Chrysler is betting millennials will want to be as connected in their cars as they are at home with a new concept car that mixes high-tech gadgetry with a head-turning design.
The Portal concept was unveiled on Tuesday at CES in Las Vegas as Chrysler's proposal to the millennial generation and is designed to be a comfortable "third space" for a generation that is just as much at home in a coffee shop as they are at home or work.
[...] On the tech side, the Portal hits all the right notes when it comes to the current crop of concept vehicles: A large sweeping digital dashboard with many of the internal surfaces doubling as flat screens, and internet connectivity throughout.
There are an impressive 10 gadget docks so the six passengers will never be fighting over who gets to charge their device, and Chrysler said speakers direct audio to each seating zone so it's possible to each listen to their own music.
[...] The Portal is a battery electric vehicle with a 250 mile range, and supports fast-charging that can deliver a 150-mile charge in 20 minutes.
Setting aside its intended market, the car has good features that would appeal to a lot of customers.
[One thing to note is that this is a concept car, not intended for production - Fnord666]
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @10:37AM
How many homeless people does it take to pedal the bicycle generator in the back of this millennial miracle car?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @09:19PM
None, once Uber perfects its driverless cars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @10:48AM
In the home, at work, in the car, stream your entire life. Especially all your visits to the shower and the toilet. Special sensors will be installed on every bathroom door to switch your video feed from facebook to shitbook every time you step into a bathroom. Sensors will detect when you're having sex and switch your feed to xhamster. Be a social sensation. You know you deserve to be a celebrity.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday January 05 2017, @10:53AM
Of course in "the connected car" we can expect all that distracting input from outside the vehicle to be filtered out, all the windows will double as touchscreens so you can update your fuckface status as you hammer down the autobahn at 95mph.
WCPGW?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @11:07AM
Ubiquitous connectivity has driven me to social media refusal and near total social isolation! Instead of joining fuckbook or twatting pics of my junk, I've become more reclusive as I've become more connected. I have no less than five distinct routes to the internet at my fingertips, and all I'm doing is tapping this tripe as anon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @01:11PM
But at least you're still posting on SN as an anonymous coward, so you've got that going for you.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @11:21AM
Head-turning away-design. Holly shit that is one ugly mutherfucker. I regret that i looked at the article and verified my suspicions.
(Score: 2) by driven on Thursday January 05 2017, @03:29PM
There's no door pillar between the front and rear doors. What's that going to do for resistance against side impacts in a collision? Sounds dodgy (ba-dum-ching)
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 05 2017, @09:20PM
This is probably going to be a resounding success for Chrysler then. Millennials are infamous for having ridiculously horrible aesthetic taste, so they'll absolutely love this thing.
Next, GM needs to just revive the Aztek and make a smaller version of it, and Millennials will be flocking to that too.
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Friday January 06 2017, @04:06AM
From the sides it looks like one of those futuristic pod designs that were floating around back in the late 80's-early 90's, back when GM thought designing a van to look like a dustbuster would be a good idea. On the other hand the ridiculously tall and bulky front end with 3 sets is very 2016. At least they avoiding the ridiculously oversized grill trope.
I wouldn't blame the millenials so much. Modern car design design is a sea of ugly, and the millenials don't have any money so they aren't the target market. Probably the boomers getting nostalgic for the over-the-top designs from the late 50's, though at least those cars had some style.
I actually saw an Aztec the other day. I think the biggest sin that car had was simply being ahead of it's time. Nowadays it fits right in with all the other ugly cookie-cutter crossovers that are crowding the streets.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Unixnut on Thursday January 05 2017, @11:47AM
> Setting aside its intended market, the car has good features that would appeal to a lot of customers.
Really? What good features?
Disclaimer, I am a "millennial", and one with a decently paid tech job in a high rising industry, so in theory I will be their target market once I find someone to start a family with (probably in 5-10 years).
However based on what I have read so far, I don't see anything really that appealing to it. Ok, the fast charging sounds good, but the range of 250 (or 150) miles is based on a new battery pack. Ignoring that the range is pretty poor compared to current IC cars, no matter how much you maintain and babysit a battery, it wears out. The battery in my phone lasted 2 to 3 days when new, now a year later it won't do more than 4 hours. Thankfully I can replace the battery cheaply in my phone, but a car? How would that work? Will I find in 3-5 years that the battery only holds enough charge for 20 miles? Would it cost more than the car is worth to replace?
At least with IC cars, the fuel tank always holds the same amount of fuel, and an engine, if taken care of and well maintained, will get more or less the same fuel consumption throughout its life, giving me the about same range as when new. Not to mention my range will not change much based on how hot or cold it is outside. Electric cars don't do well in hot weather, and work even worse in cold.
Secondly, I don't want touch screens in my car. I want to be able to make changes by tactile sensation, so I don't take my eyes off the road when driving. I don't want buttons to be constantly on different places in the screen depending on the app, with no way of knowing what is going on without taking my eyes off the road.
And don't get me started on fingerprints. I have to keep cleaning the grease and prints off my phone. The idea that I have to keep wiping down the car dash because every stupid thing is a screen sounds like a right PITA.
