←back to thread

561 points cxr | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.243s | source
Show context
WarOnPrivacy ◴[] No.44476845[source]
I drive a Toyota that is nearly old enough to run for US Senator. Every control in the car is visible, clearly labeled and is distinct to the touch - at all times. The action isn't impeded by routine activity or maintenance (ex:battery change).

Because it can be trivially duplicated, this is minimally capable engineering. Yet automakers everywhere lack even this level of competence. By reasonable measure, they are poor at their job.

replies(13): >>44476881 #>>44476892 #>>44477024 #>>44477518 #>>44477594 #>>44477656 #>>44478016 #>>44478375 #>>44480180 #>>44480505 #>>44481914 #>>44482166 #>>44482519 #
makeitdouble ◴[] No.44477518[source]
I'm sympathetic , but think it's a disservice to the designers to present it like that:

> Every control in the car is visible

No. And that would be horrible.

Every control _critically needed while driving_ is visible and accessible. Controls that matter less can be smaller and more convoluted, or straight hidden.

The levers to adjust seat high and positions are hidden while still accessible. The latch to open the car good can (should ?) be less accessible and can be harder to find.

There are a myriad of subtle and opinionated choices to make the interface efficient. There's nothing trivial or really "simple" about that design process, and IMHO brushing over that is part of what leads us to the current situation where car makers just ignore these considerations.

replies(5): >>44478685 #>>44480195 #>>44480980 #>>44481296 #>>44481300 #
ringeryless ◴[] No.44478685[source]
i disagree. i only want minimalist functionality and therefore it's reasonable to have ALL controls always present and physical. someone needs to have the courage to say no to features that will get people killed. a simple gun doesn't jam in the heat of battle. u my 1989 Toyota corolla has manual windows and that is great.
replies(3): >>44479010 #>>44480406 #>>44481179 #
freddie_mercury ◴[] No.44479010[source]
Simple guns jam all the time bro. Even 100 year old super simple designs jam.
replies(1): >>44480194 #
bluGill ◴[] No.44480194[source]
All guns can jam. However a simpler design has less potential to jam.
replies(2): >>44482172 #>>44482222 #
IX-103 ◴[] No.44482222[source]
That's not true. Preventing jams can actually require more complicated designs. To avoid jams the device should limit the range of motion a device is capable of and deal with dirt and debris. That can require additional parts to stabilize the motion, sealed components, specialized alloys to match thermal expansion, or more complicated motions that clear contaminants.
replies(1): >>44482438 #
bluGill ◴[] No.44482438[source]
Or you can step back to a basic bolt action that has less moving parts. The slow cycle times mean you can ignore thermo expansion - just let it cool.
replies(1): >>44484680 #
wredcoll ◴[] No.44484680[source]
I mean, maybe a musket has fewer jams per minute, but I suspect it has more jams per round fired.

Also, bolt actions aren't exactly the definition of simple.

replies(1): >>44489922 #
1. bluGill ◴[] No.44489922[source]
Given equal precision and alloys used in construction a musket will jam less than a more complex gun. However a musket and bullets built with 1700 technology/precision will jam more than a gun built to the best best modern standards standards (though there are some pretty bad modern guns out there too that may not stack up so well).

A bolt action is simple compared to any semi-automatic gun. Particularly if it is a single shot bolt action thus dispensing with the complexity of a magazine feed.