Cars just keep getting worse. Manufacturers try to cram too much functionality into the car at too low a price point. Even if you buy a car that costs more than most people's house, it is going to be full of technology that at some point will fail. You can't fix it yourself. And when you get it fixed, it invariably ends up costing some significant fraction of what the car is worth. Even if it is just a faulty rail for the seat.
To top it off, silly regulations also contribute to making cars more distracting and annoying. I used to laugh at American cars for making those incessant ding-ding sounds when the door is open. But now European cars ding, and ping, and whine constantly because regulations require them to constantly bombard you with warnings and interruptions. As if that's actually going to make the car safer.
There is something extremely relaxing about driving a vintage car from the 1970s. Sure, you have to learn how to coax the engine into life on cold days. And you actually have to learn how to modulate brakes and throttle. And learn how to fix the 4-5 things that break every couple of years. But that's a lot less bother than having a computer on wheels where every single problem could end up being so expensive it is cheaper to scrap the car and get a new one.
Here's what I'd like: an electrical car modeled on the philosophy of the Fiat 500 or the Citroen 2CV. A minimalist car that is so simple anyone can afford it, and anyone can learn how to repair anything on it. A car with as few parts as possible and where every spare part is easily available. (Fiat 500 parts used to be available where you bought your groceries. That's not going to happen today, but if you could buy every single part online at a reasonable price, that would do).
A car that comes with drawings for every part, for every electrical circuit. A car that can be modified and evolved to fit new needs. A car that can grow a cottage industry of companies that make upgraded parts, rebuild cars etc.
The Fiat 500 and 2CV were important cars. Even more important than the VW Beetle. Because they provided mobility to much deeper demographics. Nobody really makes important cars anymore. Important cars change how society works. And I think the only way we can make cars tolerable again is to figure out a way to come up with a minimalist, open source, vehicle architecture that can satisfy the safety requirements. I think we have the technology to do that today.
VW’s e-Up comes very close to that modern but minimal EV I wish someone would keep making. No touchscreen, just a smartphone mount. Analog HVAC controls. Even the battery-remaining gauge is an analog needle (though the usability of that detail is debatable!).
The absurd thing is that production will stop due to cyber security requirements. This highlights the absurd effect of regulations . Systems with a much bigger attack surface survive the risk assessment. All these new regulations are leading to absurd adverse effects towards their goal but particularly the environment .
Do the regulations mean that physical controls have to be replaced by a touch screen or is the touch screen just required for displaying a camera feed?
They mandate a way to view the backup camera. I suppose at that point it incentivizes auto makers to add additional functionality to that screen. There is only so much room on the dash after all.
I'd also be surprised to learn auto makers aren't doing this sort of thing because it tends to sell better. Similar situation to phones getting larger every year despite some segment crying for smaller phones.
Once you're sticking a big ol' screen in the driver's vision during backup time, that screen becomes obvious real estate for any other user interface you may want. Buttons and dials are cheaper than a touch screen, but buttons and dials+a screen are more expensive than a touch screen.
Seems plausible, at least. A button is cheaper than a touchscreen, but you can replace N buttons with one touchscreen. (Citation still needed, though.)
I've been driving an e-Up for the last two years and am happy with it. It's a small car, just 240 km in the summer and 180 km in the winter though.
The battery pack is not temperature-controlled so it gets hot in long trips, and recharging becomes excruciatingly slow. Then again, it was not designed for long trips.
The new Citroen e-C3 is a modern, cheap(ish) car with a similar concept: optional touchscreen and many physical controls.
> But now European cars ding, and ping, and whine constantly because regulations require them to constantly bombard you with warnings and interruptions. As if that's actually going to make the car safer.
As a driver of a european car, I'm not sure my car has ever bombarded me with any such sounds except if I drive without a seatbelt. Can you explain further?
Depends on how new the car is since the regulations are evolving and a lot of these new things are quite recent.
Well, let's start with mandatory speed limit notifications. Which would be fine if all cars actually knew what the speed limit was. They don't always get this right. Which could mean that where you drive, your car will constantly be pestering you. And you can turn it off, but it'll be turned back on when you restart the car. Then a lot of new cars will ding if they don't think you are paying attention. For instance if you have to navigate the display or, again, if the system interprets what it sees wrong.
Then there's all the situations that the car, for some reason, feels are threatening. Like if I drive over temporary markings in the road. Or the car gets frightened by a shadow or snow on a sensor. Or if there is a bit of wheel slip because it's winter and I'm driving on solid ice.
I've even had "security systems" almost slam me into the guardrail at considerable speed. Because some idiot at BMW thought that it would be a good idea to not make the car understand how temporary road markings work. In Germany. Where the car is designed.
In that case I'll admit that I didn't notice the beeping as much as I was busy trying to stop the car from killing me. And to be fair, that bit of nonsense was on BMW and not the regulators.
The people who regulate these things aren't exactly drivers. Nor are they burdened by insight.
I hire cars fairly often, and some of the newer ones just make random ding noises with no visual indication, and I can’t work out why. I think it may sometimes be a blind spot or proximity warning.
That being said, only some cars do it so I’m guessing it’s poor manufacturer implementations mainly.
There's a growing cottage industry of companies that will take older classic cars and convert them into electric cars. Obviously they don't have the range or safety of a modern electric vehicle but you can essentially customise it to your liking in every way.
Depending on whether the classic car needs any restoration it will be about as expensive as a mid to upper range electric car but as it's a classic car and most of the installs are reversible you don't have the same worries about a modern electric car being disposable junk to be discarded in 10 years, you can probably just get a new battery pack put in after 10 years or whenever and continue driving.
I'm not so interested in approaches that require a lot of initiative from the consumer. That's all well and good, but it is only ever going to appeal to the very few.
I'd like to see a car that has a very minimalist architecture and that will meet regulatory requirements. A car that initially may have only a handful of manufacturers producing the key components that need to be done right to fulfil the regulatory requirements. The main structural elements, the drivetrain and control system, suspension, brakes, crumple structures, airbags etc.
The first milestone is a complete car that regulatory bodies can approve. Then it gets interesting.
When a complete system exists I'd wish the designs to be open so that you can do two things. First, the major parts can be made by multiple manufacturers, possibly local, bringing competition to the table. This is mostly about being able to prove that the parts you manufacture are up to spec. The second thing this would enable is evolution. Evolving parts would be more expensive since you have to go through testing and certification processes. But if you can afford that, you can get a competitive edge. Some people may pay more for a chassis that is stronger and lighter, for instance.
This would also open up for individual brands to develop on top of this. Most cars today are already "platform cars". Meaning that the same basic car is give various "personalities" and marketed under different brands. By having an open car, you might even get interesting companies such as the coachbuilders of 100 or so years ago (see wikipedia for "Coachbuilder"). Or more streamlined operations focusing on low cost for consumers and production for inventory
With a completely open car, where all parts can easily be sourced from multiple sources, repair becomes easy again. You buy parts and do it yourself, or you can choose to have a workshop do it for you.
I'm interested in what we can do for the masses. Not the few.
Now imagine what the increased availability and cost reduction of additive and subtractive manufacturing enables.
>> Here's what I'd like: an electrical car ... A minimalist car that is so simple anyone can afford it.
Not possible with today's safety rules. You mentioned this in passing but dismissed it without understating. You can argue it's not needed (and some probably are not needed), but this is just yelling into the wind.
Also, as Engineers we know that cost is related not just to simplicity but scale. Your dream car will never be at the cost you or like minded people will buy because it may be simple and featureless, but it will be expensive.
The electric car you're asking for will never exist unless you build it yourself or manage to import from a country with lax laws.
I agree that a open car concept would be hard to bootstrap. It wouldn't surprise me if we're talking about $3-4bn to get to where it becomes a pure manufacturing problem and evolution can drive itself. That is, you just need to be able to prove that the critical parts someone manufactures are within spec.
If I had that kind of money lying around I'd probably initially focus on funding projects in academia in collaboration with regulatory and certification bodies. There are already (largely pointless) academic programs to design and build race cars. It should be possible to interest academia in doing something vaguely productive instead.
Like collaborating on designing a platform for cheap mobility.
As for simplicity and scale: simplicity is absolutely a requirement for cost efficient scalability. To see how incredibly important this across disciplines, have a peek at "How Big Things Get Done" by Bent Flyvbjerg.
> Also, as Engineers we know that cost is related not just to simplicity but scale. Your dream car will never be at the cost you or like minded people will buy because it may be simple and featureless, but it will be expensive.