Also, screens are useless in the sun, if the sun is behind/slightly above me when driving, will I actually see anything on the screens, or will the grease and prints combine with the reflective glare to render it useless?
And that steering wheel.... I mean, wtf! if you are on a straight road and you never have to do more than a quarter turn, I can get it, but doing lock to lock for sharp corners or three point turns with that, how awful.
The clear roof for extra light is cool, but that would just make the dash even more unreadable. Also not much privacy from what I can see. You a literally in a bubble. Maybe if it is possible to tint or black out the clear parts with a switch, it would work.
And 10 docks for "devices". What devices? AFAIK there is no standard dock connector for all devices, or is "device" an euphemism for "Apple iphone"?
The other features already exist on cars (Some cars have had them since the mid-2000s) so won't mention them here.
And all those computers and electrics. Not only a magnet for viruses, hackers and bugs, but shortens the life cycle of the car. If you ever buy a car second hand, you will find that one of the first things to go is electrical bits. The mechanics and body can last 20-30 years with maintenance, but all the computers, ECUs and other gimmicks break down quickly. On older cars the electrics are not core to the system, so you can keep driving it, but I suspect when this car has an electrical fault, that is it. Very expensive repair, or buy a new one. It can't be good wasting so much energy on constantly scrapping and making cars. They should not be consumable items.
I get concept cars are not for actual sale as they are shown, but these designs are not just pie in the sky. The point of the concept it to show what you plan on doing in the next few years.
If this is what Chrysler thinks the future of their car is, I think they missed the mark completely. This sounds like an accident waiting to happen on wheels. So many distractions, so many basic faults in design, so much ignoring of good UI practice and maintainability. I dread to think any of it will end up in future cars.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ledow on Thursday January 05 2017, @01:25PM
I have a modern car - 2016 model.
It has a touchscreen in the dash. It's not used for any core function. It's basically a satnav. It suffers from exactly the problems you describe, even with voice control - context, selection, sticky-fingered-screen. I keep a cloth under it because it needs cleaning more regularly than the car's own windows.
I have enough cigarette-lighter sockets to power as many USB as you could ever want (front, back, middle, and a double-USB connector in each that sits flush it's so tiny). No connection / docking shite required. And I bought a handful of magnets (that go into heating vents or similar) to hold things. They work wonderfully for all models of phones or tablets. Just plug in, plonk the device on the magnet, done. It won't even shear-rotate as you drive. If I wanted to, every passenger in the car could have at least one USB, and a place to put them on. And if I paid a little extra for back-of-chair things, they could all have a tablet-space right in front of their eyes with the same.
Direct audio to each seat I consider similar to the individual air-con. If one of you is hot and the other cold, the aircon will fight itself and one of you will end up slightly less hot and the other slightly less cold, both feeling the wrong temperature coming in from one side, but neither of you will get what you want.
With multiple audio streams in each seat, the driver is going to be driven to distraction. And if you're going to need that, just do the "airline headphone" thing and put a 3.5mm socket in each seat. Hell, make an armrest with 3.5mm socket, 3.5mm lead, and a USB charging port. Put that on every seat. Done.
This isn't high-tech, it's not well-thought out and it's not even that impressive. Make a "magic armrest" with drink holder and some other things in it and you could retrofit any car with something better.
And yet there are some things off the top of my head that I don't see any modern car having, and I can't fathom why. Soft bumpers would be a start, even if the collapsible stuff is behind that on a "real" bumper. Why does the slightest physical contact at miniscule speeds still result in damage to vehicles? Judging by the dents I've seen, people still back into fenceposts etc. even with modern reverse parking sensors. My car is modern but still has a HUGE corner post right in the driver's eyeline that I have to "look round" every time I approach a blind bend. Still passengers have no real storage, despite a huge thick roof over their heads that you could increase by six inches without anyone caring, and they could literally have an overhead compartment with TV if necessary (or that other stuff mentioned above). And why do doors not have sensors or bumpers so you can tell /stop if the kids are about to open the door smack into a post / other car?
Stop "innovating" by putting in more things I could buy and retrofit for less than £100 today, and start putting in things that solve problems people ALL still have.
And why the hell is it still possible to stall a car, manual or not?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday January 05 2017, @01:41PM
Two of your problems are driven by safety not innovation.
The car has to start self destructing at a quarter inch impact partially to make money off fender benders, but mostly to start dissipating energy in a 40 MPH crash to make it survivable. Ditto the frigging giant beams attaching the roof in modern cars, if you roll one or hit something with those beams you have a much higher chance of survival than with an older car.
From an insurance basis and WRT paint there is no such thing as a minor impact. My 1980s Horizon/Omni had chome/steel/plastic bumpers and a 1 MPH parking lot bump was non-damaging, but every car I've owned since has no external bumper and hitting anything means paint work, and if you're going to repaint the car may as well fix the internals and another MPH faster and the airbags go off and airbags going off mean the car is financially totaled in the USA. So mechanically you could build a car that would take a hit between 0 and 5 MPH and roll away undamaged but you'd need paint work unless body styles dramatically change and a little harder and its totaled, so realistically, why bother?
