How about touchscreens in cars

[homeforsummer]

What do you need, is a phone with charger. In my case, I have a sneaky system which charges my GoPro Hero2, and my mobile phone... It functions as a media center, but I still don't need a screen. I get phone calls, and can answer them with a tap of my fingers, and I still don't need a screen.

Touchscreen, according to the thread name, is unnecessary and distracting.

So what you're saying is you'd prefer to transfer some of the functions of the average touchscreen onto a much smaller screen not designed for in-car use, positioned somewhere out of view?

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

So what you're saying is you'd prefer to transfer some of the functions of the average touchscreen onto a much smaller screen not designed for in-car use, positioned somewhere out of view?

No, I'd rather not have a screen at all. The phone has Bluetooth; I tell the car where I'm going, play music, and just listen to directions.


The screen itself is eating up space for things; in the winter time, I keep chap stick in a compartment near where the screen would be... My dad's Hyundai Accent has some absurd stereo system from XM with a touch screen... And virtually no storage space.

I asked him whether he prefers my 2005 Impreza or his touch screen Accent... He implied that the Subaru is nicer - I've kept it simple. Soft OEM suspension, big roll bars, subtle but powerful stereo... It's like an Audi compared to his Accent on lowering springs, with some out-of-place touch screen with poor satellite sound quality.

 

[homeforsummer]

Okay, so what you're actually saying is you'd prefer your particular phone combo with the features you've chosen to use, over a slightly crappy touchscreen system. Not sure what your suspension or roll bars have to do with touchscreens either, other than an excuse to bring up your car again.

Regardless, I'm not sure it's entirely a solid basis on which to declare touchscreens "unnecessary" and "distracting".

I've certainly used touchscreens less distracting to control my own bluetooth hooked-up phone than the silly little single-DIN stereo thing my car came with - give me huge on-screen buttons, folder selection and the like any day over tiny fiddly buttons and the occasional need to pick up my phone to change some settings. The touchscreen would also allow me to see a big, clear navigation screen (allowing me to disseminate far more information than can be gleaned by simply listening to directions - journey time, alternative routes, local speed limits etc) and negate the need to stick my separate nav system to the windscreen each time.

What I can say, having used dozens of touchscreen systems in cars from umpteen manufacturers over the last few years, is that they're rarely that distracting. Some could certainly be improved, but generally they're getting better all the time. "Unnecessary" depends what you want from a car I guess. I'm quite happy to live without a touchscreen in my current car (though a non-crap headunit would be nice) but I'm quite happy more recent cars have started doing without endless buttons and knobs as the touchscreen systems work pretty well. And the end result is almost always more pleasant than the interior of a decade-old Impreza or a Hyundai Accent.

 

[Joel]

The screen itself is eating up space for things; in the winter time, I keep chap stick in a compartment near where the screen would be... My dad's Hyundai Accent has some absurd stereo system from XM with a touch screen... And virtually no storage space.

This is a really bad argument against touchscreens themselves. It means nothing outside of a direct comparison of "2005 Impreza vs. Hyundai Accent". My parents have touch screens in their cars and more storage space than my car without a touchscreen. Does that mean that my radio and the controls for the A/C and heat are taking up valuable touchscreen and storage space?

Then you went off about suspension and roll bars as if they're related to touchscreens, circling back to try to justifying talking about your automatic econobox wagon as if it's the pinnacle of automotive engineering instead of another economy car just like a Hyundai Accent.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

I'm saying, my car's fully luxurious after 185,000 km., and several Canadian (harsh) winters, than most Ford cars are now, because the luxury is still headroom, driver seating position, and a simple layout.


The problem with the touchscreens is that it replaces all of those buttons you can *feel* with your hands. Adjusting volume is a rotary dial. Skipping a song or replaying a song is a tangible button.


Not to mention how good it looks to not have a random touchscreen in the car... Touchscreens will always seem cluttered to me.

