> 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