21 ms·

I reiterate my compromise proposal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32397975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32397975 I will give up my manual trans

I reiterate my compromise proposal: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32397975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32397975 I will give up my manual transmission, if you will bring back pull-knobs, twist knobs and other tactile switches for the main controls of my vehicle, with the appropriate tactile feedback at set points so I can set them without looking. After thinking on it, I am going to raise my demands, however: you also need to produce cars that are as visually appealing and reasonably sized as in the 50s and 60s. Fire all your designers, go back to whatever your models were in 1965, and begin anew. When in doubt, don't.

taneq 4y ago
Are we rolling back all off the safety, efficiency and emissions regulations created since ‘65 too?
- falcolas 4y ago
  Entirely unnecessary to meet the parents “demands”.
  - KennyBlanken 4y ago
    Mechanical controls are safety-related - it's harder and more expensive to engineer a crash-safe interior with knobs and such. That's why with modern crash testing you saw a very rapid depreciation of pull-out knobs and the like. It's also harder to manufacture and repair. Electronic controls? You run power and a data bus to the unit, and you're done. I don't think people understand how much engineering goes into a dash/interior in a passenger car, at least from a company that prioritizes crash safety. Everything is designed to give just the right amount when hit by a body flying around in crash. Even the lower part of the dash is designed to crush just the right amount if you "submarine" in a head-on crash - enough to stop you, but not enough to shatter your knees.
    - bityard 4y ago
      On the other hand, there will be fewer crashes due to the driver having to take his/her eyes of the road in order to squint at which identical button out of 25 turns the blower down one notch.
      - XorNot 4y ago
        Were there fewer crashes when these cars were the norm? No. [1,2,3,4] The number of crashes per year has remained remarkably stable year over year, despite the number of driven miles and number of cars rising enormously. Conversely the number of fatalities due to crashes has dropped considerably. So despite driving many, many more miles then they did previously, people aren't dying in crashes at a greater rate (total crashes is harder to track due to intermittent and inconsistent reporting data). [1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearl... [2] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatalit... [3] https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT,_VMT,_per_capita,_and_total_annual_deaths.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
        afiori 4y ago
        One of the contributor to low fatalities-per-mile was congestion, my guess is that while miles driven per year increased every year average/median driving speed decreased due to traffic up to 2020 when congestion decreased for the first time. https://podcast.strongtowns.org/e/driving-went-down-fatalities-went-up-here-s-why/ https://podcast.strongtowns.org/e/driving-went-down-fataliti...
    - notriddle 4y ago
      Real electronic buttons are a decent second choice. Just don't put HVAC on a touchscreen.
  - hinkley 4y ago
    Car shapes are substantially about pedestrian fatalities. You can't have those shapes back without murdering people who aren't even driving a vehicle.
    - calvinmorrison 4y ago
      Any idiot can see a 2022 ford truck is better than being hit by my 1988 Saab, which a 4 year old is visible over the hood on, as compared to a ford, which, I think I probably couldn't see my wife over the hood.
      - NonNefarious 4y ago
        That statement is contradictory.
      - mrguyorama 4y ago
        Talk about a strawman and cherry picking. Now compare your saab to a modern golf
        hinkley 4y ago
        That's an ironman, mate. Pedestrian safety is a huge part of modern safety regulations for vehicles. It's why the Mini stopped being mini. Between that and side impact standards they couldn't keep that low hood and door sills. I drove a Triumph Spitfire for a while. Any time I took it out of town I took the state highways or country roads, because not only would that thing fit under a truck trailer, at a stoplight I could reach out and touch the bumper on most vehicles. Anything bigger than a sedan and I had to reach -up- to do it. I was only ever safe in that vehicle in the same way that motorcyclists are safe - constant vigilance and pre-planning, which I learned as a bicyclist.
        calvinmorrison 4y ago
        > Pedestrian safety I looked on IIHS for the ford F-150 and it gives a green rating for the pedestrian safety. On further inspection, this is because there is a type of automatic braking. Now, I am happy to have that system, but that doesn't have much to do with the shape of the car at all.
- recursivedoubts 4y ago
  i'd prefer not to, but I'm a reasonable man
- Aeolun 4y ago
  Obviously. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.
tenpies 4y ago
