SA Firefighter

Equipment => All Equipment discussion => Topic started by: COBB on October 30, 2008, 12:19:48 PM

Title: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: COBB on October 30, 2008, 12:19:48 PM
I understand that some of the new trucks are coming with Auto transmissions. (this is in addition to the ones the CFS already have)

What are peoples opinions or preferences on Auto vs Manual?
Are there advantages or disadvantages with either?
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Zippy on October 30, 2008, 12:49:15 PM
Preference: Auto
Advantage: one less thing to think about
Disadvantage: less control of the vehicles engine/manoverability.
Fix: Be a good driver.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Cameron Yelland on October 30, 2008, 04:18:25 PM
Fair enough...those that drive auto cars have an excuse but those who drive manual cars.....wtf?

how can you say you cant concentrate on gear changes as well as driving on the fire ground?  i mean the streets of adelaide are probably worse than any fireground.

Are we becoming that lazy that our brains cant function on 2 things at once?


As to any advantages/disadvantages........i believe an auto costs an extra $60,000 on a truck (i could be wrong as this was a 2nd hand figure), which could be spent elsewhere.  So to me any advantage is outweighed by this fact alone!
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: KDOO_BTO on October 30, 2008, 04:48:05 PM
If you can't drive a manual you should have a filtered licence.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Darren on October 30, 2008, 08:34:22 PM
Its an extra 30 grand, I would say yes for the pumpers, but no for offroad vehicles. Also remember, most people that drive CFS truck only drive on CFS calls or training, so they might be rusty, plus when your driving in an urban area like where I am, not having to change gears makes life easier, stop starting at lights, roundabouts etc etc.

Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Alan (Big Al) on October 30, 2008, 09:05:57 PM
If we had a new 34 and 34P i would have manual on 34 and auto on 34P as our urban truck only uses 4wd maybe 6-10 times a year.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Pixie on October 30, 2008, 10:08:17 PM
talking from my experience with 4x4 cars, (im not a truck drive, yet, and thus only have limited experience driving a manual 24).

autos are much much much better in off road situations for numerous reasons, no clutch to worry about. be that slipping when under extreme pressure, slipping whilst wet from a water crossing, or when trying to negotiate extremely steep variable terrain (rock crawling) you don't have to worry about trying to slip the clutch to gain traction, without spinning the wheels.

no issues with hill starts. or extended hill climbs.

i agree that if someone cant drive a manual they shouldn't be driving a fire truck, but, i am also of the opinion that if there is an easier option available, take it!

as i said i only have experience with driving cars, but from my experience , in pretty much all circumstances, autos win. ie. city driving, auto wins because less attention to gearbox. (i know it shouldn't take much). in 4x4ing, auto wins hands down. no slipping clutch, ever!

although, i would love to see all our off road firetrucks & 14/qrv's fitted with auto boxes, and selectable diff locks front and rear.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Mike on October 30, 2008, 10:31:59 PM
I disagree Pixie.

Autos run on down hills, are unable to do stall recovery, will 'hunt for gears and do other innappropriate gear changes. After all one of the fundamental rules is to select the appropriate gear before tackling any obsticles

Manuals in 4x4 situations are much better.

Whilst I would like to say manual for urban built in environments as well, I cant disagree with the benifits of auto for this application.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: bittenyakka on October 30, 2008, 10:36:24 PM
gee I to haven;t driven the large trucks but

In any 4x4ing i have much preferred to drive a manual, if only for better engine breaking. And i also have no issues with putting a bit of slip on the clutch it works.

I will admit however i haven't had much experience with auto gearboxes of any type and those i have i hadn't liked.

And i agree with Mike since he posed while i was typing.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: 6739264 on October 31, 2008, 12:59:09 AM
I'd be happy with Auto in Urban applications and Manual for rural. You need the versatility of the manual when it comes to off road use. As much as we shouldn't be taking our fire appliances TOO far into 4wding territory, it is still good to have the enhanced ability there if an emergency requires it.

