Talk:Semi-automatic transmission

Semi-Automatic is a misnomer

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)

I think you are right CarbonPepper, I'd be more inclined to refer to a "semi-automatic" transmission as an automated manual transmission, as that's more inline with what it actually is... a standard manual transmission, with automated clutch and gear shift control. Even though these automated transmission types can operate in a "semi-automatic/manual" mode, that doesn't make them an "automatic," as automatic transmissions use torque converters, and manual transmissions use clutches. Automated manual transmissions uses a computerized electrohydraulic clutch, while the newer variant (the "Dual-clutch") uses two automated clutches, each operated by Electrohydraulics. These transmissions can operate in a fully "automatic" mode, but that technically doesn't make this an automatic transmission. (Davism0703 (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC))

Beware that you are responding to a question from 20 months ago. The user has never added to his home page and has probably gone away.  Stepho  talk  11:39, 23 February 2020 (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)

@ CarbonPepper I do agree that "semi-automatic" is a relatively poor idiom choice. Since the manual transmission and clutch are automated, would you refer to that transmission type as an "Automatic" still, or would you call it an "Automated manual" transmission? I'd probably be more inclined to refer to it as the latter one. Davism0703 (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi I maintain that Semi automatic is a misnomer and is misleading. It's a colloquialism with different interpretations in different communities. It should be dropped as article title, and put instead as a paragraph added explaining the term and its variable interpretations, citing references, of which there will be few except this page and the journos who have picked up on it since its circulation. checked a dozen of the 56 linked citations and not one had a use of the word "semi". This article would be better titled "Automatic Clutch".

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)

Automated manual

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)

Agreed, these were poor changes. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:04, 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)

You have assumed clutch = manual and torque converter = automatic.

A manual gearbox is a gearbox that requires the driver to select the gears. A fully automatic gearbox does everything for you. A semi-automatic gearbox requires the driver to select the gears but the gearbox takes care of the other operations (eg, the clutch). The sequential gearbox is a form of semi-automatic gearbox where the driver only selects up or down and lets the gearbox take care of the rest. The actual mechanism used to achieve this is irrelevant.

Also remember to sign your comments by placing 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.  Stepho  talk  03:14, 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

Nope. A semi-automatic gearbox could be made from a manual gearbox with an electromechanical driven clutch. It could also be made from a torque converter plus epicyclic gearbox (the major components of automatic gearboxes) but using driver selected push buttons to select the gear (see Chrysler TorqueFlite for an example. One form has a clutch, one form has a torque converter but both are semi-autmatic gearboxes.

To repeat my earlier post, "manual" means full manual (driver does everything), automatic means the gearbox does everything and semi-automatic means the driver does some stuff and the gearbox does the other stuff. The actual mechanism (clutch vs torque converter, sliding rail vs epicyclic gears)is irrelevant.  Stepho  talk  11:37, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Terminology is complex here. There is no simple ontological structure to the names used. Yes, we can decide that "manual refers to the selection of a gear" and "semi-automated automates the process of changing gear, not the selection", but the real world just isn't following such straightforward rules so clearly. Also WP:OR comes into play.

So all we can (and should) do here is to follow the sources. We use the names that are WP:Verifiable from credible independent sourcing (even if that name contradicts some meaning we've assigned to it, for the behaviour of that device) and then we explain the particular behaviour of particular transmissions.

What we don't do is start renaming things to make them "consistent" or "correct". That's not our call. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:39, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I thik that "semi-automatic" is just a colloquialism or alternatively a wider spectrum or type. Most of the gearboxes listed on this page are in fact automated manual gearboxes or "electrohydraulic manual transmissions" with gears and clutch operated by hydraulic pomp and fluid. There should be 3 categories: Manual incl. Sequential, Non-synchronous and Preselector. Automatic incl. Hydraulic, Manumatic and Continuously variable. And finally a Semi-automatic type consisting of: Electrohydraulic and Dual-clutch. YBSOne (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Also automated manual is not an oxymoron. It is a manual gearbox that's functions are automated, but the build is of a manual gearbox. Same with manumatic or "manualised" automatic transmission. YBSOne (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• That's exactly what we shouldn't do. We can't start renaming stuff because their makers have "got it wrong". Not our job. Outside our no-OR scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Agree. If any terminology is confusing or inconsistent or contradictory, or "wrong", all we can do is tell the reader that, and try to explain why. What we think doesn't matter. I have this whole essay, Wikipedia is not here to settle bar bets where I indulge myself expounding on this point. Or just read the WP:NOR policy.