Can I add a request? A car that doesn't phone home. That is, one that the government is utterly unable to remotely turn off, monitor, or impose distance quotas. One that cannot be hacked through a poorly secured server in a car maker's server farm or government server with the username/pass admin/admin.
- falcolas 4y ago
  Forget about the government, I’m more afraid of insurance companies or the manufacturers themselves imposing such limits. Fortunately shielding against one shields against both.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    exactly. I like how its the government thats always the boogieman despite Tesla and BMW already and clearly abusing thier ability to control a car remotely. Corporates have clear motivation to control you and squeese you.
    - hpkuarg 4y ago
      That's because the consumer has the ability to choose (at least currently in the automotive market) a different manufacturer that won't control and squeeze them like Tesla or BMW would. If the big bad government is doing it instead, it means they are mandating the controlling and squeezing with the full might of the government behind it. Of course they're the boogieman.
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        I think that safeguard has already failed, the terms and conidtions allow manufacturer to introduce this functionality to millions of cars that are already on the road, years afterr they were bought
  - JasserInicide 4y ago
    It's already started. My insurance State Farm has already advertised you can get a lower rate if you drive around with their dreadful phone application. Won't be long until it's mandated you drive with one or else you're stuck with an "unsafe driver" charge on your insurance.
PheonixPharts 4y ago
If it's in your budget I highly recommend test driving the Porsche Macan. It has a screen but as far as I can tell it's not required for anything that doesn't implicitly require a screen (i.e. GPS). Overall the car is amazingly well designed. The tactile experience is there, you can feel your way around everything without moving your eyes from the road/immediate dash area. It still has an analog clock. I also feel like there are a lot of advanced, car enthusiast friendly features I have yet to explore. It's also a stupidly practical car. I've frequently loaded the back with cinder blocks and bricks, filled it with a small arboretum of house plants, drum sander, multiple bikes, small couches, etc. I feel a bit silly loading up a Porche at home depot, but boy does it do the job well. And at the same time, when you're getting on the highway it has all the power you could want, and is just a blast to drive around at night on empty roads. Comfort wise it feels like it has exactly what you want, but nothing more.
- jlkuester7 4y ago
  Pretty cool to read about somebody using their Porsche the same way I use my 12yo Toyota Rav4! My record is still fitting a full-sized washer and dryer in the back... Don't feel silly for utilizing your vehicle's capabilities!
  - xattt 4y ago
    Past Nissan Cube owner here reporting that you can stuff a twin mattress against the ceiling of the car, supported by the heads of the driver and passenger, for several blocks.
    - abyssin 4y ago
      I did the same with a Smart. The pickup functionality of the back door also allows for moving a fridge, if you tie it down appropriately.
    - stephencanon 4y ago
      I moved a queen bed frame and mattress in a 2006 mini convertible.
voldacar 4y ago
The government has made it all but illegal to make a car that isn't ugly
- recursivedoubts 4y ago
  agreed
- Judgmentality 4y ago
  As someone who hates how ugly modern cars have become, I can also acknowledge the extraordinary leap in safety they've achieved since then. Many of the rules are designed around safety. Although a counterpoint to this is the giant A pillars limit visibility so much as to be dangerous themselves.
  - midasz 4y ago
    I've got a Kia Proceed and I think it looks pretty damn nice, only downside is the rear window - kinda tiny - still doable though
  - mrcartmeneses 4y ago
    Yep. I’m constantly leaning around in my Yaris trying to see what is in front of me. Great car to drive though!
    - spindle 4y ago
      I rented a Toyota recently. The A-pillars were so huge that I thought I'd better drive around near the rental company for a while to get used to it. So I did that, concentrating on driving safely instead of concentrating on navigating. I ended up on a hospital campus, in a lane intended only for ambulances. There was no visibility for cars shorter than ambulances, and I crashed on the way out. (At about 10 km/h, so no-one was hurt - sorry for the anticlimax.)
      - erisinger 4y ago
        That was not anticlimactic.
DawnQFunk3 4y ago
melony 4y ago
Here's a better compromise, a semi-automatic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_transmission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_transmission You choose when to change the gears but the computer deals with the clutch, best of both worlds.
- ImprovedSilence 4y ago
  meh, my wife's car does that, but to me it's not the same. I think if I can put into words what I like about manual transmissions, it's more than just the control to change the gears, it's the actual tactile feeling of removing power from the drivetrain (via clutch), then re-applying it. it's the cliche feeling of "connection" to the car, road, and what's happening. But I understand why the manual is dying. Most people don't want it, today's automatics are much better suited for towing (thus eliminating the manual in trucks and SUVs), and the top of the top of performance cars paddle shift light years faster than anyone could in a proper manual transmission.
