England : the epitome of a broken country. The topic of this week's post is to do with the wildly varying standards of what is and is not acceptable for drivers when it comes to that most basic task - filling up your vehicle with petrol.
With the price of petrol being so high now, it's inevitable that there are a lot of drive-offs - where people fill-up but don't go inside to pay. To combat this, petrol stations in the UK all now have numberplate readers that read the numberplate of each car as it stops to fill up. The numberplates are displayed on a big screen on the forecourt, in some cases, so you can see your vehicle has been identified. If you drive off without paying, the numberplate is given to the police and the case goes from there.
What they don't tell you is that your face is also being photographed for use by facial recognition systems and the PNC (police national computer). It's why, in a lot of places, the petrol station attendants won't activate a pump for a motorcyclist until they've taken their helmet off. That on it's own is a pretty big problem but it gets bigger when you understand something else; it criminalises motorcyclists simply because of the mode of transportation they've chosen. Don't believe me? If you're in a religious organisation that requires you to wear a burka or yashmak, or any other form of facial covering, you won't be asked to remove your facewear. So it's OK to discriminate against motorcyclists, but it's not OK to discriminate against religious groups for the same reason?
All this discrimination and assuming drivers are naturally guilty (because every numberplate is recorded and sent to the nationwide ANPR database and tracking system, even if you don't drive off without paying), could so easily be averted with the simplest of changes - pay at the pump.
Since moving to the US, I've come to realise what a stroke of genius this is. You don't have to go inside to pay. You don't have to hang around inside a foul-smelling 'convenience' store, in a queue of equally irritated people waiting for an untrained minimum-wage attendant to figure out what the buttons on the till mean. You can be in and out quickly, with minimum fuss and there's never any drive-offs, because the pumps will not dispense anything until a valid credit or debit card has been swiped through them.
For those who don't have cards, or don't want to use them in this way, the system still works because you go inside and pre-pay before they activate the pump - again - no drive-offs - although now you're back inside that hellhole of a store. It's so simple I'm at a loss to understand why the UK went with the over-engineered technology approach. It costs more, it's discriminatory and it's unnecessary. I suspect it's more to do with the desire to have cameras everywhere than it is to do with the prevention of fuel theft. After all, there's so many CCTVs in the UK (1 CCTV camera for every 14 people at the last count in 2009) that they're the most surveilled nation in the world.
The only real downside of pay at the pump is that the pumps, like ATMs, are outside all the time, meaning they're ripe for criminals to rig with card skimmers. But even the most basic awareness of this possibility is enough to thwart that. Don't ever use the debit option - always use the credit option, then you're not typing your PIN into the keypad. If anything, you might be typing a zip code in. If you do accidentally do debit, cover the keypad with your other hand while you type in your PIN. Basic precautions like this - the same ones you should be using at every cash machine - are so easy to do that it really ought to be of no concern to you whether you run your card through a petrol pump to get product.
Monday, July 29, 2013
Monday, July 22, 2013
The drones are coming. Slowly.
Long-time readers of my blog will know the disdain I have for auto-driving cars, but this week I wanted to try to expand a bit further on the issues with them right now.
Look at the limitations of drone cars right now. We'll use Google as an example as they're one of the most advanced in this area. The cars cannot drive on a route that has not already been driven, catalogued and stored as GPS data by Google's engineers. (ie. it cannot navigate on its own). And when I say "catalogued" I do mean "catalogued" - the engineers have to enter every street sign, lamp post, intersection and road marking and 'teach' the computer what they all are. For every road. Ultimately that's why Google has Streetview - it's not so we have a fun way to look at the world, it's so they can collect this data for everywhere their car could ever drive.
It can't merge on or off freeways - that has to be done by hand. It has trouble in traffic that isn't single lane. It can't deal with unexpected events (unexpected debris in the road, for example) because it's not sentient - it's a programmed series of instructions that cannot adapt unless the code has been supplied for every eventuality. That in itself is an impossible task.
It can't drive if one or more of the cameras is covered (think wet leaves sticking to the windshield on an autumn day).
It can't drive in the snow because the world doesn't look like the pristeen clear, sunny day the car expects. It can't drive in heavy rain because the rain and road spray introduce enough data distortion into the cameras and radars that they don't work. More to the point, in heavy spray, adaptive cruise doesn't work for the same reason - radar doesn't work well in precipitation (think of the TV weather radar - it's reflecting off water, basically).