  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)

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but whether you do or don't consider it an oxymoron is of no use in writing a Wikipedia article. We only care about what sources say it is. Instead of this kind of debate among editors, trying to win others over with your reasoned derivations of facts and your knowledge, cite something. Until one of you cites a source this is a huge waste of time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Davism0703 Pleae read WP:OR, WP:RS and try to get some WP:CONSENSUS for these changes [1] [2] on this talk: page, otherwise you'll be reverted yet again and you'll just be blocked. You're a new editor, so there's some patience left, but changes like this just aren't going to happen. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley There you go Andrew, external source cited and reference fixed. Hope this is acceptable and you find this adequate. :)

Davism0703 (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Well you've sourced it, which is a start. But the lead still contains (I presume these are recent additions which haven't been reverted yet) repeated pitches for "automated manual is the entire focus of this article". Even if we need to say this, we don't need to say it three times in the lead. Also it presents Maruti in the lead as if the whole article was to be about Maruti (There's a section about Maruti further down).

Yes, adding sourcing to a section is a good thing. But should that section even be there? I'm wondering if we don't need a rollback to a month back or so? diff Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Or else a whole article at automated manual transmission? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley Yes, I was thinking possibly a separate (new) article just focused on Automated manual transmission, but still keep the original Semi-automatic transmission article, but possibly just transfer the existing information to a new article? It would be probably be overall less confusing if we did it that way... Sounds like a plan to me. What do you think Andy? Davism0703 (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• Andy Dingley Do you think you could help formulate a separate new article? I'm down to help out if you need it. ;) Davism0703 (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the term "automated manual" is only used in the context of an electrically actuated clutch on what would otherwise be a manual transmission. In other words, a semi-automatic transmission. Does it really need another article? I'm quite happy if we have a section(s) on different forms of the mechanism within this article. Or we can use Electrohydraulic manual transmission.  Stepho  talk  22:45, 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)

Maserati uses a term "Robotised manual transmission", they do not call their Cambiocorsa an automatic. Ferrari uses the term "the electro-hydraulic system controlled the manual gearbox using sophisticated software". Division between Automatic and Manual is not by function but by build. Valeo hydraulic clutch is not an automatic transmission as the gears are operated by a lever, manually by a driver. My proposition is to leave the semi-automatic as a broader category that includes: Electrohydraulic manual transmissions, Dual-clutch transmissions and things like automated-clutch manual transmissions. YBSOne (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan YBSOne, Would you possibly like to go ahead and edit the "Semi-automatic" transmission article with 3 or 4 more new section, and include those different transmissions mentioned? I did add some new cited sources as well in the introduction paragraph as well, so you could just use those, along with the source you found at Maserati and Ferrari. I think this sounds like a go... Would you like to start making the preparations? Davism0703 (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Slow down! Somebody makes a suggestion and then you take off at full speed before others say anything. You have also added more to the article peppered with "automated manual" - which is the very topic we are discussing. Discuss first, come to a consensus and then edit the article. Otherwise you get angry reverts.

I'm happy for sections to be created on this page for the various forms of activating the clutch. Just let a few others chime in before doing so.

Ybsone, I see all those forms that you mentioned as being gearboxes that automate part of their function - making them all semi-automated gearboxes in spite of the marketing terms given to them by their respective companies. I'm happy to have a section called something like "automated clutch operation" and then have sub-sections for each variation.  Stepho  talk  22:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• "Slow down!"

Absolutely. This is chaos at present. We probably need to go with that revert of a month ago, and if Davism can't stop ignoring any discussion and ploughing ahead anyway (and in the wrong direction) then they need to be blocked from these pages until they realise, under WP:CIR. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:22, 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)

" so just cut me some slack please guys!"

Then stop changing the article content as fast as you can and wait until there's some discussion of this, and an agreement as to what we ought to do, not just piling ahead and making as many changes as possible. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:39, 26 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)

Davism0703, us long-term editors have invested quite a bit of time in making WP factual and consistent. Which is why we're grumpy when somebody new comes along, obviously doesn't know the ins and outs of WP and sprays a heap of articles with some new fangled marketing term fad. To us it feels like controlling one of those yapping dogs that runs after every butterfly it sees. We then have to spend a lot of time cleaning up, often for the interloper to leave and never be seen again.