  - pixelpoet 4y ago
    Even as someone who hates cars and has never in 40 years had a driver's licence, I get this (have learnt how to drive). Automatic instead of manual feels how I imagine pre-chewed ice cream feels.
  - calvinmorrison 4y ago
    Or how about just being able to anticipate the power band around a corner? Being able to downshift on a hill without thinking about it. Those are things you don't even realize you do in a manual, that you do. case in point, me flooring it on a left hand turn in my moms prius and having to wait a good 500ms for the thing to start moving at all. I know exactly what my manual does in first gear and when, I don't think about it, it's an extension of myself.
    - exodust 4y ago
      I drove a manual years ago. It was fun then, but now I prefer the paddle-shift of my "semi-auto", which is still going strong without fault for 15 years. I can downshift before the hill to get revs, and prevent the auto-shift as I go up the hill. Or I can downshift to use engine as brake. No clutch to worry about, and my hands never leave wheel. Long-press the paddle to return to auto for the boring sections. Awesome usability! Could never go back to manual, the paddle-shifters are too much fun and too easy!
51Cards 4y ago
You may enjoy this article out recently: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/08/yes-touchscreens-really-are-worse-than-buttons-in-cars-study-finds/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/08/yes-touchscreens-really...
hinkley 4y ago
A great number of the cool designs from the 50's and 60's are illegal because the front of the car eats people. Swallows them, chews them up, and spits them out. The sloped design of new cars isn't just about aerodynamics. In a low-speed impact a pedestrian is lifted onto the hood. Forward leaning grills, such as on the Dodge Charger, some of the beefier Mustangs, and any number of other muscle cars or sedans, instead clip pedestrians in the knee or hip, tip them over and drop them onto the ground, where the car then runs over them. I think there was also an issue with those profiles and Jersey barriers, in that they were more likely to pole vault over them off the side of a bridge or onto - not into - oncoming traffic. You are not ever going to get those designs back.
- boppo1 4y ago
  >because the front of the car eats people. Swallows them, chews them up, and spits them out. How so? Could we just use modern crumple materials in the same shape?
  - metadat 4y ago
    Materials that crumple when they impact a soft, squishy human? What? Edit: yep, @Buttons840 nailed it..
  - Buttons840 4y ago
    A crumple material that will crumple in a car vs pedestrian collision? Like NERF foam or something?
    - freeqaz 4y ago
      This comment actually got a laugh out of me. I truly have no idea what would be feasible in a collision like this. Probably packing peanuts? Airbags on the outside of the car that deploy when a pedestrian is detected?
      - wintermutesGhst 4y ago
        Pedestrian airbags have been designed before, but don't seem to have caught on widely [1]. A more bizarre solution Google patented always stuck with me: A sticky car hood beneath an eggshell coating so that a struck pedestrian would stay on top of the car instead of falling and hitting their head or being run over [2]. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiiBlirAG8w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiiBlirAG8w 2: https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a20953/google-patent-sticky-car-hood/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a20953/google-pa...
vanshg 4y ago
That's exactly what Olympian Motors is doing. They're a YC company. It's beautifully styled imo and has only physical controls inside https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/olympian-motors https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/olympian-motors https://olympianmotors.com/ https://olympianmotors.com/
- pigtailgirl 4y ago
  -- these are really beautiful - $100,000 USD seems a lot - however - it's a pretty sweet ride --
- bsilvereagle 4y ago
  > Olympian believes in reducing the number of buttons and switches to simplify the cockpit. We take a voice-first approach to control infotainment, HVAC, seats, doors, and lighting systems. This sounds like the opposite of OP's request for physical controls.
  - bambax 4y ago
    > We take a voice-first approach That sounds like a nightmare. So you have to forcibly silence everyone in the car to do anything? Even if I'm alone I would prefer silence and pushing buttons instead of having a conversation with a machine. Obligatory reference, if you haven't seen it: Scottish Elevator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMS2VnDveP8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMS2VnDveP8
- kmstout 4y ago
  That's a pretty car.
- bambax 4y ago
  Design seems more inspired by the 1920s' than the sixties.
- cguess 4y ago
  A base price of $100,000?!
- 4y ago
PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