Cars very close to the "dream car" do exist, and they are cheap, but they are not available in US/EU due to our absurd regulations. Look at the new land cruiser 70 series. Simple, reliable, affordable - but not available in the US because they don't meet random punitive safety or emissions rules.
I guess you are agreeing with me then as I said "unless you build it yourself or manage to import from a country with lax laws."
The problem here is that "random punitive safety or emissions rules" is subjective and up for debate. That is what regulation and politics are for, nobody will ever 100% agree so compromises are made.
I suppose if this is the most important issue for someone, they could move to Japan and have their J70.
There are quite a few companies offering EV conversions for classic cars, for example Retro Electrics [0] and EV-Evolution [1] for the 500. Personally, I'd go for the kit. I'm 6'4" though so a 500 might be a bit of a squeeze :)
And then they came up with the ridiculous circle controller and the requirement to still cycle through menus, rather than keeping things to toggle buttons.
I really like the idea of the open source car but I think it might be too soon. Once battery cost and energy density reaches the asymptotic phase, perhaps we will see CARV.
This just reads like a boomer hipster rant that gathers points on Reddit and HN for some bizarre reason.
The 1970s car had a ton of parts and mechanisms only professionals could fix. Not being able to touch car software is good, and demand will dictate how many cars will cater to your ideology in the future. Probably not too many.
I should be able to modify the software on my car, because I am exactly as credentialed to develop that software as the person who actually did. Hell, my high schooler nephew holds the same credentials:
There are no professional software engineering licenses. If some software is too important for Joe Public to wrench on, it should need to be signed off by a P.E. who can vouch their livelihood and professional standing on the quality of that software, representing not the company's "maybe some people will die, but we can afford it" interests, but the public's "we don't want manufacturers planning to kill people" interests.
Until then, I've got the same qualifications as that person. Let me at it.
Could you provide some examples of "parts and mechanisms" that only professionals could fix on 1970s era cars?
Also, how much experience do you have working on cars? The reason I'm asking is that a lot of repair and maintainance jobs may seem hard if you've never done them before, but are actually not that hard.
> The 1970s car had a ton of parts and mechanisms only professionals could fix.
What?! Those parts were frequently repaired/replaced by non-professionals. Half of the Craftsman section of the tool department at Sears in the 70s and 80s was mechanics tools so you could exactly that.
Easy availability of components doesn't necessarily mean that you will work on he car yourself. It mostly means any workshop can work on your car and it doesn't cost a fortune. Easy access to parts from multiple manufacturers means you are not stuck waiting for parts from a single manufacturer. It also means that there can be competition to deliver the part at a reasonable price. And quite possibly, that you can get upgraded parts if you are willing to pay a premium.
This is essentially what the right to repair movement is pushing for laptops, phones and whatnot. Access to replacement parts for phones and laptops aren't necessarily so you can do the work yourself. It doesn't mean that your grandmother will be replacing BGA components on your laptop. But it does mean that you can go to anyone sufficiently competent to carry out the work and get it done.
And as with computers that were not built for easy upgrading and/or repair: a lot of modern cars suffer from the same problem. And often for the same reason: they want you do spend more money buying a new computer/car or have their clueless service reps tell you that you need to spend money on unnecessary parts because they can't or won't repair them.
Righ now both me and a friend of mine are waiting for components to arrive for our respective cars so the workshop can get around to replacing them. I've been waiting for parts to arrive since the start of december. He has been waiting for almost half a year for to arrive from the factory. The manufacturer can get away with shitty service because there's really only one place to get the parts.
I'd much rather own a car where I can get the parts within 24 hours and I can either get a mechanic to fix it for me, or, if the job doesn't require a lot of custom equipment (which I'm not allowed to buy) and know-how, do it myself.
You sound like you haven't actually given this any thought, so you should ask yourself why you felt compelled to "contribute".
> Cars are getting too big; why are manufacturers pushing “crossovers” and SUVs on consumers and why are consumers buying them? I could write pages on this point alone.
I’ve got 3 kids under 5. Car seats are absolutely enormous these days — it’s impossible to fit 3 across in even the largest “crossovers” (VW Atlas / KIA Telluride). I don’t want a big car (my dream car is something along the lines of the Audi A4 Allroad Saloon) but I also sometimes need to bring all my kids to the same place.
Figure out a way to safely downsize car seats and I bet SUV purchases would drop 10% or more.
Yeah that’s my Allroad. Almost impossible to find in the states, and priced bizarrely — base price exceeds the Q5 SUV. It honestly seems like they’re TRYING to not sell any.
As I understand it, classic station wagons are classified as "cars", while SUVs are classified as "light trucks". [edit: in the US]
Different regulations apply to the two categories, in particular fuel economy. From what I'm seeing, a manufacturer's current line of "cars" has to average over 40 mpg, while their line of "light trucks" only has to average around 30 mpg.
This has probably changed a bit... the most current numbers I see are for the 2020 model year.
The family vehicle for much of my childhood was a late 80s model Aries K station wagon. Always managed to fit everybody and all our stuff, and always got us there (albeit not always with speed, particularly on mountain roads… that little 4-cylinder wasn’t exactly a powerhouse).
Really a very practical vehicle. Just needed a little more oomph.
Have you looked at minivans? When my 3 were under 5 a couple years ago they all fit, with room for all the stuff. No, it's not sexy, but it's incredibly practical.
My 2014 Renault Traffic long box on wheels gets nine people and their luggage over 1100 kilometers on a single fuel tank... I don't understand SUV that weight double, cost double and only seat five people at half the range.
I'll hopefully keep it for at least a decade or two - it is designed for much more demanding tasks than the about monthly family outings, the holidays and standing idle the rest of the time while I commute with my bicycle and shop with my cargo bicycle.
I fail to see anything electric currently available that could replace that incredible efficiency. I hope that, by the time I'm ripe for replacing it, the technology and the market will have matured.
"SUV that weight double, cost double and only seat five people at half the range."
That's just not right. Minivans are typically as big, if not longer, and weigh more or less the same. As to cost, unless you're comparing the suburban, (relatively rare vehicle even in my corner of rich, suburbanite, 6 kids midwest) their cost is comparable.
Ive been looking to buy a Sienna for over a year and I cant find one without dropping almost $70 k out the door. For that money I can get an expedition and have more space.
Renault Trafic in 9 seat configuration weights 1.8 tons - so yes, it is only one ton less than the average fuel-powered SUV... But the electric ones are much heavier. It costs 25k€ which gets a modest subcompact SUV or about half of a popular large one.
What do you mean by "ton" in either Kg or on lb (or stone for all I care). Like calories, ppl mess that unit up all the time (tonne, ton, short ton, long ton, etc).
If you mean 1800 kg, my full size 3.3 L V6 Sorrento weighs less at 1724 Kg. So unless you're comparing a Renault to a GMC Suburban, which I must insist are rare, you're just nowhere near the right mass.
I love my minivan but it doesn’t entirely solve the size issue: a Toyota Sienna is 7 inches longer than a Kia Telliride (one of the largest crossovers) and only six inches shorter than a Ford Expedition (which is a solid example of a traditional truck frame SUV)
There's a good argument that a lot of people buying 3-row SUVs would probably be better off with a minivan--which is what many of my whitewater paddling friends drive. But, as you say, they're mostly not actually smaller vehicles for the most part.
You do miss the ground clearance for some applications. Even just comparing to the old CRV we had, we drove that places you wouldn’t be able to take a minivan.
But for internal capacity, so much better: one of the big things is that the much shorter hood makes it easier to maneuver and gives you more usable space from that extra length.
I once needed to haul a bunch of tile and my dad was out of town with his truck that I normally borrowed at the time. My grandmother offered the use of her minivan and I balked that there was no way it could handle the weight. We looked it up and it had something like over 1500 pounds of capacity which impressed me and I used it to get my tile. It was also quite comfortable for road trips. As you say though, they are not cool and so people will find reasons to dismiss them.
I have a family and live in a place that gets snowy. I would love an all wheel drive minivan that I could put good tires on. But that category is dominated by SUVs.
My theory is that it's about making the model line up more efficient: SUVs can sell with both families and with image-conscious individuals. So rather than selling mini-vans to families and trucks to individuals who just think they're cool, sell SUVs to both groups.
