We wouldn`t want `standard cars` of course (would we?) but what components of a car could - to benefit of owner and manufacturer - be standardized?
Think of all those mobile phone chargers you have each with a different connector.. when the round Nokia one can just be slipped in - eyes closed.
Wiper blade connectors would surely be a start.. or light bulbs perhaps?
What`s your biggest gripe in this area?
|
SQ - no need to quote, seeing as you're the first to reply to the thread
What about oil filters? They all do a similar job - strain the bits out of the oil. Ive heard all kinds of nonsence about 'back pressure' and such like but I'm convinced that this is to justify the exhorbitant price.
A range of about 20 filters could suffice for all engines, and with economies of scale could be produced much cheaper. Unless you do your own servicing this cost is dwarfed by the the garage hourly rate.
Its amusing about standard cars if you think purely about transport. Do people insist on traveling on a Routemaster rather than a single decker? Would they rather fly on a Boeing or an Airbus? The end result is the same.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 18/05/2009 at 13:40
|
A standard adaptor for mobile phones (not just the power lead, but connection to inbuilt steering wheel controls, aerial, mic and speakers)
A standard inbuilt 'pod' on the dash which will take any make of satnav - with connections to steering wheel controls, wheel sensors etc
|
The age old problem with any standard is that sooner or later someone comes along and devises some reason for a new standard, if nothing else than to kill off the competition.
Then you soon end up with multiple competing standards which is arguably worse than not having one at all.
This happens a lot with the software industry, and probably others too.
|
|
|
A standard adaptor for mobile phones (not just the power lead but connection to inbuilt steering wheel controls aerial mic and speakers)
This exists already.
My mobile phone uses bluetooth to connect to my car with full operability using the steering wheel controls and I use a standard USB lead to charge it up using the USB connector in the glove box.
|
..This exists already....
It might for those who run super-duper autobahn burners.
Bluetooth, USB? Not in my £16k Ford there isn't. :)
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to invent and make standard a speed sensitive gizmo which "shouts" at tailgaters. At very low or no speed it would allow the following vehicle to get quite close without triggering. As speed increased it would proportionately increase the distance at which it would function. It could also be linked to the wipers so it knew when it was raining and could take account of that too.
What form the warning would take I haven't quite figured out yet but I think I favour a large illuminated written message projected on to the rear screen with suitable commentary...........
"Back Off......you very um....silly sausage ! "
For example
|
|
....and chucks unpaired shoes at them.
|
|
|
I think you'll need your "back off" warning system - we'll see proper collision avoidance systems starting to come through in the next couple of years.
From somewhere else
"The first indications of Volvo?s future plans are on display in the new XC60, which will arrive in the UK in the autumn. The compact SUV will include a low-speed collision-avoidance system called CitySafety as standard. It is designed to prevent the sort of rear-end shunts that often occur in stop-start urban traffic.
CitySafety works only at speeds below 19mph and uses laser sensors in the windscreen coupled with software able to measure the distance from the car in front and calculate its speed relative to your own. If the car in front suddenly reduces speed at a greater rate than yours does, CitySafety primes itself to stop the car. Then, if the driver fails to react and the system senses an imminent collision, it slams on the brakes.
?You might think the driver could be relied on to brake hard in this situation,? says Ivarsson. ?But our research shows about 50% of drivers don?t brake at all before a crash ? perhaps because they are paralysed by fear or simply distracted.
?The other 50% may brake, but probably not as effectively as they could do. A system like CitySafety ensures the vehicle slows down and brakes at the right moment.?
|
>>But our research shows about 50% of drivers don?t brake at all before a crash<<
I wonder how long it will be before the following is a put forward as a defence: -
"Your honour, I know that my client sat there and did nothing like a complete dummy and rammed the back of the car in front but it wasn't his fault, the car forgot to brake"
|
|
|
?You might think the driver could be relied on to brake hard in this situation ? says Ivarsson. ?But our research shows about 50% of drivers don?t brake at all before a crash ? perhaps because they are paralysed by fear or simply distracted.
Yes, I know 2 people who told me about driving into the back of someone in traffic because they were distracted by conversing with their kids. I'm not sure that giving such people an excuse not to concentrate on their driving is really the way forward.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![2021 Lexus NX 300h 2.5 5dr CVT [8" Nav]](http://images.honestjohn.co.uk/imagecache/url/crop/90x60/https/assets.heycar.co.uk/t_default-export/f_auto/application_assets/vehicles/pictures/d1b959cb70a916c3aa16b9b838187b3f/2e5a96ddfd598bf95166e4edcbb4e8cd.jpg)
