Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Car Tech and Me

In my last post I ranted, rather crazily, about technology slowly creeping into everything a car does. From cruise control, to steering, it's filtering in everywhere.

I admit, I sounded like a stark raving lunatic that wants to go back to the old days of "horseless carriages" that required hand cranking and manual spark advance.

I don't want that. I know that technology is a good thing. I just firmly believe that too much is a bad thing.

What I'll call "latent" technology (my own term) is definitely a benefit, and completely useful. These are the pieces of technology that significantly improved the car since its creation.

Things like:

The airbag.

















This is a latent piece of technology. It doesn't activate itself until absolutely necessary, and it saves lives. Cars are safer because of them, especially now that manufacturers are putting them in the headliner of cars and even in the sides of the seats. I fully support this. Old cars, contrary to what everyone seems to think, aren't safe.

So the airbag's brought us a long way.

Stability Control:























The diagram above is referring to Ford's Roll Stability Control, but the image applies to every company that has a type of stability control. It's a type of program that is mostly latent. Under normal circumstances, the computer won't apply the brakes or cut fuel to the engine unless it senses that the vehicle is about to roll over or outright crash.

I support this. It makes cars safer and saves lives.

A number, if not most, of sport car manufacturers have their own versions of this program. These programs created faster cars. They also ensure that the customer can get as much enjoyment as they can out of their car, without killing themselves. Many people, myself included, simply can't handle brand new Ferarris or Lamborghinis the first time out. Traction control is a necessity.

But, ideally, they don't cut in until something is about to go wrong. They wait in the background until they are needed. That is important to me.

ABS:
















That picture demonstrates why ABS is a wonderful thing.

ABS stands for antilock braking system, it automatically pulses the brakes so that it slows the car without locking the brakes, which would send the car into a skid. That's what's happened to the car on the left.

With the wheel still moving, but slowing down, the driver can keep control of the car. I'm all for control. It was revolutionary when it came out, but now it's a standard feature on almost every car.

Still, I enjoy driving cars without ABS. I can feel how the car's breaking and change my driving style appropriately. I have to pay more attention when I drive; something more people should do.

So, no, I don't hate all technology. I just dislike certain applications of it, and enjoy older versions of it.

However, in a comment on my last post, a gentleman reminded me that many old technologies, or skills, have faded away because they were no longer useful. People don't need to know how to light a kerosene lamp or take care of a horse, for example.

Well, he's right.

Some skills and tech are no longer applicable, or won't be in the coming years. But, you see, I'm strange. I like old technology, the old ways of doing things. It's not because I despise new technology, or new advances. I'm not a reactionary. It's because I love history.

These skills, being able to rebuild a generator or manually adjust spark timing, are part of that history. It's where things have come from, and what has given us the ability to create variable valve timing and coil on plug ignition.

So my defense, and lamentations, of these technologies are brought about by a love of history, of preserving a few old things that no longer exist.

That being said, I don't support technology for technology's sake. To me, that is where the self steering ability from that Mercedes falls into. It's unnecessary in my opinion. (And for the record, it probably will make it to production. Mercedes-Benz has a habit of previewing tech like that in their show cars and then putting it into their products.)

However, I am in the minority on that one. People love convenience, and anything that makes a few simple chores even easier. That's why I ignored the automatic parallel parking software in my rant. It's useful, I suppose, but I'd never use it.

I'd never use the media center in a car, either. I only listen to CDs and the radio. Yes, I'd like to have satellite radio someday, but I don't need a hard drive in my dash to store my iTunes files.

I look at GPS units and shrug my shoulders. I'd love to have some of these new luxury cars, if I could afford them. But then I wonder if I could get the GPS unit deleted from it, somehow. Part of the fun in taking a long trip, for me, is using a map and enjoying the drive, not having a computer voice tell me to take a left hand turn while I'm on a bridge. Still, I definitely understand why other people would want it.

Whenever technology can improve the car, I'm all for it. Whenever it can make a car safer, I'm all for it. But I have problems accepting technology that only serves as a selling point to a customer, something that doesn't solve an existing problem.

I enjoy convenience like any other human being. I take on technologies that make my life easier.

But there are some I just cannot accept.