Uncool to whom? Everyone I know who has even two kids wants one, and anyone with more than three already has one or is miserable constantly taking both vehicles everywhere. The waitlist on a Toyota Sienna is well over a year long. 1-year old models sell above new MSRP because you can get one today with 10k miles on it vs. putting your name on a list and waiting.
And they're not cheap by any stretch. A base model Sienna is almost $40k. That's more than a year's income for 25% of households[0]. The Platinum starts at $15k more than that.
Minivans are super hard to buy right now - although demand probably isn't too high the supply is extremely limited.
A minivan would be too big for my family's daily needs, but I love renting them for road trips. Even the older dodge caravan has great space and is a comfy ride for everyone.
> Minivans are super practical vehicles, with great engineering that get overlooked because they have a weird uncool stigma about them.
So much this. My minivan fits my five kids, myself, and all of their bikes (using the big trunk and front seat) with room to spare. It's amazing.
Nonetheless, my wife won't drive it and complains constantly that it would "make her look like a soccer mom." She hates it.
Instead she drives a Subaru Ascent, which only just barely fits the kids, feels cramped, and has maybe 30% of the cargo space—all while having a pretty similar footprint.
Not so uncool when you stick all the kids, the dog and the luggage inside, two kayaks and two rigid SUP boards on the roof and three bikes on the back rack.
would be easiest to just move the marketing dollars from the Mustang to the Sienna, but those dollars come from the markup over BOM that Mustang owners are willing and able to afford
Sienna purchasers probably don't mind paying less for a stigma since their primary concern likely is carrying kids around, instead of advertising their ability to have them in the first place
Minivans are awesome. My first car was a 800 dollar Ford Windstar I got from a touring band called Creekside. Had a "I believe Edward Snowden" sticker on it and only 4 seats.
Quiet, spacious, Great sound system, V6, 4 captains chairs, room for our drums and amps. Cruised great. No maintainence in the 3 years I owned it. Fuel economy around 20 on a good day. Very comfortable.
Seats popped out, tons of storage room. Low rear bumper / floor so you could easily load it.
Prior to the Ford flex they were used by a lot of installers for these favorable features
My family had a used Chrysler Town and Country for getting around through the early 2000s.
Great car. Its engine was a a notch or two above baseline which gave it plenty of power, plenty of room, drove well. Also if you needed to haul something large instead of kids just pop out as many seats as needed and suddenly you had van-like cargo space.
I laugh every time I see ads for some giant, fuel inefficient, unsafe, ridiculous SUV advertising third row seating. Minivans are the answer to every question that ends in families buying a giant SUV right now but they’re not “cool”.
I bought a Honda Pilot because I occasionally seat 7, frequently haul lumber, pipe, etc. which that the guy say fold down seats are a boon, and need a tow package. Fits the bill.
Not enough ground clearance, at least until the latest KIA Carnival came out. I live in New England, land of unplowed roads and potholes. Even our old Saab would bottom out on the regular.
I guess that’s a local issue. I wonder why people who don’t have such clearance issues don’t choose minivans. I, for example, drove minivans in California for many years in mountain snow without issue.
The difference between minivans and most SUVs (especially crossovers) that people buy isn't all that great, maybe 1-1.5 inches. Most SUVs aren't really high-clearance 4WD like a Jeep Rubicon is. You get into other issues like run-flats vs. standard tires and the lack of a full-size spare but even most relatively serious SUVs don't automatically come with full-size spares any longer and their factory jacks tend to be useless.
We have just one kid on the way and would already buy a minivan if they weren't so hard to get. The waitlist on a Sienna is well over a year long. We have friends who put their names on the list in Q1 2022 and are still waiting "another 4 or 5 months."
I don't think 10% would even come close. People are barely having kids yet alone 3 kids. Most of the land tanks i see at daycare / school are for 1 kid and sometimes two. Granted, they have as much luxury as an international flight with TVs, charger ports, personal air, snacks and all the rest.
I've never actually seen one but a while back on HN there was a claim that in Europe they sell a "4 across" car seat. It's apparently just one BIG seat but b/c it's a, pardon the pun, a "monolith" seat then it will fit into the back of a regular European SUV.
SUVs are pushed by manufacturers due to their relative lack of regulation in the US, and so the more money they can make from them. Safety and car seat sizes have nothing to do with it.
Why do you feel the need to tell me I didn't read the comment? I did, and my comment was my response.
> That the market has cars bug enough for him, and the reasons for providing it, are not germane to his comment.
Did you watch the video? If the response to "why are cars so big now" is "because kids" then I think it's relevant to point out that that's not why they're big, and that we somehow manage to have 3 backseats and non-tank sized SUVs in Europe just fine.
We had 3 under 3. When our son was 5 and the twins were 3, we were able to switch to forward facing car seats in the back of my Dodge Challenger, which is technically just a coupe. They're all Diono Radian car seats, and the kids fit comfortably 3 across.
Just thought I'd share in case you ever want to reconsider the dream car thing. You never know until you try and you can always bring car seats and test fit.
To your original point though, most of the time we use my wife's Honda Pilot because of the extra space for errands, sports gear, and luggage (and also because my wife doesn't want to drive stick in Northern Virginia traffic).
What you need is a minivan. Toyota Proace City Verso for instance. SUVs are big but the usable space inside is quite small. It'a not a sports car or a status symbol, but it handles the 3 kids part quite fine.
Not directly my issue, but kids are my primary reason for needing a larger vehicle.
We live in an area too remote for regular public transit, and are not ready to sacrifice the convenience of having our own vehicle.
Because we own one vehicle, it must transport 2 kids (in carseats), 2 adults regularly, a third adult occasionally, and a dog regularly. Plus it needs a smidge of storage room.
In short, our environment and family makes an SUV a good option. Everything else is really difficult to live with.
In the US you have an option to turn front passenger airbags off and place a baby seat there.
In Europe there's no such option.
I hope those enormous modern seats are made that way for the sake of protection. Cause even with a bigger car, like Audi A6, two such seats consume all the space on the back bench
On the models designed for the US market - maybe. I have checked with 3 cars being produced specifically for Europe: Volvo, Audi and Toyota. While on the majority of videos and instructions there's a special off switch, on those cars it does not exist.
Pretty sure it's mandatory - I seem to recall a considerable educational campaign when they first arrived in Poland regarding passenger front side airbag and child car seats.
I live here and have rented vehicles across pretty much all brands and have never seen a car where the front passenger airbag can't be turned off. In fact there are ~identical regulatory stickers on the passenger sun shade warning that the passenger airbag needs to be turned off when a rear facing car seat is used in the passenger seat.
Yeah crossovers are pointless. I had to sit in the back row of a crossover where every seat was full and ended up having the driver pull over due to claustrophobia. My head was against the ceiling and I could barely move. I'm 6' tall, not small but not a basketball player.
Large/Medium Sedans are larger than most SUVs, they are several sizes larger than all crossovers. I like sedans because they have the most space of all cars except maybe top of the range SUVs.
You can still buy a Subaru Outback. The infotainment is horrendous (just give me knobs!), but otherwise it's supposed to be a dependable station wagon, at a reasonable price, without too many frills. The AWD does hurt gas mileage, but has advantages in snow and dirt, and basically means that it's as capable as an SUV in all but ground clearance.
I bought a V60, one of the few remaining station wagons for sale in the US. And it is great for those with 1 or 2 kids, but, like the author implies, doesn't really work for those with 3 car seats. The only thing that has grown faster than the size of our cars is the size of our car seats.
This is true. It required us to buy a new house with another room; versus more nice to have.
Lots of public accommodations are maximized for four people such as restaurant seating or hotel rooms.
Parents can no longer just split up with one kid.
There are lower cost options. We did have to buy a new car (replaced a Toyota 4Runner with a Ford F150 Crew Cab) - our other car was already a Honda Odyssey - but all three of our kids share a bedroom and I bought a lightweight Helinox cot that we use in hotel rooms when we can't find a place with 2x queen/king + sofa bed.
I see kitchen appliances are in the shit pit of the author’s graph and I can definitely testify to that.
We just bought a new dishwasher and several of the advertised features are only accessible if I connect it to the net and use an app. Since I won’t connect it to the net, I could have saved money by buying a model that didn’t advertise those features.
Household appliance in general - our new GE washer and dryer has wifi for use case uknown, but to pay for the BOM they removed the interior drum lights.
The new washer/dryer all in one is absolutely confusing to me.
So you can leave your clothes in one machine, and in two hours everything is washed and dried.
But now I have to wait two hours for each load of laundry, versus 45 minutes and swap between machines. They have effectively more than doubled the time laundry takes.