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Thursday January 05 2017, @04:32PM
The car has to start self destructing at a quarter inch impact partially to make money off fender benders, but mostly to start dissipating energy in a 40 MPH crash to make it survivable. Ditto the frigging giant beams attaching the roof in modern cars, if you roll one or hit something with those beams you have a much higher chance of survival than with an older car.
This is true, however I do wonder what is safer overall. One of my cars have really thin pillars attaching from the roof, because the car is from the 80's. If I get into an accident where I roll the car over (really unlikely as it is low and wide), I am at greater risk of injury or death. However the chances of me getting into an accident are reduced because I can see far better. It is like driving in a glass house, virtually no blind spots.
I drove a modern rental recently, and it was not only more dangerous because the poor visibility increased my chances of a collision, it was more dangerous to others (like cyclists and motorcyclists) because it is harder to see and hear them. You really are insulated in a modern car, to the point where it dulls your senses.
Greater safety is of course a nice thing, but sometimes I do wonder if in the pursuit of safety, we have made accidents more likely to occur in the first place.
I personally prefer sacrificing some safety features in return for a lower likelihood of getting in an accident. Helps with my insurance premiums, and less hassle overall.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday January 05 2017, @02:14PM
Lack of internet in the car? What??!?! I have my phone, it has internet, this is not a problem.
Lack of charger sockets in the car? What?!?!? A hub in the single cigarette lighter socket will power 4 devices. The USB socket in the radio will also power another (and maybe a hub).
Too many central pillars between the doors? What?!??!? That's precisely the right number to stop me being t-boned fatally.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Thursday January 05 2017, @01:31PM
I have the same problem despite being a generation or two older where early adopter / early announcement syndrome.
So you hear about version 0.1 or maybe vaporware on Slashdot or here or the clickbait sites or whatever and Nope the hell out of there. The rest of the world has no idea about the topic. Then they hear about it around version 5.0 where it does in fact rock. Meanwhile we're still thinking version 0.1 sux.
Its 2017 and mysql added transaction support a mere 20 years ago and you'll STILL run into people swearing mysql doesn't have transactions. Ipod vaporware version 0.0001 sux less space than a nomad lame, meanwhile the rest of the world has iphone 6.0 or WTF is current.
Anyway I'm just saying your view of battery technology is quite accurate for the 80s to 90s, like a little before the GM EV1 era. However its all obsolete long before my wife's decade old Prius (which in itself is like gen 2 or gen 3 of its technology and is also hopelessly obsolete compared to a 2017 Prius)
Cars have always been like that. Domestic mfgrs stopped shipping complete crap around 1980 but it took until, oh at least 2000 or so for many people to notice. By crap I mean door panels that rusted thru in the midwest in 18 or fewer months, engines that were delivered to the end user with casting sand in the oil passages (seen that all myself)
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Thursday January 05 2017, @02:10PM
> Anyway I'm just saying your view of battery technology is quite accurate for the 80s to 90s, like a little before the GM EV1 era. However its all obsolete long before my wife's decade old Prius (which in itself is like gen 2 or gen 3 of its technology and is also hopelessly obsolete compared to a 2017 Prius)
My view on battery technology is based on how batteries work. I can come out and say now that it will not be possible for batteries to ever reach chemical fuels in energy density.
My battery experiences are from relatively modern equipment. Latest from 2016. My phone is from 2015, so not exactly latest tech, but not from the 80s or 90s either. Still has the same problems all past batteries had (Except lead acid, those things can really take punishment, shame they are so heavy).
And judging from the number of ~5 year old Prius'es around my area that have to run the engine all the time because their batteries are shot, it looks like we still have the same issues as before.
Now I am sure the 2017 Prius will be better. Batteries are so poor right now that I suspect we will see a fair clip of improvement as the years go by, but that just shows how poor they are at the moment.
Personally, I am not convinced battery electric is the answer. I still think liquid fuels are the best for vehicles. Doesn't have to be fossil based. I imagine something fuel-cell electric might be the magic point. Quick refuel, using existing transport infrastructure, high energy density with high efficiency conversion for even more range, and if we use biofuels then a closed carbon cycle as well. Plus no batteries to wear out, although the fuel cell would require cleaning and maintenance, like the rest of the car would.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Thursday January 05 2017, @03:03PM
Except lead acid, those things can really take punishment
Not really, while better than most they don't hold a candle to Nickel–iron batteries [wikipedia.org] in ability to take abuse and neglect. Those batteries really last a long time but they have a lower weight to charge density.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Thursday January 05 2017, @03:48PM
That is very interesting. Thanks a lot for link. I do find battery chemistries fascinating. There are so many! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battery_types [wikipedia.org]
One of these days I will attempt to make my own aluminium air battery, just to see if I can make some decent power out of it.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Friday January 06 2017, @03:33PM
A promising battery for grid level storage that can take abuse is the Sodium-Sulfur battery [wikipedia.org]. They do require being kept hot so not something you want your regular end user maintaining but they have a high energy density and also don't really wear out as they are just 2 liquids.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 05 2017, @08:20PM
Part of that might be a design issue. Tesla demonstrated swappable batteries a couple of years ago. If automakers follow that pattern then swapping out the battery would be like any other device that uses them.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Thursday January 05 2017, @09:16PM
That is one definite solution, however it will require all EVs to standardise on a particular battery pack size (or sizes, as I suspect supercars will have different power needs to city EVs). Then having the distribution and storage to sustain all differing battery packs, and the grid infrastructure to charge it all. I think it is impractical, considering the amount of batteries you would have to store and charge in certain areas. As the energy storage is less dense than liquid fuels, you will need a lot more real estate for equivalent fueling abilities. This is especially problematic in cities and dense urban environments, where there are a lot of cars per square mile, and real estate is very expensive, and you are competing for space with fueling stations for ICE vechicles. Additionally the lower range of EVs means you will need more charging stations than equivalent fuel stations for an area to be able to keep people moving.