> and reasonably sized as in the 50s and 60s. So, the original Mini Cooper?
kbenson 4y ago
> reasonably sized as in the 50s and 60s. Fire all your designers, go back to whatever your models were in 1965 What alternate dimension are you from? My older brother had a 60's Ford Fairlane when I was growing up. My first car was a 67 mustang. I had a friend with a 68 Camaro. I knew someone else that had multiple Thunderbirds from that era. These were not small cars. The Mustang and Camaro were the size of a full size sedan today , if not bigger. The cross sections of the doors were very large, they just aren't very space efficient at all. They're only small relative to the other cars of the era, and I wouldn't call their size reasonable in any real way. Those are the coupes. The sedans, such as the Fairlane and Thunderbird? Those were about as big as a modern full size crew cab pickup.
- fibonachos 4y ago
  > Those are the coupes. The sedans, such as the Fairlane and Thunderbird? Those were about as big as a modern full size crew cab pickup. I’m reminded of my grandparent’s 1979 Cadillac (Not sure of the model). It barely fit in the garage. They parked their Chevy Suburban in that same garage.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
    "I got me a Chrysler, it's as big as a whale. It's about to set sail."
- jrumbut 4y ago
  I believe that's what the OP is requesting: larger, more spacious cars.
  - IMTDb 4y ago
    And also: heavier, less fuel efficient, and more dangerous cars. Basically, OP is "graciously" willing to give up his manual transmission if we provide him a car that suits his style and comfort at the expense of everyone else. Luckily for us, he isn't able to find one.
orbital-decay 4y ago
> you also need to produce cars that are as visually appealing and reasonably sized as in the 50s and 60s. Fire all your designers, go back to whatever your models were in 1965, and begin anew. Safety considerations aside, the aesthetics of the rocket and atomic age reflect the hope on humanity's future that was dominating back then. Automotive designs of late 10's early 20's are a tiny bit fancier than in previous couple decades, but they don't look futuristic, they tend to look more aggressive instead. That's also because there's demand for that aesthetic in our era. To change the way cars look, change the way you live your life.
bodge5000 4y ago
> you also need to produce cars that are as visually appealing and reasonably sized Looking at you Mini. The clues in the name.
lm28469 4y ago
It would be nice if they still made cheap cars with no tech to just go from A to B. Old school Fiat 500 or Citroen 2cv style
- Valakas_ 4y ago
  Or like Honda Jazz/Fit 2000-2006. They achieved perfection for a A to B car there.
- Ralo 4y ago
  I picked up a 1994 Toyota Pickup for this exact reason. It's so insanely simple, they didn't even give it a proper name. One of the last true work horses, if it wasn't for that damn rusty frame.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    1997 Range Rover P38 owner here. Entirely gizmo-free and less rot-prone than old Toyotas.
    - marssaxman 4y ago
      God did I ever love my '92 Rover. Maybe I should get another one.
      - Gordonjcp 4y ago
        '92 would be an RRC. Get a P38, they're a lot more "liveable" as a daily and they don't rot anything like as badly. Also an RRC is insanely expensive, and P38s have only just started the upward curve.
        marssaxman 4y ago
        Are they now? That's a shame; I sold my last one to a scrapyard after someone stole both cats out of it, a week before I was going to move - I just didn't have time to deal with it. I was always skeptical of the P38s because of the airbags. How do you deal with that over the long term?
incomingpain 4y ago
One of my ideas that probably won't happen. You goto Magna, Foxconn, tesla, and get their EV platform skateboard. With intention of manual transmission. You goto https://www.factoryfive.com/hot-rod-truck/ https://www.factoryfive.com/hot-rod-truck/ for the body of the ev. Coachbuild the inside, you can basically be rolls royce here because you're low volume. Obviously all the knobs and switches would be built with reliability in mind. Sound system I was thinking would just be a good bluetooth speaker system and a phone mount. Dont have to worry about android auto or carplay or sound system or gps going out of date. its just your phone.
hwestiii 4y ago
Yeah, this is a completely valid complaint. How in the world did automakers manage to get vehicles on the market that require you to look away from your 70 mph trajectory on a highway to visually confirm that you clicked "OK" instead of "Cancel"? Major safety design failures. You know it the first time you encounter it.
CraigJPerry 4y ago
Ordinarily I’d disagree with the idea that cars looked better in the 50s or 60s however https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uxHVVEEGx7Y https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uxHVVEEGx7Y The Cyan Racing Volvo P1800 “restomod” is, in my opinion anyway, the most desirable car in the world. Anything with a Koenigsegg sticker comes a close second.
koheripbal 4y ago
I don't understand the point of your comment. You only represent yourself and you are mixing multiple issues. Why would car makers listen to this "compromise"?