 

[Joel]

I'm saying, my car's fully luxurious after 185,000 km., and several Canadian (harsh) winters, than most Ford cars are now, because the luxury is still headroom, driver seating position, and a simple layout.

They're actually not really that bad in Southern Ontario. And no you weren't saying that, you said your car is as luxurious as an Audi while comparing it to a Hyundai, and now you're talking about Fords. And what you're talking about (headroom, seating position, layout) is ergonomics, not luxury. Somehow I'm doubtful that a 10 year old car with 180000 kms on it is more luxurious than a brand new car but believe what you like, and I still haven't the slightest clue what your Subaru's suspension or Fords have to do with touch screens besides another chance for you to pump your own tires.

The problem with the touchscreens is that it replaces all of those buttons you can *feel* with your hands. Adjusting volume is a rotary dial. Skipping a song or replaying a song is a tangible button.

The problem with the touchscreens you've used so far you mean. The two I've used most often (VW) have tangible dials to adjust volume and radio frequency, tangible buttons to skip songs, and buttons on the steering wheel to fulfill most other functions. It's a legitimate gripe but it's a criticism against specific models than touchscreens themselves. It would be like if I used a $400 laptop from Walmart and said all laptop touchpads suck because I have better control with a mouse.

Not to mention how good it looks to not have a random touchscreen in the car... Touchscreens will always seem cluttered to me.

I'm not sure how a single screen is less clutter than an array of buttons for radio and temperature control. Either way though this is a personal taste thing, I think touchscreens look much cleaner than traditional radios so it's just circular here.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Precisely. I won't say that my Impreza is perfect for everybody, but it is exactly what I want in a car.

I drove a Volvo 2.5T estate (V70?) And I'll admit it was a nicer car than my Impreza, but... Neither car has a touchscreen. It's better that way.

 

[Montanan46]

After reading the replies to this subject, it is easy to see that there are people on both sides of the fence. Some like touch screens and some don't. I am among those who don't. I have been looking at new cars and in the majority of manufacturers, there is no choice. Touch screens are standard. I have seen a few manufacturers that offer models without them, but they are on the base models only.

I like to have a decently equipped car, but I prefer to have it the way I want it instead of the way some marketing person thinks I should have it. Having been an accident investigator, I try to eliminate as many distractions as I can. I actually turn off my phone before driving, so I don't even have any use for the bluetooth feature that is on just about all new cars.

Today, it is not what it was like years ago. I have ordered many cars in the past. You had a list of options you could choose from. If you didn't check the box, you didn't get it. No manufacturers are taking a lot of the choice away from the buyer with their "packages" and by putting many features into cars as standard equipment.

GM has their "On-Star" and Ford has their "SYNC". I really have no need or use for either. My current vehicle came equipped with On-Star. I never needed it, but did try it in some parts of the state (Montana) and found that it was useless because of the lack of cell service. Didn't want it, but was expected to pay for it. I was close to considering a Ford product, but again I am expected to pay for SYNC. No use for it either. Needless to say, I never renewed the subscription for the On-Star. I have many friends who also have never continued the subscription. There is no choice with On-Star as it is standard equipment, but GM expects you to pay for it even if you don't want it.

I am up to my ears with technology at work and want to escape from it, especially when I'm in my car. All of these electronic gadgets just add on to the price of a car. What happens in a few years if the touch screen craps out. Bet it won't be cheap to repair or replace it.

I am a car nut. I restore classic cars as a hobby and enjoy driving. Driving a car, not a video game. Sure wish manufacturers would offer buyers a choice instead of shoving these electronic gadgets down buyers throats. Guess I'll be able to save some money as I refuse to pay for many of the features on new cars, especially ones I don't want or need.

 

[McLaren]

Another thread where Andrew has to bring up his uber-awesome Subaru as a benchmark.

BTW, Chevrolet already addresses this "cluttered screen that takes up space" argument.


You can bet others will observe this more in the future.