Also, how would the cost be charged? Would you have to buy a battery pack? Will your empty battery pack offset the cost? How would you judge the value of the battery you are trading in? What if your current battery pack is newer (or stores more charge) than the second hand one you are getting? Unlike liquid fuels, where you are just paying for the energy. Here you are paying for the energy, and the container it comes in, which can be differing states of wear and ability to retain energy.
From what I can see, the downsides to EVs are in the battery. Like I think I mentioned before, if we just stuck to some sort of liquid fuel, I think the transition would be easier, with the bonus that if we use Ethanol, or Butanol or Methanol, old ICE cars can also still be used, and they can share existing infrastructure quite happily, reducing outlaying costs and allowing even older machines to convert to a carbon neutral cycle.
(Score: 1) by toddestan on Friday January 06 2017, @04:47AM
The domestics continued shipping complete crap throughout the 80's. That's when they really lost their market share. GM went from controlling almost half of the market to only 1/3 in 10 years. Cars like the Chevy Citation (launched in 1980) which sold over 800k cars its introductory year - an astounding number, to selling less than 10% of that 5 years later after suffering major quality issues and being one of the most recalled vehicle ever. That's a lot of people that switched over tho foreign makes, many of which never looked back.
The other funny thing about your comment is that the better domestic cars from the 80's - mostly the traditional RWD barges, were pretty much carryover designs from the late 70's anyway.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday January 06 2017, @12:29PM
Yeah domestic compacts circa 1980 post gas crisis either skimped on aesthetics and interiors (like my ugly as hell Omni/Horizon) or skimped on mechanicals (most everything else, as you mention)
They got their stuff together long before they got credit for getting their stuff together, however. Like decade(s).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @01:58PM
I'm an early Millenial (born 1982) and I don't want any more "tech" in my cars. It feels like my 2006 was the peak year of it's model line as every loaner I've had since just gets more and more overly complicated with little regard to actual usability. Same thing with rentals, to hell with this touchscreens in cars nonsense! They're dangerous to use while driving and I too hate seeing fingerprints all over screens that I need to be able to read at all times. I also don't like having to hunt through menus to find basic functions that in my current "old" car I can just cycle through the quickly while driving by pushing a single dedicated button and seeing it displayed dead center on the dashboard between the gauges rather than off to the side where I have to fully take my eyes off the road to even glance at it.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 05 2017, @01:59PM
You sound more like a Baby Boomer than a Millenial to me.
ICEs don't do well in hot weather (have you never had a radiator pop?) and work even worse in cold (refuse to start). EVs have no particular problem with temperature extremes. Norway is one of the strongest markets for Teslas. Norway has mountains and quite cold weather. Their road conditions are arguably worse than most places people live in North America or Europe. I also have anecdotal evidence from my brother, and my brother-in-law, who both drive BMW i3's exclusively. The former is an automotive engineer in Michigan, where it gets quite hot and quite cold, and the latter in Long Island, where it's the same. They both fetishize cars and miss no opportunity to talk about automotive subjects; weather affecting their range has never come up.
That could be personal preference. I have tactile controls in the console of my car, and I don't fiddle with those while driving, either. Too much traffic, too many jehus pulling dangerous maneouvers to take your eyes off the road or even one hand off the steering wheel. When I ride in other peoples' cars with touch screens they seem to manage fine.
You're mistaken if you think those things aren't in your car already. Back when my brother the engineer still had an ICE he would hack the firmware in the car all the time to try to get better mileage/performance out of them.
You can probably get aftermarket modifications, like you can now. The see-through roof appealed to me because we took a family roadtrip around the country last summer and it would have been fantastic to have that roof while going through the redwoods or capitol reef national parks. Even here in NYC it would be nice to be able to look up at the buildings.
Also because of our experience with two kids on the roadtrip, it would have made it easier to have the extra ports and zones for the kids to keep them entertained. We did OK with tablets, but keeping all the devices charged was a juggling act.
The sliding doors for everyone was appealing, too, because often we find ourselves in tight quarters in parking lots and on busy streets. Not having to swing the doors out the extra 2-3 feet would help.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Thursday January 05 2017, @02:51PM
You sound more like a Baby Boomer than a Millenial to me.
