Agree with most here:
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/5-unnecessary-auto-styling-trends-222045512.html (http://autos.yahoo.com/news/5-unnecessary-auto-styling-trends-222045512.html)
I'm not sure I like the idea of removing the gear selector and giving me a fiddly knob. I get the point, but: do we really need to squeeze in an extra cupholder that badly?
Also, the "big grilles" are in part a response to pedestrian crash standards which have raised the hoodline, and well: you've got to do something with that bulbous front end.
The taillight thing is because all-red looks better and other countries require amber signals.
Top # Whatever = shitty SEO bait article, guaranteed.
Quote from: Rupert on May 25, 2013, 06:44:38 PM
The taillight thing is because all-red looks better and other countries require amber signals.
Also, shockingly enough: it works.
yes, even though tis not the Euro-fabulous color coded system, it can still be understood by us poor dumb americans.
I dunno. Sometimes with the all-red signals, I get confused when the left one blinks. Looks like they're gonna turn right.
Quote from: Rupert on May 25, 2013, 07:32:59 PM
I dunno. Sometimes with the all-red signals, I get confused when the left one blinks. Looks like they're gonna turn right.
Changing color isn't going to help you with that.
I'm surprised about the non-dimming gauges. My car has a sensor and will dim or brighten most of the lights on the dashboard and center console.
Most of the those aren't "styling cues" anyway.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 25, 2013, 08:46:13 PM
I'm surprised about the non-dimming gauges. My car has a sensor and will dim or brighten most of the lights on the dashboard and center console.
My wife's Minivan doesn't show any real indication as to whether the lights are on or not. In auto mode, a headlight "warning light" will ight up when they're on, but the gauges remain undimmed.
I still think in this the "old way" was just too simple and easy: if the lights weren't on, the gauges were unlit, and if it was dark: you couldn't see them.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 25, 2013, 07:24:40 PM
Also, shockingly enough: it works.
yes, even though tis not the Euro-fabulous color coded system, it can still be understood by us poor dumb americans.
All red works fine if all of the bulbs are working. Problem is that there are a lot of vehicles out there with burned out or non-functioning bulbs. I'm personally a fan of separate turn and brake signals, with amber signals being better than red. IIRC, my uncle was in a motorcycle accident when he was younger because a vehicle with only one functioning brake light had a driver who was pumping the brakes at a steady interval that mimicked a turn signal. Third brake lights help with this, but sometimes you find a vehicle that doesn't have a functioning third brake lamp or for which the third lamp is obscured (pickups seem to be the most common culprits in both scenarios). With amber signals, a brake light is never mistaken for a turn signal.
People who drive around at night with just their DRLs irritate me too. What's worse are the people who don't turn their headlights on in the rain. With many cars having DRLs, at least I can see cars coming when somebody forgets to turn their lights on, but it's hard to see a car ahead of you in rain and road mist when their tail lamps aren't lit. Why can't they link the wiper switch to the headlights?
Quote from: MX793 on May 25, 2013, 10:03:48 PM
All red works fine if all of the bulbs are working. Problem is that there are a lot of vehicles out there with burned out or non-functioning bulbs. I'm personally a fan of separate turn and brake signals, with amber signals being better than red. IIRC, my uncle was in a motorcycle accident when he was younger because a vehicle with only one functioning brake light had a driver who was pumping the brakes at a steady interval that mimicked a turn signal. Third brake lights help with this, but sometimes you find a vehicle that doesn't have a functioning third brake lamp or for which the third lamp is obscured (pickups seem to be the most common culprits in both scenarios). With amber signals, a brake light is never mistaken for a turn signal.
People who drive around at night with just their DRLs irritate me too. What's worse are the people who don't turn their headlights on in the rain. With many cars having DRLs, at least I can see cars coming when somebody forgets to turn their lights on, but it's hard to see a car ahead of you in rain and road mist when their tail lamps aren't lit. Why can't they link the wiper switch to the headlights?
Well, if bulbs are burned out, it doesn't really matter what your lighting scheme is, does it?
Besides, generally, if a guy has his signal on, its best to treat him as if he's about to slow down and turn anyways.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 25, 2013, 10:12:06 PM
Well, if bulbs are burned out, it doesn't really matter what your lighting scheme is, does it?