Which is why we're asking you to slow down and show us your info before spraying the articles. The info may be good but we'd first like to judge it for marketing fad terms vs well known industry terms vs keeping modern vs being living fossils.

Beware that although I have agreed that automated clutches have a place here in new sections, I am still not thrilled about the term "automated manual transmission". I am also in favour of description by function, not build type - ie I believe that the presence of a clutch (automated or not) does not make it a manual.

WP favours stability. When there is conflict between conservative stability and change, then WP says conservative wins. This tends to stop short term fads and flip-flopping between 2 equally valid variations. See WP:RETAIN for an example. This boils down to the fresh interlopers needing to convince the grumpy old men via the talk page - and both sides chilling out if need be.

Also, please look at how we indent every reply by adding one more : before each paragraph.  Stepho  talk  22:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I understand. I'm sure you do work hard, and I'm not trying to disrupt that. It's alright if we have differing opinions, that's what makes the world go round, but trust me, I am not here to argue or cause issues, and I'm sorry if I offended you, I just would like to help you guys with editing the article, but of course see what you guys think first. I did think that the points that YBSOne brought up were very valuable, and relevant points, and yes I do semi-agree with you that it should be by function, but I also agree with YBSOne that it should be by build type as well, so sort of half and half, and I'm also thinking back to the point that YBSOne brought up about the "Valeo" transmission, basically a stick-shift with an automated clutch, but it didn't have a physical clutch, rather an electromechanical, hydraulic clutch, and it didn't even a fully automatic mode! Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it was similar to the Volkswagen "Autostick" transmission, with an automated clutch, but it kept the conventional H-pattern gated gearshift, knock on wood. I guess it's your decision, but we can work something out. My apologies if we got of on the wrong foot. As I said previously, I'm not here to cause any harm, simply I'm just here to help you guys, so we can work something out, and finalize it. If you guys' opinions differ, then that's fine, we can sort something out. Davism0703 (talk) 23:15, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Andy Dingley Stepho-wrs Ybsone Dennis Bratland Do you guys think possibly a revert to one month ago would by necessary, but keep the added sources I cited for the different names, and also add that new bit about the automated manual clutch actuation? There's already dual-clutch and electrohydraulic manual, but we'd still need to create a new section or page, with automated-clutch manual, explaining what an "automated (clutch) manual" is, what vehicles it has been used in, and how and what is used to actuate or engage this automated clutch... Thoughts guys?? Some communication please... Davism0703 (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think a bulk reversion is quite possibly easiest because there have been so many rushed changes lately that I've lost all track of what's in this article, what might be sourced and what isn't. I can't look at a name in it (as at present version) and have any faith that that name is correct, or that it's simply been pasted over in the last week. This sort of bulk change makes the situation that bad, that's why experienced editors are always so against working that way.

That said, a bulk reversion isn't that bad a thing: changes since aren't 'lost', they're still in the edit history, so they can be re-added fairly easily. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't sound too bad actually, since like you said, the changes/edits aren't completely lost, they'll be saved in the edit history. I'm down then for a revert to just over a month ago, but of courses keep some those newer cited sources (especially in the title section), as they're relevant, and provide some neat information. I was pondering about still adding a section to this article describing the automated clutch actuation like Stepho-wrs said? Take a look at the Dual-clutch transmission article, and see how that's laid out. We could possibly do a similar style thing with this article? I especially like the "Overview" section for the DCT, which includes "Clutch types" and "Clutch installation," but possibly with out page, we could add a bit more hard facts and information, explaining about the operation and of the clutch in a single-clutch automated transmission, the actuation of the clutch (vacuum, hydraulic, electromechanical, etc), and what types of vehicles it's been used in. Even if you'd like to stick with "Semi-automatic," I still you should keep the mention in the article of "Automated manual," as it is still a popular marketing term used, and I've listed some newer sources citing that. I don't know, I think your idea sounds neat man, sorry if we got off on the wrong foot Andrew, hoping we can start over, and thanks for giving me a chance dude, I just wanna help out. :) Davism0703 (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

