 |
We’re big proponents of used cars, but cars are aging faster because interiors are now so intertwined with our gadgets. If you’ve ever seen a computer or phone from five years ago you’ve probably laughed at how ancient those items look compared to what you have now. But a car from twenty years ago can still keep up with modern cars.
Unfortunately, a five year old car with a navigation system seems antiquated even though the car has many years of great performance ahead of it. This is one of the reasons we avoid navigation systems in the cars we buy. Obviously, finding a car without navigation is becoming harder, but it preserves the car’s interior in a more timeless way. And when we need navigation, most phones offer everything an in-dash system could provide. But nav-systems are only the beginning of the problem.
Go to any car dealer and they will list off all the in-car technology as some of the most important selling points. How a vehicle drives has become secondary to how easily we can interact with it in ways we expect from our computer, television, or phone. This means that in-car technology is now following office technology.
Touch screens have taken over our personal lives. From smart phones to tablets we interact with the world through the tip of our finger. Hundreds of buttons can be simplified into ever-changing pages of options. If you’ve ever sat in a Honda and been astounded by the sea of buttons, then the idea of a touch screen seems like a great way to clean things up.
But, changing car interiors from buttons to touch screens may be the most dangerous idea in modern design.
To prove this, try the following: set a smart phone on the table, close your eyes, and try to pull up your map application. This is nearly impossible without at least glancing at the screen for reference. The problem is a touch screen offers no tactility and by its very nature is constantly changing. They require you to look. But buttons and knobs are always in the same place and do the same exact thing every time, allowing a driver to quickly learn how to reach the stereo or change a setting with only muscle memory and peripheral vision. This isn’t possible with a touch-screen.
Now consider the interior of the Tesla S. The iPad has come to the automobile. In place of buttons and knobs, nearly everything but the driving is accomplished by a touch screen with no tactility or consistency. And while a knob or button never really looks like something from the last century, a computer screen will seem like an artifact before a car’s paid off.
So by linking cars to technologies we replace or upgrade in a few years, we’ve deemed the car equally disposable. And as we chase in-car internet and touch screens which steal our focus, we unwittingly push our culture closer to self-driving vehicles. If the interior needs our attention, then it’s actually helpful for the car to navigate on its own.
The Awarning is this: if you like driving, buy a car for the way it drives and makes you feel behind the wheel. Ignore the tech. Deny the touchscreen. Keep connectivity and car-control separate and a funny thing happens… you feel connected to the car!
Send This To A Friend
14 Responses to “Cars Don’t Need Gadgets”
Leave a Reply
Great question. To clarify, we agree that Tesla S is the best example of in-car touchscreens. But, we all know how fast technology like this changes – a cutting edge computer is a dinosaur in five years. Even with software upgrades, digital interfaces seem dated faster than tactile things like a button. In terms of consistency, we are referring to a button existing in the same place and doing the same thing every time… that lends itself to less interaction which is good for driving. That’s not to discount what Tesla has done, as it is impressive and does seem wholly different than other car interiors. We are very intrigued to see where the industry at large goes with touchscreens and if there’s a limit to their integration – or will most people just wind up in driver-less cars. Either way, we really appreciate you, as an owner, chiming in this subject. And we welcome further commentary from your experience!
I’m not sure what you mean when you say Tesla’s onboard tech will become an artifact, or that it lacks consistency. It’s definitely not an iPad — it puts those to shame — and after having driven mine for more than a month, I wouldn’t go back. It interacts so seamlessly with the driver and the guage faces. This car is definitely a game changer. I recently drove my wife’s Audi on a short hop, and it was like going back to driving an old Model T.
I could not agree more! I prefer vehicles which are simple. I drive, sometimes, because I have to. A lot of times though, I drive because I like to . . . as a release. It’s a form of therapy. I don’t need a ton of tech along for the ride, complicating a simple experience. I do like a good bluetooth system to answer or make the occasional phone call, and a good stereo. Oh, and a back-up camera on some vehicles is helpful.
I like your take on tech . . . had not really thought about it in that way. My take is, the more tech there is on a car, the more likely something is to break or fail on the car. It drives up the cost of the vehicle. This is why I shun Fords and their overkill on tech. I find myself migrating toward VWs and their simpler interior. I don’t need to feel like I’m sitting in the cockpit of a 747 or an F-18.
