Did Tesla make a weirdmobile? Comparison 3 BMW 3 dash

[SageBrush]

So you agree with my point that having knobs for some functions is better than having to use a touch screen.

tap .. tap .. tapping on a screen is annoying. Thankfully much better digital controls are common.

I"m hoping for two controls on the wheel: one to choose a function while the other is a controller.
To answer your question, sure, sometimes physical interfaces are better. I'm just looking forward to a car that does not have 50 of them.

 

[Stolz25]

Exactly my point. There's almost never a practical difference between, say, 4:19 and 4:20, yet we're forced to deal with it. We constantly have to waste a whole lot of mental processing to throw away all that extra precision we're accosted with.

This completely disagrees with every article I can find on the subject. I found a watch forum specifically dedicated to this and the opinions on whether it's quicker to read digital or analog was split almost right down the middle.

The point is while it may be your preference, that is hardly universal, and there is no reason that it should be associated with luxury because of the things you've mentioned.

 

[JonathanD]

Fight range anxiety by making cars with sufficient range so that it's a non-issue, and display it's state with a blunt (analog, even) gauge so that the driver doesn't get hung up processing the nuances of every changing digit. A dash board shouldn't look like telemetry; that's not its purpose.

Maybe a nice future state, but not realistic for today. As an S60 owner I need every digit (and the energy telemetry) when on a road trip. But I never go into the energy or battery parts of the UI on a typical day-to-day basis, I keep up nav for real-time traffic and audio.

People will need to adjust to the speedo location on the Model 3, but I think owners will find it surprising how quickly we can get into a habit of looking in a different spot. I remember the first time I drove a car with a backup camera and swore I'd never use it, kept turning around, etc. Now I can't imagine a car without one.

 

[JeffK]

This completely disagrees with every article I can find on the subject. I found a watch forum specifically dedicated to this and the opinions on whether it's quicker to read digital or analog was split almost right down the middle.

The point is while it may be your preference, that is hardly universal, and there is no reason that it should be associated with luxury because of the things you've mentioned.

It not really a matter of opinion, as this can be measured objectively. Human beings are great at pattern recognition so you can tell the relative time from both analog and digital with just a glance. However, if you want to be able to read the time with both accuracy and precision, then digital is the way to go. We can probably all agree on that.

What is considered luxury and what's not is quite subjective. Besides my wristwatch, every other display of time I see throughout the day is digital (microwave, phone, computer, there's even a digital time display on my watch in addition to the analog). When I see an analog display I'm either really close, such as a wristwatch, or if I'm further away the clock is much larger to still be able to tell the time accurately from a distance. A small analog clock in a vehicle makes no sense as you can't get an accurate reading from the driver's seat. At most you'll probably read a relative time give or take three minutes.

For me, if I see an analog clock inside a car, I just think the manufacturer is showing signs of desperation to seem luxurious.

 

[N5329K]

To me, it's not about how efficiently time can be read on an analog vs digital display. It's about machines that are so beautifully engineered that they have one foot firmly planted in art. A cheap digital watch keeps perfectly good time if all you are interested in is a number. But it's not beautiful. It's an appliance, at best. You want a piece of art on your wrist, or an appliance? It's a legitimate choice and one with no right answer.
About the Model 3. I haven't sat in one yet so this is all speculation based on quick photos. I could be totally wrong. But it's clear (to me) that Tesla used the same "design language" for the exterior of the Model 3 they used for the Model S. That's why the Model 3 looks so good. But I think they handed the job of designing the 3's interior to the Tesla Appliance Division. Remember the "taxi" comment? Who cares what the insides of a taxi look like? How often do you look at a taxi's speedometer anyway?
IOW, the interior and exterior of the Model 3 are speaking different languages. The S is a compelling, unified design that checks off all the boxes. The 3 is not (but it's a lot cheaper)
The Model 3 exterior speaks Model S. The Model 3's interior speaks taxi and looks like something made by people who think cars are an appliance to efficiently use.
Full disclosure: I had a girlfriend once who owned a baby blue Checker and I thought that was about the coolest thing ever. I recall the cavernous back seat, but for some reason I can't seem to remember what the speedometer looked like,
Robin

 

[gregincal]

So you agree with my point that having knobs for some functions is better than having to use a touch screen.

