Little known secret --- "fancy screens" are often used as marketing gimmicks but they can actually reduce the manufacturing cost of modern autos.
In an environment where control systems are already digital/computerized for valid functional reasons, adding a display screen is more cost effective than analog instruments.
I am old school and I prefer the analog style; however, it is fairly easy to simulate analog instrumentation on a digital display and some manufacturers are doing it very well.
All that being said, EVs are still a low volume specialty product that hasn't reached mass market status yet. Once they do, cheaper, more stripped down models will become available.
> I am old school and I prefer the analog style; however, it is fairly easy to simulate analog instrumentation on a digital display and some manufacturers are doing it very well.
I'm old school as well and although I love the feel of a real indicator, screens can be effectively used as really good output devices if well designed, but touch screens? Just no: they're fragile, slow, and don't give any feedback; if I had to pick one between fully mechanical and fully digital (therefore with touch screen), I'd pick the former without hesitation.
Almost all cars that I have seen still have analog controls for driving *inputs*.
Digital/touch screen is mainly limited to entertainment, phone, setup, and GPS/mapping. A lot of touch screen functions are often intentionally made inactive while the vehicle is moving.
Want to turn on your fancy seat vents? 3 taps on the large screen in the middle.
Want to change some temps/fan speed? Swipe(not as nice as iOS) right, look through 10 identical looking icons and arrows, to find the right one.
Honestly, I thought people were exaggerating how bad it was until I got to experience it for myself. As a long term fan of the brand, it’s utterly disappointing.
It depends, many cars put things like windshield wipers behind a touch menu, which I'd argue is a security-relevant feature when you drive your car into sudden heavy rain at 120 km/h. It seems to depend more on what's regulated, and less on what makes sense.
Are you sure you didn't mean a *safety* relevant feature?
Sometimes I have to wonder if some of the designers actually drive. If they did, I would think some of the worst mistakes would be blatantly obvious.
When in doubt, see Hyundai/Kia. They ain't fancy. For the most part, they just seem to take a consistent, practical, subdued, utilitarian approach that gets the job done on an everyday basis.
Kia/Hyundai has a very nice and sensible layout using 2 modest sized screens side by side well integrated into the dash, focused toward the driver with analog gauges simulated in the center.
I hate the big fugly, poorly integrated screen offset to the middle that looks like someone glued a tablet to the dash (think Tesla and lots of others here). Marketing over function in my opinion.
This is nicer than Tesla and the like for sure. But still has a long way to go. Let’s boil down the UX in terms of actions. An action to me is a half second moment where I can divert my attention away from driving and make an adjustment to some aspect of the driver experience. Classic examples include:
- volume adjustment
- temp adjustment
- context switch between maps and music
- song selection action (skip, etc)
- enable/disable cruise control
- toggle display between common views (kph, fuel efficiency, car status)
- perform navigation action
Only the last of those really is improved by touchscreen. Every single one of those other actions is currently an absolute regression vs an analog control. Until each of those actions is at least as good as analog controls, I don’t consider the touchscreen an improvement. Actually, they are to me safety dangers because even the learned motions of the analog controls are safety risks, even if they’re small. Navigating the touchscreen while driving is so much more dangerous
When in doubt, designers should see Kia/Hyundai. They ain't fancy. They just get the job done on a very simple, practical, subdued level --- which wears well over time in my opinion.
The real answer: the actual cost to manufacturer vs the value perceived by consumers is skewed.
Would you pay $1000 less for a Tesla that is otherwise equal, but has a crummy old school infotainment screen? Even if you would, I guarantee 99.9% of people wouldn't.
By giving you fancy infotainment features, most consumers perceive the value as much higher than the marginal cost to the OEM, so they're more likely to buy it vs some barebones device that just has a battery, motor, and basic radio.
I have a 2014 Nissan Leaf S (the lowest trim). It’s refreshingly simple, it has a screen but it’s only for the radio and it’s not a touch screen. Tactile controls for everything.
It has an 80 mile range, which is fine for everything around the region, and my family has a gas car anyway. The 80 mile range keeps the prices pretty low, too. Highly recommended for a nearly free-to-use EV without the techno stuff.
(We also have a 2015 Leaf SL, the top trim, and it has the touchscreen stuff. SL has 360 camera, leather seats, fancy sound system and that’s about it. Get the S. It’s all you need.)
I got an SL and regret that I can't now replace the fancier touchscreen with an aftermarket unit. I'd get CarPlay, but I'd lose the 360 camera view and EV-specific features (charge timer, range estimates, etc.)
Charge timer is the only thing other than the backup camera that is materially improved by the larger touch screen. The charge timer is moved to the little dashboard LCD in the S model, and it’s a bit janky.
Thr biggest expense in an EV by far are the batteries so it makes sense to deck the car out and sell in the upper range of the market. If they tried to sell a low tech EV it would still be expensive with all the problems that go with that. Manufacturers would have a harder sale and make less profit. It makes better sense to go high tech.
Having said that it is possible to get a low tech inexpensive EV shipped to you from China but they are closer to golf cars than the type of cars we expect.
There are some lower-fidelity electric cars out there, such as the Dacia Spring or some of the very cheap Chinese cars.
That being said, electric cars will always be more high tech than ICE cars because they have to. You will need a more or less fancy screen for finding charging stations and navigating them. You will need at least one app on your car or mobile for payments. You will need a mobile app connected with your car for pre-conditioning and bringing the battery to operating temperature.
EVs are a different means of transport than ICE cars, and they're being used differently.