Great article. Keep up the good work!
I AGREE HUD for the safety!
Get away from all the other killing and maiming parasitic tech such as touch screens!
I agree completely and I am more and more frustrated with new cars for this and other “improvements”. Most of which only drive the gross weight up to ridiculous levels and turn previously nimble cars into pigs.
There is one upside to it though: at least in theory used cars with “stone age” (i.e. fun) technology should be cheaper on the used car market. The “normal” consumers are hopefully driven to new cars with the latest gadgets so their car can update their Facebook status…. “oops – I just caused an accident… ” leaving the fun cars to us
Wow. I hadn’t really thought about this very much, but you’re absolutely right! I had a Mustang with SYNC in 2011. And I HATED SYNC. On the other hand I have a simple 2011 Miata and an even simpler 1995 Miata, and they are both a joy to drive with low gadgetry. The ’95 being the most timeless with a typical 90′s double DIN stereo.
I want to have Bluetooth in my 2011 to be able to easily take and make calls. However, I’m much happier installing whatever system I want, rather than depend on a factory unit. Once the unit goes obsolete in 5 years, I can just replace that and keep my car.
Needless to say however, some systems are much easier to replace than others. The factory Bluetooth Bose unit in the GT Miata is much harder to replace than the mid-range unit in my Touring model. But take the Mustang’s Sync system for instance. I wouldn’t want to have to deal with replacing that system with an aftermarket unit. I bet it’s intertwined with the ECU, wiper stalks and throttle-body cables that lead to the muffler-bearings. Really don’t want to have to deal with that. Lol
I really don’t like driving controls with no tactile feedback–like, say, the “toggle switch” gearshift in the Chrysler 300/Dodge Charger, or GM power steering from any time in the last sixty years.
This has been one of my regular rants for the last couple of years now. Not only does the technology “date” the vehicle, but when this stuff inevitably malfunctions it is ridiculously expensive to fix/replace. Currently on my 2002 X5 the dash info LED’s are fading/burning out–a $2500 fix I’m told. No matter how good an idea a reverse back-up camera is, do you really think 10 years from now it will still be functioning?
As a gadget guy I look for some tech but find the majority of it useless. Do I really need a twitter feed in my vehicle? Definitely do not need NAV systems. The one thing I wish the technology would be better is in the NVH department. My wife’s mini cooper is fun to drive but long stretches of open highway I need to blast the stereo just to hear the full range of songs over the ambient noise. Please, please, please keep buttons manufacturers! The last thing I need is an infotainment system that is as cumbersome as my phone.
I’ve been saying for years that today’s technology of how car performs gives us a safer, more pleasurable driving experience, but has technology gone too far when we see touch screens as opposed to button and switches on a cars dashboard?
With states concentrating on laws banning the use of cellphones while driving, I find these touchscreens more distracting, as they provide a menu with quite a bit of information to choose from. The time that it takes for your eyes adjust from looking at the screen to looking at the environment in front of the car, could be the reaction time needed to avoid a collision.
Multiple use knobs, buttons and switches makes more sense, than a touch screen.
Great article!
I completely agree with the spirit of the article. While I do enjoy some technology – bluetooth for hands-free speaking and voice navigation, usb-connection for my music – it’s baffling to me that more and more gadgets are introduced, legally, to the interior.
At the same time, the motor authorities around the world spend fortune in concentration and attentiveness campaigns…
Ever seen a dog chase its own tail?
This is the exact argument I’ve been making for the last couple of years. Couldn’t agree more. I’d much rather see the industry focus on development of better HUD systems combined with the usual knobs and buttons.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. It’s sad that what we loved and/or enjoyed about vehicles in the good ole days of cheap gas, is becoming a thing of the past due to the gadgetry as explained in this article.
I love the way you guys think and take the time to complement each others way of individuality/thinking, when putting a video together about your reviews. I Always look forward to the next review or comparison either by way of paper or video. Keep up the good work!!!
PS: Yes, I subscribe..
I completely agree. I tend to prefer 80s and 90s car for this reason