China has already mandated an end to retractable outside door handles and electrical inside door handles. That takes effect January 1, 2027.
There were two major incidents where people could not get out and could not be rescued.
The powered charger port door would make sense if there were robot chargers that used it. Tesla demoed that, but people disliked the snake robot approach. Technically, a snake robot is ideal for that, but too many people fear snakes and tentacles.
Rear view cameras are better than rear view mirrors. The field of view is better.
> Rear view cameras are better than rear view mirrors. The field of view is better.
As long as they work, yes. This is part of the trend to make everything more fragile with lots of failure conditions. There are many electrical parts + software needed to make that camera+screen work, any of which might break eventually.
A mirror is just a mirror, failure modes are few and unlikely. Even if it cracks it still works.
There are some good designs which prevent them from getting dirty. For example, Mercedes and VW put them in the rear badge and they're only exposed when needed.
Rear view cameras might be better than mirrors in terms of field of view. This doesn't make them objectively better. Disadvantages are well argumented in the article.
They are an useful accessory but shouldn't replace real vision.
Why not both? My Honda has mirrors and a rear view camera. I always check both before backing up. The camera is viewed on a small (for today's standards) LCD screen (with physical buttons, no touchscreen) that also serves as the radio.
The discussion isn't as much about a common backing camera (which also falls under 'useful accessory' I mentioned), but about cameras replacing mirrors.
Real vision is fucked when you can’t actually see what’s behind your car.
Cameras will prevent a lot of unnecessary property damage, and more importantly, fully mitigate risk of killing humans/animals that are behind the car and outside the field of view.
No one is arguing cameras shouldn’t exist. In fact, back up cameras are mandatory in the US. But replacing mirrors and windows with cameras is bad, actually.
Rear view cameras are a) 2d not 3d like a physical mirror, so judging depth is inferior on them b) a nightmare for most of us in the second half of our lives who lose the ability to quickly adjust focal length between near and far (not a problem with a real mirror) c) yet another potential failure point and d) a dumbass idea in the parts of the world that salt their roads
The various cameras on my polestar2 are routinely getting caked in salt and dirt in the winter 30 seconds after I start driving down the road. I fail to understand why I'd want this for a critical system like rear or side view mirrors.
I drove in a Polestar4 with its rear view camera only view the other day. Did not like. Would not want as my only option.
I did drive in a Bolt that had dual mode and that was fine.
And e) although more relevant for wing mirrors, you can also move your head around to change/increase the field of view if needed. Try doing that with a camera + screen.
Almost none of this is specific to EVs, manufacturers just see EV consumers as technology forward (which seems to largely stem from Tesla's design approach) so they have been more aggressive with technology than with their traditional ICE models.
Agreed, none of these are specific to EVs. A new Ferrari suffers from half the issues the author complained about. This article is pretty much "Gripes I have with Tesla design that I see making their way into other vehicles".
This annoys me whenever I'm on the road. The issue is unnecessary latency: the signal wastes time going from off to on by being substantially less bright then it should be.
If you want to add cutesy features then have the turn signal automatically synchronize blinking with the car in front/behind it. People would love it.
Yeah but with a flashing light, if you look during an "off" phase, you don't see anything for a little while. Animated would/could show one segment on always
I'd like to orange turn signals come back! They could even have an arrow inside them and toggle between inside and outside. Maybe thats too goofy, but at least something would always be illuminated. Here's a goofy SVG to show the concept
This made me realize it's been 12 years since the last John Siracusa review of an OS X release on Ars Technica.
I miss those so much! Here's John talking about ending them in 2015 https://hypercritical.co/2015/04/15/os-x-reviewed where he said "Someone else can pick up the baton for the next 15 years" - but sadly nobody even came close.
> Why do EV companies keep making this customer hostile decision?
Because it eliminates the headliner and insulation, which allows the roof to be an inch shorter while maintaining the same interior headroom. The has a direct impact on frontal area, which, in turn, has a direct impact on aerodynamic drag.
Reduced drag means greater range (or the same range with a smaller, less expensive battery).
Tesla is an outlier in that the car is designed only with a glass roof. It's not a hole in the existing roof panel like other cars. The lower trim Tesla Y bizarrely has a glass roof that's covered on the inside with a headliner.
> Tesla is an outlier in that the car is designed only with a glass roof. It's not a hole in the existing roof panel like other cars.
Lots of cars have followed Tesla's lead: Ioniq 5, Mach E, etc.
I'm claiming that Tesla is an outlier in that they're not giving a choice. With the Ioniq 5 and Mach E, you can choose whether you want the glass roof or not.
Everyone with Teslas around where I am recently discovered that this is super inconvenient when a nasty hail storm happens. I mean, all of our cars got totaled anyway, but they had the added insult of no longer having a roof and needing to tarp more of the car until insurance could do their thing.
With the cost of the bespoke glass, damage to it basically means the car is guaranteed to be totaled even in a less extreme scenario.
I see this on all sorts of non tesla cars and it makes no sense. I saw it even on brands like Fisker (although that was a solar panel that apparently didn't work).
Just a nice metal roof that won't make me expend more electricity for nothing would be nice.
On the Polestar2 (and other models) it's not mandatory, but you can't get other imperative things -- like the heat pump (major efficiency concern) -- unless you get the Plus package that has the glass roof.
> But electronic door mechanisms like these have also proven to be unreliable, and possibly dangerous.
"Possibly dangerous" is a vast understatement. There is an ongoing lawsuit claiming that a cybertruck's door stopped working after a crash, trapping three occupants who burned to death.
A very similar case in China was caught on camera. Car crashed, caught fire and the doors stopped working. At least in this incident everyone made it out alive.
Now go read Tesla’s own manual instructions on how to open doors when the power is off. There is no way I could reliably do it if the car just crashed and there is smoke filling the cabin. I don't know how any engineer could have thought this is safe to be put in a vehicle.
The problem is child locks. The US doesn't allow you to have a manual override that overrides the child lock on rear doors. The same easy pull handles as the front door would be on the rear door if they were legal.
> You should not have to wait for a sensor to detect your presence and then activate some mechanism before the door is able to be opened.
> It’s fine to have the door handle activate an electronic door opener, but...
> ...they all-too-frequently decide that the door that covers the charge port should be entirely electronic, opening and closing under its own power in response to a touch-screen input...
> ...a glove box that can only be opened by using the touch screen
What's the deal with making all kinds of simple doors, lids and flaps motor-driven and computer-controlled? Did someone watch the Zorg scenes from The 5th Element and thought "yes, that's the pinnacle of design"?
More generally: I can understand replacing arrays of physical switches with a single touchscreen from a cost maintenance standpoint. But replacing simple mechanical linkages with auxiliary motors? Replacing mirrors with cameras and more screens? Those components can't possibly be cheaper than the original solution.