 

[ildd]

After installing my new radio and using it for a week, I can say, at least for me, using a touchscreen radio is just as easy as using physical buttons. However, this will obviously differ per car and per driver.
The features

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@Montanan46 no they're not. I bought an SV Sentra (2013) and was able to get it without a touch screen and the other Nissan models were similar. Toyota (another place I looked into) was so boring that most of their cars didn't offer it unless you were buying a premium model Prius or Camary or Sequoia and so on. I've read your posts on this thread and many of them seem to be repeating but not telling us full on all the places you've shopped, so I'm curious as to that. Also the times have changed, I mean I understand your reasoning but these options are more user friendly and safe than the alternative most people like going with...even if your crash investigator experience dictates to you otherwise, by the way are you still doing that or did you quit from that (too lazy to go back and look)?

 

[Cale]

Using the touchscreen in my Cruze rental was super easy. Just like working in a fast food restaurant. Big pictures that you poke.

 

[Exorcet]

I still don't have a reason to look for a touch screen (and this has also lead me to not caring enough to try them). Buttons work fine. Screen displays are probably good for cars for a variety of reasons and the option to touch is good to have, but I'm extremely weary of over reliance on touch technology. My first thought to Cadillac's touchscreen ads was that they were trying to intentionally make their cars worse because all they talked about was how awesome not having buttons is while not mentioning a single good thing about the touchscreen, but I guess that's just normal marketing.

I hate having to look away from the road when driving (or not doing something because it will require looking away). At the very least, major functions should be on permanent buttons.

 

[Zenith]

My phone, linked via Bluetooth to my car, will give traffic updates. You don't need a touchscreen, or a screen at all, for that matter.

What do you need, is a phone with charger. In my case, I have a sneaky system which charges my GoPro Hero2, and my mobile phone... It functions as a media center, but I still don't need a screen. I get phone calls, and can answer them with a tap of my fingers, and I still don't need a screen.

If you've ever driven a Tesla, you appreciate how nice it is to have a UI custom made for driving. The sheer potential for apps is amazing.

It also allows driver preferences and in car GPS without a dedicated screen being useless whenever the features are not in use. While driving normally the UI can be configured to exactly the driver's preferences.

Touchscreen, according to the thread name, is unnecessary and distracting.

Even assuming you can get all the functionality of a car's computer in a phone (you can't), your phone is still a touch screen, it's just not optimized for or mounted in your car. You also need somewhere to store the phone within reach. It's just a worse way of doing it.

And Bluetooth drains phone battery like nuts.

As gadgets and functionality increases in cars beyond heater, AC, and radio, touchscreens will become more practical.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

I looked it up, I have a JVC head unit with Bluetooth, a charger for both GoPro and phone, and a Bluetooth compatible phone. I set the destination while walking to my car, start the music, get in, start the car, plug in all of the stuff I want to charge and drive.


If that's not convenient, I don't know what is.

 

[Zenith]

I looked it up, I have a JVC head unit with Bluetooth, a charger for both GoPro and phone, and a Bluetooth compatible phone. I set the destination while walking to my car, start the music, get in, start the car, plug in all of the stuff I want to charge and drive.


If that's not convenient, I don't know what is.

Yay, plugs, wires, and mating devices. Boy I love convenience.

 

[Montanan46]

@Montanan46 no they're not. I bought an SV Sentra (2013) and was able to get it without a touch screen and the other Nissan models were similar. Toyota (another place I looked into) was so boring that most of their cars didn't offer it unless you were buying a premium model Prius or Camary or Sequoia and so on. I've read your posts on this thread and many of them seem to be repeating but not telling us full on all the places you've shopped, so I'm curious as to that. Also the times have changed, I mean I understand your reasoning but these options are more user friendly and safe than the alternative most people like going with...even if your crash investigator experience dictates to you otherwise, by the way are you still doing that or did you quit from that (too lazy to go back and look)?

