Hacker News Reader

Comment by whyenot | Hacker News Reader

Especially with how high-resolution touchscreens in cars are becoming in new models, I doubt they're cheaper than a handful of plastic knobs and buttons.

Every modern car is going to have an infotainment system with a screen. A better question would be whether it is cheaper to have a touch version of that screen or to have buttons for the interface. I suspect that touch would be cheaper than buttons.

View on HN

Especially now the US and Canada requires reversing cameras in all new cars, there has to be a screen in the car; the question then becomes whether it's worthwhile designing a second infotainment system that doesn't require that (somewhat costly) large colour screen for lower end trims in markets where reversing cameras aren't mandatory, and it seems to be that manufacturers think that isn't worth the cost.

I wish they did that in the EU. Reversing cameras are massively useful, especially in vehicles with low visibility such as the Toyota CH-R.

Really? As much as I like the comfort of the rear radars for big vehicles, I’ve always found the camera a bit useless

As somebody who doesn't own a car anymore but somewhat regularly rents very different kinds of cars, I have to say that reverse parking is massively easier with a camera.

Back when I always used to drive the same car I got used to its dimensions of course, but that just doesn't happen when you merely occasionally drive very different cars.

The sensors are nice, but sensors+camera improve on that by an order of magnitude - you do not see behind your car, no matter how much you think you do. Especially small people aka children are completely hidden from the driver's point of view by the rear of the car - which is exactly in the camera's center of field.

I got a shocking example of this recently. I was towing a trailer behind my vehicle for a 14' boat (the trailer was quite a bit longer than that). I was really surprised that I could not see it AT ALL in my rear view mirror when the boat was not on it. Meaning there is at least 16' behind my vehicle where I cannot see something about 2' tall or shorter.

That's what I thought, but I've rented a couple with camears and they are really useful - the overlays which shows where your wheels will go with your current steering position etc.

The last car I rented had a 360 degree camera which showed a top down picture of the car and surroundings!

I LOVE mine... with the guide lines for reversing, I always center into the space as desired... it's easier than pulling in forward even. For times when the neighboring spaces are wonky, it's easier to short shrift the passenger side, aligned with the other car's passenger side, so worst case you have to pull out to let a passenger in.

Also, if every other car parked forward/reverse then the more cramped spaces wouldn't be as difficult. Note, I live in AZ, USA where more than half the cars are full sized or larger vehicles. So parking lots designed for cities with smaller vehicles are particularly difficult.

Wouldn't it be better just to make cars with good visibility?

Yes it would. That's why I'd never buy the Toyota CH-R. We have a Civic with bad enough visibility already, thank you.

Yeah, that's a good point. The question here isn't whether or not to have an infotainment system that integrates with Android Auto and Apple Car Play, it's whether to interface with it via a touch screen or physical input (or both).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com