Laundry latency is not a problem for me. I do not have consecutive loads 90+% of the time. I have 3-4 loads a week.
On the other hand, I do have limited space for appliances, so in many places I've lived buying a seperate washer and dryer would mean either forgoing a dishwasher, or getting a condenser dryer and installing it in the corner of some random room away from the other appliances (which would technically be a code violation as then it wouldn't have its own dedicated RCD).
So I get a combo unit, turn it on and forget about it for several hours (when I'm home all day, I even use the eco mode, which takes 6 hours for a combined wash and dry). Come back later in the day and unload. It actually does have a 60 minute wash + dry cycle but I rarely use it as it uses a very hot dry cycle which risks shrinking clothes.
And I'm probably more like a load every week or two. While I do find a larger washer handy every now and then I'm sort of regretting I didn't replace both my ancient washer and dryer with something that could handle both or could be stacked when my increasingly dysfunctional washer finally gave up the ghost.
I love my LG washer/dryer combo. Yes, it takes a bit longer, but it's half the work from my point of view.
I only load and unload clothes once (not twice).
I only program a machine once (not twice).
One big feature my LG has is it will keep rotating the drum a half a turn every few minutes, so you can take the dry, clean clothes out much, much later, and they will not be wrinkled.
As others have said, if you're limited on space in your house it's a bonus. In my case I converted the space that would have been taken up by a second unit stacked vertically into large storage area with shelves.
This assumes you have the vertical height to stack them. In Europe the utility connection points are usually in a kitchen or utility room under a cupboard, with a counter top on top and more storage above that.
In Paris my dryer and washer were in the kitchen, but vertical. In Berlin, they were in a closet next to one of the bathrooms, also vertical. In both cases apartments, if that matters.
In Germany and Switzerland, washers and dryers are usually in the basement, otherwise in the bathroom. In the UK and Ireland, they're usually in the kitchen. Unsafe to generalize.
Outside of the US, (Latin america, europe, asia) it is more common to have an all in one usually in the kitchen. A lot of the foreign workers who stayed in corporate housing we had didn't even know what a dryer was or how to use it.
Then I’m even more confused what the problem is. Do you have so much laundry that you keep both machines perpetually running in parallel? I can only imagine that happening if you have a household of 8+ people.
Datapoint: as someone who lives in a small apartment without room for two machines, the combined washer/dryers are wonderful for me. I'm on board with the initial article, but it made me realize that enshittification is relative - to some people, the "unnecessary features" are actually useful. Maybe enshittification is actually a lesson on how to slice a product into different product lines?
Yeah, similarly discovered my washing machine's auto-dosing feature only works if connected to the internet and installing an app too. It needs WPS, so I couldn't even connect it if I wanted.
What I learned from this experience is to read the manual before buying. Fortunately they are all online -- in fact this Bosch only came with a "quick start" guide so the manual had to be downloaded anyway (and most of the doco is in the form of videos, ugh).
We proudly bought a €22 toaster yesterday what was the second cheapest in the store and completely avoided the fancy ones. I’m all for dumb appliances…
Hm. It's strange when someone else's objective experience is so different from one's own. The house I'm renting has some cheapo dishwasher, and it does a great job. Only uses as much water as a toilet flush, too.
Ever since I switched to powdered detergent and started throwing a pinch of powder in the bottom of the tub in addition to filling up the main dispenser halfway, I have not had a single dish come out with a piece of food on it.
I also recommend disabling any “auto” features of dishwasher has.
The only caveat to this video: don’t fill up the detergent dispenser all the way with powder, go about halfway. He corrects this mistake in his follow-up video, which I also recommend.
But don't overfill the device or it won't clean as effectively. If you're waiting until you're playing Jenga to maximise the items inside to turn it on, then you're probably obstructing the water flow and reducing cleaning effectiveness.
My Bosch dishwasher has been excellent. It wasn’t cheap but it does a great job and is dead silent (can barely hear it sitting in the open concept living room just a few feet from the kitchen).
The only problem is that for whatever reason the power boxes required to wire them up for hardwired setups are bad and have a tendency to melt, as you’ll find reports of online. I’ve had this happen once already and intend to have an electrician convert my hardwire into an outlet so I can plug it in with a regular cord and not need the box.
I actually have, but with the caveat that you have to know how to place the dishes in the thing such that they don't block the flow of water. Not a burden once you know how to do it, but might initially take some time to figure it out, if just looking at the thing doesn't make it obvious.
Arguing on the flip side of this is the fact that the new Prius is faster from 0-60 than the muscle car Burt Reynolds drove in Smokey and the Bandit, has an equivalent top end, and:
- gets something like 3x the mileage
- has air conditioning
- has a ridiculously better sound system
- has anti-lock brakes
- has traction control
- has far superior crumple zones/crash protection
- has air bags
- is far more reliable (even when the Trans Am was new)
- has 2x(?) the expected lifespan
- has adaptive cruise control
- probably a lot of other things I'm not thinking of
Most cars are faster than that Trans Am, even cars that aren't super efficient. It's common to think of "fast" cars from an era with a sense of nostalgia, but objectively, they're pedestrian by comparison with your random modern sedan.
I think the point of the article isn't to compare with cars from 50 years ago, as many of the points you made here have been the case for years. Cars got so good, that manufacturers had to start pushing to get more revenue and continue to sell cars, even though modern cars can last 15-20 years pretty reliably.
I think there was a sweet spot - roughly late 90s (maybe ODB2 adoption, whenever that was for a given brand), through the mid-oughts - where you got most of the benefits of computerization without most of the drawbacks. I have a car from that era that I never want to give up.
Yep, I just picked the Prius because I posted stats about it <somewhere, maybe HN?> a few months back and got railed because "the Trans Am is cooler, man!" so I had the stats handy.
So your point is that the author's proposed enshitification has been recent and brief? I'll happily concede that cars getting larger and heavier is a blight, but that's been going on (in the U.S.) for at least twenty years, while many of the other points the author makes (and which I am dubious of) are just in the past 5 years or so. As one example, I'll happily take the pain of pairing over bluetooth over having to plug in to USB any day, and let's not even start comparing that to e.g. the cassette-simulator connectors of thirty years ago. :-)
It has been a process, and I don't know that it's an obvious line. Bluetooth is great, but cars dating back to 2012 had it. Funny enough, most cars with CarPlay aren't yet wireless, requiring USB connections.
If there's anything I'd point to as an obvious tipping point, I'd say it's switches and knobs that have been converted to touch controls. (for example, on my EV6, I have to use a touch control to toggle between radio controls and climate controls on the strip where you'd normally see them)
That's definitely not one that is progressively getting better with time. I feel like my early 2000s car has a better quality sound than a 2010s BMW I test drove, and I'm pretty sure mine didn't have any kind of an upgrade package on it.
I guess the thing with sound systems is that Hifi has basically not evolved in the last 30? Maybe even 50 years.
I think the last tipping point was the introduction of Class-D amplifiers which provided "unlimited" power compared to before.
Cheap DSP and a better understanding of psychoacoustics maybe.
My point here is that nothing really changed the game. You could get a high-end, expensive Hifi system 30 years ago that matches the sound quality of a high-end system of today.
The rest, Internet access, BT connectivity, Spotify is bells and whistles.
I drive a compact sedan in an area known for its love of trucks.
Even 5 years ago, it felt fine. Now I am noticing more and more that driving the sedan feels flat out dangerous. There are more huge trucks and SUVs on the road. They impede my view of the road, and will also clearly demolish my car in an accident.
I swore off large vehicles when I first started driving, but it is to the point where I’m having to consider getting one for my next vehicle just to feel safe on the road. Something needs to change.
I can't imagine things changing unfortunately. The best thing you can do is get the smallest SUV you feel comfortable with.
That said, I'm in Houston, where trucks rule (by your username I assume you're in Austin). I'm less worried about whether the vehicle is a truck or not, and more about driver behavior. Stupid, impatient driving is the real danger. Driving defensively is your best strategy. I used to be an impatient driver; these days I more or less stick to driving with adaptive cruise control and just chill and keep my eyes out for the idiots (which includes being disciplined about handling my phone while driving)
This is my biggest issue as well. I love small cars and would love to have them again but you just can't see anything out of them due to every car around you being three times the size and two times higher. Can't see anything.
Makes me really happy with the Nissan Leaf I bought a few years ago.