I have seen small cars and entry vehicles that come without the touchscreens, but that is not the trye of vehicle I am looking for. I prefer a mid-size to a large car. I have no interest in an SUV. I prefer a car that can seat four adults comfortably for long trips and have a lot of room for luggage. One activity we enjoy is bowling and we attend tournaments all over the country and need the room not only for luggage, but also room for our bowling equipment.

One problem we have when it comes to buying a new car is the area where we live. I don't want tobuy a vehicle that does not have a dealership locally. We are rather spread out here in Montana and other cities or towns of any size can be over a hundred miles apart. If a problem with a vehicle arises, I don't want to have to possible have it towed great distances for service or repairs. Our choice is rather limited here. Vehicles we looked at that we were interested in, Toyota Camery, Subaru Legacy, Chevrolet Impala and Malibu, Buick LaCrosse all had the touch screen features as standard equipment in the models we were interested in.

I guess it all comes down to a matter of choice. Some people like the touch screens and some don't. I have heard this also from the sales people also. They have lost some sales because some, like me, did not care for this feature. I guess my biggest gripe is not having the choice and having to pay for a number of features that I am not interested in.

When I got out of the Navy in Florida, jobs were very scarce in Montana so I ended up staying in Florida for a while.I was an accident investigator for the Florida Highway Patrol years back, and had attended the traffic institute at Chicago Northwestern University for training in accident investigation. I did the job for seven years until my daughter was born. We chose not to have her grow up in south Florida and moved home to Montana. I didn't miss seeing the carnage on the highways when I left.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I have seen small cars and entry vehicles that come without the touchscreens, but that is not the trye of vehicle I am looking for. I prefer a mid-size to a large car. I have no interest in an SUV. I prefer a car that can seat four adults comfortably for long trips and have a lot of room for luggage. One activity we enjoy is bowling and we attend tournaments all over the country and need the room not only for luggage, but also room for our bowling equipment.

But the Toyota's I mention are mid size and so are the Nissan. And even if not mid level trim, the class below isn't all that much smaller. A Sentra current gen compared to a Altima current gen isn't a very big difference in leg space as well as luggage space. This isn't 90s to early 2000 American small size sedans we're talking about as others have pointed in various car news threads on GTP, size has been increasing and increasing. Today's small family sedan would qualify as yesterday's mid size. At some point you're going to have to come to term with either settling for a bigger car with a screen in it or you're going to have to expand your testing range. The cars are out there you just don't want to look at them.

One problem we have when it comes to buying a new car is the area where we live. I don't want tobuy a vehicle that does not have a dealership locally. We are rather spread out here in Montana and other cities or towns of any size can be over a hundred miles apart. If a problem with a vehicle arises, I don't want to have to possible have it towed great distances for service or repairs. Our choice is rather limited here. Vehicles we looked at that we were interested in, Toyota Camery, Subaru Legacy, Chevrolet Impala and Malibu, Buick LaCrosse all had the touch screen features as standard equipment in the models we were interested in.

Well it looks like from the year and half ago that I looked at these same cars (except the Subaru and LaCrosse). The LS and LS eco version of the Chevy's don't have them, the 2014.5 Camry all have them but I know 2013 and 2014 don't have them all as Standard.

I guess it all comes down to a matter of choice. Some people like the touch screens and some don't. I have heard this also from the sales people also. They have lost some sales because some, like me, did not care for this feature. I guess my biggest gripe is not having the choice and having to pay for a number of features that I am not interested in.

You're actually the first person I've seen complain about them really. Other than those here that also have done so on here. Most people like the touch screen idea and not so much for that ability but to have a in car display for different things. However, just like I don't care for bluetooth, I can't deny it isn't useful and liking or disliking is subjective.

When I got out of the Navy in Florida, jobs were very scarce in Montana so I ended up staying in Florida for a while.I was an accident investigator for the Florida Highway Patrol years back, and had attended the traffic institute at Chicago Northwestern University for training in accident investigation. I did the job for seven years until my daughter was born. We chose not to have her grow up in south Florida and moved home to Montana. I didn't miss seeing the carnage on the highways when I left.

