I have to say virtaully everyone in the UK learns on a 'stick shift.' Its not diifcult. A proper on the floor manual transmission is the REAL WAY to build cars, and I wish to god American car manufacturers (and drivers who are 'driving' the demand) would realise this.

Just for arguments sake, you're wrong on two points. First off, an automatic is fine for about 99% of drivers (you know, ones who don't really care if they can manipulate their engine to fine degree.)

Secondly, a manual on the floor is totally the wrong way to go. Ferrari got it right, F1 paddles, that's the way to go :).

I dont think we are ever going to agree on that. An automatic is for people who do not have a passion for driving. It might be fine for 99% of people, but does this make it the better solution. No. Consumers are idiots. Period.

If we take a parallel between driving and other professions, who are we going to listen to for expertise. Those at the top. Excluding automatic paddle shift gearboxes (which are irrelevant to this discussion due to the fact that they are not available to the majority of consumers, which was the basis of your argument of merit) then manual gearboxes are the equipment of choice.

I am not saying that the perfect automtic gearbox would not be a superior solution, just that the cost of engineering such a solution is prohibitive for its inclusion in most commerically available cars. In addition, 'on the floor' transmission should not be taken literally, as the old model Honda Civic had a dash mounted shifter, which came close to the advantages of paddle shift, without the engineering complications, and this worked brilliantly.

So.... the needs of Formula 1 drivers and million-mile truckers should be taken as the standard? That would also mean that I need an XGrid for web browsing instead of a Mini.

I find that the continuously-variable transmission in my bike is very near mechanical perfection. Performance is great, no torque-converter losses, smooth, infinite "shifts", zero maintenance (not even lubrication) and a whopping 3 (one-two-three) moving parts, all reasonably priced and replaceable with common tools. An identical transmission was scaled up to an F-1 car, but they discovered two things:

1. The drivers hated it - it made them rather redundant
2. Performance was so good that the F-1 organization decided to ban it before the CV car ever raced.

So, as the OP wants a first bike to go to university on, not a racer, off-road or highway cruiser, the needs of the "people at the top" should not be gospel, rather they should be completely ignored as irrelevant.

That is the most illogical analogy I have ever heard.....

How so? "People at the top" of the driving profession are the racers and the long-haul drivers who do it all day, every day. People at the top of the computing profession run cluster computers and similar massive systems. The needs of Michael Schumacher are just as irrelevant to my (and Screenjam's) driving as the needs of the EarthSim's sysop are to my evening surfing. But you are saying that if Schumacher drives a stick then everyone should. (btw, I drove a standard for >200,000km so I'm not biased against them. I would never even think about teaching a teenager to drive with one. They can learn to shift after the license and a couple thousand kilometers)

I am talking about the ends, not the means.

No, I'm not familiar with that side of the city, but the MSF site should list all of the available sites.