Quote:
Originally Posted by shorod
The mechanical linkages and physical size and
materials to make the old school floor and column gear
shifters add complexity, cost (material), weight, and limit
the ability to include, interestingly enough, safety features.
A "happy median" might be to do like some manufacturers
and use a dinky little stick or lever that moves like a more
traditional shift lever but takes up much less space, is still
electronic in function, but may be deemed less confusing.
I have the rotary shift knob in my Ram and honestly I don't
find it the least bit confusing. The shift pattern is just like a
standard column shifter, PRND. Lower gears can be selected
via buttons on the steering wheel. Instead of using my entire
hand on a long lever to rotate the gear selection knob, I use
two fingers. The muscle memory is the same.
The biggest issue I've had so far with the shift knob is that it's
in the same general vicinity as the radio knob, which since I'm
somewhat old school too I tend to use versus only the steering
wheel volume buttons. There have been times that I've grabbed
the shift know instead of the volume knob. However the size of
the knobs and the texture is significantly different and I have yet
to inadvertently turn the shift knob instead of the volume knob.
Distracted driving and always being in a rush are probably bigger
factors in people forgetting to make sure their vehicle is in park
versus the means of putting it in park. At least with these new
technologies, it can be relatively easy to fix the issue with a
software change to check the brake pedal input, gear selected,
and door ajar switch and automatically engage the electric parking
brake (in some vehicles) or command the transmission to Park
and alert the driver that the selector is not in Park. The old school
mechanical column and floor shifters cannot be made more safe
through software.
I think that's the root of the lawsuit - Range Rover/Jaguar is not
pushing such a software fix for what appears to be a known issue.
How many people had cars, trucks, tractors, etc. roll over them in
the old school times though because the operator forgot to
properly prepare the vehicle for exiting? Back then though, folks
were probably embarrassed to admit they screwed up. And they
understood that they shouldn't blame someone else for their lack
of common sense.
-Rod
|
I believe that the real lack of common sense lies in the belief that everything must have a "software solution" nowadays. Classic example: The 737-Max7/8/9/10* variants, with their "MCAS" software.
Instead of just spending the money to develop a new intermediate passenger platform with enough room under-wing to mount the latest/largest engines, Boeing goes el-cheapo, mounting engines bigger than the original DC-10 powerplants well forward and partially above the wing of the new Max model.
This creates a demonstrated risk of excess upward pitch during takeoff, which Boeing attempted to fix with software, without full training pilots on what to expect should that software have to kick in. The result, hundreds dead in two crashes of the Max due to insufficient pilot training.
It's one thing to use software to assist in commercial jet navigation, but quite another when it is needed to assist with in-flight stability. I believe in designing a stable aircraft in the first place.