It’s a Nissan Versa with an electric motor and battery in it. That means most of the parts on the car are standard and the body is cheap to repair. Lots of higher end EVs have stupid high repair costs from minor accidents due to this not being the case.
It has a dumb infotainment system that I just plug a phone into and use as a screen. All the car’s critical functions are physical buttons that are ergonomically placed.
Acceleration and handling is fine. In fact it out accelerates most gas cars. It has one pedal driving.
The adaptive cruise control and auto steer work great. If you are stuck in traffic it just guides you along leaving a selectable distance between you and the car ahead. Steering assist has never tried to kill me.
220 miles of range is more than enough for a city car and I can charge it at home for stupid cheap. (It’s like $8 to fill from zero off home power, about 1/4 to 1/6 the cost of fueling an efficient gas car.)
It’s small and electric and is called a “Leaf” so it does nothing for one’s penis. But I am secure in that department.
Literally the only sucky thing about it is its CHaDEMo fast charge port which is chonky and a fading standard. Makes it not great for road trips but we have an old gas second car for that.
Make a model of this with a bit more range and NACS and Nissan would have the ultimate boring competent EV that I want.
I like the car enough for its boring competence that I’ve looked into CCS or NACS conversion. Apparently it’s possible and there are people working on kits but I’d have to find someone to do the install since I don’t have time for such a project.
PSA: anyone who knows high voltage electronics well could design and crowdfund a NACS to CHaDEMo dongle on Crowdsupply no problem. It would be non trivial though because it would have to be powered. But there are enough cars with that older standard to make millions on such a device. I’d spend as much as $1000 or a bit more for one.
That’s great, but you have a second car to cover the things your primary car can’t do! That might make sense if you do a daily commute that makes the convenience and running costs of the smaller car worth it.
In general I see a lot of snark about people driving (eg) trucks around that people assume they can’t possibly need. But the reality is that people buy their vehicles based on the most challenging routine thing they need their car to do. I mostly only have four people in my minivan, but the extra space is great for road trips or when the grandparents visit. A lot of people have trucks because they want the towing capacity a few times a year, or they want the space to haul dirty stuff.
IDK, I find the dismissiveness of “must be compensating for something” a little tiresome and honestly kind of incurious.
I was intending to joke about how the auto industry caters to image and fashion not utility and many cars are encrusted with things people don’t need… whether it’s being excessively big and jacked up or a bunch of bloatware on an infotainment system.
What you say is somewhat true but we really do have a ridiculous oversized car issue in the US. The irony is that many of the people who really could use these trucks can’t afford them. They are high priced status symbols.
What I was ultimately getting at was that the car industry does not want to sell practical cars. The margin on those is lower. They want to sell puffed up chonkmobiles or overly complex bloatware machines. Then they want to double dip with surveillance.
This tells me that his level of understanding of the wide range of cars and features. Are their bad cars and bad UIs, yes.
However, as someone who has been driving for 30 years, cars are better in every way now than they were before (From a driving, efficiency, reliability and safety perspective).
The only thing that is arguably "worse" is self servicability. However this is a function of complexity that exists throughout all technology.
Also, these features that everyone on HN complains about.. they are being added because the general population wants them. There are very few people who would buy a car without any screens, ui or infotainment. You wouldn't save any money because a lot of this tech is required for saftey and would be bespoke thus costing more.
"However, as someone who has been driving for 30 years, cars are better in every way now than they were before (From a driving, efficiency, reliability and safety perspective)."
Right. Sure. 2001 Tundra V8 owner here, and you're just flat out wrong.
Maybe you've had uniquely bad judgement in the vehicles you've acquired over the last 30 years. It happens.
Haven't driven in the suburbs and beyond, I'm guessing. A lot of places a PU is more common than, um, a "car". Most quite a bit bigger than my Tundra, too.
I am a car aficionado and, while you're right in terms of improvements, I'd argue that the factors the OP has highlighted are absolutely correct and overwhelm the those improvements. Especially cars from the last 10 years. Recent cars are horrible appliances that are incredibly difficult to repair.
So you're both right, but it didn't need to be that way. The manufacturers have royally screwed up the direction in which the industry has gone.
And you say features are being added because the general population wants them. I'll revert to my go-to argument here. The general population want McDonald's too.
My 2020 civic has turbo but also lane sensing, collision detection, cruise control that adjusts based on what's in front of me, and a bunch of other features.
That's what I'm paying for. Sure I can't fix it myself but that's not the point.
The car was hit while parked in its first few months and I was very scared that the repair wouldn't be good but turns out the body shop knew what it was doing and did everything correctly putting it back together like new. Insurance was billed about 6k since there were hundreds of parts that needed to be replaced. Do I even want to learn how to do all that myself? Nope.
You know who else is not a car aficionado? Most people in the world. I was hoping you might say something erudite about the engine timings since you knocked the author for not being a car expert and all you were able to say was “screens are important for safety” like what safety?
They also don’t seem too worried about self-serviceability, when in my experience that’s all the car aficionados in my life care about is modifying their cars to their own specifications.
What gets me about newer cars is that they seem to be stolen at the same rate as they have always been (conjecture. i could be entirely mistaken). What with keyless entry, immobilizers and standard car alarms, I would expect them to be virtually theft-proof nowadays.
> However this is a function of complexity that exists throughout all technology.
To a degree, yes, but auto manufacturers are all too willing to make self-servicing difficult. They only make money when you buy a new car after all. We also see this with, well, almost every other field.
> they are being added because the general population wants them.
Much like phones with unremovable batteries leading to slimmer devices, I can only imagine this is a product of marketing convincing consumers of their desires, rather than them actually requesting all of that. It doesn’t even really make sense; why would the consumer want all of that when they’re not even using it the vast majority of the time in the vehicle?
They are better when they work. They are significanly worse when they break down. Which almost every car does at some pojnt. Every time they break there is a risk that fixing it is going to be so expensive a huge chunk of your investment is going to be lost. Or that you have to scrap your car because it isn't worth the risk in case something else breaks.
Yes, modern cars are more comfortable, easier to use, and safer. I don't agree that they are more reliable since fixability is a factor in reliability.
> There are very few people who would buy a car without any screens, ui or infotainment.
I really don't get this - just put a space in the dash where I can stick a phone that charges it and connects to the car audio. I have an old GM car with Carplay that all still works pretty well, but it's basically just a second screen for my phone and as such I barely use it.
Over the years I've adjusted my life such that I can live without owning a car. My place is at a walking distance from the office, I live near a hospital, there are multiple supermarkets apothecaries, schools, diners and pubs that I can easily walk to and back without encountering any dangers. I've saved on so many costs and that it is almost criminal at this point.
Not having any traffic stress is an added bonus. I actually feel a guilty pleasure walking past cars stuck in traffic.
Seconded. My partner and I got rid of our cars years ago. The other day I overheard someone at work talking about their monthly lease for their two cars, and the lease alone (to say nothing of gas, repairs, insurance) was more than our rent. Cars are a money bonfire, and it's worth moving to even the most expensive city if it lets you get away with not owning them.
I haven't owned a car in the past decade, but the last car I did own was an Audi S5 and I thought it was pretty nearly perfect. Manual transmission, naturally aspirated V8, 4 wheel drive, but also all the electronic toys like lane sensors and physical buttons that were designed to give satisfying tactile feedback. Also just a beautiful car inside and out. I thought this was some kind of a high water mark for car design. You can't get a manual transmission anymore, they replaced the V8 with a V6 turbo, added weird lines all over the car that ruined the aesthetic. The new models are better on paper but feel twitchy and nervous to me. I haven't seen the latest ones, but I would not be surprised if they'd made everything touch-screen controlled as the trend in the industry has been.
But anyway, c'est la vie, it was the end of an era and life moves on. We'd be better off with fewer cars, and with people thinking of them more like washing machines and focusing their attention elsewhere.
There are plenty of articles explaining luddism, that it wasn't against technology, but against the way the tech was being used to shift profits from workers to owners.
IMHO we need a neo-Luddite, or neo-Amish movement; technology, and economics, markets, etc, should serve society, not the other way around.
To the subjective complaints I’ll add heavy window tinting, specifically on windshields and front side windows. I don’t know if it is actually more common or I’m imagining that, but I really don’t like it as a pedestrian or fellow driver.
Hand signals and eye contact play a role in the cooperative dance at intersections, and if I can’t see you then things are more dangerous. I err on the side of safety. Probably every other day I’ll be waiting to cross a road (usually on foot, but it can apply in car, too) and some dark tinted car will be paused, probably yielding to me, maybe, but who knows? Maybe they’re waving me on, maybe they’re glancing at their phone. So I just wait and wait, and eventually they’ll go. I do wonder if these folks understand no one can see them.