Um, thank you? Not sure if that is meant to be a compliment or not, especially considering the (IMO) general prevailing stupidity of my generation. Being in my late 20's, that puts me in the "early millennial" bracket I think, but to be honest I don't care enough about labels to find out exactly where the cutoff point is.
ICEs don't do well in hot weather (have you never had a radiator pop?)
Can't say I have ever had a radiator pop. Never had any problems in hot weather either. 42C+ heat was the worst I saw.
Only time I actually stopped to let the car cool down was while hauling a trailer at the cars haul limit up the Pyrenees mountains with it being around 30 outside. That wasn't because the car failed, I just didn't feel comfortable with the temp pegged to max for more than 30 minutes at at time.
and work even worse in cold (refuse to start).
Only time I had a car refuse to start in the cold, was because its battery self discharged overnight to the point it could not crank. I have never had a car refuse to start in the cold due to non electric issue. Admittedly I never had a diesel, as those can apparently gel up in cold weather.
EVs have no particular problem with temperature extremes. Norway is one of the strongest markets for Teslas. Norway has mountains and quite cold weather. Their road conditions are arguably worse than most places people live in North America or Europe. I also have anecdotal evidence from my brother, and my brother-in-law, who both drive BMW i3's exclusively. The former is an automotive engineer in Michigan, where it gets quite hot and quite cold, and the latter in Long Island, where it's the same. They both fetishize cars and miss no opportunity to talk about automotive subjects; weather affecting their range has never come up.
Range reduction in EV's that I have heard about was in Finland, which I imagine has pretty much similar kinds of cold to Norway. The car was a Citroen C-Zero. While it had no problems getting going, after about 5 minutes range dropped 25% on normal. Seemed that the battery was discharging faster than usual. All we really have is anecdotes. Plus nobody I know has the i3, so perhaps that is better suited for temperature variation (better insulated battery compartment?). ICE cars don't have those issues, but we have a lot more data on them and their variance of temperature.
And strength of Tesla sales seems to be based more on government subsidy and fashion than actually how good the cars are, and also are bought as a second (or third) car rather than as a main one. So I don't really pay attention on sales strength as an indicator of suitability to an environment.
That could be personal preference. I have tactile controls in the console of my car, and I don't fiddle with those while driving, either. Too much traffic, too many jehus pulling dangerous maneouvers to take your eyes off the road or even one hand off the steering wheel. When I ride in other peoples' cars with touch screens they seem to manage fine.
Can't argue with that, I admit I am not a fan of touch screens at all. I miss when phones had hardware keyboards. However while I don't need to fiddle with much when driving, I can (if I need to) reach out and turn on the demist, or change track on the radio, I can do it without looking, or even without much distraction. When I was driving a modern rental, I could not do a single thing without looking down at the touchscreen to find out where the bloody button was to do what I wanted. It was infuriating.
You're mistaken if you think those things aren't in your car already. Back when my brother the engineer still had an ICE he would hack the firmware in the car all the time to try to get better mileage/performance out of them.
I know they aren't in any of my cars, because I work on my cars. While my cars have ECU's and firmware, they are standalone, and not wired up to each other or (god forbid) the Internet. You would have to physically remove my ECU to reprogram it, and with an 8051 and 8k of flash there isn't much you can do apart from tweak it for better performance/economy.
With a car like this Chrysler, it probably has as much combined computing power as my workstation, and runs fully fledged operating systems. Plus they mention it will be connected to the Internet. The attack surface area for nasty is magnitudes higher than current modern cars, let alone older models.
You can probably get aftermarket modifications, like you can now. The see-through roof appealed to me because we took a family roadtrip around the country last summer and it would have been fantastic to have that roof while going through the redwoods or capitol reef national parks. Even here in NYC it would be nice to be able to look up at the buildings.
Indeed, all my cars have glass roofs that are removable. However they are tinted/chromed so you can't see in very easily, plus can remove them if I want the full view. Admittedly I didn't think of the fact you can just get those tint sheets and apply it to the roof. You're right, it isn't really a problem.
Also because of our experience with two kids on the roadtrip, it would have made it easier to have the extra ports and zones for the kids to keep them entertained. We did OK with tablets, but keeping all the devices charged was a juggling act.
That is interesting. As a kid I could not do anything else except stare out the window. If I didn't I would get car sick. Couldn't even play on my Gameboy. So the desire to use devices while in a moving vehicle is lost on me, but I don't begrudge others on it.
Even to this day as a passenger I can't do much except stare out the window. Driving is the most pleasant for me, otherwise I am bored stiff. So I tend to always volunteer to drive on long road trips. If they ever force only self driving cars on the world, I will probably end up so bored, as I can't really do anything in a moving vehicle, and definitely not look at screens.
The sliding doors for everyone was appealing, too, because often we find ourselves in tight quarters in parking lots and on busy streets. Not having to swing the doors out the extra 2-3 feet would help.
Indeed I agree, but sliding doors are not new. I remember seeing them growing up on minivans since, well. forever. The Peugeot 1007 was the most popular round these parts (and that was 2004), but the Japanese mini vans were popular as well, and they had sliding doors (I remember them in the 90s).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @08:37PM
Can't argue with that, I admit I am not a fan of touch screens at all.