My 2020 Kia Niro EV passes all of these. Though the EV charging door would not open when the 12v battery died, even though it has a mechanical mechanism.
I would add that there is no particularly good reason for an EV to have a push-to-start button. With Volvo, Polestar etc, you get in and shift straight into Drive or Reverse, and when you’re done, you put it into Park and climb out again. This is how it should be.
My Nissan Ariya checks nearly every box. The controls for the AC have dedicated buttons, but they are capacitive, not tactile. Anyway, love the car. It's a real shame that they aren't selling them in the US anymore.
I have a 2023 Bolt as well. Sadly the rear cameras no longer work, even after replacing them, and the touch screen stopped working too, which is frustrating on its own but also means I can't adjust the defrost in the winter.
I think this desire is reasonable, but also completely misses two of the main reasons Tesla did their "everything mediated thru the touch screen" in the first place (besides cost, which TFA mentions).
1. It allows for having "presets" for everything configurable in the car. If you've ever shared a Tesla, you understand this: the driver's seat adjusts itself to the right position, as does the HVAC, etc. Everything being digitally mediated means I can loan my car to someone and when I get it back, all of my settings will be exactly as I left them.
2. It paves the way for "robotaxi". You don't need physical buttons geared towards maximum ergonomics of the driver if there is no driver. Obviously Tesla hasn't quite achieved that goal yet, but that is what they are aiming for so it makes sense they wouldn't invest much at all in driver ergonomics.
Similarly, the doorhandles being flush is not entirely about "looking futuristic", but is instead another way to squeeze every last drop of aerodynamics out of the vehicle, which is incredibly important for EVs.
The presets on my mercedes and my mustang and my honda fit work quite fine, thank you.
And these touch screens are cute until a product manager wants to show their marginally questionable value to the universe by changing the UI, buttons, placement etc. and now you are searching for the crucial functionality that you forgot to set or check, after the last OTA update occurred, before you started moving, and are now careening down the highway at 60 miles an hour...
ha! cool my cheap and cheerful MG4 passes all these. (well... "Physical controls for temperature and fan speed." is mostly physical. so a .5 score for that I would say)
I've been meaning to write a post entitled: Things you could do with cars that you can no longer do.
The top of the list is "Maintain a constant (vent) fan speed".
With all the EVs I've tested, if I want to get warm air on my face at a consistent speed ... it's just not possible. "Auto" is disabled, I've set the fan at a certain speed, and set it to blow only in the top vents. Dial up the temperature, and the fan speed can drop markedly.
Such a simple thing that's worked for decades. And they've made my driving very uncomfortable. I've had an EV for only a few months, and I keep thinking of trading it in for an older Honda. I've installed a USB fan, but ... why? Why am I paying so much more to get an experience I hate?
You can definitely do it with a Tesla. Disable Auto, select the airflow direction and vents, select the fan speed you want (1-10), select the temp you want. Fan speed will not change with temp if manually selected.
Such items need to be standardized, and cars driving on public roads must conform to a standard. It's that simple, but legislative bodies seem to have lost the ability to regulate basic items such as rear-view mirrors and non-blinding headlights.
> No experienced driver during normal driving has ever had to spend even a moment searching for the turn signal stalk to activate it, but this happens all too often when using turn-signal buttons on a steering wheel
Is there really an EV that replaced the turn signal stalk with steering wheel buttons? You may as well just remove the turn signal entirely at that point.
My 2005 Honda Odyssey had a locking glovebox. With the move to a start button instead of turning a key or even just the key fob presence (Chevy Equinox we have) or phone apps or cards manufacturers definitely got away from having something that you could lock and unlock.
I thought having the glovebox only unlocked from the screen was dumb when I heard about it but I'd rather have the ability to lock it than not. And it's consistent with the move to using your phone instead of a keyfob.
Nothing to discuss here, the article is spot on.
I doubt though that those top of the class manufacturers are this stupid. They are rather playing the stupidity of the common consumer.
There are some - albeit few - cars that tick most of this checklist.
MZS5 EV[1] checks most except the physical buttons, which is a half tick. There’s some physical buttons for some important things, but could do better. The previous model of had more buttons but essentially the same checklist-wise.
2025 Hyundai Kona SEL EV ticks most, maybe even all, of them. I'll mark with "(Maybe)" the ones that there might be some question about.
1. (Maybe) The door handles protrude like God intended, and it is obvious what you are supposed to do since there is an impossible to miss button.
However, the button only unlocks the door if you have the key fob, and sometimes it can take a couple pressed for it to work, so that might disqualify it.
If you want to unlock it without that key fob (and without using the app) there is a physical key, but the keyhole is behind a cover that is not obvious.
2. Yes to physical door opening mechanism.
3. Yes to door handle affordances.
4. Yes to physical charge port mechanism. Simple push to open latch mechanism, which is the only way to open it.
5-10. Yes to turn signal stalk, physical controls on steering wheel, physical temperature and fan controls, physical are flow and direction controls, and physical glove box opening mechanism.
11-13. Yes to rearview mirror, rear window, and side-view mirrors.
It is basically the same as a non-EV Kona at the same trim level except for things that have to be different.
I would add more robustness in the computer systems. Ideally separation of critical systems and niceties, and definitely manual ability to select A/B systems for when the inevitable bad update hits.
One of my favorite car reviewers is Doug Demuro. His videos on youtube mostly focus on the 'quirks and features' of the car, AKA all the minutiae you notice a few months into ownership.
This makes me think that doing cool reboots of old cars but with EV powertrains would be awesome. Think of an old VW Golf from the 90s with an EV powertrain. Or an old 60s mustang.
I have an ICE vehicle with keyless entry. Of course, it has a physical key as backup in case the keyless doesn't work or the battery dies.
The physical key triggers an electronic switch. There's no mechanical link. There's no way at all to enter the vehicle if the battery dies. Which is problematic because you can't charge the battery without accessing the hood release inside the electronically locked cabin.
The Nissan engineers must have been smoking something great that day
That's a big part of why these things are stupid. There's a bunch of weird design decisions which shouldn't have anything to do with EVs but are a lot more common in EVs anyway.
This is mixing a hell of a lot of very different UX and safety things into on big "EV like like Tesla = bad".
Take the mirror thing. Yes a good mirror is great. It's the gold standard for 2026. I can totally envision a 2030 world where an artificially stitched together view of what's behind you dramatically outperforms a simple what can mirrors and angles do. A stitched together hybrid view possibly enhanced with other AI overlays is going to outperform normal users.
This is happening..OPs views on stupidity are not gonna stop it
I have a ‘25 Subaru Solterra (rebadged Toyota bZ4X) and it checks all these boxes (except it lacks a glovebox, though I believe this is remedied in the ‘26).
It’s a good car in the sense it’s good at car things, even some EV things - but dear Lord is Toyota bad at making software.