So basically it's been a while, and thus you don't know if there really is a correlation of the introduction to touch screens that NHTSA and IIHS obviously don't feel as a threat. I guess you were basing the danger of them indirectly upon the crashes you saw that had to do with distractions.

 

[ildd]

Yay, plugs, wires, and mating devices. Boy I love convenience.

Well it is rather convenient to charge your phone while driving... with my radio literally all I do is activate the Bluetooth on my phone and I'm done.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Well it is rather convenient to charge your phone while driving... with my radio literally all I do is activate the Bluetooth on my phone and I'm done.

Like, if I know my destination and route, and thus don't need navigation, I can climb in and drive away without touching my phone at all. Then, if it needs to be charged, I have that option...*

So, I whole-heartedly agree with you. If your phone needs a charge, sure, plug it in. Otherwise, I rarely (if ever) turn Bluetooth off... My phone can be charged anywhere/everywhere I go.


I could drive to Québec, and still not need to charge my phone, then upon arriving at the border, charge my phone while waiting...


Cars should have Bluetooth, yes. Touch screens, no... Audio is the way to go. The car can be made to listen to you talk... "Car, call home."

 

[McLaren]

Cars should have Bluetooth, yes. Touch screens, no... Audio is the way to go. The car can be made to listen to you talk... "Car, call home."

Because most cars with touch screens don't already have that in place.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Because most cars with touch screens don't already have that in place.

But the screen itself is what I take issue with. Otherwise, I don't see where you're going with this.

Knight Rider was a car people could talk to/with, and it simply led to a terrible show. Imagine Knight Rider with a frustrating, distracting and (in my personal opinion) ugly touch screen - worst show ever.

 

[Zenith]

I think it's funny how afraid people are of such a minor change in car interior layout. It's not like we're replacing the entire interface, were keeping the same controls, just putting them on a screen.

Guys, it's like a standard dashboard, except it has a million times more functionality.

Sure, if small-minded is what we're going for we can limit ourselves to AC, music, and Navigation and have 10 permanent physical knobs sitting useless for 99% of the driving experience.

Or... Or... OR we can use the interior real estate intelligently and efficiently, swapping controls into the driver's workspace as they're needed and allow useful stuff like maps, data, and diagnostics to take up that space when controls are not needed.

Of course obsolete tech always survives into the future. After all, there are still people who insist that typewriters are the superior way of writing documents and that physically sliding the document over every time they start a new is just as convenient as hitting "Enter." These people still demonstrate that the old ways are just as efficient as the new ways-oh wait no they don't.

 

[ildd]

.

Of course obsolete tech always survives into the future. After all, there are still people who insist that typewriters are the superior way of writing documents and that physically sliding the document over every time they start a new is just as convenient as hitting "Enter." These people still demonstrate that the old ways are just as efficient as the new ways-oh wait no they don't.

I remember that thread
I agree with the above. I had...
*Looks at Old radio*
TWENTY buttons I never touched and another four I very rarely used.
Those 24 buttons are literally 100% of the radio, not including the little LCD screen that says radio channel, CD track, etc.
And now I have a 7" screen that shows the track name, artist, album, cell phone interface, a few icons, etc.
The features

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Data? I've only seen one car ever even bother to put gauges on a touch screen that weren't needlessly relevant to telling you whether it's hot or cold in the car.


December - cold in the car
August - hot in the car


I don't need a touch screen to tell me that. I don't need a touch screen to remind me to take the dogs out of my car because they'll cook and die.


My main problem with them is that they give useless information "The car is 23 degrees Celsius! Wow, is it!? So that's why I'm so comfortable..." said no one ever. "Oh, I'm burning gas like a madman!" said everyone who saw a fuel economy gauge.


