> It makes sense that the transmission only has to choose between two
> shift patterns.
I disagree (in a technological sense).
> I was thinking, incorrectly, that it was probably
> more complicated than that.
Same here.
It *SHOULD* be more complicated than that. If the algorithm can decide
on-the-fly what it should be doing, why must it then only choose between
the same two maps I have in my 6-yr-old car with manual selector switch?
More sophisticated systems offer either a choice among/between more fixed
maps or else use dynamic maps generated on-the-fly.
It's a shame that Volvo was not sufficiently sophisticated to utilize the
technology for the drivers' benefit, and instead only used it to cheapen
(and lighten) the car by the removal of a physical switch.
I like the fact that both my TRACS and ECAT control switches are stupid
and physical and stay put in the mode I've left them. I'd rather blame
myself for a switch being in the wrong position than futilely cursing
Volvo for being unable to read my mind properly. (I'm the same way about
auto-focus in camcorders -- unless the auto-focus works very well and fast,
I'd rather do it myself!)
It's only when the removal of a control or addition of a new technology
offers a car the ability to do something it could not do [as well] before
(without the change) that I see newer technology as an advance.
- Dave; '95 854T, 101K mi

|