Besides, generally, if a guy has his signal on, its best to treat him as if he's about to slow down and turn anyways.
I believe what happened was my uncle thought the car was turning left and when he went to drive around the car on the right, the car turned into him. I've encountered the "mimicked turn signal" phenomena myself a couple of times, usually seems to be with pickups.
You're right that a burned out bulb means that intentions aren't going to be communicated, but at least they won't be mis-interpreted. If a car with a burned out turn signal slows down in front of me, I'm left to assume that they are planning to turn and either failed to signal or have a faulty signal bulb and I know to slow up and wait and see what they are planning. And if the driver with only one functioning brake lamp is pumping their brakes at a steady interval, the fact that the lamp is red instead of amber would clue me that it's a brake light and not a turn signal that I'm seeing.
Quote from: MX793 on May 25, 2013, 10:22:23 PM
I believe what happened was my uncle thought the car was turning left and when he went to drive around the car on the right, the car turned into him. I've encountered the "mimicked turn signal" phenomena myself a couple of times, usually seems to be with pickups.
You're right that a burned out bulb means that intentions aren't going to be communicated, but at least they won't be mis-interpreted. If a car with a burned out turn signal slows down in front of me, I'm left to assume that they are planning to turn and either failed to signal or have a faulty signal bulb and I know to slow up and wait and see what they are planning. And if the driver with only one functioning brake lamp is pumping their brakes at a steady interval, the fact that the lamp is red instead of amber would clue me that it's a brake light and not a turn signal that I'm seeing.
Well, if a driver is pumping their brakes at a steady interval like that, they just need to be hauld out and beaten anyways.
OK, the euro system may be clearer in some cases, but really i don't think its enough of a difference to make any changes over.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 25, 2013, 10:28:33 PM
Well, if a driver is pumping their brakes at a steady interval like that, they just need to be hauld out and beaten anyways.
:hesaid:
Although sometimes I do act like the brake pedal is a bass drum pedal... But that's only when I'm almost at a stop.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 25, 2013, 10:28:33 PM
OK, the euro system may be clearer in some cases, but really i don't think its enough of a difference to make any changes over.
I totally disagree. Amber is absolutely more helpful and sometimes that half second you have to figure out what does the red light on that car mean is the difference between a crash or not..
OH and I drove an American "red turn signal" car in Germany. Had quite a few incidents of others around me not knowing what was going on- which cleared up when I got the SHO which had amber rears... And I am very conscientious about turn signals.
trunk spoilers - usually dont like them.
mud flaps - terrible looking and without meaningful purpose outside of a big ass truck
Quote from: AutobahnSHO on May 26, 2013, 07:00:15 AM
I totally disagree. Amber is absolutely more helpful and sometimes that half second you have to figure out what does the red light on that car mean is the difference between a crash or not..
OH and I drove an American "red turn signal" car in Germany. Had quite a few incidents of others around me not knowing what was going on- which cleared up when I got the SHO which had amber rears... And I am very conscientious about turn signals.
One might argue that red only lamps in Europe would be a much bigger problem, as drivers are not conditioned into looking for them.
Oversized wheels are a huge problem. Reducing sidewall height has diminishing gains and eventually the sidewall stiffness creates too much harshness for street use. The extra unsprung weight also adversely affects handling.
I'm not saying we should go back to the days of 70 series sidewalls (they looked bad and handled worse) but roads in the north are too shitty for rubber band tires.
The point that automatic shifters are a "styling trend" is bullshit. Cars aren't telepathic. It's sometimes helpful to give a car a nudge into a higher gear when it's trying to be "sporty" by being into a gear that's lower than what's necessary. An extra few detents in the shifter costs next to nothing and adds practicality for the folks that are aware enough to exploit it.
Huge wheels and the corresponding oversized fenders are a big problem for modern cars. Reasonably sized wheels look piddly on a car with massive openings. Tires become expensive as well.
I'm really disappointed that this dumb author didn't bitch about the sky-high windowsills. The Camaro, for example, is a fucking joke.
At this point we might as well have button shifters with flappy paddles if you're feeling sporty whilst driving your Toyota Sienna. Fill the shifter space with 4 more cup holders or something.
