SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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: 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