taneq 4y ago

Are we rolling back all off the safety, efficiency and emissions regulations created since ‘65 too?

falcolas 4y ago
Entirely unnecessary to meet the parents “demands”.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  Mechanical controls are safety-related - it's harder and more expensive to engineer a crash-safe interior with knobs and such. That's why with modern crash testing you saw a very rapid depreciation of pull-out knobs and the like. It's also harder to manufacture and repair. Electronic controls? You run power and a data bus to the unit, and you're done. I don't think people understand how much engineering goes into a dash/interior in a passenger car, at least from a company that prioritizes crash safety. Everything is designed to give just the right amount when hit by a body flying around in crash. Even the lower part of the dash is designed to crush just the right amount if you "submarine" in a head-on crash - enough to stop you, but not enough to shatter your knees.
  - bityard 4y ago
    On the other hand, there will be fewer crashes due to the driver having to take his/her eyes of the road in order to squint at which identical button out of 25 turns the blower down one notch.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      Were there fewer crashes when these cars were the norm? No. [1,2,3,4] The number of crashes per year has remained remarkably stable year over year, despite the number of driven miles and number of cars rising enormously. Conversely the number of fatalities due to crashes has dropped considerably. So despite driving many, many more miles then they did previously, people aren't dying in crashes at a greater rate (total crashes is harder to track due to intermittent and inconsistent reporting data). [1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearl... [2] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/ https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatalit... [3] https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year#/media/File:US_traffic_deaths_per_VMT,_VMT,_per_capita,_and_total_annual_deaths.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...
      - afiori 4y ago
        One of the contributor to low fatalities-per-mile was congestion, my guess is that while miles driven per year increased every year average/median driving speed decreased due to traffic up to 2020 when congestion decreased for the first time. https://podcast.strongtowns.org/e/driving-went-down-fatalities-went-up-here-s-why/ https://podcast.strongtowns.org/e/driving-went-down-fataliti...
  - notriddle 4y ago
    Real electronic buttons are a decent second choice. Just don't put HVAC on a touchscreen.
- hinkley 4y ago
  Car shapes are substantially about pedestrian fatalities. You can't have those shapes back without murdering people who aren't even driving a vehicle.
  - calvinmorrison 4y ago
    Any idiot can see a 2022 ford truck is better than being hit by my 1988 Saab, which a 4 year old is visible over the hood on, as compared to a ford, which, I think I probably couldn't see my wife over the hood.
    - NonNefarious 4y ago
      That statement is contradictory.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      Talk about a strawman and cherry picking. Now compare your saab to a modern golf
      - hinkley 4y ago
        That's an ironman, mate. Pedestrian safety is a huge part of modern safety regulations for vehicles. It's why the Mini stopped being mini. Between that and side impact standards they couldn't keep that low hood and door sills. I drove a Triumph Spitfire for a while. Any time I took it out of town I took the state highways or country roads, because not only would that thing fit under a truck trailer, at a stoplight I could reach out and touch the bumper on most vehicles. Anything bigger than a sedan and I had to reach -up- to do it. I was only ever safe in that vehicle in the same way that motorcyclists are safe - constant vigilance and pre-planning, which I learned as a bicyclist.
        calvinmorrison 4y ago
        > Pedestrian safety I looked on IIHS for the ford F-150 and it gives a green rating for the pedestrian safety. On further inspection, this is because there is a type of automatic braking. Now, I am happy to have that system, but that doesn't have much to do with the shape of the car at all.
recursivedoubts 4y ago
i'd prefer not to, but I'm a reasonable man
Aeolun 4y ago
Obviously. We can’t have our cake and eat it too.

tenpies 4y ago

Can I add a request? A car that doesn't phone home. That is, one that the government is utterly unable to remotely turn off, monitor, or impose distance quotas. One that cannot be hacked through a poorly secured server in a car maker's server farm or government server with the username/pass admin/admin.