I am neither a fan or proponent. In a car though they are not as good of an idea. They encourage you to take your eyes off the road. To use a touch screen you have to look at it first. It is why keyboards have those little nubs on f and j. So you can find where you are without looking.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Thursday January 05 2017, @01:46PM
If only millennials had any money left after their art history degree left them working at Starbucks and $100K in debt, while they live the urban dream of $5000K/month luxury condos and spend kilobucks on a new phone and macbook every year. Oh and their urban hellhole condo doesn't have parking, so where do they park this thing?
Yeah sure whatever life is good for the equiv of the 1%er who is working in SV for a startup that got purchased and ageism hasn't kicked in yet etc. I'm sure they could sell tens, maybe hundreds of vehicles to those people. But they're trying to sell cars to the millions of masses not just the rich, so how is that barista supposed to afford this beast of a vehicle?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 05 2017, @02:14PM
I don't think that financial profile is exclusive to people who got degrees in art history any more. I know plenty people with law degrees, medical degrees, and technical degrees who have trouble with their debt-to-income ratio, too.
That aside, a whole lot of people still live in suburbs and exurbs and would do fine with a car like this. Its range is much greater than what all but a small fraction of people in those areas drive everyday. Keeping it charged piggybacks on the same muscle memory that people use to keep their smartphones charged, so it feels easier than filling up at the station.
At the end of the day it's a concept car, but it's good to see the automakers re-thinking mobility after what felt like a long stretch of creative stagnation.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Unixnut on Thursday January 05 2017, @03:08PM
I don't think that financial profile is exclusive to people who got degrees in art history any more. I know plenty people with law degrees, medical degrees, and technical degrees who have trouble with their debt-to-income ratio, too.
It isn't. One of the most common complaints I get from women my age when dating is "why do you spend so little when you make so much money. People making as much have you have $expensive_lifestyle yet you don't".
There is general social pressure to spend spend spend "Conspicuous consumption", so a lot of people go into debt even if they have decent salary in order to "keep up with the Joneses" and appear richer than they are.
I refuse to do that, so apart from a mortgage I am debt free (actually managed to pay off my student loan early). However it does mean my quality of life is equivalent to someone who earns less than me. Me being debt free gives me security and peace. Not being stressed about interest rates, or having to work a crappy job because I have to make payments on loans is quite liberating.
Women in particular expect me to have brand new cars every 2 years, brand new phones ever year, expensive holidays, always latest and newest shiny. People can do it, but they lease it all, or use credit cards, and have large monthly costs. I own my stuff outright, so if I don't use them, they don't cost me anything. It does mean I am prudent and will not buy something unless I consider it a good deal.
I guess it explains why I am still single, lol.
That aside, a whole lot of people still live in suburbs and exurbs and would do fine with a car like this. Its range is much greater than what all but a small fraction of people in those areas drive everyday. Keeping it charged piggybacks on the same muscle memory that people use to keep their smartphones charged, so it feels easier than filling up at the station.
At the end of the day it's a concept car, but it's good to see the automakers re-thinking mobility after what felt like a long stretch of creative stagnation.
IMO cars with this kind of range would make good commuter/city cars. Most commutes are around 30 miles max round here. Well within the range. One place where ICE cars are awful is traffic. Sitting there, doing nothing but consuming fuel, generating heat and noise. EV's consume very little when not moving, so they are ideal for traffic.
I live in a dense urban environment (not by choice, just very poor public transport outside of the city) so I just use public transport. I don't have the mentality to spend an hour doing 1.5mph to get to work, but if others like that kind of thing, EVs are the go to vehicle for that niche.
(Score: 2) by sgleysti on Thursday January 05 2017, @08:22PM
Interesting post. I too am a millenial in a similar situation to you: no college debt, job in a high tech sector, modest lifestyle.
Do you suppose that people with expensive lifestyles like you mentioned save for retirement? That in itself is not cheap.
I don't feel like I have the energy for a relationship, and I definitely do not want children, so I haven't been dating. I drive a 2002 saturn, and I'm quite happy that it is not anywhere near as "connected" as the car featured in the article. I would like to get an electric car eventually for the higher energy efficiency and lower maintenance, but the total cost of ownership will have to come down before I do that. Hopefully they have better cold weather performance by the time that happens.
I bought a $100 smartphone online to hook up to a bring-your-own-phone plan. At the cell phone store setting up the plan, a college-aged guy comes in to buy a new iPhone because his last one broke; it cost $800. I asked the attendant who could spend that much on a phone, and he pulled out his iPhone and explained, "I bought it on a plan, so I only pay $25/month." When I asked what happens if it breaks before he owns it outright, he replied, "Oh, that's why I pay for insurance; it's only $10/month." I didn't say anything else, but the whole situation made me thankful that I deal with numbers at work and can see why that's a bad deal...
The same attendant was also paying for a very large data plan, maybe 20 or 40 Gb, and when I asked how anyone could use that much data, streaming video was the main answer. I'm usually near wifi and have no need to stream anything when I'm not near wifi. Again, the experience was surprising. The cellular companies have great customers, I guess.
