In-Car Technology Becoming More Important Than Horsepower

Gunkerty Jeb writes "It seems, and I think a lot of people have prophesied this for some time, that in-car features like internet radio and assisted driving technologies are surpassing horsepower, handling and design as automotive selling points. I just hope manufacturers have put in the time to consider all the security dangers that exist in owning internet synthesized cars."

Comments

I get it now

[shadowfaxcrx]

Well that explains why Acuras suddenly became so damned ugly.

Assisted driving tech saves lives

[plover]

And what's wrong with assisted driving technology? It saves lives!

The technology that assists the driver of a modern car drive it safely is amazing. Radar assisted cruise control helps avoid driver frustration because their speed doesn't match the speed of the car ahead of them. Blind spot systems that watch the corners of your vehicle you can't see out the windows and in the mirrors. Backup cameras to avoid running over your children in the driveway. Collision avoidance warning indicators flash a simple red light bar and sound a tone to startle the driver in the event of an impending collision. Head up displays help to keep eyes on the road. Traction control helps avoids spinouts. Stability control helps avoid rollovers. Antilock brakes help stop shorter and quicker. Pre-charged brakes help stop suddenly if the driver isn't assertive enough when attempting to avoid a collision. Voice control to operate the technology without removing your hands from the wheel or eyes from the road.

And then there are the tech features designed to improve survivability of an accident. Pretensioning seat belts. Adaptive airbags. Autodialing 911.

All those mean much more to Soccermom Sally than the difference between 225HP and 235HP. Yes, the gearheads want their superchargers, and they're available too. But the market sells to everyone, not just the Top Gear enthusiasts. And a lot more paying customers value safety and comfort over raw horsepower numbers.

Re:Assisted driving tech saves lives

[NevarMore]

And what's wrong with assisted driving technology? It saves lives!

It creates a false sense of security and far too many drivers see it as an absolution of responsibility.

Unintended acceleration - fault of the car, what about the driver shutting the car down or putting it in neutral or using the parking brake (gently!) ?
4-wheel drive - I see this once every winter. Some yob with all wheel drive blows past me, then promptly loses traction on all 4 wheels at a higher speed and needs to be fished out of the ditch
ABS - Better braking is good. Leaving more room and braking sooner is better still.
traction control - see 4-wheel drive
On Star - For not emergency situations having a basic toolkit, first aid kit, and enough water and blankets to survive a few hours would beat the hell out of OnStar. I do actually like this once the shit has hit the fans. Treat it like a fire alarm not a personal assistant IMO.
tire pressure sensors - Check your damned tires when you get fuel. It gets you close to your car and during that process you may spot a problem that doesn't have a sensor watching for it.

Applying power is also an acceptable response to some situations. Accident avoidance when there are cars behind you can actually be helped by a quick application of power to move the car out of the way and free up an extra few feet for other drivers to stop. Applying power and avoiding is acceptable if braking is not an option. Being able to promptly accelerate and merge instead of having traffic stack up behind on an onramp is also helpful.

I agree that technology can help and is generally beneficial, its the attitudes around its use that bother me. Its an asset or a tool not a replacement for personal responsibility when operating heavy machinery.

Re:Assisted driving tech saves lives

[Pharmboy]

No real difference than without these features.

Not exactly.

There is evidence that all these new technologies actually cause some people to drive much more recklessly. In the case of ABS in particular, you didn't see the dramatic drop in rear end accidents promised, partly because the driver in front of you likely has ABS too, thus negating any extra time to stop, and people simply follow more closely now because they can brake faster. Several studies have shown this definitively.

In essence, all we are doing is making our cars more complicated, more expensive, less reliable, heavier, and lowering the gas mileage, with much lower benefits than advertised. The sole exception to this would be the third (center) brake light.

Re:Assisted driving tech saves lives

[radish]

ABS is useful for more than avoiding rear-ending the guy in front. It's useful when you need to stop at a red light and the ground is slippery, it's useful when a kid runs out in front of you, it's useful when you hit a patch of black ice coming into to a turn. I don't understand the attitude that says "this isn't a 100% foolproof solution to the problem, therefore it is of zero value", but this is slashdot and it's pretty common around here.

Re:Assisted driving tech saves lives

[icebike]

Statistics don't bear that out. We're still having roughly the same number of wrecks as we always did, and roughly the same number of fatalities.

No. Not true.

In spite of millions and millions of more miles driven every year accident rates and fatalities are down.

But the key point is they have been falling ever since these stats have been kept. The new gadgetized car technology is too new to show any measurable effect.