Quote from: Laconian on May 26, 2013, 10:08:43 PM
The point that automatic shifters are a "styling trend" is bullshit. Cars aren't telepathic. It's sometimes helpful to give a car a nudge into a higher gear when it's trying to be "sporty" by being into a gear that's lower than what's necessary. An extra few detents in the shifter costs next to nothing and adds practicality for the folks that are aware enough to exploit it.
Huge wheels and the corresponding oversized fenders are a big problem for modern cars. Reasonably sized wheels look piddly on a car with massive openings. Tires become expensive as well.
I'm really disappointed that this dumb author didn't bitch about the sky-high windowsills. The Camaro, for example, is a fucking joke.
I've never had a problem with the Camaro's high window sills. Maybe if you're shorter it'll impair something, but seeing the ground right next to the car is rarely necessary.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 26, 2013, 10:22:20 PM
I've never had a problem with the Camaro's high window sills. Maybe if you're shorter it'll impair something, but seeing the ground right next to the car is rarely necessary.
I'm not short and the low roofline and the high sills are a problem for me.
Quote from: Laconian on May 26, 2013, 10:08:43 PM
The point that automatic shifters are a "styling trend" is bullshit. Cars aren't telepathic. It's sometimes helpful to give a car a nudge into a higher gear when it's trying to be "sporty" by being into a gear that's lower than what's necessary. An extra few detents in the shifter costs next to nothing and adds practicality for the folks that are aware enough to exploit it.
Huge wheels and the corresponding oversized fenders are a big problem for modern cars. Reasonably sized wheels look piddly on a car with massive openings. Tires become expensive as well.
I'm really disappointed that this dumb author didn't bitch about the sky-high windowsills. The Camaro, for example, is a fucking joke.
A bunch of the big trucks at work have column shifters that shift into PRND, and then the 54321 is done with a couple of buttons on the stalk. It works very well, actually, though that exact way of doing it probably wouldn't be good on regular cars.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 26, 2013, 10:22:20 PM
I've never had a problem with the Camaro's high window sills. Maybe if you're shorter it'll impair something, but seeing the ground right next to the car is rarely necessary.
It's like looking through a mail slot. It's probably not a problem unless you live in a built up area.
Quote from: Raza on May 26, 2013, 10:50:52 PM
It's like looking through a mail slot. It's probably not a problem unless you live in a built up area.
High sills don't bother me half as much as the thickness of modern A-pillars: but between those, the high sills, the smaller rear view due to all the rear passenger headrests, the extra large rear view mirror with the extra buttons on them, and the higher hoodlines of cars these days, there's something of a visibility problem altogether on most new cars.
Quote from: SVT666 on May 26, 2013, 10:34:41 PM
I'm not short and the low roofline and the high sills are a problem for me.
Quote from: Raza on May 26, 2013, 10:50:52 PM
It's like looking through a mail slot. It's probably not a problem unless you live in a built up area.
Had a rental one in downtown SF and it wasn't really a problem. In fact the biggest issue was the long hood obscuring the road when going up one of the steep hills, but that's a problem in numerous cars.
The "problem" is way overstated.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 26, 2013, 10:56:40 PM
High sills don't bother me half as much as the thickness of modern A-pillars: but between those, the high sills, the smaller rear view due to all the rear passenger headrests, the extra large rear view mirror with the extra buttons on them, and the higher hoodlines of cars these days, there's something of a visibility problem altogether on most new cars.
I do miss the days of skinny A-pillars. Could have hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk a couple of weeks ago because he was completely covered by the pillar (this was in my BMW.)
Makes cornering harder, too.
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 26, 2013, 10:59:40 PM
I do miss the days of skinny A-pillars. Could have hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk a couple of weeks ago because he was completely covered by the pillar (this was in my BMW.)
Agreed
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 26, 2013, 10:59:40 PM
I do miss the days of skinny A-pillars. Could have hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk a couple of weeks ago because he was completely covered by the pillar (this was in my BMW.)
The a-pillar can be justified under the guise of rollover protection (and probably occupant)- but the rear view mirror thing bugs me.
I don't need any stupid Onstar buttons on my mirror, I want a mirror- a frameless one preferably shaped like the rear window, not a universal rectangular one that kind of works well for most backlights.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 26, 2013, 09:56:21 PM
Oversized wheels are a huge problem. Reducing sidewall height has diminishing gains and eventually the sidewall stiffness creates too much harshness for street use. The extra unsprung weight also adversely affects handling.