Although as Mike has said autos have their issues that do appear in even 'Urban' driving. Boxes that kick down when you're trying to sit on the limiter up a hill and boxes that kick up when you're trying to hold it back down a hill can cause problems, especially in some of the hilly areas. (oddly enough)

I think that regardless of the transmission the CFS should look at a little more driver training so people can control the truck with either box.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Shiner on October 31, 2008, 05:13:42 AM
One observation I have had on many occasions is that those driving a manual diesel truck have no idea how to use the torque of a diesel and insist on running the engine well into the buzzer before changing gear.

You can make quicker progress by not trying to 'rev the nuts' off a diesel, save that for the petrol engines.....

For that reason, as stated in some posts above, auto makes a bit more sense where many drivers are 'occasional' and/or inexperienced.  Or, better education!

This is a bit like a Ford/Holden debate, there will never be a winner as both have their plus points and minus points, however, why let that get in the way of a healthy heated debate!! :roll:

For reference, I'm a manual man through and through, however do enjoy driving the Hooker (R3 Hook Truck) which is auto but this is a truck that should not be doing any extreme off roading!
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Darius on October 31, 2008, 08:01:36 AM
All the negative comments here about autos are obviously from people used to auto cars and 4WDs, the autos in these new appliances is totally different and you try one, or speak to a brigade with one, before getting too excited about it.  That's the purpose of this trial after all.

From what I've heard from Echunga who have one, they were mostly dead against it at the start for all the same 'reasons' mentioned here but now they think it's the best thing since sliced bread.

(PS. my opinion is for my own 4WD it has to be manual but the trucks and command cars are a bit different and I think auto is the way to go for them)
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: JC on October 31, 2008, 09:35:46 AM
I think auto has huge advantages in a urban area, ease off use, your concentration is 100% on the road, 2 hands on the wheel etc etc, not having driven a offroad truck with auto i cant comment to its good / bad points, so ill leave the criticism to those that have!
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: jaff on October 31, 2008, 10:03:20 AM
I think auto has huge advantages in a urban area, ease off use, your concentration is 100% on the road, 2 hands on the wheel etc etc, not having driven a offroad truck with auto i cant comment to its good / bad points, so ill leave the criticism to those that have!



JC thats not in the spirit of this site, you should know that!
Have a opinion, a strong one at that, get all ansy, it doesnt matter that you have no experience in what your posting about, helll its never stopped anyone else! :-D
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Pixie on October 31, 2008, 11:14:13 AM
I disagree Pixie.

Autos run on down hills, are unable to do stall recovery, will 'hunt for gears and do other innappropriate gear changes. After all one of the fundamental rules is to select the appropriate gear before tackling any obsticles

Manuals in 4x4 situations are much better.

Whilst I would like to say manual for urban built in environments as well, I cant disagree with the benifits of auto for this application.

yes, autos will run away down hill, if your not driving them correctly. unable to do a stall recovery? wouldn't you > handbrake, restart engine, shift into drive. release hand brake, idle away... must be pretty f$#@ing steep to be stalling an auto?!? that is how i do it in our auto GU Patrol anyway?(I still prefer to wheel in my zook sierra manual with reduction gears though...)

EDIT: Stupid laptop made sentences not make sense.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Mike on October 31, 2008, 11:45:23 AM
Stall recovery is not about the engine stalling due to the load induced by the hill its-self. Its about getting yourself secured in position and preparing from there.

You still have to give an auto some revs to get it moving (while risks breaking traction) or it will roll back
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Hazmat206 on October 31, 2008, 12:31:19 PM
Autos are believed to have more torque and better top end speed.
But in the case of off road trucks, manual would be better for down gearing.
Manuals for off road trucks, auto for trucks less likely to go off road. Just like the MFS.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: chook on October 31, 2008, 12:58:09 PM
Truck auto's as was said previously are not like car auto's - try preselect which is what they are (which means the are supposed to be the best of both worlds). They are not a new idea the Allison automatics have been around for about 30 - 40 years atleast.
No they will not give you more top end, yes they will make "weird" gear changes in full auto mode & they will run away if not driven correctly.
They are heavier, cost more and a mechanical nightmare if broken. They can't "clutch start" nor can they be towed without disconnecting the drive shafts (mind you most manual trucks can't either due to oil pumps in gear boxes).
It's worth doing the experiment, however previous experiments by another organisation who uses 4x4 & 6x6 trucks off road steered clear of them for the above mentioned reasons. It's really horses for courses, but personally I prefer manuals, because when driven properly they can do more off road than the equivilant auto.
cheers
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Alan J on October 31, 2008, 01:21:33 PM

What Chook said.
With caveat that most brigade drivers I know around Adelaide are not regular
truck drivers. Some are very good, but most of us just can't spend enough
time behind the wheel. An auto for most of our driving would make life simpler.
After all, if MFS, whose drivers spend a LOT of time behind the wheel, feel it is
enough of a safety issue to insist on autos, why not CFS -apart from $$$...