I find it laughable that the engineers and designers probably spent a month designing an interface to tell you what your brain naturally can. "It's hot in here." is not a valid thing to tell me, car. I already realize. When I go to track days, and the car's interior gets hot, I'll open the door while driving down pit lane to cool it off (works faster than A/C). Did some useless touch screen have to tell me that the car was hot? Nope. That was my natural reaction.


When the light turns green, my reaction isn't "step on the brakes HARDER, I want to save fuel so the throttle pedal is the enemy!" I know the position of my right foot, and I understand that the position of my right foot is the direct control over fuel economy. I don't need a touch screen to tell me that.


I don't need heated seats (which are, as Top Gear notes, completely disgusting feeling,) and I live just outside of the Arctic Circle. I don't need an infotainment system to keep me entertained when driving my simplistic, fun-to-drive car is all of the entertainment I need. I've got music, a nice exhaust note, decent power, and wonderful handling.





I still find touch screens and all that they entail entirely useless, and no one in this thread has proven anything to me otherwise. The only touch screen I like is the GT-R's touch screen, and maybe that BMW/Audi/VW system which allows tuning of suspension. For your average crapbox Ford, the only reason why you need the infotainment is because you're in a dull, front-wheel-drive car with no driving characteristics. I find it telling that even "sports cars" have them, implying that people would ever get bored of driving a proper sports car. Who?

 

[ildd]

.



I don't need a touch screen to tell me that. I don't need a touch screen to remind me to take the dogs out of my car because they'll cook and die.


My main problem with them is that they give useless information "The car is 23 degrees Celsius! Wow, is it!? So that's why I'm so comfortable..." said no one ever. "Oh, I'm burning gas like a madman!" said everyone who saw a fuel economy gauge.


I find it laughable that the engineers and designers probably spent a month designing an interface to tell you what your brain naturally can. "It's hot in here." is not a valid thing to tell me, car. I already realize. When I go to track days, and the car's interior gets hot, I'll open the door while driving down pit lane to cool it off (works faster than A/C). Did some useless touch screen have to tell me that the car was hot? Nope. That was my natural reaction.


When the light turns green, my reaction isn't "step on the brakes HARDER, I want to save fuel so the throttle pedal is the enemy!" I know the position of my right foot, and I understand that the position of my right foot is the direct control over fuel economy. I don't need a touch screen to tell me that.






I still find touch screens and all that they entail entirely useless, and no one in this thread has proven anything to me otherwise. The only touch screen I like is the GT-R's touch screen, and maybe that BMW/Audi/VW system which allows tuning of suspension. For your average crapbox Ford, the only reason why you need the infotainment is because you're in a dull, front-wheel-drive car with no driving characteristics. I find it telling that even "sports cars" have them, implying that people would ever get bored of driving a proper sports car. Who?

Uh
He... He wasn't implying any of this.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

Uh
He... He wasn't implying any of this.

In a way, he was, though. He's implying that they're necessary when they simply aren't. He's trying to persuade us of his opinion, and I disagree.


I'm the one implying my point; cars are fine. The drivers are becoming boring, fuel-hoarding, complaint-spewing robots.
"The current temperature is 30 degrees Celsius. According to my central processing unit, that's hot. Engage air-conditioning."


When I'm still sitting here, thinking "hey, I'm human. I can feel that it's [generically] hot. I don't need a pricey, ugly screen to tell me that."


I mean, either the general population is losing the ability to sense temperature fluctuations, or the general population is the laziest population on the planet.

 

[Wolfe]

Or... Or... OR we can use the interior real estate intelligently and efficiently, swapping controls into the driver's workspace as they're needed and allow useful stuff like maps, data, and diagnostics to take up that space when controls are not needed.

Setting it up so that common controls occupy a shared space with multiple useful things seems unintelligent and inefficient to me, but I also think tablets make for pathetic personal computers so my preferences on utility/functionality are clearly off from what consumers want.