I heard that one of the Chinese car companies was taking that approach with some of their cheapest models: people already have phones, just provide a nice place on the dashboard to hang their phone, just provide an ordinary Bluetooth speaker as the sound system, and just provide a Bluetooth app to control some of the car's lesser used functionality like the most detailed parts of the climate system and what have you.
It's a fascinating approach. I don't know if it would take off beyond the smallest, cheapest types of cars, and I certainly don't know if we'll see those sorts of ultra-cheap cars in markets like the US, but it's still great to hear that some experimentation is going on knowing that everyone already has smart phones, modern cars are an extension of that (look at the importance of Apple CarPlay [1] and Android Auto), and there's a lot of room to experiment with an electric car (given how much of an electric car is a "software car").
[1] Fun semi-related footnote: on the highest end, as well, Porsche was getting some good press that they'd moved a bunch of their controls into an iOS app that supported CarPlay. Porsche seems to have perhaps realized that "CarPlay" is the real car OS most users care about.
> I would imagine the venn diagram in the us of people with electric cars but no smartphone is pretty small.
So you do need proper route planning, charging point information and range prediction anyway. What would be the benefit of completely outsourcing this to a smartphone? Is having one additional device really going to make things easier and less brittle? Why shouldn't this be done by the car if it can be done by the car?
> Now I warm up my car by going outside and turning the key. My wife's car has a remote starter. Why do I need a screen or app in my car?
You don't need a screen or app in your car. You need the app on the smartphone. That's your remote starter.
> What would be the benefit of completely outsourcing this to a smartphone?
I already have a smartphone, which I chose and replace when it stops getting security updates. Additionally I already essentially use my smartphone to find gas stations in unfamiliar areas. Why does the source of power necessitate IOT?
> You need the app on the smartphone. That's your remote starter.
I worked for a company that made an ebike that you used your phone to start. I hated it. If your phone is dead, so is your bike. I shouldn't need a phone to start my car.
> You will need at least one app on your car or mobile for payments.
I very much hope this has stopped being true by the time I can afford an electric car! I hate dealing with apps... what was wrong with ordinary bank cards?
ICE cars also need gas stations, also need to pay for their fuel and also get cold when it's cold yet we've managed to do just fine for a long time without screens or even smartphones.
> ICE cars also need gas stations, also need to pay for their fuel
To be able to access a wide range of charging points, you will have to set up some accounts with multiple providers. There are more and more charging points that support debit cards because they have been made mandatory in several countries, but it is still recommended to register with at least one provider to get lower charging prices. Not all charging points require an account, but you'll still need an app.
Again, this is just not the same experience and process as with ICE cars – you could somehow try to replicate it, but you will find that those "high tech features" make life easier.
> and also get cold when it's cold
Which isn't a problem because an ICE car doesn't lose a third of its range when it's cold, as opposed to an EV.
There's no technical reason the charging networks couldn't just swipe cards like gas pumps and almost all of them decided that they needed (weird, terrible) custom apps and (overly complicated) sign up procedures.
Setting up the charging points on the current networks in my experience happens in phone apps and you couldn't use the car's screen if you wanted to anyway.
As everything moves to NACS in the US "plug-and-charge" should get a lot more common where you don't need to fiddle with a charging point's network's app any longer, because the car stores your payment info for you and transmits it when you plug in.
ICE cars fuelling speed isn't limited by the temperature of the gas tank when you arrive.
We could give power users a button to manually do that, but how far in advance you press it would have to depend on the heat you'll gain naturally on that particular route, the ambient temperature, and how you typically drive.
And if you get it wrong, you've wasted a bunch of your battery power or arrived colder than ideal. If you accidentally pressed it, or changed your mind, you've used a bunch of power for absolutely no reason.
Personally, I don't trust the average driver to check their tire pressure.
> ICE cars fuelling speed isn't limited by the temperature of the gas tank when you arrive.
Gas refueling speed is absolutely affected by temperature and there are unsafe temperatures to refuel at. I've owned cars with vacuum sealed tanks that need a short wait and a mechanical unseal with safety checks before you refuel. I've seen gas pumps shut off because of outdoor temperature.
Just because we can do everything in software doesn't mean we don't have a history of mechanical solutions. Everything old is new again. Software is ultimately cheaper to update/fix and this is likely going to remain a driving force. There's also, yes, the trust factor in relying on automated software versus say mounting a battery temperature gauge on a dashboard and trying to train owners to check it or fidlde a bunch of switches around it before charging.
This is pretty nearly what the lower trim Chevy Bolt is. Of course, GM recently decided they needed to stop selling it this year so they could push the more expensive Blazer and Equinox..
This problem goes way back. I bought a sport car back in the 80s and got the fancy package. Unfortunately that came with leather seats and I wanted cloth (leather is hot and sweaty in summer). Had to make a special order because "who wouldn't want the more expensive leather seats?"
Well, Aptera is pretty low tech but it's not being manufactured yet. Are you thinking low tech as in cheap? There are a few very cheap, low end electric vehicles coming out of China, but the safety is questionable
Economies of scale aren’t nearly there for EVs, also:
Every safety regulation has an associated regulatory overhead tax on the cost of vehicles (and homes) due to the increased people/materials/machine/quality control/etc complexity.
It is great to raise the safety bar, but knowing it helps put new things out of price ranges is a trade off.
In an environment where control systems are already digital/computerized for valid functional reasons, adding a display screen is more cost effective than analog instruments.
I am old school and I prefer the analog style; however, it is fairly easy to simulate analog instrumentation on a digital display and some manufacturers are doing it very well.
All that being said, EVs are still a low volume specialty product that hasn't reached mass market status yet. Once they do, cheaper, more stripped down models will become available.