An auto can be driven like a manual, which offers a bit of the best of both worlds.
Don't want it to shift up into 4th ? Lock it into 3rd. Or 2nd. Or 1st. Whatever.
Once towed almost 2 tonnes of unbraked trailer behind an auto Cortina over 3 mountain
ranges in Tassie doing this. [terror!!]

Isn't there some sort of torque lock available of these bigger autos?
Notice that buses shift down a gear if the driver wants engine braking.

Would like to try one of these auto trucks. Wonder if Echunga or Willunga(?) are
willing to share.

cheers
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Zippy on October 31, 2008, 01:38:10 PM
Go for a ride on a bus from Crafers To Glen osmond, Probably the best example of automatic transmissions and engine retarding.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: bittenyakka on October 31, 2008, 03:54:48 PM
Do these autos actually lock into the gear? I know my mum's car if you put it into 3rd and then stop it will change down the first and not go back to 3rd? but it won;t change above  3rd.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: RescueHazmat on October 31, 2008, 04:05:16 PM
Like what has been mentioned by most.. Auto's for Urban applliances (dedicated pumpers etc), manual for Rural appliances..
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Pixie on October 31, 2008, 09:18:21 PM
yes, it is possible to manually lock up the torque converter on some autos, not too sure about the truck ones though.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Darren on November 01, 2008, 11:34:57 AM
Not trying to go to far off topic, but are brigades finding less and less people coming in with truck licenses. With the cost of a log book MR these says its becoming less attractive to do it just for CFS. Is it perhaps time CFS employed its own instructor to get people through licenses. Either that or do what I believe the CFA do and have a fire brigade only license ?

Just a thought.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: SA Firey on November 01, 2008, 07:09:01 PM
One problem, you cant PUSH START an AUTO when your battery goes flat boys :-D

Stick with the manual 4WD appliances for offroad :wink:
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: calspec on November 01, 2008, 08:31:17 PM
It's a 15 tonne truck - good luck with the push start!!! :-o

Seriously tho', it's been done before and with all that electrical gear, it will happen again.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Zippy on November 02, 2008, 12:17:23 AM
might be time to invest in portable battery/engine starter packs, just like we carry Snatch'in straps.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: rescue5271 on November 02, 2008, 07:15:42 AM
I have driven the new CFA tankers(auto and manual) and i like both but the auto has a bigger turning circle and did not do that well in the sand,I will agree a auto is good for those who don't drive that much but would also be good for those brigade's that have to deal with heavy traffic and traffic lights.

From feed back that I have read on the new CFA fleet its about 50/50 on auto v manual,one would hope that once CFS have some of these auto 34p up and running that we all get to hear or read feed back from the brigade's that are getting them.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Zippy on November 02, 2008, 09:33:50 AM
It's a 15 tonne truck - good luck with the push start!!! :-o

Seriously tho', it's been done before and with all that electrical gear, it will happen again.
It's a 15 tonne truck - good luck with the push start!!! :-o

Seriously tho', it's been done before and with all that electrical gear, it will happen again.

sigh,...the number of push starts *out of the station* ive seen, painful to see,  "OK WHO LEFT THE ISOLATOR OFF! THIS TIME"
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Fox Mulder on November 02, 2008, 03:41:39 PM
I believe Naracoorte is getting an auto 34P as its replacement truck. and all of the officers voted hands down for an auto.
Can any one confirm this. Bill??
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: rescue5271 on November 02, 2008, 04:15:37 PM
Fox I am not a member of that brigade but I can confirm that they are getting a auto and from what was said to me they all voted for it.... It will come with the bucket seat's and will be back up for the pumper...It will be a matter of drivers getting used to it and change of how you drive it across a paddock.I know some groups are saying that the 34p will not go on strike teams if that is the case then it will put pressure on rural brigade's who cant get a crew but on the other hand it may mean that Naracoorte  will get their third pump.....
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Fox Mulder on November 03, 2008, 06:29:10 AM
third pump???
are they keeping the other truck
are they going to have 4 trucks
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: boredmatrix on November 03, 2008, 02:38:05 PM
isn't having auto's about keeping up with Gen Y's  who can't even spell MANUAL TRANSMISSION let alone use one??

Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: bittenyakka on November 03, 2008, 02:55:58 PM
We aren't all like that. 8-)
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: jaff on November 03, 2008, 03:44:34 PM
isn't having auto's about keeping up with Gen Y's  who can't even spell MANUAL TRANSMISSION let alone use one??





Cmon Boredy its not MANUAL TRANSMISSION, as youv'e obviously been spending too much time watching incorrect television programs, perhaps you need to swing over to the real world and be edumacated coz its STICK SHIFT now dog, let ya homeys know fool! :mrgreen:
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: RescueHazmat on November 03, 2008, 05:53:05 PM
It's a 15 tonne truck - good luck with the push start!!! :-o



Seen it done.. ;)
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: rescue5271 on November 03, 2008, 06:03:32 PM
Just call RAA......
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: boredmatrix on November 03, 2008, 06:14:50 PM
isn't having auto's about keeping up with Gen Y's  who can't even spell MANUAL TRANSMISSION let alone use one??





Cmon Boredy its not MANUAL TRANSMISSION, as youv'e obviously been spending too much time watching incorrect television programs, perhaps you need to swing over to the real world and be edumacated coz its STICK SHIFT now dog, let ya homeys know fool! :mrgreen:

apologies..I was trying to be politically correct and not call it a TRANNY..... :mrgreen:
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: SA Firey on November 03, 2008, 09:20:51 PM
It's a 15 tonne truck - good luck with the push start!!! :-o

Seriously tho', it's been done before and with all that electrical gear, it will happen again.
It's a 15 tonne truck - good luck with the push start!!! :-o

Seriously tho', it's been done before and with all that electrical gear, it will happen again.

sigh,...the number of push starts *out of the station* ive seen, painful to see,  "OK WHO LEFT THE ISOLATOR OFF! THIS TIME"

Oh the days at Hahndorf when the town siren went off for a call, tourists would line the street out front waiting for us to go, and we would all rollup and jump in the old 24 and wrrrr :-o

At least there were plenty of helpers to PUSH us :lol:
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Mike on November 04, 2008, 06:36:31 AM
Not so ammusing however when you have a flat battery and an air leak :(

I do miss that truck though... was brilliant when it was working properly...
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Darren on November 04, 2008, 04:37:31 PM
Ah yes Mike, wasn't that fun, I only got the pleasure for a short time, think that truck cost a lot of money in its last year.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: Mike on November 05, 2008, 09:26:29 AM
Ah yes Mike, wasn't that fun, I only got the pleasure for a short time, think that truck cost a lot of money in its last year.

A lot might be an understatement.

Interesting to see a discussion paper has been opened about brigade requirements for vehicles.... Opens a lot of the issues we have discussed previously.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: OMGWTF on November 05, 2008, 01:25:14 PM
Have push started our trucks out the doors many a time, due to some electrical probs we had. I  think the best effort by our crew thiough which included myself, was when we parked the truck nosed up to a stobie, had left it running, turned her off for about 1 minute with only radio running... went to turn her back on and wrrrrrrr.... Crew of four had to push start her backwards [three if you consider the driver was in the seat], was interesting....


But back on subject, i drove a brand new auto isuzu the other day, this thing was auto with a tiptronic shifter on it. I presume this is what CFS are getting? Which would make them just passable for 4wd-ing... This thing went like a shower of scheiße.
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: jaff on November 05, 2008, 01:35:29 PM
There is I hear some INDEPENDENT testing being done as to their suitability in severely adverse conditions, checking engine braking, gear runaway and the like!
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: COBB on November 05, 2008, 02:00:44 PM
Jaff,You have good ears. :-)
Title: Re: Auto vs Manual Transmissions
Post by: jaff on November 05, 2008, 05:18:23 PM
Jaff,You have good ears. :-)

 :wink: