Modern car controls are idiotic and I hate them.

MCarp22 wrote:

Joe Gearin wrote: stupid "I-Drive" type controller on the center console--- directly where your right elbow rests.

Like, are you actually resting your *elbow* there and not your forearm? Because that would take some freakishly long arms.

I didn't want to be the one to say it I don't remember Joe looking that weird in person, but maybe he keeps his extra arm folded up inside his roomy GRM work shirt (available in the online store!)

If there are modern cars with smaller screens than the one in the new Miata, I haven't seen one yet.

Slippery wrote:

stuart in mn wrote: I recently had my old BMW in the shop and was given a newer 5 series as a loaner, so I had to figure out how to use the iDrive knob on the console to adjust the heater and radio. For ages and ages, the radio in every car had one knob to adjust the volume and one knob to change the channel, and the heater in every car had one knob (or slider) to set the temperature and one knob to adjust the blower speed. You could get in any car and you could adjust those things without looking away from the road. They shouldn't require having to page through multiple screens.

What 5 series is this? The one at work 2015 535d has knobs both for temperature and radio volume ... no need to go through the idrive.

I think it was a 2008. The main thing was trying to adjust the vents so I could get heat on my feet instead of on the windshield.

alfadriver wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: Don't want the dial to do anything? Either go to the home screen (one button) or just turn the screen off (click, twist, twist, click). Poor Mazda is getting a lot of grief for that screen. But where else could it go? Making it motorized would have added weight, and it's a small car. Weirdly, there would have been lots of room for it in 1990. With the onset of required backup cameras in 2017, you can't really do without a screen in a modern car.

Actually, you can. GM has gotten it approved to put the screen in the rear view mirror. Plus, there are plenty of cars out there with smaller screens than the one in the Miata. as for the complaint.. funny. This group so much pretends to be tech savvy, and is really more "get off my lawn".

Our Sedona has the backup camera screen in the rear view mirror.

If people would turn around to look behind them, and not rely on the back up camera as the only source of info then small screen in the mirror could be enough to see if someone is behind the car.

In reply to jstand:

We've been through this before- but a backup camera can show you things that you can not see by turning around. Like stuff on the ground. I really like them.

Then again, I'm the kind of person who uses all of the mirrors instead of turning my head to back. To me, the data seems more correct to my brain. All looking back does is show you what's behind you- using the mirrors helps see what is next to you.

logdog wrote:

Streetwiseguy wrote: I hate most steering wheel mounted controls, because I have huge hands, and I hit buttons accidentally every time I go around a corner. My XC90 isn't too bad, but I still find myself listening to a different radio station every now and then. I had some sort of captive Daewoo Chevrolet for a while, and I never- not once- turned a corner without changing something.

That's the problem designers and product plannets run into. For everything somebody hates there is somebody that likes it. I LOVE steering wheel controls. I use them all the time. I guess if you can make something 51% of people like you are a success.

Exactly.. We're going through this at the company I work for (we make manufacturing software).. We've got a massive redesign/overhaul coming out to public beta this week. We're expecting a e36 m3-storm..

"Why can't it be like the old way?!" "Because the old way was dumb." :)

I guess I like steering wheel controls. They're usually not super-useful without programming but sometimes they're handy and they don't get in my way. What kind of steering technique could make you accidentally press a steering wheel button? They're usually inboard enough that you have to reach in with your thumbs to press them.

My initial reaction to the cadillac mirror thing was "WTF??!!" and "My 96 F250 has the same technology - I look in the rear view mirror and I can see what's behind me!"

But then, the more I thought about it...I realized that this is a genius move if they execute it correctly, for several reasons. The first speaks directly to the OP's complaint - this puts the view behind you exactly where we have been trained for years to look for it - in the rear view mirror. Thus eliminating the need to look somewhere different for your rearward view than you do while driving forward. I've noticed a disconnect backing the wife's Maz6 with the camera - my brain stutters between wanting too look at the mirror or the dash.

Second, Alfa's right in that you can see more with a camera than you do with a standard mirror, both side to side because of the wide angle placed further rearward, and by effectively seeing "through" the car body to things directly behind and below you. I've noticed this advantage in the Maz6 where you can practically see down both aisles backing out in a parking lot, and in my friend's new F250 when backing onto a hitch. The amount of blind spot created by the long bed in my old truck directly behind the truck is HUGE. THere's no way to adjust side mirrors to see there unless they're 3' square and 8' from the side of the truck. And convex.

Third, on a more philosophical level, this is how tech should work in it's purest form. You already look at the mirror, so putting expanded information in that same space allows you to do and achieve more in a seamless way without adding any complication. Well, IF they execute it correctly, but that's another issue.

In reply to Keith Tanner:

I like the screen and have been saying this was the way to go for along time. Compact, cuts weight, easily adaptable to multiple formats.

As long as they use a screen that can be operated by a gloved hand and the GUI is laid out well, bring it.

Honestly if I was going to do a kit/locost/something else, I wouldn't put in a head unit, I would put in a cord to patch into my phone.

In reply to ultraclyde:

So, I moved from a Chevy Volt, with the camera display in the center console, to a Honda CR-Z with the camera display in the mirror.

In the Volt, I found myself going back and forth when in reverse, looking down at the screen, then up at the mirror, then back down at the screen.

In the CR-Z, I'm no longer looking back and forth, but I also really don't use the mirror at all anymore. The screen eats so much of the usable mirror space, there is little value in it.

Outside of placement, the Honda has a very wide lens on it, making it good for backing out blind, such as when between two vans. It helps make it so I don't miss the largely useless mirror when backing.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to jstand: We've been through this before- but a backup camera can show you things that you can not see by turning around. Like stuff on the ground. I really like them. Then again, I'm the kind of person who uses all of the mirrors instead of turning my head to back. To me, the data seems more correct to my brain. All looking back does is show you what's behind you- using the mirrors helps see what is next to you.

When I back out of my driveway, yes, a backup camera will show me if a toddler is laying down on the ground behind my car. This is good.

The street I back into is perpendicular to my driveway and has traffic that can approach quite rapidly. Using mirrors or a backup camera will not help me see this approaching traffic whatsoever. Turning my head around and looking out through the rear side windows will.

I found the loaner Focus we had infuriating to try and back out of the driveway. Even my wife commented on it, and she is completely ambivalent with regard to cars.

This is an area where old car visibility is hands-down better than new stuff. If new stuff & old visibility were combined, it would be the best of both worlds. But adding cameras to cars you can't see out of doesn't solve the problem.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to jstand: We've been through this before- but a backup camera can show you things that you can not see by turning around. Like stuff on the ground. I really like them. Then again, I'm the kind of person who uses all of the mirrors instead of turning my head to back. To me, the data seems more correct to my brain. All looking back does is show you what's behind you- using the mirrors helps see what is next to you.

Maybe it wasn't clear, but I didn't say they weren't useful, I said:

"If people would turn around to look behind them, and not rely on the back up camera as the only source of info then small screen in the mirror could be enough to see if someone is behind the car."

I like the backup camera, it eliminates a blind spot behind the van when backing up. The camera and Bluetooth are the must have options in my mind for any new DD I buy. It also is extremely useful when hitching up a trailer.

But, regardless of how big of a screen you have, the camera has a fixed focal length and FOV.

When backing into a parking space or other confined space the camera and mirrors are great. But once that area opens up, like backing out of a driveway, parking space, or garage the camera and mirrors only show a limited view and are not sufficient to show approaching hazards, like the jogger, kid on a bicycle, or other vehicles that are outside of the FOV for the camera and mirrors but can move into them quickly. To see the bigger picture drivers need to move their head to take in the surroundings.

The cameras provide useful info, but are only a part of the big picture. Like I said in my previous post, if you don't rely on it as the only source of info you can have a smaller screen provide the info you need.

Shrug, there have always been bizarre or unconventional controls on cars. Even on then new, now old, cars. Push button transmissions, reverse gear location, pedal locations and uses, steering controls, etc.

foxtrapper wrote: Shrug, there have always been bizarre or unconventional controls on cars. Even on then new, now old, cars. Push button transmissions, reverse gear location, pedal locations and uses, steering controls, etc.

Pedals and steering were all sorted out in the early 1900s. By the beginning of WW2, those had been fully standardized. Reverse location has often varied on H-pattern manuals and is related to the mechanical design of the transmission. Push-button transmissions are probably the only unusual control that existed between the 30s and the late 90s.

alfadriver wrote: This group so much pretends to be tech savvy, and is really more "get off my lawn".

Tech used for the purpose of improving the driving experience/adding safety is worth it-ish in my opinion. Tech for tech's sake is an opportunity for failure if its not done very well, in a way that is not intrusive, is intuitive, and doesn't add unnecessary cost to what is already a market of expensive and hard-to-maintain-at-home bloat mobiles.

Do any of the manufacturers have a backup camera that looks to the sides as well as the rear? I think that would be useful when backing out of a space that's perpendicular to traffic, to see if there is oncoming traffic.

A related complaint is how big and tall so many modern vehicles are, particularly pickups and SUVs. If I'm in a parking lot space in my e30 or e28 BMWs, it's impossible to see past the F-150 pickup parked next to me when I back out of the parking space.

alfadriver wrote: We've been through this before- but a backup camera can show you things that you can not see by turning around. Like stuff on the ground. I really like them. Then again, I'm the kind of person who uses all of the mirrors instead of turning my head to back. To me, the data seems more correct to my brain. All looking back does is show you what's behind you- using the mirrors helps see what is next to you.

with this , I agree. Our terrain has the mirror-screen, not the in-dash version. It makes sense to be there, and gives an idea of how close your bumper is to the car behind you, or the pole in the parking garage. The fish eye lense gives you a not-quite 180° view, but does shoe a lot of whats on either side, not just whats directly behind. Its a good feature, and the mirror is a great spot for it (probably less expensive than a touch screen too). Makes backing up to a trailer hitch a 1 person job...very easy

GameboyRMH wrote: By the beginning of WW2, those had been fully standardized.

Yea, except when they weren't.

As well ignition key going in the steering column, or the dashboard, or the transmission tunnel. Climate controls on the left of the dash, or even in the glovebox. Hot to the right, unless it's to the left, or up, or out, or in, or down.

Some things were set by national or international standard or law, such as PNR, but even that has been challenged and changed here and there by various makers before. Same gas pedal on the right convention.

Headlight switches that were eliminated in favor of automatic on lights. Similar various configurations of wiper operation and controls.

The changing of the long standard cigarette lighter socket.

I'm not saying things aren't weird today, just that they were capable of being weird years ago too. Back then we had "foreign" car shops, because conventional mechanics really couldn't understand the likes of an SU carburetor and how it worked. What do you mean you screw it in to back it out? In is richer? Etc.

Fun with seatbelts too. Early multi-piece units with separate shoulder belts. Auto attack belts, belts connected to the door.

Doors that opened backwards, doors that open up. Windows that slid sideways, windows that didn't move at all. Windows that folded up.

I dunno, I likes the new E36 M3. I really hate driving anymore but if a few select gizmos can make my life easier/ enjoyable why the berkeley not.

Flight Service wrote: In reply to Keith Tanner: I like the screen and have been saying this was the way to go for along time. Compact, cuts weight, easily adaptable to multiple formats. As long as they use a screen that can be operated by a gloved hand and the GUI is laid out well, bring it. Honestly if I was going to do a kit/locost/something else, I wouldn't put in a head unit, I would put in a cord to patch into my phone.

The Miata screen is a touch screen when you're parked, but it turns off the touch sensitivity when you're moving. Makes sense, you can operate the controls by feel using the knob/button combo but it's impossible to work a touch screen without looking at it. The GUI is actually open-source, so you can write your own apps. One of these days I'll write that lap timer. Guys are tweaking the settings to allow touch-screen operation whilst moving, which I think is a bad idea.

But there's so much complaining about it, I'm going to look into a screen delete option that lets you use a phone when you need to access the screen. Either that or come up with a way to support the music on a two-line screen that doesn't protrude from the dash.

I drove the ND home last night. I could not get my elbow on those control knobs

My wife drives a Volt, I know what you mean....

4cylndrfury wrote:

alfadriver wrote: This group so much pretends to be tech savvy, and is really more "get off my lawn".

Tech used for the purpose of improving the driving experience/adding safety is worth it-ish in my opinion. Tech for tech's sake is an opportunity for failure if its not done very well, in a way that is not intrusive, is intuitive, and doesn't add unnecessary cost to what is already a market of expensive and hard-to-maintain-at-home bloat mobiles.

I'm no fan of Tech for the sake of tech.

But many of the items here are actually for safety, but since some can't figure it out, it appears to be tech for tech's sake.

Making a hands off call is safer than holding a phone to your ear. Being able to change some setting from your steering wheel AND having info on your dash is better than having to look at the center stack to figure out what switch to use. Or doing either with voice commands.

Ok, so BMW's choices of adding massive amounts of vehicle control based stuff available is probably too much.

But most cars- we are talking- HVAC controls, Radio, cruise control, and the new add in the last decade- hands free phones and Nav systems. And it's easy to discount the NAV, since few of them allow you to do much when moving.

Since people have spent so much time in their cars- most people with knob controls for the radio and HVAC- you think the stuff falls easily to hand. When changing cars, that's not true. Which is one reason I like auto controls so much- set to 72 and ignore (unless there's a defrost situation that takes priority). Auto lights are the same- I'm happy to let them turn on by themselves. So all I really need to do is change channels as the radio goes in and out.

Having an easy set up to do that is pretty nice.

Keith Tanner wrote: I drove the ND home last night. I could not get my elbow on those control knobs

Nah--- -but I bet your forearm hit it a few times by mistake! (and yes, I meant forearm not elbow....picky bastards! )

It didn't, but that's because I've got thousands of miles in these cars. I can see how you could do it.

Spent 20 minutes helping a lady turn off her emergency flashers.

GameboyRMH wrote: I guess I like steering wheel controls. They're usually not super-useful without programming but sometimes they're handy and they don't get in my way. What kind of steering technique could make you accidentally press a steering wheel button? They're usually inboard enough that you have to reach in with your thumbs to press them.

BIG hands, dude. I hit them with the base of my thumb. If they were concave instead of convex, they might be a wee bit better.