Let's talk about redundant/useless car tech

  • Thread starter Thread starter Philly
  • 137 comments
  • 5,584 views
Philly

Philly

Phillium
Premium
Messages
7,666
There was an interesting article on Jalopnik that listed their take on the 25 most redundant car technologies.

I certainly agree with quite a few of them, there are a few on there that are a bit of a stretch. A lot of them probably help sell cars to people who don't really enjoy driving.

But power seats? Rearview cameras? GPSs? Electric parking brakes? I'm fine without those.
 
That's such a dumb article on so many levels. I think I actually disagree with every single one of those.
 
The writer of this article is an idiot & has obviously never used many of these "issues" in a real life situation.
 
Exactly. Its the same crap you always get from the driving elitists, who want cars to have nothing but 1940s mechanicals
 
I hope I'm just not picking up too quickly on your sarcasm guys, I agree with pretty much all of these. I think they might have been scrathing around to make 25 and picked a couple of debateable ones but on the whole, 90% of those are unneccesary and the other 10% are only needed because cars today are so stupidly large and heavy.
 
I love rear view cameras. I think they're a fantastic idea. I don't like automatic headlights though. It's a simple, cheap technology, but it doesn't always work when it's appropriate, and it makes people super lazy.
 
There are a few of those in the article but the author comes across as so elitist and smug that I want to disagree with him even on the ones I agree with. And I also think he's grossly overestimating the abilities of many drivers.

Radar distance control? I wouldn't like it myself but there are a great many drivers who could do with re-educating on how far to travel behind another car at speed. Radar distance control would keep the buggers from tailgating me at 80mph. Some people certainly need a hand parallel parking so I can see the use for that one, and the amount of cars I see going around with no lights when it's raining or dark probably suggests there's a need for that one too.

His arguement against DSG or intelligent autos in general is ridiculous, especially given that some people choose autos because they have to (disabilities etc). His "by wire" arguement is completely redundant "they reduce feel" - again, I'm not keen on the idea of driving an electronically assisted brake/steering/throttle car myself but 95% of drivers wouldn't know "feel" if it kicked them up the butt.

I don't know how people write for Jalopnik but they don't half spout a load of tosh sometimes.

By own personal choice for useless tech is one they covered, and that's keyless tech that requires you to perform more operations than you'd have to if you just had a key, like that Mazda example. I'm fine with ones where you have a card in your pocket and all you need to do is thumb a starter button, but the ridiculous ones are where you have to put a key in, twist it and then press a starter button. Completely redundant.
 
Yeah, there's the basis for a decent debate somewhere in all that 'when I was a boy...' style rubbish. I half expected him to proclaim that head lamps are for those of us who don't eat enough carrots. Utter, utter trash.


I'd agree with the rain sensing wipers and automatic lights. It's just another thing to go wrong, as far as I'm concerned. I'm all for technology that senses an accident before a human possibly could, but windscreen wipers? I know when to put them on - I can see it's bloody raining. And perhaps electric seat adjustment. And the keyless go in that Mazda.

But that's it. Those are the only things I can agree with him on.
 
Don't worry, there are plenty of terrible cars from the 1980's that don't have any of that stuff, and I'm sure that dude would be happy to drive them all.
 
They are right about one thing, automatic air conditioning systems are the most useless technology ever foisted upon automobiles. You have to override them eventually, so what's the point?

I despise how Jalopnik automatically knows that a technology is bad and/or stupid when it's been out for exactly 30 days.
 
RE: Radar Distance Control: I dont' think it works. I can't tell you how many times an expensive car that probably has that has tailgated me on the interstate.

Electronic systems designed around these things are another thing to irritate aggressive commuters. Road rage is bad enough without your car telling you (rightfully or wrongfully so,) that you're an idiot.

As far as I see it, most commuters who buy cars with these features will (1) learn to ignore the nagging, and (2) use the convenience features to increase the level of bad habits.

One place I REALLY disagree, though, is the manumatic gearbox stuff, Particularly when it comes to the DSG and F1 models. What's the problem with having a gearbox that can shift almost instantly, and has a positive, efficient, direct engagement? Who cares if it doesn't have a user-pushed clutch? Most top-level race cars don't or rarely use them anymore, anyway.

Granted, I'd prefer a manual when the alternative is a Model-T tranny shifted hydraulically and running a Torque Converter, (Insert term "Slushbox" here) but a well-running, automatically actuated Manual tranny? seems like a good deal to me...Left-foot-braking. mmmmm.
 
I find it rather funny that they brought that Mazda into the question. Yes, there is a capped off ignition switch, but you never actually have to touch it. You get in, key in pocket, and hit the button.

The reason the cap is there? If for any reason the starter button decides to not work, there is a key inside the fob that can be used to start the car.
 