Farmville

[Enderandrew]

The first car to add Farmville support will become the best selling car in the country.

Yes, and it's bad

[cowtamer]

Having recently purchased a car, I can't tell you how many really nicely equipped, horribly underpowered tin boxes I got to drive. Most of them had the option to upgrade the gizmos, but did not even offer a usable engine size. I don't know if this will keep up for long, though -- they sell you "keyless entry" for $1000 (when you can clearly see that the "base model" has everything needed except the remote already built in), a nav system for $2000 ($1000 actually, but it ONLY comes with the leather seats), and the ever insulting "alloy wheels" (like anyone has ever cared) etc. The electronics can't be _that_ expensive to produce, and I think a couple of the Asian manufacturers will end the game and call everyone's bluff by giving these features out for free (Hyundai seems to be going this route).

Re:Yes, and it's bad

[0123456]

Having recently purchased a car, I can't tell you how many really nicely equipped, horribly underpowered tin boxes I got to drive.

We recently bought a new car. It's considered a small economy car and has the smallest, least powerful engine of the cars we looked at, but it's more powerful than my supercharged stationwagon from the 1980s, and a third more powerful than the two-seat sports car I used to drive... however it weighs about 20% more than the stationwagon and 50% more than the sports car.

The problem is not so much lack of power, but massive bloat.

More technology is just a way to raise prices

[Yold]

Manufacturer automotive electronics are a ripoff. For example, look at an OEM GPS unit. On a new car, it will cost you $1000 - $3000 vs. $200 for a top-end Garmin aftermarket (external) unit. Even the in-dash aftermarket units are substantially less.

Now that cars have aluminum VVT engines, heated seats, anti-lock, and traction control, car manufacturers are running out of shinny new mechanical features to market. Solution? Cram shit like Microsoft Sync into cars.

I don't want any more infotainment technology in vehicles; I deal with enough assholes tapping at their smartphones during my commute.

Re:This is a good thing, in the long run.

[icebike]

Actually, NO, the current stuff google is testing handles uneventful driving on carefully selected courses.

It still drives thru every pothole, can not handle sudden avoidance maneuvers safely, and has no clue about the child running toward the street from behind a row of parked cars, can't get out of the way of emergency vehicles, or even anticipate the jet-wash of a passing semi.

Re:Priorities

[larshoff]

I spend 2 hours a day in my car getting to and from work, thats a significant time of my life and I sure like it to be a nice place to be.

Re:ABS isn't necessarily better braking

[Burning1]

For what it's worth, most people have no idea how well their brakes work under normal conditions, and yet are surprised by how limited their brakes are when they have to slow from 35 miles per hour to zero in the distance of 50 feet.

Re:ABS does not decrease stopping distance

[drinkypoo]

I talked to my insurance company about this, and they said it's a wash. Fewer cars going out of control in a skid is pretty much directly balanced by cars rear-ending the ones in front because of increased stopping distance

That's not a wash if it trades front-end collisions for rear-end ones. Of course, from the standpoint of the evil fucker bastard insurance companies it's a wash because either way they have to pay. Actually for them it's probably a problem because people who survive can cost more than dead people.

I took it to a parking lot after we got about 4 inches of snow, and did some panic stops with the ABS on and with it off. Stopping distances with ABS off were consistently shorter, although the car tended to stay in a straight line with ABS on and tended to yaw with the ABS off.

Yep, that's what they're for.

Some ABS systems are worse than others. In general, the more the channels, the better.

Yes, that's very true. However, anything is better than nothing.

Four channel four wheel systems are optimal for cars of course. This type of system used to be only found on luxury cars.

When was that?

I don't know what's being sold now days but I suspect that low end cars still have low end single channel ABS systems, which significantly increase stopping distance because the brakes for all four tires cut out if any one tire loses traction.

Vehicles with only one channel of ABS almost uniformly have ABS only in the rear, and the ABS is run from the vehicle speed sensor. This is the case in my 1992 Ford F250, which has a Kelsey-Hayes Rear Wheel Antilock Brake System (Kelsey-Hayes RWAL System for short.) Most vehicles which have more than one channel have three or four channels. Four channel ABS is amazingly common today and you'll find it on most anything with ABS.

The most advanced ABS can detect pretty well if you're on snow or gravel, and it locks up the brakes for a moment to build up a pile of the appropriate medium in front of the wheel to assist in stopping, so modern fancy-schmancy ABS is capable of outbraking you in pretty much all conditions. You'll only find that on luxury and super cars for the most part, with a few exceptions.