The software is consistently unreliable, unstable, and feature incomplete- which they still have the gall to charge for.
The number of times I would curse the EV I drove previously, when I saw a person in front with no lights on, or to signal a semi that it was safe for them to switch lanes....flashing the hi-beam sends exactly the wrong message.
Another annoyance: these days, even low end cars have an `AUTO` setting for lights, that ensures that headlamps and rear tail lights come on when dark, or in the rain, when wipers come on, only to have ppl disable them because they belive they extending their battery life....bah!
Shoutout here to my new car (Ford mustang, not the EV version). Lights are a knob; making changes flashes a toast on the front dashboard so I cna see what it gets set to without taking my eyes off the road; and, to boot, regardless of what I set it to when I drive, resets to `AUTO` when I turn off and turn on the car again.
Every time I'd take my car to the shop they'd turn the lights off, and I find myself driving around in the dark with no lights on. Why does anyone want that? And we used to mandate "daytime running lights" in Canada, I didn't get the memo when we stop enforcing that.
"Always turn the lights off" makes some sense to a shop. Older cars don't have automatic headlights. The mechanics might not want to figure out which is which. If they guess wrong, the car may drain its battery and cause even more problems.
Plus, working around very bright lights, especially if the car has been elevated, can be really annoying.
I love the note regarding the rearview mirror being an actual, you know, mirror.
A friend was teasing me the other day for using my mirrors while I backed up, ignoring the various screens and camera feeds dotting the dash. I reminded him that photons impinging my eyes reflected off the material world at the diffraction limit of the visible spectrum remain much higher fidelity than some shitty parts-bin screens.
Plus those rearview screens are always horribly bright. You know what has infinite levels of dynamic brightness? Light bouncing off a planar reflector.
So much of modern cars is cost savings and poor design decisions dressed up in the name of modern - but ultimately resulting in UX worse than an early 2000s Honda.
And I totally agree, but I still use mirrors because when I need to pass and park next to a pillar (my garage has a few) I can never tell how far I actually am from it through the cameras, whereas the mirror will tell me without lag and with absolute precision whether I'm about to scrape my car or not. Not to mention that it's very difficult to tell depth from cameras, which is what I need the most when the back axle has passed the pillar and I should start turning in very tight spaces.
Cameras are not a suitable replacement for rear-vision mirrors for the same reason that screens are not a suitable replacement. It’s even addressed in TFA: focal length.
>>> But more importantly, current screen technology requires the driver to focus on the surface of the screen itself, which is mere feet away from their eyes. This is a large change in focal distance from looking at the road ahead.
If you’re over the age of 40 or so, it takes time, a few hundred milliseconds at least, to refocus your gaze distance. A screen is near. When driving, you’re looking far. A mirror is something to glance at.
I test-drove a Polestar with a screen for a rear-vision mirror (and no actual rear window) and it was completely undrivable for me. It takes longer for my eyes to refocus on the near distance than I feel comfortable removing my gaze from the road ahead. I turned around after 10 minutes and returned it to the lot.
Also, this conversation is about backing up and parking (read what I said). When backing up you are mostly looking backwards only, so the focal length adjustment point is moot. Even if you have to switch to looking forwards, this is at low speeds / standing still, so it doesn't make a difference.
I'll restate my point with emphasis because you seem to not have read it: Cameras are infinitely more useful for backing up and parking.
People that only use their rear view cameras scare me. Move your head, be aware of your environment and the people (kids) around you. And use your cameras (again, kids).
Sometimes I sit in a coffee shop and very often see people just using their side mirrors (no rear cam, not looking back) ... scary.
Modern cameras give a way better view of what's behind and to the side of the car than you can ever achieve through mirrors. There's really no comparison. Yes, if you're comparing to older, inferior camera systems mirrors might be better, but not the modern ones.
I say this as someone who learned to drive and drove for a long time with no cameras. People saying this are just usually just used to mirrors and never bothered to take the time to learn to switch to the cameras for backwards maneuvering, or their cars just are not equiped with the latest tech.
And the camera's have been better for over a decade at thing point. I have to imagine people are just willfully antagonistic to them for some reason. How in god's name are you going to see a kid directly behind you, below your trunk height, with your mirrors?
I agree about many screens being commonly too bright, but not really about anything else. My partner's previous company car had a back-up camera with a fine brightness and the current one has none at all. I feel blind backing out of parking spots in this one: such cameras physically sit in spots where it can see things that a driver can never see, from approaching cars to either side (when your view is blocked) to a child walking by just as I am ready to start backing out
I don't remember having this issue in the past (we didn't have cameras in driving school), not sure why. My current approach is to stretch and strain a bunch more, start rolling verry slowly when I think the coast is clear and double check that nothing reveals itself, and then just hope for the best. If someone fell back there while I wasn't yet watching, it's simply tough luck I guess? Don't see a physically other option than, ehh, I dunno, adding a camera with a corresponding screen! ;)
> photons impinging my eyes reflected off the material world at the diffraction limit of the visible spectrum remain much higher fidelity than some shitty parts-bin screens
Consider that the camera can be ~2 meters closer than you are to the target, and/or have more pixels than you can see but that the alert system still uses, so I don't know about this diffraction limit fancy wording trying to put yourself above machines which can, in general, do so many things humans cannot
I like retractable door handles. But I think a cutout underneath (maybe spring loaded) might be a good compromise.
also, I WANT A PRNDL (drive select stalk). Even though they overloaded it with autopilot, I think the older model 3/y version was great. Removing it was dumb.
An super-easy-to-locate hazard light button (required by law) would be nice. Not out-of-the-way.
Why can't they just ask the us faa or us military - they have a century of experience with critical control design and placement that don't kill people.
All major car manufacturers do indeed have experience or access to experience in critical control design. The problem isn't in their abilities but in their choices.
Yes, this is a great list and I hate getting in and out of electric vehicles, not to mention figuring the climate controls out of touchscreen-based vehicles. I think the question isn't so much why companies like Tesla deliberately make their cars inconvenient, it's why consumers allow themselves to think streamlined features are somehow better.
> why companies like Tesla deliberately make their cars inconvenient
My 2019 Model 3 has been the most convenient car I've driven by far. Other companies saw Tesla get away with it and tried to replicate it, but given they had basically zero software UX experience and vision (and still don't, on both), the result ranges from kinda usable to absolutely terrible, with most trending towards the latter.
Interesting, and I agree with every one of those checklist items, but none of those things have anything to do with the car being electrically powered.
Are these problems specific to Tesla, or are most Chinese EV manufacturers also caught up in the "make it so futuristic it's annoying and dangerous" attitude?
I think Chinese Consumer preferences are driving a lot of this. They want things to be as high tech as possible, and don’t seem to care about longevity.