I'm not saying we should go back to the days of 70 series sidewalls (they looked bad and handled worse) but roads in the north are too shitty for rubber band tires.
As wheels are getting bigger, so are the overall diameters of the tires to maintain some minimal sidewall height (aftermarket jumbo wheel trend excluded) to protect rims from damage and preserve ride quality. My Mazda came from the factory with 205/50R17 tires, which equates to a 4" sidewall. The largest wheels available on my Mustang are 19" shod with 255/40R19, which equates to... a 4" sidewall. My old 240SX with 195/60R15s had a 4.6" sidewall. That's about the same as with the optional 18" wheels on the Mustang (and what I have on the car now) or the standard 16" tires that would have come on my Mazda (which my snow tires are). Looking back at the mid-90s SN95 Mustang, the optional, "big" 17" wheels got you a tire with a 4.3" sidewall. A bit lower than the current 18s. So despite the trend towards jumbo wheels over the past 8-10 years, sidewalls really aren't that much shorter than they were even going back nearly 20 years ago.
If automakers lowered beltlines, not only would it make it easier to put your arm on the sill and have the cabin be airier with better visibility, but wheel wells could also be made smaller and you could have smaller wheels and tires, too. High beltlines with small wheels and tires makes the car look very top heavy.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on May 26, 2013, 10:17:02 PM
At this point we might as well have button shifters with flappy paddles if you're feeling sporty whilst driving your Toyota Sienna. Fill the shifter space with 4 more cup holders or something.
+1. Seriously.
The shifter on the steering column used to be because it was physically necessary. Nowadays the computer is doing all the shifting anyway, so it's just a "comfort stick"..
Quote from: thecarnut on May 27, 2013, 10:24:05 AM
If automakers lowered beltlines, not only would it make it easier to put your arm on the sill and have the cabin be airier with better visibility, but wheel wells could also be made smaller and you could have smaller wheels and tires, too. High beltlines with small wheels and tires makes the car look very top heavy.
The Camaro's windowsill is actually at an almost perfect height for my elbow... Most of the time the problem I have with that is the seat being too far away from the door to be comfortable.
I do agree about the slabsidedness making the styling awkward and continuing the unnecessary larger-and-larger wheel trend.
Quote from: Rupert on May 25, 2013, 07:32:59 PM
I dunno. Sometimes with the all-red signals, I get confused when the left one blinks. Looks like they're gonna turn right.
Its real bad when you have someone who likes to ride the brakes, and there is only 1 bulb for everything. It looks like they are switching the turn stalk from left to right.
If I wrote this article, my number one complaint would the "boring aerodynamic design" we have today.
Bring back '70s car design!!! :devil:
Quote from: cawimmer430 on May 27, 2013, 12:37:21 PM
If I wrote this article, my number one complaint would the "boring aerodynamic design" we have today.
Bring back '70s car design!!! :devil:
Look-alike cars are nothing new.
(http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/04/1939ColorNewspaperWeb221-550x331.jpg)
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 25, 2013, 06:24:53 PM
I'm not sure I like the idea of removing the gear selector and giving me a fiddly knob. I get the point, but: do we really need to squeeze in an extra cupholder that badly?
Also, the "big grilles" are in part a response to pedestrian crash standards which have raised the hoodline, and well: you've got to do something with that bulbous front end.
Why do we need a pedestrian crash standard? Are people stepping out in front of cars that often that we actually need one?
They touched on my little pet peeve of drivers riding "lights-out" at night because their gauges are illuminated. It needs to be fixed.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 26, 2013, 10:56:40 PM
High sills don't bother me half as much as the thickness of modern A-pillars: but between those, the high sills, the smaller rear view due to all the rear passenger headrests, the extra large rear view mirror with the extra buttons on them, and the higher hoodlines of cars these days, there's something of a visibility problem altogether on most new cars.
I think part of the reason for the high door sills is the side impact standards today with the higher number of cars being so high off the ground. My RSX was pretty high off the ground IMO, but 99% of the cars made today has a higher roof line than my RSX. And our RDX, a lot of the sedans today have the roof lines just as high as that damn thing.
