Sometimes, the Old Ways are the best...

The more complicated cars got the more they broke down and the more it costs to fix it.

Government regulations are killing them now

I'll be happy if they update the firmware so when my sling reaches LOW FUEL it will go back to tell me how many miles I have left.

Quote from echoraven

I'll be happy if they update the firmware so when my sling reaches LOW FUEL it will go back to tell me how many miles I have left.

..........................and just how accurate would this be? The one and only time we ran out fuel with our SlingShot the "low fuel" light had just come on only minutes before.......................

Bill

And I've ran for 30+ miles with it on more than once. I consider it a challenge. My wife has a different word for it. It's not flattering...

Quote from wjfyfe

..........................and just how accurate would this be? The one and only time we ran out fuel with our SlingShot the "low fuel" light had just come on only minutes before.......................

Bill

Dunno... On my Kia Soul it's pretty darn accurate. On my Rocket 3 Touring I got a good 5 or 6 miles when the remaining mileage counter read "0".

Let's just say I don't test it often...

Quote from Doc&Ruby

This article talks about something many auto makers have forgotten, human-machine interfaces need to be mechanical and haptic. Even 'fly by wire' systems need to provide physical feedback to the operator! Some older cars were derided as 'land yachts' because of their loose suspension and steering. Many modern cars are derided for crappy and overly complex touch-screen equipment where you have to wade through menus to change the radio station or adjust climate controls (yes, I'm pointing at YOU, Tesla!)

Seems that the US Navy is figuring this out too. I just hope Polaris remembers it roots, and who its customer base is!

https://news.clearancejobs.com…k-to-mechanical-controls/

While I was a civilian Intelligence Analyst for the Army, one of my job duties included software testing & development from a user perspective. Our lead data scientist would find candidate software tools, but expected everyone to change the way they worked to match the way the software wanted you to work. This often led to users refusing to use new tools simply because of the odd way the software handled data entry and general operation. Having to relearn your entire work process because of software that wasn't designed to support your work process is almost always a non-starter with most folks, especially when multiple pieces of software each take a different process approach. Many of us found this to be extremely frustrating.

There was an old saying. "Flying by the seat of your pants". Some of the pilots on older aircraft were more "in tune" with their machines and could tell of possible engine vibrations through the throttle levers.

Quote from Doc&Ruby

Sounds like some of these guys are designing infotainment touchscreen UI's now!

Worked on a combat model designed to measure the impact of information flow/denial and the User Interface was one of my favorite parts of the software. Our data entry capability made building an Order of battle (force structure) a click 'n' save process that was so easy to use that folks didn't believe we had any real modeling capability behind it. We did have a good data-based modelling framework, but ran out of funding before we could really achieve everything we wanted to do. Folks who saw it said they liked it and wanted to use it when we finished it, but never wanted to contribute towards the funding.