Having controls on the steering wheel for stuff you need to fiddle with while driving is far superior to something on the center console, regardless of the form.

 

[Red Sage]

If your goal is to tell the time, yes. A digital watch isn't required to be ugly, but if your goal is to tell the time then what extra functionality does being in analog form serve?

Recently the high schools in our district changed the clocks to digital because a good portion of the students couldn't read them. At first I was absolutely horrified, wondering how they got to high school without being able to tell time (I still am actually).

But then I got to thinking about it. I actually taught kids to read analog clocks when I substituted in second grade during college. They could have been learning anything else during that time and it probably would have been better spent. And the only reason that they still exist is people think they look better as art pieces in their homes and on their wrists.

I understand that 'horror'. One of my Aunts had an 'oops child' with her husband in the mid 1970s. He was born just as her previous youngest child reached the age of seventeen. He is about ten or eleven years younger than I am. I was very surprised to learn when I was in college that he didn't know how to read an analog clock -- at all. And even more so that no one had taught him other things... Like how to look both ways before crossing the street. I think it was the result of his being the sixth Son in a Family that had taught five other children such things, and simply forgot that they hadn't done the same with him.

 

[Red Sage]

I disagree. Teaching how to read an analog clock is more than just the digital time. It also teaches a lot about the real (analog) world; the spacial aspect of things, relative sizes, being able to "watch" the passage of time, etc. One can glance at an analog clock and know about what time it is with a lot less mental "processing" than doing the same with digital. I personally felt a bit frustrated when I switched to a digital watch, but did so because at the time I needed the timer features more than the analog ability to glance at it.

Perhaps related, when our kids were young, we resorted to an alternate measure of time for describing how long it would take to get to our destination when traveling. 2.5 hours was "Two Sesame Streets and a Mr. Rogers". It's about understanding how the world works.

But I digress... My point is that an analog clock has intangible features that digital clocks don't have, and do look better (in my opinion) at the same time.

It's just a different way of looking at things. I am a natural artist. So, I like graphical representations of things. For me, the divisions of a clock face are easy to decipher. I am able to correlate that to both geometry (percentages and degrees) and geography (using a compass and map). But I fully understand a lot of people don't look at it that way at all. They just want to know the time. They are confused by the big hand, little hand, and second hand. They have no real idea why the little tick marks appear around the border of a camera face. I suspect that the term 'clockwise' will disappear within the next couple of decades.

 

[Red Sage]

I like this, it is kind of fun. I was first introduced to it by the videogame 'Phantasy Star Online'.

Internet Time - Swatch® United States

 

[gregd]

This completely disagrees with every article I can find on the subject. I found a watch forum specifically dedicated to this and the opinions on whether it's quicker to read digital or analog was split almost right down the middle.

The difference, I suspect, is what question was being asked. If I was asked "What time is it?", as I am guessing the survey asked, digital could win out. If on the other hand I want to know "Am I late?, I submit that an analog clock is the winner, and that this is the more useful of the two questions.

 

[tomas]

This completely disagrees with every article I can find on the subject. I found a watch forum specifically dedicated to this and the opinions on whether it's quicker to read digital or analog was split almost right down the middle.

The point is while it may be your preference, that is hardly universal, and there is no reason that it should be associated with luxury because of the things you've mentioned.

As a watch aficionado, I can attest that the reason analog watches (particularly automatic and manual vs quartz) are valued by many people is because of the intricacy of their movements, and often the beauty and artistry of their design.

Take for example this watch I recently purchased from Vortic. It is a pocket watch movement - originally built in 1921 - that has been refurbished and installed in a wristwatch case. Argue all you want about what reads faster... can you show me a digital watch with this craftsmanship and that will still be running almost 100 years after manufacture? By the way, it keeps perfect time!

While I'm sure there are some people who want a Rolex because it's a status symbol, please don't tarnish all analog watch owners as status seekers. Thx.

 

[gregd]

{sigh} That's a beautiful piece of craftsmanship. To bad we don't have the equivalent in this modern (computer software-driven) age. I've seen some marvelous bits of programming in my time (code I wish I had written), but it's never visible to the end user. A good UI design is about as close as we get. I expect (hope) we'll find out in a couple of weeks if that has been achieved in the Model 3.