4 ms·

IT. IS. A. CAR! It takes you from Point A to Point B! Nobody needs to watch TV in their car! Nobody needs subscription services for heated seats or 0.2s off you

IT. IS. A. CAR! It takes you from Point A to Point B! Nobody needs to watch TV in their car! Nobody needs subscription services for heated seats or 0.2s off your 0-60mph time! Nobody needs cameras replacing their sideview mirrors! Get rid off all this bullshit in vehicles. 6-speed manual, adjustable seats, a GPS/nav screen and radio/aux, and a damn cupholder is all anyone needs from a car. Everything else is just a bunch of accessorial crap that usually detracts from the form factor of a functional car.

bluGill 3y ago
I don't even want the GPS: my phone already has maps that are better than what is in the car: they update in real time for current traffic.
- wcarron 3y ago
  Sure, even that's a luxury, but cars already have a display for audio, and it makes sense to have an in-built nav system (would be great if you could simply select the mapping/nav software from a list like a: goog, b: apple, c: OSM, and have it only do directions). This reduces the need for a 2nd, handheld or mounted device which has the potential for increased distraction. Navigation is a core function of travel, which is the primary purpose of a vehicle.
  - ShroudedNight 3y ago
    Why do you need direct access to your phone? Just dock the phone and have the screen work like Samsung's Dex.
    - wcarron 3y ago
      You... don't? That was my point. A dock works fine, too, I guess.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    A bluetooth standard for navigation (turn left in 500 meters on adams street.) functions would be nice. The only thing I find my car nav does well is put that turn indication next to the speedometer so if I don't hear/understand the directions I can see it at a glance. Of course my only car with nav is 11 years old, maybe there are other features of more modern systems worth having. I doubt it, but I have to allow for the possibility. The real key here is the car is 11 years old - if you only buy new cars you may fail to realize how bad features such as nav age. When my car was new 3g cell networks were the fast service (4g existed but it was in the early roll out phase), and thus what I would expect my car to have: now 3g is gone - so even if my car had a NAV subscription it couldn't get OTA updates.
    - wcarron 3y ago
      Eh, my subie is almost 10 years old at this point. The nav is definitely quite old and clunky, but works fine as long as you don't expect it to be snappy like a modern smartphone. I don't think it's much in need of an update; that's just modern expectations advancing at a ridiculous pace thanks to tech. I'm not saying that these are inherently bad. Hell, I'd enjoy having programmable 2-driver power-adjustment settings for the driver seat. That, dual zone climate control, and google maps built into the nav are basically the only luxury features I think really add value to a car. But I'm not dying without them. Meanwhile, my wife wants all that, android auto, ventilated seats, a moonroof, the side-view mirror blind spot assistance things, automatic cruise control, an auto-dimming rearview mirror, automatic lights/brights, being able to start the car remotely, etc.
- smeej 3y ago
  I'm currently driving a car from 2007 because of how much I do not want the "connected" features that have become standard since the advent of smartphones. I can't even find anyone who will sell me one with those features disabled. My only option is just to buy cars from before those features existed, and it gets harder every year.
  - wcarron 3y ago
    Yeah, it feels like at some point I'll have to just buy a freakin kit car to get something simple.
ajross 3y ago
If that were true then we'd all still be driving 2-cylinder air cooled put-puts. I'm not telling you what to desire in a vehicle. I'm just saying that reactionary ludditism makes for poor market analysis. People want connected cars, period. I don't make the rules.
- wcarron 3y ago
  Really poor equivocation re: 2-cyls. Engine performance and efficiency is one of the primary and critical aspects that define the ability effectively travel between places, which, again is the entire purpose of a car. Engine (drivetrain really) power, torque, efficiency, durability and reliabilty are core aspects of a vehicle. Being able to accelerate (and brake) when needed is important. Watching a YouTube vehicle in traffic is not. Carmakers should be focused on improving drivetrains, handling (chassis, suspension, brakes, etc.), safety in collisions (including pedestrians/cyclists). Not on introducing a bunch of superfluous luxuries that only serve to drive up the cost of a car (and make people worse, more distracted, more selfish drivers). Edit: It's not ludditism to oppose needless 'improvements' that increase the complexity, cost, supply chain requirements, weight, and fragility of a vehicle. It's utilitarian.
  - zamnos 3y ago
    The ludditism is in who decides what's "needless". To you it's needless, to other's it's utilitarian, and there are generational differences to account for as well. You probably know how to drive from your house to a number of destinations without a GPS. Other's... don't, making a screen and an entertainment system with CarPlay a utilitarian feature for them that's a deal-breaker on a new car if doesn't have that because it's a safety hazard otherwise. You could argue that people should just have the local version of The Knowledge memorized, but that's unrealistic, plus it doesn't account for traffic causing accidents along your preferred route.
    - wcarron 3y ago
      > You probably know how to drive from your house to a number of destinations without a GPS. Other's... don't, Well then they should learn how to fucking navigate. Learn where North is and go from there.
recursive 3y ago
> Nobody needs cameras replacing their sideview mirrors This measurably improves fuel economy. Not sure why it's grouped with the others.
- wcarron 3y ago
  Because it's another huge failure point of more software and significantly increases cost and complexity when the aerodynamic gains from no mirrors are negligible, especially considering the absolute monstrous size and brick like shape (terrible cda) of SUVs, trucks, and 'crossovers' that are extremely popular today.
  - recursive 3y ago
    > gains from no mirrors are negligible This study says 3% - 6%. [0] The fact that inefficient vehicles exist doesn't seem like a reason to make more efficient ones even more efficient. [0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016821004129 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S111001682...
    - smileysteve 3y ago
      3-6% is almost free air conditioning 4-8%
    - wcarron 3y ago
      Fair. That's not nothing, but again, it's a tradeoff. I'd take a plain old mirror for the sake of simplicity/cost instead of the slightly higher efficiency.
uguuo_o 3y ago
This is why it'd take some catastrophe for me to get rid of my 04 WRX STI. The interesting part has been seeing how got here.

bluGill 3y ago

I don't even want the GPS: my phone already has maps that are better than what is in the car: they update in real time for current traffic.

wcarron 3y ago
Sure, even that's a luxury, but cars already have a display for audio, and it makes sense to have an in-built nav system (would be great if you could simply select the mapping/nav software from a list like a: goog, b: apple, c: OSM, and have it only do directions). This reduces the need for a 2nd, handheld or mounted device which has the potential for increased distraction. Navigation is a core function of travel, which is the primary purpose of a vehicle.
- ShroudedNight 3y ago
  Why do you need direct access to your phone? Just dock the phone and have the screen work like Samsung's Dex.
  - wcarron 3y ago
    You... don't? That was my point. A dock works fine, too, I guess.
- bluGill 3y ago
  A bluetooth standard for navigation (turn left in 500 meters on adams street.) functions would be nice. The only thing I find my car nav does well is put that turn indication next to the speedometer so if I don't hear/understand the directions I can see it at a glance. Of course my only car with nav is 11 years old, maybe there are other features of more modern systems worth having. I doubt it, but I have to allow for the possibility. The real key here is the car is 11 years old - if you only buy new cars you may fail to realize how bad features such as nav age. When my car was new 3g cell networks were the fast service (4g existed but it was in the early roll out phase), and thus what I would expect my car to have: now 3g is gone - so even if my car had a NAV subscription it couldn't get OTA updates.
  - wcarron 3y ago
    Eh, my subie is almost 10 years old at this point. The nav is definitely quite old and clunky, but works fine as long as you don't expect it to be snappy like a modern smartphone. I don't think it's much in need of an update; that's just modern expectations advancing at a ridiculous pace thanks to tech. I'm not saying that these are inherently bad. Hell, I'd enjoy having programmable 2-driver power-adjustment settings for the driver seat. That, dual zone climate control, and google maps built into the nav are basically the only luxury features I think really add value to a car. But I'm not dying without them. Meanwhile, my wife wants all that, android auto, ventilated seats, a moonroof, the side-view mirror blind spot assistance things, automatic cruise control, an auto-dimming rearview mirror, automatic lights/brights, being able to start the car remotely, etc.
smeej 3y ago
I'm currently driving a car from 2007 because of how much I do not want the "connected" features that have become standard since the advent of smartphones. I can't even find anyone who will sell me one with those features disabled. My only option is just to buy cars from before those features existed, and it gets harder every year.
- wcarron 3y ago
  Yeah, it feels like at some point I'll have to just buy a freakin kit car to get something simple.

ajross 3y ago

If that were true then we'd all still be driving 2-cylinder air cooled put-puts. I'm not telling you what to desire in a vehicle. I'm just saying that reactionary ludditism makes for poor market analysis. People want connected cars, period. I don't make the rules.

wcarron 3y ago
Really poor equivocation re: 2-cyls. Engine performance and efficiency is one of the primary and critical aspects that define the ability effectively travel between places, which, again is the entire purpose of a car. Engine (drivetrain really) power, torque, efficiency, durability and reliabilty are core aspects of a vehicle. Being able to accelerate (and brake) when needed is important. Watching a YouTube vehicle in traffic is not. Carmakers should be focused on improving drivetrains, handling (chassis, suspension, brakes, etc.), safety in collisions (including pedestrians/cyclists). Not on introducing a bunch of superfluous luxuries that only serve to drive up the cost of a car (and make people worse, more distracted, more selfish drivers). Edit: It's not ludditism to oppose needless 'improvements' that increase the complexity, cost, supply chain requirements, weight, and fragility of a vehicle. It's utilitarian.
- zamnos 3y ago
  The ludditism is in who decides what's "needless". To you it's needless, to other's it's utilitarian, and there are generational differences to account for as well. You probably know how to drive from your house to a number of destinations without a GPS. Other's... don't, making a screen and an entertainment system with CarPlay a utilitarian feature for them that's a deal-breaker on a new car if doesn't have that because it's a safety hazard otherwise. You could argue that people should just have the local version of The Knowledge memorized, but that's unrealistic, plus it doesn't account for traffic causing accidents along your preferred route.
  - wcarron 3y ago
    > You probably know how to drive from your house to a number of destinations without a GPS. Other's... don't, Well then they should learn how to fucking navigate. Learn where North is and go from there.

recursive 3y ago

> Nobody needs cameras replacing their sideview mirrors This measurably improves fuel economy. Not sure why it's grouped with the others.

wcarron 3y ago
Because it's another huge failure point of more software and significantly increases cost and complexity when the aerodynamic gains from no mirrors are negligible, especially considering the absolute monstrous size and brick like shape (terrible cda) of SUVs, trucks, and 'crossovers' that are extremely popular today.
- recursive 3y ago
  > gains from no mirrors are negligible This study says 3% - 6%. [0] The fact that inefficient vehicles exist doesn't seem like a reason to make more efficient ones even more efficient. [0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110016821004129 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S111001682...
  - smileysteve 3y ago
    3-6% is almost free air conditioning 4-8%
  - wcarron 3y ago
    Fair. That's not nothing, but again, it's a tradeoff. I'd take a plain old mirror for the sake of simplicity/cost instead of the slightly higher efficiency.

uguuo_o 3y ago

This is why it'd take some catastrophe for me to get rid of my 04 WRX STI. The interesting part has been seeing how got here.