Ok, I'll take the bait. I have a thermostat at home, I set a temperature, it keeps my house at that temperature. I have a thermostat in my car, I set the temperature, it keeps the temperature. Fiddling with with climate controls and vents is not something I've done for 8 years now. Why is everybody always touching these things?
Sometimes you want to be cooler sometimes the other way? Sometimes you want cool wind blowing in your face, sometimes you don't? Is it really that hard to grasp? lol
Also different people use the same car at different times, etc.
Houses are big, the air mass inside is big, convection and recirculation maintain a fairly consistent temperature throughout the house, and the thermostat is centrally located so it averages the temperature of the air. The air coming out of the vents is still often colder or hotter than the set temperature, so sitting next to a vent can be less comfortable. Cars have a much smaller air mass, much poorer insulation, a thermostat that is usually installed in the ventilation rather than in the cabin where the people are, so the perceived temperature inside of a car can vary wildly if you don't live in an extremely mild climate, even as a sibling commenter mentioned, between the back seat and front seat, or between the passenger seat and driver seat.
If your house had the capability of adjusting the temperature and airflow for each individual person or room, your HVAC controls at home would look more like those in a traditional car.
(And as others have alluded to, a house is a much more stable environment than a car. It takes a LONG time to make most houses significantly warmer or cooler, a car's internal temperature can change drastically in minutes.)
My partner enjoys ambient temperatures about 3°C warmer than I do
Depending on which of us is currently in the sun, or which of us is alone, you need to vary it quite a lot in summer
In winter, you want the AC for defogging but not on otherwise, which is even more fiddly if you don't just leave it on permanently and use like 10% more fuel
And that's assuming climate control works. It doesn't in any car that I've ever been in. The car doesn't want to sound like an airplane at lift-off once the temperature goes 2° above the set point, while I may just have come from a long walk and am super warm and want this blast of AC air. And then after 5 minutes it gets chilly and maybe I want it to cool the car instead of blowing at me directly, or maybe I just turn the loudness down. There are so many permutations... I suspect we may be built differently if you are happy with a single set point!
I want more cold air blown on me at a higher velocity until I cool off, and then to be a steady state. Even if I had remotely started my car with air conditioning, which although my vehicle has the capability I never do, the seats and steer while and other things I touch will be hotter than the ambient air temperature and make me feel hotter until the car has been moving a while.
My wife needs drastically different settings than I do for virtually everything, at home or in the car. It's easier if I'm just uncomfortable. I've stopped noticing. She can't.
I'll start with your home example. I grew up in a hot environment. Everyone had window ACs and fans (way more efficient than central AC for many types of homes - but that's for a subthread).
With a separate AC and fan, you have two variables you can tweak to get your comfort: Speed of air, and temperature. Believe it or not, some people are not comfortable in a cool room if they're not getting air (and likewise, many/most people are comfortable in a warmer room as long as they get air).
Then you move into a house with no fans and just a central AC and ... it sucks. So you buy pointless table top fans to compensate.
Same with cars. It's not just about the temperature. It's about air. With modern EVs, as I pointed out here[1], it's (almost) impossible to get warm air blowing on your face in cold weather.
Finally, there's the "obvious" reason that applies both in homes and in cars. The temperature you need to feel comfortable keeps fluctuating, and depends on outside conditions. In cold weather, I need to set the car at 70-71F to feel nice. In hot weather, I'll throw up if I drive at those temperatures - I need 60-65F. Same with my house: In winter, I set it to 68-70F to feel comfortable. In summer, I just get cold at those temperatures.
Having a constant temperature in the car doesn't help me if I make a turn and suddenly the sun is coming on my half of the car. Being able to quickly dial down the temperature and have air on my face will cool me in under 10s. Merely dialing down the temperature will take several minutes. Similarly, 10 minutes later when the sun goes behind the clouds, I'm suddenly cold because I don't have the sun compensating for the AC. Merely turning the fan away doesn't help. I need to raise the temperature and keep the air on me to normalize (again - the difference between seconds vs minutes).
If you've never gotten used to that, I can see why you'll settle for something vastly inferior.
A simple example: With my car, I can remotely start the AC. When I've parked the car in the sun, I can start the AC (max cool) 10 minutes before I get in, and it's still a bit warm (but at least not hot). If instead I get into a really hot car with no AC pre-conditioning, it will take at most 1 minute for me to feel cool if I have the AC blowing right at me.
China has already mandated an end to retractable outside door handles and electrical inside door handles. That takes effect January 1, 2027. There were two major incidents where people could not get out and could not be rescued.
The powered charger port door would make sense if there were robot chargers that used it. Tesla demoed that, but people disliked the snake robot approach. Technically, a snake robot is ideal for that, but too many people fear snakes and tentacles.
Rear view cameras are better than rear view mirrors. The field of view is better.
> Rear view cameras are better than rear view mirrors. The field of view is better.
As long as they work, yes. This is part of the trend to make everything more fragile with lots of failure conditions. There are many electrical parts + software needed to make that camera+screen work, any of which might break eventually.
A mirror is just a mirror, failure modes are few and unlikely. Even if it cracks it still works.
> Rear view cameras are better than rear view mirrors. The field of view is better.
Rear view cameras are useless when mud/rain get on them. Mirrors continue to work just fine.
Try living in Seattle.
Me and my wife's car have both rear mirrors and backup cameras. I use both. Cars should have both.
I would not mind rear facing cameras for checking blind spots on the highway.
There are some good designs which prevent them from getting dirty. For example, Mercedes and VW put them in the rear badge and they're only exposed when needed.
Rear view mirrors are needed all the time. We're not talking about reversing cameras here.
Which one is meant seems to be a major point of confusion in the thread.
We're talking about replacing mirrors. They're always needed!
Rear view cameras might be better than mirrors in terms of field of view. This doesn't make them objectively better. Disadvantages are well argumented in the article. They are an useful accessory but shouldn't replace real vision.
Why not both? My Honda has mirrors and a rear view camera. I always check both before backing up. The camera is viewed on a small (for today's standards) LCD screen (with physical buttons, no touchscreen) that also serves as the radio.
The discussion isn't as much about a common backing camera (which also falls under 'useful accessory' I mentioned), but about cameras replacing mirrors.
Real vision is fucked when you can’t actually see what’s behind your car.
Cameras will prevent a lot of unnecessary property damage, and more importantly, fully mitigate risk of killing humans/animals that are behind the car and outside the field of view.
Yes, their purpose and usefulness is obvious. As a supplement. Mirrors should be left as they are.
Lots of cars don't combine the rear-view mirror and backup camera into the same thing. (And shouldn't.)
No one is arguing cameras shouldn’t exist. In fact, back up cameras are mandatory in the US. But replacing mirrors and windows with cameras is bad, actually.
You realize that mirrors can also have a wider fov by making them concave, right?