Seeing them bashing on the DSG did kinda upset me as well. It really is a fantastic gearbox. DSG cars are faster than their manual siblings, and they're great for somebody who wants a sports car, but also has people in the family who don't like manuals.

But the 'sporty driving sensor' thing they talk about in the GTI is terrible I think. If you for some reason have a need for a lot more throttle, the transmission then considers it 'sporty' driving and even if you were moving one lane over, you get the engine spinning at 4,000 RPM for a quarter mile down the road until it thinks you're back to normal driving. I think that needs a little bit of work.

Keef
I love rear view cameras. I think they're a fantastic idea. I don't like automatic headlights though. It's a simple, cheap technology, but it doesn't always work when it's appropriate, and it makes people super lazy.
Click to expand...

Are rearview cameras any good? Granted I've never used one, but I would think it would be discombobulating to use. And I can see it being something that some people use exclusively instead of their rear window. Which isn't good. But maybe they just take getting used to?

Pupik
They are right about one thing, automatic air conditioning systems are the most useless technology ever foisted upon automobiles. You have to override them eventually, so what's the point?
Click to expand...

I never use the automatic A/C in my car. And I really hate how it automatically turns the fan speed all the way up when you set the temperature to 'low' even though the 'auto' button isn't lit up.

But I do agree that a lot of the things on that list shouldn't be there. Some of it comes down to personal preference, like how I don't like GPSs. But most of those are still things that a lot of people need on their way to pick up the kids as soccer practice.
 
The only things I agree with are the automatic A/C, headlights and rain-sensing wipers. Though some people don't even know when to turn their headlights on.
 
I feel like punching the writer of that article... I want my 15 minutes of life back. A couple of them maybe are true but some of the reasons he gives for most of them is just idiotic.
 
Jim Prower
One place I REALLY disagree, though, is the manumatic gearbox stuff, Particularly when it comes to the DSG and F1 models. What's the problem with having a gearbox that can shift almost instantly, and has a positive, efficient, direct engagement? Who cares if it doesn't have a user-pushed clutch? Most top-level race cars don't or rarely use them anymore, anyway.
Click to expand...
I chuckled a bit when he claimed traditional manuals are more reliable. That's a tough claim to prove considering all you do is press a level & it shifts, so it's impossible to mess up.

Philly
Are rearview cameras any good? Granted I've never used one, but I would think it would be discombobulating to use. And I can see it being something that some people use exclusively instead of their rear window. Which isn't good. But maybe they just take getting used to?
Click to expand...
Yes, they are amazing, esp. for parallel parking! The TL's is fantastic, & it pretty much gets a "Wow!" from everyone whose seen it in action. Jotech's shop even thought it was pretty neat when they backed my car out. I rate it as one of my favorite features of the car.

However, you can not use it as a solution to looking out the rear window. You can use it to help, but the camera looks directly downward toward the bumper & a little bit outwards, so if something's coming your way, you won't catch it.
 
I haven't read the article completely, but what exactly is wrong with #1? That's like, the best automobile tech ever.
 
I disagree wth the article.

So many people only use cars as a tool for their life, just means of transport. And all these automatic systems make them drive easier, make that annoying process less painful.

Even for us, car fans, when you are tired and things like that, and you only want to arrive home soon are useful.
 
McLaren
I chuckled a bit when he claimed traditional manuals are more reliable. That's a tough claim to prove considering all you do is press a level & it shifts, so it's impossible to mess up.
Click to expand...
He meant reliable as in not breaking, not whether or not the user is capable of operating it. He's correct BTW.



I agree with pretty much 100% of everything in this article. I dislike pretty much anything that lowers the skill and attention required to drive a car. That's how we end up with the absolute crap drivers we see on the roads.
 
Perfect Balance
He meant reliable as in not breaking, not whether or not the user is capable of operating it. He's correct BTW.
Click to expand...
No duh, Sherlock. The fact is, if it wasn't as reliable as a traditional 6-speed, why are they more popular among every manufacturer?

I personally, would have to see solid evidence that a 6-speed is more reliable when it's actually very easy to damage. DSGs & what not, can only be broken by idiots.

I agree with pretty much 100% of everything in this article. I dislike pretty much anything that lowers the skill and attention required to drive a car. That's how we end up with the absolute crap drivers we see on the roads.
Click to expand...
:lol:
I'm sorry, but at 18 years old, you really have no right to call anyone else a crappy driver when your demographic & elders are seen as the worst type around.

You also might be one of those people Casio was referring to then.
Casio
Exactly. Its the same crap you always get from the driving elitists, who want cars to have nothing but 1940s mechanicals
Click to expand...
 
After reading the article, I actually think some (if not all) of these are meant to be jokes.