falcolas 4y ago
Forget about the government, I’m more afraid of insurance companies or the manufacturers themselves imposing such limits. Fortunately shielding against one shields against both.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  exactly. I like how its the government thats always the boogieman despite Tesla and BMW already and clearly abusing thier ability to control a car remotely. Corporates have clear motivation to control you and squeese you.
  - hpkuarg 4y ago
    That's because the consumer has the ability to choose (at least currently in the automotive market) a different manufacturer that won't control and squeeze them like Tesla or BMW would. If the big bad government is doing it instead, it means they are mandating the controlling and squeezing with the full might of the government behind it. Of course they're the boogieman.
    - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
      I think that safeguard has already failed, the terms and conidtions allow manufacturer to introduce this functionality to millions of cars that are already on the road, years afterr they were bought
- JasserInicide 4y ago
  It's already started. My insurance State Farm has already advertised you can get a lower rate if you drive around with their dreadful phone application. Won't be long until it's mandated you drive with one or else you're stuck with an "unsafe driver" charge on your insurance.

PheonixPharts 4y ago

If it's in your budget I highly recommend test driving the Porsche Macan. It has a screen but as far as I can tell it's not required for anything that doesn't implicitly require a screen (i.e. GPS). Overall the car is amazingly well designed. The tactile experience is there, you can feel your way around everything without moving your eyes from the road/immediate dash area. It still has an analog clock. I also feel like there are a lot of advanced, car enthusiast friendly features I have yet to explore. It's also a stupidly practical car. I've frequently loaded the back with cinder blocks and bricks, filled it with a small arboretum of house plants, drum sander, multiple bikes, small couches, etc. I feel a bit silly loading up a Porche at home depot, but boy does it do the job well. And at the same time, when you're getting on the highway it has all the power you could want, and is just a blast to drive around at night on empty roads. Comfort wise it feels like it has exactly what you want, but nothing more.

jlkuester7 4y ago
Pretty cool to read about somebody using their Porsche the same way I use my 12yo Toyota Rav4! My record is still fitting a full-sized washer and dryer in the back... Don't feel silly for utilizing your vehicle's capabilities!
- xattt 4y ago
  Past Nissan Cube owner here reporting that you can stuff a twin mattress against the ceiling of the car, supported by the heads of the driver and passenger, for several blocks.
  - abyssin 4y ago
    I did the same with a Smart. The pickup functionality of the back door also allows for moving a fridge, if you tie it down appropriately.
  - stephencanon 4y ago
    I moved a queen bed frame and mattress in a 2006 mini convertible.

voldacar 4y ago

The government has made it all but illegal to make a car that isn't ugly

recursivedoubts 4y ago
agreed
Judgmentality 4y ago
As someone who hates how ugly modern cars have become, I can also acknowledge the extraordinary leap in safety they've achieved since then. Many of the rules are designed around safety. Although a counterpoint to this is the giant A pillars limit visibility so much as to be dangerous themselves.
- midasz 4y ago
  I've got a Kia Proceed and I think it looks pretty damn nice, only downside is the rear window - kinda tiny - still doable though
- mrcartmeneses 4y ago
  Yep. I’m constantly leaning around in my Yaris trying to see what is in front of me. Great car to drive though!
  - spindle 4y ago
    I rented a Toyota recently. The A-pillars were so huge that I thought I'd better drive around near the rental company for a while to get used to it. So I did that, concentrating on driving safely instead of concentrating on navigating. I ended up on a hospital campus, in a lane intended only for ambulances. There was no visibility for cars shorter than ambulances, and I crashed on the way out. (At about 10 km/h, so no-one was hurt - sorry for the anticlimax.)
    - erisinger 4y ago
      That was not anticlimactic.

DawnQFunk3 4y ago

melony 4y ago

Here's a better compromise, a semi-automatic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_transmission https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_transmission You choose when to change the gears but the computer deals with the clutch, best of both worlds.