Rear view cameras are a) 2d not 3d like a physical mirror, so judging depth is inferior on them b) a nightmare for most of us in the second half of our lives who lose the ability to quickly adjust focal length between near and far (not a problem with a real mirror) c) yet another potential failure point and d) a dumbass idea in the parts of the world that salt their roads
The various cameras on my polestar2 are routinely getting caked in salt and dirt in the winter 30 seconds after I start driving down the road. I fail to understand why I'd want this for a critical system like rear or side view mirrors.
I drove in a Polestar4 with its rear view camera only view the other day. Did not like. Would not want as my only option.
I did drive in a Bolt that had dual mode and that was fine.
And e) although more relevant for wing mirrors, you can also move your head around to change/increase the field of view if needed. Try doing that with a camera + screen.
Almost none of this is specific to EVs, manufacturers just see EV consumers as technology forward (which seems to largely stem from Tesla's design approach) so they have been more aggressive with technology than with their traditional ICE models.
Agreed, none of these are specific to EVs. A new Ferrari suffers from half the issues the author complained about. This article is pretty much "Gripes I have with Tesla design that I see making their way into other vehicles".
> Turn signal stalk
While we're at it one thing to add: Keep your turn signal at an on-off pattern.
I don't wan't to have to parse your cute turn signal animation. It's a warning light and should be somewhat irritating/eye-catching.
Yeah those "animated" turn signal fades make me irrationally angry. Why??? What's wrong with the standard signal?
While we're at it, keep them orange. Nobody wants to spend a second of uncertainty trying to figure out if you're signalling or braking.
This annoys me whenever I'm on the road. The issue is unnecessary latency: the signal wastes time going from off to on by being substantially less bright then it should be.
If you want to add cutesy features then have the turn signal automatically synchronize blinking with the car in front/behind it. People would love it.
Yeah but with a flashing light, if you look during an "off" phase, you don't see anything for a little while. Animated would/could show one segment on always
I'd like to orange turn signals come back! They could even have an arrow inside them and toggle between inside and outside. Maybe thats too goofy, but at least something would always be illuminated. Here's a goofy SVG to show the concept
https://codepen.io/tln0/pen/WbodXKw
Turn signals in the EU are required to be orange. It's the US which doesn't have any laws regarding their color.
https://www.thedrive.com/guides-and-gear/u-s-amber-turn-sign...
Yeah in context I'm Australian where turn signals are orange as well.
The US is wild in terms of its commitment to "maybe the brake lights are faulty" style.
This made me realize it's been 12 years since the last John Siracusa review of an OS X release on Ars Technica.
I miss those so much! Here's John talking about ending them in 2015 https://hypercritical.co/2015/04/15/os-x-reviewed where he said "Someone else can pick up the baton for the next 15 years" - but sadly nobody even came close.
Please eliminate the glass roof. Why do EV companies keep making this customer hostile decision?
On my 2019 Model 3, a stress fracture showed up overnight and everytime I look up I see a 3000$ fix for a car that is worth 10k max.
I have no idea who wants it. It is hot in the summer, cold in the winter and you can have a sudden bill related to a rock on the street.
Somehow everyone, from Tesla to Ferrari has this insane design decision and for something that only makes sense in a very small part of the world.
Please stop.
To each their own, I really enjoy my 2018 Model 3 glass roof. Although a stress fracture from no where would really annoy me.
For what its worth I've had a crazed man preach from on top of my Model 3 roof and it still looks brand new :)
https://photos.app.goo.gl/Sbne4ATVZgD74Hon7
I read the comment, and then I had to look at the photos, and now I have to come back and ask wtf?!
> Why do EV companies keep making this customer hostile decision?
Because it eliminates the headliner and insulation, which allows the roof to be an inch shorter while maintaining the same interior headroom. The has a direct impact on frontal area, which, in turn, has a direct impact on aerodynamic drag.
Reduced drag means greater range (or the same range with a smaller, less expensive battery).
I love panoramic sunroofs.
Natural light makes the driving (and passenger) experience much more pleasant for me.
Where exactly do you think the light in vehicles without glass roofs is coming from?
Isn't Tesla the only one that made it mandatory?
Hyundai, Ford, etc have it as an option.
Tesla is an outlier in that the car is designed only with a glass roof. It's not a hole in the existing roof panel like other cars. The lower trim Tesla Y bizarrely has a glass roof that's covered on the inside with a headliner.
> Tesla is an outlier in that the car is designed only with a glass roof. It's not a hole in the existing roof panel like other cars.
Lots of cars have followed Tesla's lead: Ioniq 5, Mach E, etc.
I'm claiming that Tesla is an outlier in that they're not giving a choice. With the Ioniq 5 and Mach E, you can choose whether you want the glass roof or not.
Everyone with Teslas around where I am recently discovered that this is super inconvenient when a nasty hail storm happens. I mean, all of our cars got totaled anyway, but they had the added insult of no longer having a roof and needing to tarp more of the car until insurance could do their thing.
With the cost of the bespoke glass, damage to it basically means the car is guaranteed to be totaled even in a less extreme scenario.
I see this on all sorts of non tesla cars and it makes no sense. I saw it even on brands like Fisker (although that was a solar panel that apparently didn't work).
Just a nice metal roof that won't make me expend more electricity for nothing would be nice.
Yes, but which cars other than Tesla don't give you the choice?
(Never heard of Fisker).
No, Volvo has it mandatory as well. Probably others.
On the Polestar2 (and other models) it's not mandatory, but you can't get other imperative things -- like the heat pump (major efficiency concern) -- unless you get the Plus package that has the glass roof.
I don't like it, but that was often the first thing people mentioned liking when the got in.
They can't afford buttons in the console, yet they can afford a massive piece of useless glass. Sometimes I think we're not getting the real story.
> But electronic door mechanisms like these have also proven to be unreliable, and possibly dangerous.
"Possibly dangerous" is a vast understatement. There is an ongoing lawsuit claiming that a cybertruck's door stopped working after a crash, trapping three occupants who burned to death.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/piedmont-cybertruck-cr...
A very similar case in China was caught on camera. Car crashed, caught fire and the doors stopped working. At least in this incident everyone made it out alive.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SweatyPalms/comments/1qwao0m/ev_dis...
Now go read Tesla’s own manual instructions on how to open doors when the power is off. There is no way I could reliably do it if the car just crashed and there is smoke filling the cabin. I don't know how any engineer could have thought this is safe to be put in a vehicle.
https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/models/en_us/GUID-AAD769C...
https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/model3/en_us/GUID-A7A60DC...
The problem is child locks. The US doesn't allow you to have a manual override that overrides the child lock on rear doors. The same easy pull handles as the front door would be on the rear door if they were legal.
> You should not have to wait for a sensor to detect your presence and then activate some mechanism before the door is able to be opened.
> It’s fine to have the door handle activate an electronic door opener, but...