That being said, I agree with most of these. Namely: 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13 (but not 14), 15, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25.
The enthusiast in me also hates 9, 16 and 17, but that doesn't count.

McLaren
The fact is, if it wasn't as reliable as a traditional 6-speed, why are they more popular among every manufacturer?
Click to expand...
*Points to number 4 on list*

McLaren
I personally, would have to see solid evidence that a 6-speed is more reliable when it's actually very easy to damage.
Click to expand...
The simpler application to a problem is inherently the more reliable one. A traditional manual transmission is far simpler than a DSG box. The thing with less components to break when all other things are equal will break less. That's a basic engineering principle.
I'm not saying that DSG boxes are the transmission equivalent of a 70s Alfa (and I disagree with his stance anyways), but what the author wrote isn't incorrect.
 
Toronado
The simpler application to a problem is inherently the more reliable one. A traditional manual transmission is far simpler than a DSG box. The thing with less components to break when all other things are equal will break less. That's a basic engineering principle.

I'm not saying that DSG boxes are the transmission equivalent of a 70s Alfa, but what the author wrote isn't incorrect.
Click to expand...
I don't know. I read about DSGs failing/breaking about as much as I read about car spoilers falling off, which is pretty much almost never. On the other hand, I do see on occasion, about someone needing their gearbox needing rebuilt or a gear needing to be worked with, or a clutch that's slipping. Not saying that's how it is, just what I've come across.

Maybe when these transmissions came out, I'd agree the 6-speed was still more reliable. But they've come a very long way in a short amount of time. I'd say if anything, that if the DSG isn't more reliable, then it's just as reliable as the 6-speed. Those transmission have come to the point where they can take as much abuse as a manual being beaten on by a first-time driver.
 
McLaren
On the other hand, I do see on occasion, about someone needing their gearbox needing rebuilt or a gear needing to be worked with, or a clutch that's slipping.
Click to expand...
Those are common signs of long use. I don't think we can know what DSGs will face as they wear out (or even how fast they will) because the oldest relatively cheap car that had them common was the Golf V (I think).
 
Toronado
Those are common signs of long use. I don't think we can know what DSGs will face as they wear out (or even how fast they will) because the oldest relatively cheap car that had them common was the Golf V (I think).
Click to expand...
I thought the 355 was the first road car to sport a "DSG"-like transmission. Guess I should have said sequential. :ouch:
 
I mostly agree. Many things aren't needed, but most of the un-needed stuff is on cars where people don't enjoy the drive, it's just a status symbol car like a mercedes
 
355s had automated manuals (which are just manuals that control the clutch usage electronically). Those are different from DSGs.
 
Toronado
355s had automated manuals (which are just manuals that control the clutch usage electronically). Those are different from DSGs.
Click to expand...
I know. But the idea is the same behind what the writer of the article detests; "smart" gearboxes & automated manuals. You get to "shift" the car without using the clutch & through the use of paddle shifters.

Either way, like I said, I'd personally have to see a few long-term tests done for me to come to a conclusion.
 
McLaren
No duh, Sherlock. The fact is, if it wasn't as reliable as a traditional 6-speed, why are they more popular among every manufacturer?
Click to expand...
The same reason automatics are popular despite being way more complicated and prone to breakage. People want them.


McLaren
I personally, would have to see solid evidence that a 6-speed is more reliable when it's actually very easy to damage. DSGs & what not, can only be broken by idiots.
Click to expand...
When that happens, they aren't breaking because they are unreliable, but because they are being broken.


McLaren
:lol:
I'm sorry, but at 18 years old, you really have no right to call anyone else a crappy driver when your demographic & elders are seen as the worst type around.
Click to expand...
I have plenty of right to call people bad drivers. Even people who are bad drivers themselves have the right to call others bad drivers. Facts are facts, regardless of who points them out.

For example, I don't have to know how to cook in order to say a burned piece of meat is cooked badly.

McLaren
You also might be one of those people Casio was referring to then.
Click to expand...
Not really, I can completely see the point of luxury cars and small features that make the experience more comfortable or enjoyable for someone that isn't really a driving enthusiast, but there shouldn't be anything that reduces the level of skill required for it. Don't cater to the stupid people. If they can't do it, they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
 
The 2010 Acura MDX which is able to use GPS to determine the location of the sun and adapt the climate control to blow cooler on the sunny side of the vehicle, guaranteeing a perfectly even temperature throughout the passenger cabin.
Click to expand...

This has to be the coolest useless thing ever in a car.
I want it.
 
Some that I disagree with.

GPS: It is more than helpful on long trips when you don't want a map taking up the whole front cabin.

Backseat Monitors: If you have ever been on a trip with kids that is over an hour this is an essential.


Really though, couldn't anything other than the drivetrain and a seat be considered redundant?
 

Latest Posts

Back