 

[Zenith]

Data? I've only seen one car ever even bother to put gauges on a touch screen that weren't needlessly relevant to telling you whether it's hot or cold in the car.

Wants to become a race engineer.

Believes that precise numerical data is needless.

I never specified temperature data, so I don't know why you decided to base your entire post on it.

Other examples of data which could be displayed on a handy touchscreen.

Traffic, upcoming and incoming weather, nearby attractions, gas station recommendations based on expected range, and literally anything you normally would use a smartphone for.

I don't need a touch screen to tell me that. I don't need a touch screen to remind me to take the dogs out of my car because they'll cook and die.

I don't care. That's not relevant to this discussion.

My main problem with them is that they give useless information "The car is 23 degrees Celsius! Wow, is it!? So that's why I'm so comfortable..." said no one ever. "Oh, I'm burning gas like a madman!" said everyone who saw a fuel economy gauge.

They can give whatever information the driver wants. That's the point. Running out of gas? Want to save money? Display fuel consumption. Driving up a winding road? Display and record lateral and longitudinal G.

I find it laughable that the engineers and designers probably spent a month designing an interface to tell you what your brain naturally can. "It's hot in here." is not a valid thing to tell me, car. I already realize. When I go to track days, and the car's interior gets hot, I'll open the door while driving down pit lane to cool it off (works faster than A/C). Did some useless touch screen have to tell me that the car was hot? Nope. That was my natural reaction.

Thermostats have been around for decades. It was a trivial task to install one onto a car to monitor interior climate.

When the light turns green, my reaction isn't "step on the brakes HARDER, I want to save fuel so the throttle pedal is the enemy!" I know the position of my right foot, and I understand that the position of my right foot is the direct control over fuel economy. I don't need a touch screen to tell me that.

I don't care. You are spewing irrelevant rants.

I don't need heated seats (which are, as Top Gear notes, completely disgusting feeling,) and I live just outside of the Arctic Circle. I don't need an infotainment system to keep me entertained when driving my simplistic, fun-to-drive car is all of the entertainment I need. I've got music, a nice exhaust note, decent power, and wonderful handling.

Oh, I see, you're trying to be autistic White and Nerdy.

I still find touch screens and all that they entail entirely useless, and no one in this thread has proven anything to me otherwise. The only touch screen I like is the GT-R's touch screen, and maybe that BMW/Audi/VW system which allows tuning of suspension. For your average crapbox Ford, the only reason why you need the infotainment is because you're in a dull, front-wheel-drive car with no driving characteristics. I find it telling that even "sports cars" have them, implying that people would ever get bored of driving a proper sports car. Who?

Read my post.

It's like a standard driver interface, except with more functionality. It can be used for anything. Whining about how not everybody uses cars like you do isn't relevant to this discussion and honestly pitiful to read.

In a way, he was, though. He's implying that they're necessary when they simply aren't. He's trying to persuade us of his opinion, and I disagree.

No I wasn't. Find where I said that they were necessary.

I'm the one implying my point; cars are fine. The drivers are becoming boring, fuel-hoarding, complaint-spewing robots.
"The current temperature is 30 degrees Celsius. According to my central processing unit, that's hot. Engage air-conditioning."

...And roooollin their eyes because I am so White and Nerdy...

When I'm still sitting here, thinking "hey, I'm human. I can feel that it's [generically] hot. I don't need a pricey, ugly screen to tell me that."

Oh yes. An smooth illuminated screen with customizable UI is so much uglier than plastic knobs made by the lowest bidder.

What is with you and temperature? Just because you ignore the other thousands of functions of touchscreen displays doesn't mean that I've forgotten about them.

I mean, either the general population is losing the ability to sense temperature fluctuations, or the general population is the laziest population on the planet.

Because my entire argument for touchscreens in cars was centered around temperature displays. Yes.

 

[ITCC_Andrew]

How many cars have accelerometers, and gauges, on touch screens? Not many. That's my point. They cater to people whose concerns are entirely different.