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Thursday January 05 2017, @10:21PM
Do you suppose that people with expensive lifestyles like you mentioned save for retirement? That in itself is not cheap.
No, I don't think they do. I asked some of them, and the idea of retiring and growing old is not on their mind. To be fair, they just upped the retirement age round here to 75, so I guess most people my age don't except to ever retire. The general mood is one of resignation and "screw it, the economy will collapse before I retire, lets just party!".
To be fair, I don't officially save for retirement either, for pretty much the same reasons. Apart from the amount I am forced to put aside for retirement by law, I don't put in extra. This is because I don't suspect my pension plan will actually be able to provide much for me when I need to retire, if it exists in future at all (which seems unlikely). All the money put in, and in the end you get so little out, thanks to inflation.
So I have taken to buying property, including property abroad in an effort to diversify and spread my risk across asset markets. Now looking at a nice house by the beach. I can rent it out as a holiday home, or use it for my own holiday home, plus if I feel like it, it would make a lovely retirement place one day. Unlike a pension plan, it can earn me money now, I can sell it, or rent it out, if needs be. Can't do that with normal retirement savings.
I don't feel like I have the energy for a relationship, and I definitely do not want children, so I haven't been dating.
Fair enough, when I was in my early 20s and first went into work, I was all eager and keen, so ended up working really long hours. I never had energy for anything, even relationships. In hindsight I am not sure it was worth the sacrifice for money, but hindsight is like that. Part of me wishes I was more normal, and instead of tinkering with electronics, computers and working long and hard, I actually went out and enjoyed the company of girls in my youth.
I do want kids, so made a decision to switch down into a lower paying field, but now I can walk to work, and can show up at the office literally any time of the day I want (some people come in at 2pm) and generally have amazing flexibility, so decided to actually make time for myself, my health, and dating. If I was up to the eyeballs in loans I would not have been able to take a pay cut, because of my monthly outgoings for all the credit would have prevented me. That is the trap people put themselves in with credit. They are locked in a cycle of having to work harder and harder to pay off loans for things that happened so long ago they may not even remember what the original debt was for.
I drive a 2002 saturn, and I'm quite happy that it is not anywhere near as "connected" as the car featured in the article. I would like to get an electric car eventually for the higher energy efficiency and lower maintenance, but the total cost of ownership will have to come down before I do that. Hopefully they have better cold weather performance by the time that happens.
Nice, I have three cars atm (all of them sports cars, now that I think about it), one from 1982, one from 1993 and one from 2001. The '82 is really easy to maintain, I have taken it apart and put it together at least once so far. It's mileage isn't too bad actually, because the lack of modern safety requirements mean the car is really light. It doesn't have a lot of power, but it is fast due to said light weight.
The 1993 is already more complicated. Has ABS/airbags/etc... and Mitsubishi's version of CANBUS, lots of little ECUs all over the place, and electrical gremlins that I am sorting out. However still not connected to the Internet, but already getting harder to deal with.
The 2001 is about as complex as the 93, but it is far more integrated, every little part has its own chip, and when a transistor fails, the whole thing dies so have to replace the part (at least the third party aftermarket is healthy). Newer cars are even worse, they will refuse to do anything until you go and buy an original keyed part to fit. It is like a rehash of the inkjet printer hell, where they use some form of DRM to rip your wallet to shreds.
The 2001 is the newest car I have, and I doubt I will be buying anything newer. Not sure how long I can keep running cars from the 80s and 90s, but should be good for a while yet. Plus unlike normal cars, they are appreciating in value rather than depreciating.
I admit I am biased towards ICE, but I just love mechanical things, and heat engines are wonderful things to me. So I will probably stick with them. Partly because I know and understand them, and partly because I know how to synthesize fuel for them myself. It is within my means. Give me a decent workshop with some machine tools (lathe, mill, etc...) and I will be able to build an ICE, and the infrastructure to create fuel for it as well. I can't do that with EV machines. While I could create the mechanical parts (like the motor stator/rotor/coils) the lithium batteries and all the ECU's to control it will be much harder, if possible at all. I could make my own lead acid batteries in theory, but the weight to power density means the car will be pretty useless range and carrying capacity wise.
The cold weather performance can't really be solved, it is a function of battery chemistry. What they can do, is provide better insulation for the battery pack. So I think in future (or even now, if you buy some of the more upmarket EVs) you should get better performance. Still the TCO is still too high for me, for less practicality than the competition, more worries, more security holes, less repair ability by myself, and less control for me. To not even mention tracking and monitoring in these computerised cars.
I bought a $100 smartphone online to hook up to a bring-your-own-phone plan. At the cell phone store setting up the plan, a college-aged guy comes in to buy a new iPhone because his last one broke; it cost $800. I asked the attendant who could spend that much on a phone, and he pulled out his iPhone and explained, "I bought it on a plan, so I only pay $25/month." When I asked what happens if it breaks before he owns it outright, he replied, "Oh, that's why I pay for insurance; it's only $10/month." I didn't say anything else, but the whole situation made me thankful that I deal with numbers at work and can see why that's a bad deal...