ImprovedSilence 4y ago
meh, my wife's car does that, but to me it's not the same. I think if I can put into words what I like about manual transmissions, it's more than just the control to change the gears, it's the actual tactile feeling of removing power from the drivetrain (via clutch), then re-applying it. it's the cliche feeling of "connection" to the car, road, and what's happening. But I understand why the manual is dying. Most people don't want it, today's automatics are much better suited for towing (thus eliminating the manual in trucks and SUVs), and the top of the top of performance cars paddle shift light years faster than anyone could in a proper manual transmission.
- pixelpoet 4y ago
  Even as someone who hates cars and has never in 40 years had a driver's licence, I get this (have learnt how to drive). Automatic instead of manual feels how I imagine pre-chewed ice cream feels.
- calvinmorrison 4y ago
  Or how about just being able to anticipate the power band around a corner? Being able to downshift on a hill without thinking about it. Those are things you don't even realize you do in a manual, that you do. case in point, me flooring it on a left hand turn in my moms prius and having to wait a good 500ms for the thing to start moving at all. I know exactly what my manual does in first gear and when, I don't think about it, it's an extension of myself.
  - exodust 4y ago
    I drove a manual years ago. It was fun then, but now I prefer the paddle-shift of my "semi-auto", which is still going strong without fault for 15 years. I can downshift before the hill to get revs, and prevent the auto-shift as I go up the hill. Or I can downshift to use engine as brake. No clutch to worry about, and my hands never leave wheel. Long-press the paddle to return to auto for the boring sections. Awesome usability! Could never go back to manual, the paddle-shifters are too much fun and too easy!

51Cards 4y ago

You may enjoy this article out recently: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/08/yes-touchscreens-really-are-worse-than-buttons-in-cars-study-finds/ https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/08/yes-touchscreens-really...

hinkley 4y ago

A great number of the cool designs from the 50's and 60's are illegal because the front of the car eats people. Swallows them, chews them up, and spits them out. The sloped design of new cars isn't just about aerodynamics. In a low-speed impact a pedestrian is lifted onto the hood. Forward leaning grills, such as on the Dodge Charger, some of the beefier Mustangs, and any number of other muscle cars or sedans, instead clip pedestrians in the knee or hip, tip them over and drop them onto the ground, where the car then runs over them. I think there was also an issue with those profiles and Jersey barriers, in that they were more likely to pole vault over them off the side of a bridge or onto - not into - oncoming traffic. You are not ever going to get those designs back.

boppo1 4y ago
>because the front of the car eats people. Swallows them, chews them up, and spits them out. How so? Could we just use modern crumple materials in the same shape?
- metadat 4y ago
  Materials that crumple when they impact a soft, squishy human? What? Edit: yep, @Buttons840 nailed it..
- Buttons840 4y ago
  A crumple material that will crumple in a car vs pedestrian collision? Like NERF foam or something?
  - freeqaz 4y ago
    This comment actually got a laugh out of me. I truly have no idea what would be feasible in a collision like this. Probably packing peanuts? Airbags on the outside of the car that deploy when a pedestrian is detected?
    - wintermutesGhst 4y ago
      Pedestrian airbags have been designed before, but don't seem to have caught on widely [1]. A more bizarre solution Google patented always stuck with me: A sticky car hood beneath an eggshell coating so that a struck pedestrian would stay on top of the car instead of falling and hitting their head or being run over [2]. 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiiBlirAG8w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiiBlirAG8w 2: https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a20953/google-patent-sticky-car-hood/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/a20953/google-pa...

vanshg 4y ago

That's exactly what Olympian Motors is doing. They're a YC company. It's beautifully styled imo and has only physical controls inside https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/olympian-motors https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/olympian-motors https://olympianmotors.com/ https://olympianmotors.com/

pigtailgirl 4y ago
-- these are really beautiful - $100,000 USD seems a lot - however - it's a pretty sweet ride --
bsilvereagle 4y ago
> Olympian believes in reducing the number of buttons and switches to simplify the cockpit. We take a voice-first approach to control infotainment, HVAC, seats, doors, and lighting systems. This sounds like the opposite of OP's request for physical controls.
- bambax 4y ago
  > We take a voice-first approach That sounds like a nightmare. So you have to forcibly silence everyone in the car to do anything? Even if I'm alone I would prefer silence and pushing buttons instead of having a conversation with a machine. Obligatory reference, if you haven't seen it: Scottish Elevator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMS2VnDveP8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMS2VnDveP8
kmstout 4y ago
That's a pretty car.
bambax 4y ago
Design seems more inspired by the 1920s' than the sixties.
cguess 4y ago
A base price of $100,000?!
4y ago

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

> and reasonably sized as in the 50s and 60s. So, the original Mini Cooper?

