not melting them down repeatedly (how much greenhouse gas does that emit?) and replacing the steel with plastic made from non-recyclable, non-renewable resources.
Protip: You AREN'T special, you AREN'T a bett
"Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
I think it's the Pontiac Sunfire, and it's not the headlights but the daytime running lights. Been a while since I drove one, but I remember GM used to do odd things with the way their daytime running lights would work.
Perhaps it was fucked due to being driven by an idiot. Did you select 1 or 2 instead of D?
Really? Because if I had two controls that are foot operated, and a third where I had the choice of using an extra foot that I don't have or an arm that I do, I'd choose the latter.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."