[erydo]

As a devil's…inquisitor, I guess— I'm curious what the reasoning has been behind the Navy's (and WWII RAF's) preference for split/seniority control and in what situations that balances out, if any. Are those situations where some known, serious risk of error is mitigated by sharing responsibility? Is betting on experience over skill actually wrong, or is their implementation misguided? Or just not applicable to those situations? (Fast situational awareness, etc)

It seems similar to the whole democracy v. autocracy tradeoff. One optimizing for coverage of perspective, the other optimizing for efficiency of a perspective.

[Nition]

Article says:

> Commander Alfredo J. Sanchez, "noticed the Helmsman (the watchstander steering the ship) having difficulty maintaining course while also adjusting the throttles for speed control."

If that's true and not just an excuse for an unnecessary command, then maybe it's still difficult trying to do both at once.

[p23578]

Part of the reason might be the variety of warship designs and handling characteristics compared to civilian ships. I would think it'd make it easier for Officers to transfer between various ships.

I do think the Navy has difficulty delegating and tends to try and focus power on a few positions.

[blknmild]

I'm sure there's a good reason for the "tradition". Similar to a group of monastic monks following some bizarre ritual which could be done in a more efficient way. Someone from westpoint or the naval academy probably knows..

[lucaspiller]

I’d say it’s the same reason why manual transmission vehicles are still more popular than automatic transmission in some countries. Automatic transmission of modern cars is easier (you can give more attention to the road than having to think about changing gears), gives a smoother ride, is more fuel efficient and causes less wear and tear on the engine.

It’s a habit that the organisation is used to, so there is resistance to change.

(I was born in one of those countries, and drove manual transmission for my first 10 years of driving, but am now a convert)

[Supernaut]

I drive a manual transmission car every day and I'm bemused by your reference to "having to think about changing gears". For an experienced and competent driver, registering and acting upon the need to move up or down a gear usually requires no conscious thought whatsoever. The mechanical process itself literally takes a split second. By contrast, in my one experience with an automatic transmission, it proved to be a constant distraction from the business of steering the car and enjoying the drive. That was because it was never in what I considered the appropriate gear, refusing to change up in a proportionate manner as I accelerated, or to change down quickly enough on upward inclines. It was teeth-grindingly irritating. Admittedly, that was 10 or 11 years ago, and perhaps the state of the art has improved since then.

[Piskvorrr]

Certainly it has. Having converted to automatic transmission recently, shifting is one less thing to keep in the back of your mind (even if it was second nature to me, after many years of driving stick). With the kickdown button, you don't even have to worry about getting enough power in emergency situations ("have I downshifted low enough?").

Even so, the stick driving reflexes only get dulled temporarily - within five minutes of driving stick, you're back up to speed again (pardon the pun).

[lucaspiller]

I agree it's not something you really think about (I used to think automatic was for lazy people), but when you don't have to think about it, it's a load off your mind. This is exactly my point though - it's a habit that people are used to, and don't see why (or don't want to know why) changing it might be beneficial.

[NickNameNick]

Automatics are usually less efficient than manuals - the Hydraulic torque converter has to slip to function.

That said, the automatic might beat a manual in other metrics.

[blattimwind]

A modern dual-clutch automatic* switches gears so swiftly and seamlessly that there is no feeling of clutching going on at all, if not for the motor tune or the RPM indicator you wouldn't know it's changing gears. If you disregard either it almost feels as-if the car is going from 0 to 180 in one gear.

* i.e. it doesn't have a torque converter, since it basically has two separate gear sets with two separate clutches. To switch gears it seamlessly moves between gear sets via the clutches. There is no interruption in power.

[gambiting]

Torque converts are the niche choice nowadays, a lot of modern cars have dual-clutch transmissions which are always more efficient than manuals. They use less fuel, shift quicker and commonly have more gears for less strain and better efficiency(almost all new MB cars ship with 9-gear dual clutch tranmissions nowadays for example).

But yes, after owning manuals for years I would never go back, an automatic allows you to be so much more focused on the road and enjoy it more - I love driving and have a sports car, would never ever swap the transmission in that back for a manual.

[no_flags]

I had the reverse experience of you, that is, I always drove automatics and then learned to drive manual later on. I actually felt I was more focused on the road in the manual because I needed to plan ahead for gear shifts. In an automatic everything is taken care of so it's easier for the mind to wander. I thought I was a better driver in the manual. I guess if I drove a manual for years it would probably go on mental autopilot more.

At the end of the day I think manuals are great fun but automatics are more practical. An automatic will never stall out in a safety critical moment, as I always worried I would do in the manual. I've also pondered that if I was ever to sustain a serious injury to an arm or leg, I would probably be able to drive an automatic in an emergency. Driving stick with a broken arm would be substantially more difficult. The fuel economy advantages enjoyed by manuals seem to have dissipated at this point as well.

[hvidgaard]

Modern automatics are almost always more efficient. The biggest is that the torque converter has a lockup clutch during crusing, and often more gears and a near perfect knowledge of when to shift gear.

[pbhjpbhj]

Do they break more often too? Like TCO is higher?

Automatics in UK certainly cost more, if one doesn't ride the clutch I imagine the manual will have lower maintenance costs?

[freeone3000]

Manual has lower maintenance costs regardless. A clutch plate is about $500, an automatic transmission is between $1500 and $4000. Manual doesn't require its fluid to be changed.

[thomasz]

Cars with automatic transmissions cost more.

[namdnay]

They cost more to buy, they cost more to maintain, and the more pleasant they are to use, the less reliable (e.g. VW DSG vs Toyota HSD)