> ...they all-too-frequently decide that the door that covers the charge port should be entirely electronic, opening and closing under its own power in response to a touch-screen input...
> ...a glove box that can only be opened by using the touch screen
What's the deal with making all kinds of simple doors, lids and flaps motor-driven and computer-controlled? Did someone watch the Zorg scenes from The 5th Element and thought "yes, that's the pinnacle of design"?
More generally: I can understand replacing arrays of physical switches with a single touchscreen from a cost maintenance standpoint. But replacing simple mechanical linkages with auxiliary motors? Replacing mirrors with cameras and more screens? Those components can't possibly be cheaper than the original solution.
My 2020 Kia Niro EV passes all of these. Though the EV charging door would not open when the 12v battery died, even though it has a mechanical mechanism.
I would add that there is no particularly good reason for an EV to have a push-to-start button. With Volvo, Polestar etc, you get in and shift straight into Drive or Reverse, and when you’re done, you put it into Park and climb out again. This is how it should be.
My Nissan Ariya checks nearly every box. The controls for the AC have dedicated buttons, but they are capacitive, not tactile. Anyway, love the car. It's a real shame that they aren't selling them in the US anymore.
My 2023 Chevy Bolt has all of these, shockingly great car.
Had to do a bit of digging to disable the OnStar tracking though.
I have a 2023 Bolt as well. Sadly the rear cameras no longer work, even after replacing them, and the touch screen stopped working too, which is frustrating on its own but also means I can't adjust the defrost in the winter.
I think this desire is reasonable, but also completely misses two of the main reasons Tesla did their "everything mediated thru the touch screen" in the first place (besides cost, which TFA mentions).
1. It allows for having "presets" for everything configurable in the car. If you've ever shared a Tesla, you understand this: the driver's seat adjusts itself to the right position, as does the HVAC, etc. Everything being digitally mediated means I can loan my car to someone and when I get it back, all of my settings will be exactly as I left them.
2. It paves the way for "robotaxi". You don't need physical buttons geared towards maximum ergonomics of the driver if there is no driver. Obviously Tesla hasn't quite achieved that goal yet, but that is what they are aiming for so it makes sense they wouldn't invest much at all in driver ergonomics.
Similarly, the doorhandles being flush is not entirely about "looking futuristic", but is instead another way to squeeze every last drop of aerodynamics out of the vehicle, which is incredibly important for EVs.
The presets on my mercedes and my mustang and my honda fit work quite fine, thank you.
And these touch screens are cute until a product manager wants to show their marginally questionable value to the universe by changing the UI, buttons, placement etc. and now you are searching for the crucial functionality that you forgot to set or check, after the last OTA update occurred, before you started moving, and are now careening down the highway at 60 miles an hour...
What do presets have to do with the touchscreen? Tesla didn't invent presets. Many cars with physical buttons have had presets.
It's fine (maybe even good) to allow everything through software, it's just that there needs to be hardware backups for a lot of it.
ha! cool my cheap and cheerful MG4 passes all these. (well... "Physical controls for temperature and fan speed." is mostly physical. so a .5 score for that I would say)
I've been meaning to write a post entitled: Things you could do with cars that you can no longer do.
The top of the list is "Maintain a constant (vent) fan speed".
With all the EVs I've tested, if I want to get warm air on my face at a consistent speed ... it's just not possible. "Auto" is disabled, I've set the fan at a certain speed, and set it to blow only in the top vents. Dial up the temperature, and the fan speed can drop markedly.
Such a simple thing that's worked for decades. And they've made my driving very uncomfortable. I've had an EV for only a few months, and I keep thinking of trading it in for an older Honda. I've installed a USB fan, but ... why? Why am I paying so much more to get an experience I hate?
You can definitely do it with a Tesla. Disable Auto, select the airflow direction and vents, select the fan speed you want (1-10), select the temp you want. Fan speed will not change with temp if manually selected.
Such items need to be standardized, and cars driving on public roads must conform to a standard. It's that simple, but legislative bodies seem to have lost the ability to regulate basic items such as rear-view mirrors and non-blinding headlights.
I would add that the car should have ultrasonic sensors and ideally lidar, not just rely on cameras. Looking at Tesla, mostly, I think.
> No experienced driver during normal driving has ever had to spend even a moment searching for the turn signal stalk to activate it, but this happens all too often when using turn-signal buttons on a steering wheel
Is there really an EV that replaced the turn signal stalk with steering wheel buttons? You may as well just remove the turn signal entirely at that point.
Tesla did for a few model years.
My 2005 Honda Odyssey had a locking glovebox. With the move to a start button instead of turning a key or even just the key fob presence (Chevy Equinox we have) or phone apps or cards manufacturers definitely got away from having something that you could lock and unlock.
I thought having the glovebox only unlocked from the screen was dumb when I heard about it but I'd rather have the ability to lock it than not. And it's consistent with the move to using your phone instead of a keyfob.
Nothing to discuss here, the article is spot on. I doubt though that those top of the class manufacturers are this stupid. They are rather playing the stupidity of the common consumer.
There are some - albeit few - cars that tick most of this checklist.
MZS5 EV[1] checks most except the physical buttons, which is a half tick. There’s some physical buttons for some important things, but could do better. The previous model of had more buttons but essentially the same checklist-wise.
1. https://mgmotor.com.au/pages/mg-s5-ev
2025 Hyundai Kona SEL EV ticks most, maybe even all, of them. I'll mark with "(Maybe)" the ones that there might be some question about.
1. (Maybe) The door handles protrude like God intended, and it is obvious what you are supposed to do since there is an impossible to miss button.
However, the button only unlocks the door if you have the key fob, and sometimes it can take a couple pressed for it to work, so that might disqualify it.
If you want to unlock it without that key fob (and without using the app) there is a physical key, but the keyhole is behind a cover that is not obvious.
2. Yes to physical door opening mechanism.
3. Yes to door handle affordances.
4. Yes to physical charge port mechanism. Simple push to open latch mechanism, which is the only way to open it.
5-10. Yes to turn signal stalk, physical controls on steering wheel, physical temperature and fan controls, physical are flow and direction controls, and physical glove box opening mechanism.
11-13. Yes to rearview mirror, rear window, and side-view mirrors.
It is basically the same as a non-EV Kona at the same trim level except for things that have to be different.
My 2021 leaf passes all but the charger cap - which is an electronic release button on key or by the wheel (physical to close it)
I would add more robustness in the computer systems. Ideally separation of critical systems and niceties, and definitely manual ability to select A/B systems for when the inevitable bad update hits.
One of my favorite car reviewers is Doug Demuro. His videos on youtube mostly focus on the 'quirks and features' of the car, AKA all the minutiae you notice a few months into ownership.
This makes me think that doing cool reboots of old cars but with EV powertrains would be awesome. Think of an old VW Golf from the 90s with an EV powertrain. Or an old 60s mustang.