>>Actually, scratch that – have you used a “smart” TV in the past 5 years? – it’s awful.
I have, but I guess the author hasn't. I've got a 2020 LG CX and it's smooth, works fast, has all the apps I need, including for streaming local media, and it has zero ads. I sort of lost interest after that point, if you can't make a reasonable point right at the start why even continue?
My LG C1 definitely has ads, which show up as toast notifications when you open the TV. I think I once got an ad for Google Stadia for example. That being said, it seems to very rarely show them. I think I can count the number of times I see one in a year with my fingers.
As for the smart TV side, I have no idea if there's ads there since I basically only ever use my Apple TV.
LGs and Samsungs have become the premium brands with associated pricing and is not the ones that are made for the majority. Not to mention it’s not universal that they make good smart tvs either.
LG is well on the path to enshittification with ads, although Samsung is already way below water level there. Both do image fingerprinting and phone home your viewing habits (my LG is neutered, and I would still buy LG for the overall quality, but I don’t think I will ever again plug a TV onto my network directly).
With regards to the OPs note about headlights being too bright: Has anyone adjusted their headlight angles? I noticed oncoming traffic has occasionally been flashing their brights at me, and I suspect they think I left my brights on and are trying to tell me. I'd love to drop my headlight angle a degree or two but don't know if that's a daunting task on a modern car.
If you consider my 24 year old car "modern," then my modern car is easy. There's a screw on top of each headlight that will tilt them up and down.
I thought I noticed people flashing their brights at me, but then I realized it's actually them hitting a small bump, thereby raising the angle of their LED headlights momentarily. I drive a somewhat low-sitting sedan, so SUV LED headlights do that a lot.
Two things; modern HID or laser or LED headlights should have the auto adjustment, so just jump to the second paragraph if you have one of these. But halogens can be adjusted usually from inside. They tend to have adjustment buttons to compensate for load (situation might be different for US cars, I’ve seen this with EU cars). This could be easier place to get started.
The manual adjustment is also very easy :) there are some screws on your headlight assembly that you need to rotate. It is different for different cars, though. So I’d suggest referring to YouTube for your own car’s adjustments.
I do feel there’s a regulatory failure with headlight angles in the US. Owners of maladjusted headlights should get fix it tickets and it should be strictly enforced. If a car without high beams blinds you, something is wrong.
It seems like most are just broken out of the box. I have never encountered a Tesla on the road that did not blind me, regardless of whether it was behind or in front of me. Some manufacturers just get away with shitty light projection.
older cars had a knob to adjust them. With LEDs you usually have to open the hood and use a wrench or they can auto adjust. Service should do it for it.
There was a bestof Reddit post about some automotive expert who worked on designing headlights who put a large passage about why lights look brighter. I felt that it was just a large gaslighting exercise in the end lol.
This begs the question, why did you get rid of that?
I bought Toyota Matrix new in 2006, still driving it. From what I can tell, keeping it running is still more environmentally friendly than replacing it with a new car, even if that car is electric/hybrid.
Has no smart anything. Hardly ever breaks. Probably good for another 150k miles, and at this rate it'll be another decade or two by then and all the current car garbage will be worked out or legislated around.
These days when I see the word "consumer" I go to a dark place very quickly. If you were to play a word association game with me and brought this one up, you'd probably find the resulting term would run aground of HN comment policies.
I stopped buying things for fun a long time ago. The act of shopping for most things has become a stressful experience for me. I can feel the contempt for my existence in the design of many products.
Alas a set of rehashed points that don’t resonate.
// Hiding critical/often-used buttons behind touchscreens for the sake of minimalism (and cost?)
I see this one written of often but I don’t see it on my 2 year old Toyota or cars I’ve borrowed/rented. I literally never had to access the touch screen for a critical function.
Assuming this problem does exist on some cars, it seems easy to avoid as I’ve avoided it without trying.
// On that note, poor physical layout in general (genuinely thinking that you can rate cars’ on a “hazard-light-button-placement index”)
I’ve definitely experienced the moment in a rental/borrowed vehicle where it took me a bit of scanning around the dashboard to find the blinkers button. But this seems to just be variance across manufacturers. Eg my Toyota is consistent with Toyotas that came before it even if that’s different than some other manufacturer’s internal consistency. Is the author really struggling to find the blinkers on a vehicle he’s already familiar with?
// Cars are getting too big; why are manufacturers pushing “crossovers” and SUVs on consumers and why are consumers buying them? I could write pages on this point alone.
One thing here is that this is a single man who can’t relate to the needs and desires of other types of customers. I loved small cars as a single man and love my mid size SUV as a dad of two and on certain occasions wish it was bigger.
Cars are getting bigger because through marvel of technology that has become economical to manufacture and operate. Eg my SUV gets nearly 40 mpg whereas a few decades ago that was economy car territory.
Toyotas are pretty good in that regard (we've owned several). However, my wife now owns a VW ID.4, and it is the worst car UI/UX I've ever experienced. Likely the author was thinking of Teslas, which is the worst example of this, but I don't think this is strictly an EV thing, as my EV6 is very practical with physical controls, despite having the typical large touchscreen (for setting, infotainment, navigation, etc)
My favorite example is the window controls. Instead of the standard 4 toggle switches (front and back, driver and passenger side) there's only two, with a touch control to toggle between front and back that gives pretty much no feedback.
> Cars are getting bigger because through marvel of technology that has become economical to manufacture and operate
Cars are getting bigger because they can be made bigger?
Did anyone ask; "would you _like_ a bigger car?"?
Putting aside everything else, I don't appreciate these massive things taking up so much space that often we have to sacrifice an entire extra parking space in a row so that we can park safely.
// Did anyone ask; "would you _like_ a bigger car?"?
No, this is a real problem :( I wanted to buy a Corolla but the dealer tickle tortured me until I gave in and said “fine I’ll buy the Highlander”
I still shudder to think about it every time I easily fit my wife, kids and the stuff into the car for a road trip.
Kidding aside “do you want this?” is a question the market asks of consumer. Bigger cars still cost more to buy and run than compacts. People are willing to pay more because clearly enough of us want these bigger cars.
Cars are only getting bigger and they are getting bigger because light trucks are not regulated. Also, there's the Chicken tax which preferences American car makers. None of this is consumer demand. It's about maximizing profit with bad regulation that has unintended consequences.
I can. If I had to, I would. I prefer my SUV as do millions of others. I am answering the question of “why are cars larger” not claiming you can’t make do w something else.
>Have you tried shopping for a TV in the past 5 years? Actually, scratch that – have you used a “smart” TV in the past 5 years? – it’s awful. Sure, displays are getting better, but manufacturers insist on cramming bloatware and spyware, embellished in the worst UI imaginable, running on a processor designed for a smartwatch.
Anyone have recommendations for a "dumb" TV in 2024?
Honestly, any smart TV connected to Apple TV is fine. You can skip the wifi enablement on your TV and will never think of the bloatware in your life. Been with that setup for 5+ years, have absolutely zero complaints about my “smart TV” for that reason.
Yup. My LG is stuck at the EULA “we reserve the right to watch what you watch” screen but works fine as a dumb monitor for my Apple TV, SHIELD and Xbox.
You can buy a public information display and reject to set up the smart parts. It doesn't force any connectivity. Samsung has QH and QM models for that.
Come drive a BMW with laser headlights in Europe, you will be illuminated(!), it's absolutely amazing what modern headlights can do. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_XEQ8n-R5M
> Cars are getting too big; why are manufacturers pushing “crossovers” and SUVs on consumers and why are consumers buying them? I could write pages on this point alone.
I think this is partially a race to the bottom (or to the top, as it were).
When you're driving your low-riding sedan in traffic, if the car in front of you is an SUV, you can't see beyond it. If most cars become SUVs, you can't see two cars ahead almost ever. That's a crappy feeling - I for one feel less safe, less able to predict if an emergency stop is going to happen - so I'd be unconsciously nudged into buying a taller car myself.
Keeping the proper safety distance to the car in front of you is surprisingly hard. On the one hand, it goes against the learned behaviour (of most people). On the other hand, other drivers' bad behaviour actively sabotages this by overtaking and/or squeezing in the spaces that open up from proper distance. Most drivers just don't have the emotional control to drive well, but the actual problem is they don't even realise they're bad drivers.