The same attendant was also paying for a very large data plan, maybe 20 or 40 Gb, and when I asked how anyone could use that much data, streaming video was the main answer. I'm usually near wifi and have no need to stream anything when I'm not near wifi. Again, the experience was surprising. The cellular companies have great customers, I guess.
I think both of us have the ability to understand numbers, so we can work out if we are being screwed by bad deals. I suspect this is why there is a general push in the education system for people to not learn maths. It is really useful, and you want more idiots in the world, because they are easier to manipulate and milk for money. Just like I don't think people realise how bad interest on debt can be, especially on credit cards, and things like compound interest they don't understand until it traps them in a cycle of debt.
I buy my phones second hand, and rip out all the Google stuff and put CM on it (at least used to, now they are a closed shop), but that is getting harder. If it wasn't for the fact friends and family use chat apps like viber, I would probably get a dumb phone. I just need the phone for phone stuff, and music.
I considered getting one of those 24 month plans for a Samsung Note 4 at the time. When I did the math, it was cheaper for me to just buy the phone outright and get a monthly rolling sim-only deal, which is what I did. Not including the insurance cost, which would be a good idea to get, as these phones tend to have screens that easily break. I don't know why other people didn't do this, I suspect because they don't calculate the TCO, and see "oooh a new iphone for just 25 a month". Again... math skills lacking.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday January 06 2017, @12:22PM
Women in particular expect me to
My old guy advice having seen some stuff and seem some coworkers lives is those chicks can be fun when you're both young but when they hit the wall "red pill" style around 30s they become as toxic as concentrated boiling hydrofluoric acid. Not exactly marriage material or mom material, in fact the opposite, so pump and dump. Be super careful. Treat them like a plutonium a-bomb core, really cool to look at and fun to stick things into but their half life isn't infinite and when they blow up its a hell of a mess. Nothing inherently wrong with playing with fire, but ...
I lived in the same bachelor pad as a starving student and for a few years with a "real job". Went from "gonna be tight paying the rent this month can't fix my car till next month" to not a care in the world zero stress. Its nice!
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday January 05 2017, @04:26PM
Except that the stereotype about millennials studying art history rather than something useful isn't actually true [ed.gov]. When you look at that table, where you see the biggest jumps isn't the arts at all, but in business and health care. That suggests that millennial students are studying professions that actually might make them some money.
Now, you're right that STEM is still lagging, but I suspect that has more to do with the fact that many people manage to graduate high school in the US without having a solid understanding of mathematics.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @06:33PM
Math is the worst taught subject, if there ever was a field that needed flexibility that is it. Currently you learn some basics, then move on and never cover them again except when they are used in a lesson 2 years later. I think a lot of schooling would be improved by having kids learn through adaptive courses that let them do more exploration to learn things. Once they have a good grasp of more material they could then return to topics that stumped them previously. Sort of like leveling up your character before finishing all the achievements / side quests.
Of course this would all be guided by actual teachers, and ideally teachers should not have more than 15 students at any given moment.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Friday January 06 2017, @12:12PM
I would agree with your factual data barring any actual counterexamples, but the bigger issue is "older than me" which is pretty old meant get any old random degree and then get a great job. After all if a mere HS diploma got you a sinecure on the factory floor, "any degree" should get you a nice job for life in cubie-land. All those jobs having gone to China thanks to intentional US Govt policy, life is different for folks in my generation and younger where either only special degrees or no degrees at all can lead to "the good life".
Meanwhile the boomers retiring at work THINK they're gonna sell their $750K boomer mcmansions to my generation which can barely afford $250K houses or maybe immigrants cutting lawns. Yeah they're in for a big surprise. Once the boomers rotate out of the burbs and the prices collapse by a factor of ten because thats all the money there is, the burbs will go back to being places for young people to raise kids. But with $100K in student loans and very few jobs out there, the youngsters won't be buying houses or cars...
(Score: 2) by donkeyhotay on Thursday January 05 2017, @03:02PM
As quickly as technology becomes obsolete and/or broken these days, I can't imagine owning a car that is destined to become a useless brick within a year or so.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday January 05 2017, @05:20PM
'Tis a feature, not a bug! All those "security vulnerabilities" that need to be patched will provide a steady stream of traffic to "our extensive dealer network" enabling "valued-added repair and maintenance" and extra visitors to showrooms.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday January 05 2017, @08:17PM
If they followed Tesla's example of OTA updates that improve the car's performance, that wouldn't necessarily have to be true.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday January 05 2017, @05:34PM
> The car is able to recognize them as they approach and reset itself to their favored position based on that profile information,
> which is stored in a Chrysler cloud so will presumably work across other vehicles that might have the same feature.
Flash is expensive, and everyone drives in the same position regardless of which car...
They couldn't find any better excuse for the always-on customer tracking?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @09:28PM
GLaDOS?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 06 2017, @02:09AM
The last thing humanity needs is millenials behind the wheel of a car, who cares what the car has and can do. encouraging millenials is not a good idea. period.