> Physical charge-port door mechanism.
So is the only one in the list that is actually EV specific? It also has a direct counterpart on an ICE vehicle so even it doesn’t count.
I have an ICE vehicle with keyless entry. Of course, it has a physical key as backup in case the keyless doesn't work or the battery dies.
The physical key triggers an electronic switch. There's no mechanical link. There's no way at all to enter the vehicle if the battery dies. Which is problematic because you can't charge the battery without accessing the hood release inside the electronically locked cabin.
The Nissan engineers must have been smoking something great that day
Not even a slim jim?
That's a big part of why these things are stupid. There's a bunch of weird design decisions which shouldn't have anything to do with EVs but are a lot more common in EVs anyway.
This is mixing a hell of a lot of very different UX and safety things into on big "EV like like Tesla = bad".
Take the mirror thing. Yes a good mirror is great. It's the gold standard for 2026. I can totally envision a 2030 world where an artificially stitched together view of what's behind you dramatically outperforms a simple what can mirrors and angles do. A stitched together hybrid view possibly enhanced with other AI overlays is going to outperform normal users.
This is happening..OPs views on stupidity are not gonna stop it
Happy to say that the electric car I drive checks every box!
I have a ‘25 Subaru Solterra (rebadged Toyota bZ4X) and it checks all these boxes (except it lacks a glovebox, though I believe this is remedied in the ‘26).
It’s a good car in the sense it’s good at car things, even some EV things - but dear Lord is Toyota bad at making software.
The software is consistently unreliable, unstable, and feature incomplete- which they still have the gall to charge for.
Oh my god!!! Physical on/off siwtches for lights.
The number of times I would curse the EV I drove previously, when I saw a person in front with no lights on, or to signal a semi that it was safe for them to switch lanes....flashing the hi-beam sends exactly the wrong message.
Another annoyance: these days, even low end cars have an `AUTO` setting for lights, that ensures that headlamps and rear tail lights come on when dark, or in the rain, when wipers come on, only to have ppl disable them because they belive they extending their battery life....bah!
Shoutout here to my new car (Ford mustang, not the EV version). Lights are a knob; making changes flashes a toast on the front dashboard so I cna see what it gets set to without taking my eyes off the road; and, to boot, regardless of what I set it to when I drive, resets to `AUTO` when I turn off and turn on the car again.
Every time I'd take my car to the shop they'd turn the lights off, and I find myself driving around in the dark with no lights on. Why does anyone want that? And we used to mandate "daytime running lights" in Canada, I didn't get the memo when we stop enforcing that.
"Always turn the lights off" makes some sense to a shop. Older cars don't have automatic headlights. The mechanics might not want to figure out which is which. If they guess wrong, the car may drain its battery and cause even more problems.
Plus, working around very bright lights, especially if the car has been elevated, can be really annoying.
I love the note regarding the rearview mirror being an actual, you know, mirror.
A friend was teasing me the other day for using my mirrors while I backed up, ignoring the various screens and camera feeds dotting the dash. I reminded him that photons impinging my eyes reflected off the material world at the diffraction limit of the visible spectrum remain much higher fidelity than some shitty parts-bin screens.
Plus those rearview screens are always horribly bright. You know what has infinite levels of dynamic brightness? Light bouncing off a planar reflector.
So much of modern cars is cost savings and poor design decisions dressed up in the name of modern - but ultimately resulting in UX worse than an early 2000s Honda.
Cameras are infinitely more useful for backing up and parking. Not being able to use them is actually a skill issue.
And I totally agree, but I still use mirrors because when I need to pass and park next to a pillar (my garage has a few) I can never tell how far I actually am from it through the cameras, whereas the mirror will tell me without lag and with absolute precision whether I'm about to scrape my car or not. Not to mention that it's very difficult to tell depth from cameras, which is what I need the most when the back axle has passed the pillar and I should start turning in very tight spaces.
Cameras are not a suitable replacement for rear-vision mirrors for the same reason that screens are not a suitable replacement. It’s even addressed in TFA: focal length.
>>> But more importantly, current screen technology requires the driver to focus on the surface of the screen itself, which is mere feet away from their eyes. This is a large change in focal distance from looking at the road ahead.
If you’re over the age of 40 or so, it takes time, a few hundred milliseconds at least, to refocus your gaze distance. A screen is near. When driving, you’re looking far. A mirror is something to glance at.
I test-drove a Polestar with a screen for a rear-vision mirror (and no actual rear window) and it was completely undrivable for me. It takes longer for my eyes to refocus on the near distance than I feel comfortable removing my gaze from the road ahead. I turned around after 10 minutes and returned it to the lot.
I never said mirrors should be replaced.
Also, this conversation is about backing up and parking (read what I said). When backing up you are mostly looking backwards only, so the focal length adjustment point is moot. Even if you have to switch to looking forwards, this is at low speeds / standing still, so it doesn't make a difference.
I'll restate my point with emphasis because you seem to not have read it: Cameras are infinitely more useful for backing up and parking.
People that only use their rear view cameras scare me. Move your head, be aware of your environment and the people (kids) around you. And use your cameras (again, kids).
Sometimes I sit in a coffee shop and very often see people just using their side mirrors (no rear cam, not looking back) ... scary.
Modern cameras give a way better view of what's behind and to the side of the car than you can ever achieve through mirrors. There's really no comparison. Yes, if you're comparing to older, inferior camera systems mirrors might be better, but not the modern ones.
I say this as someone who learned to drive and drove for a long time with no cameras. People saying this are just usually just used to mirrors and never bothered to take the time to learn to switch to the cameras for backwards maneuvering, or their cars just are not equiped with the latest tech.
And the camera's have been better for over a decade at thing point. I have to imagine people are just willfully antagonistic to them for some reason. How in god's name are you going to see a kid directly behind you, below your trunk height, with your mirrors?
I agree about many screens being commonly too bright, but not really about anything else. My partner's previous company car had a back-up camera with a fine brightness and the current one has none at all. I feel blind backing out of parking spots in this one: such cameras physically sit in spots where it can see things that a driver can never see, from approaching cars to either side (when your view is blocked) to a child walking by just as I am ready to start backing out
I don't remember having this issue in the past (we didn't have cameras in driving school), not sure why. My current approach is to stretch and strain a bunch more, start rolling verry slowly when I think the coast is clear and double check that nothing reveals itself, and then just hope for the best. If someone fell back there while I wasn't yet watching, it's simply tough luck I guess? Don't see a physically other option than, ehh, I dunno, adding a camera with a corresponding screen! ;)
> photons impinging my eyes reflected off the material world at the diffraction limit of the visible spectrum remain much higher fidelity than some shitty parts-bin screens
Consider that the camera can be ~2 meters closer than you are to the target, and/or have more pixels than you can see but that the alert system still uses, so I don't know about this diffraction limit fancy wording trying to put yourself above machines which can, in general, do so many things humans cannot
friend was teasing me the other day for using my mirrors while I backed up
Good way to fail a drivers' test in a lot of places.