And I noticed with the auto off headlights, asshole as driving around in the day time with their high beams on now because they keep it on all the time in the first place and then when they get in their cars, their headlight turns on so they blind everyone all the time.
And then there's those that don't turn on their headlights at night that are just as bad because they think that the interior lights are on, so their lights are on. I mostly see them in Toyota drivers and Mustangs...
Quote from: NomisR on May 28, 2013, 11:03:00 AM
Why do we need a pedestrian crash standard? Are people stepping out in front of cars that often that we actually need one?
"If it saves only one life..."
Quote from: hotrodalex on May 26, 2013, 10:59:40 PM
I do miss the days of skinny A-pillars. Could have hit a pedestrian in a crosswalk a couple of weeks ago because he was completely covered by the pillar (this was in my BMW.)
In typical modern GM vein, my A-pillars are about as thick as Brock Lesnar's neck, but it hasn't been an issue for me until this past weekend when I took a backroad shortcut to/from a friend's house out in the canyon. Going through a series of hairpins, the driver-side pillar is right in the middle of where you should be looking when you approach a left-hander. Frustrating and a little scary. Also, the next day, the passenger-side A-pillar managed to hide a Chevy Equinox for a split second when I was waiting to make a left turn onto a neighborhood road.
Quote from: NomisR on May 28, 2013, 01:39:09 PM
I think part of the reason for the high door sills is the side impact standards today with the higher number of cars being so high off the ground. My RSX was pretty high off the ground IMO, but 99% of the cars made today has a higher roof line than my RSX. And our RDX, a lot of the sedans today have the roof lines just as high as that damn thing.
The roof of my car goes up to the windowline on most modern cars. I hope they keep getting higher and taller, so my car can just slip underneath them and I'll never have to worry about getting rear ended again.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 28, 2013, 01:57:38 PM
"If it saves only one life..."
I want pointy front end so I can spear some asshole that tries to movie stunt my car.
But seriously, if pedestrians would stop fucking jay walking, we wouldn't have problems with them getting run over.. how about using the fucking crosswalks and look where you're going!!!
Quote from: Raza on May 28, 2013, 02:05:48 PM
The roof of my car goes up to the windowline on most modern cars. I hope they keep getting higher and taller, so my car can just slip underneath them and I'll never have to worry about getting rear ended again.
My Elise can almost do that..
Quote from: NomisR on May 28, 2013, 04:27:20 PM
My Elise can almost do that..
There's a tollbooth-style gate at the entrance and exit of my garage at work. I keep thinking "man, if it were only 3 inches higher, I wouldn't have to fumble with my ID everyday to get in and out.
Quote from: Raza on May 29, 2013, 08:11:11 AM
There's a tollbooth-style gate at the entrance and exit of my garage at work. I keep thinking "man, if it were only 3 inches higher, I wouldn't have to fumble with my ID everyday to get in and out.
So drop your car 3 inches. :huh: :lol:
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 26, 2013, 10:56:40 PM
High sills don't bother me half as much as the thickness of modern A-pillars:
I have to agree with you there. Thick A pillars are a real pain. It's the one area that I have a complaint about driving the Volt, things can hide in the driver's side A pillar area, especially people crossing the street from the left.
Had the same problem with the Vauxhaull Astra I drove in Scotland last week. Made it much harder to place the car properly on those narrow streets when I couldn't see things hidden by the A pillars.
Quote from: thecarnut on May 29, 2013, 08:37:02 AM
So drop your car 3 inches. :huh: :lol:
Unless they lower the ground, I don't think that's possible!
Quote from: Raza on May 29, 2013, 10:39:02 AM
Unless they lower the ground, I don't think that's possible!
Pussy
Quote from: thecarnut on May 27, 2013, 10:24:05 AM
If automakers lowered beltlines, not only would it make it easier to put your arm on the sill and have the cabin be airier with better visibility, but wheel wells could also be made smaller and you could have smaller wheels and tires, too. High beltlines with small wheels and tires makes the car look very top heavy.
New cars take a shit on old cars in terms of ergonomics. I am reminded of this whenever I drive a car from two or three generations ago versus my car. Mine is simply much more accomidating.
And big wheels are nothing new. Old cars suck.