A bulk version redo with the new section about the automated-clutch, how it works in automated (manual) transmissions, and the operation of the clutch, whether it's hydraulic, pneumatic, or electromechanically actuated. That definitely looks to be the best idea and probably the most necessary. Davism0703 (talk) 01:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's some reference guys on the whole semi-automatic/automated manual thing, some insight provided by car and driver here: A History of Porsche's Sportomatic, Tiptronic, and PDK transmissions. A lot of companies are actually starting to use the term "automated manual" or "electrohydraulic" manual for their modern vehicles, rather than the slightly dated "semi-automatic," I think that, while the term might have been in popular use at one point in time, it's slowly falling out of use it seems. Here's a few more links: Automatic transmission, [3] Thanks, Davism0703 (talk) 08:03, 4 March 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)

• Who cares? The article's gone now. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 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)

1940s transmissions that are... errr... "sort of" automatic

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:

• Hudson Drive-Master, Lincoln Liquimatic: driver input required to use 1st gear, but can be driven as an automatic in 2nd and 3rd.
• Chrysler Vacamatic: Similar to the above, but it uses a 2-speed transmission that can't actually change gears itself. "Automatic" driving is by putting the transmission in top gear, releasing the clutch, and then using the fluid coupling and automatic underdrive unit to drive around (slowly!) without manual clutch or gear shift usage.

Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Stepho-wrs, Ybsone, Dennis Bratland, CarbonPepper and Davism0703. I don't mean to hassle if you're not interested, but just thought I'd ping you about this discussion, in case you missed the notification due to the ArchiveBot's edit soon after mine. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not here to settle bar bets. The terminology is ambiguous and not universally defined. Not all experts agrees on what automatic and semi-automatic and automatic clutch and so forth mean. Wikipedia can't issue edicts judging what the "true" definition of anything shall henceforth be. Tell the reader different sources use the words to mean different things, and clarify as best we can what they are trying to say. Tell the reader there is no right answer. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. I agree that useage of the term "semi-automatic" is ambiguous. Perhaps renaming the article would help give it a clearer focus? (please see next section) Cheers 1292simon (talk) 04:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed rename

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)

I can't escape the feeling that a "clutchless" transmission will have at least one clutch in its mechanism. Semi-automatic works just fine for me. Eddaido (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Eddaido, I honestly agree with Simon on this one... We can still leave mentions to the semi-automatic transmission name in the article, but I agree with Simon that Clutchless manual transmission would be a much more suitable and fitting term. As he mentioned, there has been much overlap with those two other aforementioned articles, and that is simply due to people being either misinformed or just not knowing the difference between a semi-automatic and a fully-automatic transmission, which seems to be quite a common occurrence on Wikipedia, and other various other websites on the internet. Clutchless manual is a much more "reader-friendly" term, and would be much easier for first-time readers on Wikipedia to understand. Clutchless manual just means that car doesn't have a physical manual clutch pedal or lever... But it will still usually employ some sort of automatic clutch system, and it will not have a manual clutch. Clutchless manuals have been around for decades, with various manufacturers experimenting with them over time, and then slowly evolving into more modern computer-controlled automated manuals (which are a type of fully-automatic transmission, by the way). So, clutchless manuals ARE semi-automatic in their operation (as in, partially operated automatically, and partially shifted manually, by hand), "clutchless" means it has no manual clutch, but it will most likely still have some sort of automatic clutch... Even if the clutch is automated, it's still partially a manual transmission, if the driver still has to change gears by hand. It might be worth mentioning that note in the article, but it wouldn't matter much for a first-time reader, as they'd most probably just want to know how the transmission operates and functions physically, not all the internal mechanical and electronic components that control and constitute the clutch system. "Clutchless" simply implies "no manual clutch," but it's still a manual transmission, as the driver still has to shift gears manually by hand, and it is technically semi-automatic in operation, since it's partially automated (with the clutch), and partially manually operated. Also, the term "clutchless manual" will be a much better and easier-to-understand term for readers of the article, and for most people, much easier to comprehend than "semi-automatic," since many casual readers won't know what the heck that refers to. Sorry, but for clarity's sake, I'm with Simon on this one... Davism0703 (talk) 11:33, 29 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)

I also read, in the torque converter article (and elsewhere), that many torque converters found in modern automatic transmissions include a lock-up clutch. Automatic transmissions are thus another example of where "clutchless transmission" would be a misnormer. Sauer202 (talk) 20:02, 12 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)