SUVs are the completely wrong solution to this problem. I'm not sure if distance warning (akin to seatbelt) beepers could help, but I suspect people would hate them so much it'd doom sales.
> When you're driving your low-riding sedan in traffic, if the car in front of you is an SUV, you can't see beyond it.
I had a Scion FRS (a very small and short car) for a while and very much was the (annoying[1]) guy who stayed 10+ car lengths away from the person in front of me so that I could see better. This was one of the reasons I traded it in for something taller.
[1] I had many more incidences of road rage directed at me than I have experienced in other cars before or since because I left so much space in front of me. Lots of "what the ** are you doing?" screamed at me.
I can’t really understand this sentiment. If you keep enough distance you’ll be able to stop in time regardless of what’s down the road. I personally feel safer in smaller cars.
Well, I don't know how it is where you drive, but here you have two options: you either stay just close enough that you can stop in an emergency, but no closer, and certainly not a "comfortable" distance; or you can get cut off every couple of seconds.
My experiences are driving mainly in California and New York. I definitely have not had the problems you’ve described and I wouldn’t consider drivers in either location to be very good in general. I’ve driven larger cars as well and they’ve never made me feel safer.
Edit: The more I think about it, I’m actually kind of confused by your point. Even assuming what you say is true, how does driving a larger car avoid the problem of people cutting you off anyway? Is your “solution” to drive a larger car and tailgate or something?
Larger vehicles suck to me, because you feel blinder than necessary. It's a larger car to park, it feels less agile to do a quick maneuver like dodging something on the road or squeezing by an idiot drifting into your lane. I like zipping past idiots and fitting through an opening if i get one.
Agreeing with the article. Car software sucks, but hardware is great.
Cars have more horsepower, are more fuel efficient, are more reliable, and are most importantly much safer ( to their passengers at least) than they've ever been.
> why are manufacturers pushing “crossovers” and SUVs on consumers and why are consumers buying them?
They’re pushing crossovers because they can sell them for a higher margin. A taller vehicle looks like you’re getting more for your money. Of course, they don’t actually cost that much more to make.
People buy them because that’s what’s on the lot and that’s what’s trendy… and the manufacturers create the trends to increase profits.
The market is rational, but no one said it was very smart.
I've never owned a car with CarPlay but that seems like it would be far better than auto manufacturer proprietary / snowflake UIs that I have on my cars.
Maybe just grab a second hand Toyato that can pretty much run indefinitely as long as it is maintained. That's my plan if my wife decides to ditch me :p
I’m a 30-something who lives in the big city so I haven’t had a car since the 2003 Volvo S60 I had in high school.
I always said I’d probably get a car when I could get an electric one in middle age, and it looks like that day may be coming up in the next few years, but I’ll be damned if I’m ever going to buy something with a touch screen and mics that are tracking my every move.
For anyone more in touch with the current car market than I am, is there even a single option for a full electric, or even a plug-in hybrid, without a touch screen and internet connection? I do not give a single fuck about infotainment systems, I’ll gladly plug my phone into an aux cable and call it a day.
Personally I’d like to buy a cheap car, nothing auto, no wireless over-the-air updates, etc
That said, governments (like the US) regulate cars. I can’t buy a car without seat belts, they’re required to have emission reducing stuff, they have to monitor (and fake lol) their emissions. Now the government trying to force manufacturers to have remote stop capabilities, etc.
It’s illegal to have basic, cheap, cars.
Not saying the regulations are bad one way or another tbh. I do enjoy the lack of smog, but I do wonder how much of “reducing emissions” and all these other regulations was more about building a moat for manufacturers.
Seatbelts and catalytic converters aren't the reasons cars are shit these days. Furthermore, the government isn't the reason that cars have replaced all their tactile controls with shite touchscreens, advertising telemetry, and subscription seatwarmers; private industry did that. Get rid of the government regulations? Great, you have completely failed to address the private industry incentives that brought us here, so now you have gone from a shitty unrepairable touchscreen car with seatbelts to a shitty unrepairable touchscreen car with no seatbelts, thus missing the point entirely.
Getting rid of seatbelts and emissions standards doesn't make cars cheaper, it just externalizes the costs from the purchaser onto the rest of us in the forms of increased death rates, higher hospital bills, environmental devastation, reduced IQs, and higher prevalence of respiratory conditions. I am begging the "deregulation" crowd to understand the concept of negative externalities and why markets don't work if societal incentives aren't properly aligned.
> Furthermore, the government isn't the reason that cars have replaced all their tactile controls with shite touchscreens
It was the government, although not quite that directly. Government mandated back up camera which requires a screen on the dash. So once that is forcefully put in there, it was inevitable that product managers start to want to use it to save money by moving all the useful tactine controls with cheap buggy software on that screen.
I agree with all this, particularly about the interface. Nobody wants to drive an iPad. But let's talk about why. There's a spot on the chart marked "The moment execs decide they need to increase revenue". The poster child for this attitude was the BMW seat warmer subscription [1]
Another striking example was Macbooks. The 2011-2012 Macbook Air was an unbelievably good piece of hardware. It didn't make too many compromises for thinness (unlike the 12" Macbook that came later, thank you Johnny Ive for that). It had a useful amount of performance (again, unlike the 12" Macbook). And the kicker was the price. $1300 or so for a 13" MBA was unbelievably good value. This was previously the top end of the "ultrabook" market. Competitors couldn't produce hardware that competed with the Macbook Air on price.
The problem for Apple was it was too cheap. Average Selling Price ("ASP") went down. Johnny Ive no longer had Steve Jobs to tell him "no" too, which didn't help. So we got the much-ridiculed and almost completely useless Touch Bar, coupled with one of the worst laptop keyboards ever designed (allegedly to cut 0.5mm from the thickness). Why? To raise the ASP. That was literally the only reason.
So with cars and laptops and pretty much every other product you look at if you look deeply enough you see that the company's interests don't match the consumer's interests. The idea that "free markets" will create products consumer wants is a lie.
Cars you could once repair a lot of things yourself. Now there are computer systems you need to interface with. Not all of these are bad of course like some improve fuel efficiency, for example. But they are locked down so you can't repair them even if you wanted to. This is an opportunity for even more revenue. If it wasn't for Google Maps you would absolutely have to pay for a subscription for maps.
But the biggest problem with cars is how necessary they are, deliberately so. We've built our entire infrastructure to create car dependence and that makes life worse for everyone, whether you like driving or not.
\
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2023/9/7/23863258/bmw-cancel-heated...
I just bought a used Volvo 2016 XC70 - the last year it was made. I bought it to replace a 2004. I honestly think it's the finest form factor of car. This new one doesn't have much in the wave digital integration. It does have a back up camera - which I'll probably appreciate. But no touchscreen. The vehicle only has 40k miles. With luck and good maintenance, it could be the last car I ever own.
Not specifically mentioned, but a problem nonetheless:
They all look like ass.
Worse, they all look like the same ass.
At first glance, it's hard to tell if a modern vehicle is a Porsche, a family econobox, or a work vehicle for the dude who picks up the dog feces in your yard.
It would be different if this was because they were all pretty, but they're not. They're all hideously ugly.
"Cars are getting too big; why are manufacturers pushing “crossovers” and SUVs on consumers and why are consumers buying them? I could write pages on this point alone."
Because when you talk about safety, concerns about environment steps a side. Basic argument that greenwashing is another level of marketing for consumers.
I don't know what's going on with people complaining that "oh my kitchen appliance has to connect to the internet". Like...you knew that when you bought it? You weren't forced to buy it. Dumb appliances exist, I have them. They're the cheaper models, and they work just fine.
They do exist, for now, but many (and more every year) of the top appliances are going connected. And sometimes it starts by being optional until one day it isn't anymore. There's a reason why it's basically impossible to find a non-smart television today.
The thing is that manufacturers don't just have online models and dumb models. They have models where extremely useful practical features are only included on the ones that also require being online, because that's how they get you. And the market drifts because people want those extra useful features. My dishwasher has a salt reservoir (exceptionally uncommon in the US) for water softening without GI-damaging rinse aids, a fully enclosed housing with leak sensors to trap and alert internal leaks, inline water heating instead of an oven heater in the bottom so plastics can go anywhere without melting, and so on. None of those features are internet-mediated. It just happens that those extra features I really enjoy are on a machine that _also_ wants to be on the internet, and they press the issue by making the internet the only way to see what step the machine is in its cycle because the better drying and so on are only available with hidden-top controls (honestly fuck top controls on dishwashers, seriously). Thankfully setting that up is optional for now, but one day it probably will not be.