kbenson 4y ago

> reasonably sized as in the 50s and 60s. Fire all your designers, go back to whatever your models were in 1965 What alternate dimension are you from? My older brother had a 60's Ford Fairlane when I was growing up. My first car was a 67 mustang. I had a friend with a 68 Camaro. I knew someone else that had multiple Thunderbirds from that era. These were not small cars. The Mustang and Camaro were the size of a full size sedan today , if not bigger. The cross sections of the doors were very large, they just aren't very space efficient at all. They're only small relative to the other cars of the era, and I wouldn't call their size reasonable in any real way. Those are the coupes. The sedans, such as the Fairlane and Thunderbird? Those were about as big as a modern full size crew cab pickup.

fibonachos 4y ago
> Those are the coupes. The sedans, such as the Fairlane and Thunderbird? Those were about as big as a modern full size crew cab pickup. I’m reminded of my grandparent’s 1979 Cadillac (Not sure of the model). It barely fit in the garage. They parked their Chevy Suburban in that same garage.
- HeyLaughingBoy 4y ago
  "I got me a Chrysler, it's as big as a whale. It's about to set sail."
jrumbut 4y ago
I believe that's what the OP is requesting: larger, more spacious cars.
- IMTDb 4y ago
  And also: heavier, less fuel efficient, and more dangerous cars. Basically, OP is "graciously" willing to give up his manual transmission if we provide him a car that suits his style and comfort at the expense of everyone else. Luckily for us, he isn't able to find one.

orbital-decay 4y ago

> you also need to produce cars that are as visually appealing and reasonably sized as in the 50s and 60s. Fire all your designers, go back to whatever your models were in 1965, and begin anew. Safety considerations aside, the aesthetics of the rocket and atomic age reflect the hope on humanity's future that was dominating back then. Automotive designs of late 10's early 20's are a tiny bit fancier than in previous couple decades, but they don't look futuristic, they tend to look more aggressive instead. That's also because there's demand for that aesthetic in our era. To change the way cars look, change the way you live your life.

bodge5000 4y ago

> you also need to produce cars that are as visually appealing and reasonably sized Looking at you Mini. The clues in the name.

lm28469 4y ago

It would be nice if they still made cheap cars with no tech to just go from A to B. Old school Fiat 500 or Citroen 2cv style

Valakas_ 4y ago
Or like Honda Jazz/Fit 2000-2006. They achieved perfection for a A to B car there.
Ralo 4y ago
I picked up a 1994 Toyota Pickup for this exact reason. It's so insanely simple, they didn't even give it a proper name. One of the last true work horses, if it wasn't for that damn rusty frame.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  1997 Range Rover P38 owner here. Entirely gizmo-free and less rot-prone than old Toyotas.
  - marssaxman 4y ago
    God did I ever love my '92 Rover. Maybe I should get another one.
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      '92 would be an RRC. Get a P38, they're a lot more "liveable" as a daily and they don't rot anything like as badly. Also an RRC is insanely expensive, and P38s have only just started the upward curve.
      - marssaxman 4y ago
        Are they now? That's a shame; I sold my last one to a scrapyard after someone stole both cats out of it, a week before I was going to move - I just didn't have time to deal with it. I was always skeptical of the P38s because of the airbags. How do you deal with that over the long term?

incomingpain 4y ago

One of my ideas that probably won't happen. You goto Magna, Foxconn, tesla, and get their EV platform skateboard. With intention of manual transmission. You goto https://www.factoryfive.com/hot-rod-truck/ https://www.factoryfive.com/hot-rod-truck/ for the body of the ev. Coachbuild the inside, you can basically be rolls royce here because you're low volume. Obviously all the knobs and switches would be built with reliability in mind. Sound system I was thinking would just be a good bluetooth speaker system and a phone mount. Dont have to worry about android auto or carplay or sound system or gps going out of date. its just your phone.

hwestiii 4y ago

Yeah, this is a completely valid complaint. How in the world did automakers manage to get vehicles on the market that require you to look away from your 70 mph trajectory on a highway to visually confirm that you clicked "OK" instead of "Cancel"? Major safety design failures. You know it the first time you encounter it.

CraigJPerry 4y ago

Ordinarily I’d disagree with the idea that cars looked better in the 50s or 60s however https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uxHVVEEGx7Y https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uxHVVEEGx7Y The Cyan Racing Volvo P1800 “restomod” is, in my opinion anyway, the most desirable car in the world. Anything with a Koenigsegg sticker comes a close second.

koheripbal 4y ago

I don't understand the point of your comment. You only represent yourself and you are mixing multiple issues. Why would car makers listen to this "compromise"?