Thankfully you only have to do those once, not every time you drive.
I like retractable door handles. But I think a cutout underneath (maybe spring loaded) might be a good compromise.
also, I WANT A PRNDL (drive select stalk). Even though they overloaded it with autopilot, I think the older model 3/y version was great. Removing it was dumb.
An super-easy-to-locate hazard light button (required by law) would be nice. Not out-of-the-way.
Why can't they just ask the us faa or us military - they have a century of experience with critical control design and placement that don't kill people.
> they have a century of experience with critical control design and placement that don't kill people
Car manufacturers do too.
As TFA indicates, clearly a lot of experience on how to make a car reliable and easy to use has been lost, one way or another.
How about some common sense?
∃x car-with-good-control-design(x)
but not ∀ cars or ∀ manufacturers and not ∀ cars of any manufacturer
All major car manufacturers do indeed have experience or access to experience in critical control design. The problem isn't in their abilities but in their choices.
Yes, this is a great list and I hate getting in and out of electric vehicles, not to mention figuring the climate controls out of touchscreen-based vehicles. I think the question isn't so much why companies like Tesla deliberately make their cars inconvenient, it's why consumers allow themselves to think streamlined features are somehow better.
> why companies like Tesla deliberately make their cars inconvenient
My 2019 Model 3 has been the most convenient car I've driven by far. Other companies saw Tesla get away with it and tried to replicate it, but given they had basically zero software UX experience and vision (and still don't, on both), the result ranges from kinda usable to absolutely terrible, with most trending towards the latter.
Interesting, and I agree with every one of those checklist items, but none of those things have anything to do with the car being electrically powered.
Are these problems specific to Tesla, or are most Chinese EV manufacturers also caught up in the "make it so futuristic it's annoying and dangerous" attitude?
I think Chinese Consumer preferences are driving a lot of this. They want things to be as high tech as possible, and don’t seem to care about longevity.
Ok, I'll take the bait. I have a thermostat at home, I set a temperature, it keeps my house at that temperature. I have a thermostat in my car, I set the temperature, it keeps the temperature. Fiddling with with climate controls and vents is not something I've done for 8 years now. Why is everybody always touching these things?
Sometimes you want to be cooler sometimes the other way? Sometimes you want cool wind blowing in your face, sometimes you don't? Is it really that hard to grasp? lol
Also different people use the same car at different times, etc.
Houses are big, the air mass inside is big, convection and recirculation maintain a fairly consistent temperature throughout the house, and the thermostat is centrally located so it averages the temperature of the air. The air coming out of the vents is still often colder or hotter than the set temperature, so sitting next to a vent can be less comfortable. Cars have a much smaller air mass, much poorer insulation, a thermostat that is usually installed in the ventilation rather than in the cabin where the people are, so the perceived temperature inside of a car can vary wildly if you don't live in an extremely mild climate, even as a sibling commenter mentioned, between the back seat and front seat, or between the passenger seat and driver seat.
If your house had the capability of adjusting the temperature and airflow for each individual person or room, your HVAC controls at home would look more like those in a traditional car.
(And as others have alluded to, a house is a much more stable environment than a car. It takes a LONG time to make most houses significantly warmer or cooler, a car's internal temperature can change drastically in minutes.)
Half the passengers sit in the sun half the time
My partner enjoys ambient temperatures about 3°C warmer than I do
Depending on which of us is currently in the sun, or which of us is alone, you need to vary it quite a lot in summer
In winter, you want the AC for defogging but not on otherwise, which is even more fiddly if you don't just leave it on permanently and use like 10% more fuel
And that's assuming climate control works. It doesn't in any car that I've ever been in. The car doesn't want to sound like an airplane at lift-off once the temperature goes 2° above the set point, while I may just have come from a long walk and am super warm and want this blast of AC air. And then after 5 minutes it gets chilly and maybe I want it to cool the car instead of blowing at me directly, or maybe I just turn the loudness down. There are so many permutations... I suspect we may be built differently if you are happy with a single set point!
> Fiddling with with climate controls and vents is not something I've done for 8 years now. Why is everybody always touching these things?
I'll set the temperature differently if it's cold vs hot out, and in some weather have to tell it to unfog the windshield.
> Why is everybody always touching these things?
Because sometimes it is hot.
I want more cold air blown on me at a higher velocity until I cool off, and then to be a steady state. Even if I had remotely started my car with air conditioning, which although my vehicle has the capability I never do, the seats and steer while and other things I touch will be hotter than the ambient air temperature and make me feel hotter until the car has been moving a while.
My wife needs drastically different settings than I do for virtually everything, at home or in the car. It's easier if I'm just uncomfortable. I've stopped noticing. She can't.
My EV has profiles per person...
> Why is everybody always touching these things?
Because people are ... different?
I'll start with your home example. I grew up in a hot environment. Everyone had window ACs and fans (way more efficient than central AC for many types of homes - but that's for a subthread).
With a separate AC and fan, you have two variables you can tweak to get your comfort: Speed of air, and temperature. Believe it or not, some people are not comfortable in a cool room if they're not getting air (and likewise, many/most people are comfortable in a warmer room as long as they get air).
Then you move into a house with no fans and just a central AC and ... it sucks. So you buy pointless table top fans to compensate.
Same with cars. It's not just about the temperature. It's about air. With modern EVs, as I pointed out here[1], it's (almost) impossible to get warm air blowing on your face in cold weather.
Finally, there's the "obvious" reason that applies both in homes and in cars. The temperature you need to feel comfortable keeps fluctuating, and depends on outside conditions. In cold weather, I need to set the car at 70-71F to feel nice. In hot weather, I'll throw up if I drive at those temperatures - I need 60-65F. Same with my house: In winter, I set it to 68-70F to feel comfortable. In summer, I just get cold at those temperatures.
Having a constant temperature in the car doesn't help me if I make a turn and suddenly the sun is coming on my half of the car. Being able to quickly dial down the temperature and have air on my face will cool me in under 10s. Merely dialing down the temperature will take several minutes. Similarly, 10 minutes later when the sun goes behind the clouds, I'm suddenly cold because I don't have the sun compensating for the AC. Merely turning the fan away doesn't help. I need to raise the temperature and keep the air on me to normalize (again - the difference between seconds vs minutes).
If you've never gotten used to that, I can see why you'll settle for something vastly inferior.
A simple example: With my car, I can remotely start the AC. When I've parked the car in the sun, I can start the AC (max cool) 10 minutes before I get in, and it's still a bit warm (but at least not hot). If instead I get into a really hot car with no AC pre-conditioning, it will take at most 1 minute for me to feel cool if I have the AC blowing right at me.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48330246
[dead]