>why are manufacturers pushing “crossovers” and SUVs on consumers and why are consumers buying them?
I wonder this about crossovers because every time I look into one, I reach the conclusion that it's a bigger car with somehow not much extra space on the inside for how much bigger it is.
I get why people hate new things in car as they often don't improve driving experience.
But smart tv? I think they genuinely improved my experience. I can pretty much watch any show anytime using my phone as the controller now, I don't see how it's possible with old TV?
For a lot of people, they replaced a 10 or 20 year old TV with a "smart" one. Then just a few years later, it didn't work properly -- apps not updated, UI slow or broken, logins failed, etc.
The TV was essentially fine, but the "smart" component had aged very poorly and made the whole thing less than satisfying.
You're talking about the great and convenient parts, but for many generations of smart tv those only last a short while.
On the “who’s to blame” front you can put banks at the top of the list. They are the ones that make it easy for people to “buy” these modern monstrosities. If people did not have access to wild financing options the cars they could afford to buy would be much more modest.
I think about that watching all of these insecure guys struggling to park huge pickup trucks in a city, or simply stay within the painted lane markings. These pristine vehicles are clearly unused for their ostensible purpose and it seems unlikely that everyone is so rich that buying an $80k luxury model isn’t a financial concern, so I’m hoping that interest rates returning to normal levels will reverse that trend.
Big trucks are well into 6 figures now. And with the miracle of 100 month loans they have suddenly become accessible to people with a median income and a highly impoverished financial education.
Yeah, I have these eerie flashbacks to 2007, wondering how so many people were buying huge houses and reminding myself that it was all due to willingness to incur massive levels of debt. This time around it’s even worse since the assets depreciate rapidly and there’s much less resale value if the lifestyle accessory community moves on to something else: most of those extra expenses are things which subtract utility for the people who need to buy one.
I don't get this hassle with smart TVs. I just don't connect mine to the Internet and that's basically it. I mirror of my desktop PC display there and use it with wireless keyboard with integrated touchpad. Movies, games (with gamepad), YouTube.
One car maker that doesn't seem too terrible so far with this is Renault. I drive a Zoe and looked at an electic Twingo and those cars are basic but in a nice way. You get physical buttons, a small screen you can run AndroidAuto/CarPlay on and no "smartass" features. There is a companion app that tells you the state of charge and that's it.
I also did a GDPR request to Renault and either they are lying or they don't collect any telemetry. The drivetrain components are all simple parts and fixable in most repair shops. The battery and motor are another thing of course (needs a trained electrician), but that's probably inherent to EVs. Never had any software issues or updates preventing me from driving.
Regarding the points in the article:
* Critical cuttons are all there
* Buttons are located where you'd expect and can be operated without looking
* Lights are bright AF, sorry oncoming traffic :(
* Basic tires and lots of standard Clio parts all over
* App with a subscription you can ignore without major loss of functionality (remote heating)
* All smartphones i plugged in via USB work
* Paintwork: Everybody seems to get the white Zoe, good luck finding your car in a parking lot. Interior is black and white recycled plastic.
I saw this coming, and purchased a 2016 Subaru Forester as a durable car without any "smart features" and I am expecting to drive that until 2030, or until this "smart car" nonsense is over. Likewise, no smart devices at all; hell I write the software for smart devices and there is no f'ing way I'm letting anything non-local only be "smart" in my home. Our collective civilization is far to immature to not exploit smart devices against their user's benefit.
I do not understand this. Just don't buy things you don't like? I'm happy with my current printer, and they've only improved in my experience (auto-discovered network printers are an order of magnitude better than the wires-and-drivers bullshit, and that's pretty much the only change I see over the past 20 years or so). My LG TV is fine. Can't really speak about cars (the '12 Toyota I own is not really representative), but the new ones I see are driveable, and I don't see a trend (outside of Chinese brands and EVs that think they're an iPad, which are separate topics).
I’ve noticed many posters using Doctorow’s term “enshittification” here. In the interest of preserving a useful word for a few more years - I don’t think it fully applies. Enshittification is about how _platforms_ die, in the ultimate phase using monopoly power to extract rents from increasingly frustrated users.
As bad as car touch screens are, is this rent-seeking?
You could argue that subscriptions to “features” in your car are getting closer to Doctorow’s concept. But cars aren’t platforms. I am not locked into my VW purchase because all the other drivers are using VWs.
Cars and driving has only become safer and more reliable while the cost hasn’t exactly gone flying up. To me it’s actually quite an incredible success story of regulation dancing in harmony with mass production and capitalism.
I’ve also not experienced what the author is complaining about. I’m sure it exists but it’s not unavoidable, at the very least.
Car death/injury rate is in 20 year high again but only in the US. I’m not 100% sure if the culture or the cars themselves are the main contributors to the statistic, but it’s not really getting better anymore.
Cars are indisputably garage, and a detriment to society. A pitiful stopgap, that has unfortunately been embraced by troglodytes.. jill the psychopath who believes in this salvation
But in all seriousness, why? I would maybe find it tolerable if it was consistent, but most of my experience is that it ramps up to 48/60fps and back down to 24fps in a matter of seconds. It's jarring.
If it is at 24fps it is already stuttery on my 60hz monitor (not a TV and not smart!), so anything is better than constant, obvious stuttering (which I understand most people learn to ignore, but I can't). In my experience it either works perfectly or it is just the 24fps stutter, so having perfection 70% of the time and stuttering 30% of the time is better than stuttering 100% of the time.
For my family who have smart TVs I've noticed 0 issues with the interpolation itself and it is always a smooth 60fps (which IMO is better than smooth 24fps), though they also have some ML sharpening enabled which sometimes has strange artifacts.
FWIW I also can't play video games at <60fps and have trouble enjoying any fast paced action scene shot at 24hz (with the exception of anime, where at least every frame is carefully constructed and chosen to work at the intended framerate and isn't just a blurry mess)
The post argues that modern cars really are better than ever, the problem is enshittification from focusing on the wrong aspects, making the experience worse than it could be.
Your modern car could be a lot better than it is, but it probably would hurt sales.
> I dread it every time I need to pair my phone to a car
So it's too difficult to wirelessly connect your phone to your car? Something you do one time and then it magically works forever? I'll grant, it should be easier, but this is like saying there's too much paperwork to buy the car in the first place: sure, it would be nice to walk in, pick a car, and drive it away (hello, volkswagen sign and drive disclaimers) but it's a one time thing.
Cars just keep getting worse. Manufacturers try to cram too much functionality into the car at too low a price point. Even if you buy a car that costs more than most people's house, it is going to be full of technology that at some point will fail. You can't fix it yourself. And when you get it fixed, it invariably ends up costing some significant fraction of what the car is worth. Even if it is just a faulty rail for the seat.
To top it off, silly regulations also contribute to making cars more distracting and annoying. I used to laugh at American cars for making those incessant ding-ding sounds when the door is open. But now European cars ding, and ping, and whine constantly because regulations require them to constantly bombard you with warnings and interruptions. As if that's actually going to make the car safer.
There is something extremely relaxing about driving a vintage car from the 1970s. Sure, you have to learn how to coax the engine into life on cold days. And you actually have to learn how to modulate brakes and throttle. And learn how to fix the 4-5 things that break every couple of years. But that's a lot less bother than having a computer on wheels where every single problem could end up being so expensive it is cheaper to scrap the car and get a new one.
Here's what I'd like: an electrical car modeled on the philosophy of the Fiat 500 or the Citroen 2CV. A minimalist car that is so simple anyone can afford it, and anyone can learn how to repair anything on it. A car with as few parts as possible and where every spare part is easily available. (Fiat 500 parts used to be available where you bought your groceries. That's not going to happen today, but if you could buy every single part online at a reasonable price, that would do).
A car that comes with drawings for every part, for every electrical circuit. A car that can be modified and evolved to fit new needs. A car that can grow a cottage industry of companies that make upgraded parts, rebuild cars etc.
The Fiat 500 and 2CV were important cars. Even more important than the VW Beetle. Because they provided mobility to much deeper demographics. Nobody really makes important cars anymore. Important cars change how society works. And I think the only way we can make cars tolerable again is to figure out a way to come up with a minimalist, open source, vehicle architecture that can satisfy the safety requirements. I think we have the technology to do that today.