Can these problems be overcome? For the most part, probably. Adapting to changing and unexpected road conditions is the thing that engineers cannot code around. That's either going to require a very fast-learning AI, or it's going to become the achilles heel of drone cars. People do seem to have a hard time understanding why this type of project is so difficult. After all, we've had autopilot in aircraft for decades, right? Yes, but aircraft operate in a fundamentally different environment. TCAS systems talk aircraft-to-aircraft to avoid collisions. Aircraft don't find themselves nose-to-tail in the sky, they don't have to deal with pedestrians walking off the kerb, or cars, trucks, motorbikes, segways, street furniture, signals, illogical road layouts, faded paint or any of the millions of other variables that car and driver have to.
I'm not just picking on Google here. All the manufacturers who are trying this tech have the same problems to a greater or lesser degree. Volvo and Mercedes can't even get their auto-braking systems to work reliably, and unless it's bombproof, 100% reliable, nobody is going to want it in their cars. Hunt around YouTube for videos of the various public and very embarrassing tests where manufacturers have demonstrated their auto-braking systems mowing down cardboard pedestrians, driving through foam brick walls and in one very prominent case, burying the car under the back of a real truck with some considerable force.
If you still think I'm being pessimistic, think of this : drive-by-wire cars - in particular some Toyotas. That's a single system - a throttle. Not a complex series of computers, sensors, cameras and radars. It's a pair of potentiometers a length of wire and a servo motor. And yet this very system has been accused of causing 89 deaths in Toyota vehicles - a figure Toyota deny and have now been accused of covering up evidence about. If (and it's a big IF), it turns out that their unintended acceleration woes were caused by an electrical fault in something as simple as throttle-by-wire, and if they're spending millions covering it up, can you seriously imagine any manufacturer taking responsibility for deaths caused by fully autonomous drone cars?
I for one am not looking forward to a future where drone cars are the norm. In fact, as a daily driver and motorcyclist, I can't imagine a more bleak or dangerous place to live. However if you really are pining for the day when you'll be able to eliminate all personal responsibility and get in a vehicle that just drives you to where you want to be, I have good news. That day is already here. It's called a taxi. Or a bus. Or tram. Or train.
Footnote : Forbes did a short writeup on similar issues back in March - a one-page worthwhile read if you have another three minutes : Forbes and the Google car
Look at the limitations of drone cars right now. We'll use Google as an example as they're one of the most advanced in this area. The cars cannot drive on a route that has not already been driven, catalogued and stored as GPS data by Google's engineers. (ie. it cannot navigate on its own). And when I say "catalogued" I do mean "catalogued" - the engineers have to enter every street sign, lamp post, intersection and road marking and 'teach' the computer what they all are. For every road. Ultimately that's why Google has Streetview - it's not so we have a fun way to look at the world, it's so they can collect this data for everywhere their car could ever drive.
It can't merge on or off freeways - that has to be done by hand. It has trouble in traffic that isn't single lane. It can't deal with unexpected events (unexpected debris in the road, for example) because it's not sentient - it's a programmed series of instructions that cannot adapt unless the code has been supplied for every eventuality. That in itself is an impossible task.
It can't drive if one or more of the cameras is covered (think wet leaves sticking to the windshield on an autumn day).
It can't drive in the snow because the world doesn't look like the pristeen clear, sunny day the car expects. It can't drive in heavy rain because the rain and road spray introduce enough data distortion into the cameras and radars that they don't work. More to the point, in heavy spray, adaptive cruise doesn't work for the same reason - radar doesn't work well in precipitation (think of the TV weather radar - it's reflecting off water, basically).
Can these problems be overcome? For the most part, probably. Adapting to changing and unexpected road conditions is the thing that engineers cannot code around. That's either going to require a very fast-learning AI, or it's going to become the achilles heel of drone cars. People do seem to have a hard time understanding why this type of project is so difficult. After all, we've had autopilot in aircraft for decades, right? Yes, but aircraft operate in a fundamentally different environment. TCAS systems talk aircraft-to-aircraft to avoid collisions. Aircraft don't find themselves nose-to-tail in the sky, they don't have to deal with pedestrians walking off the kerb, or cars, trucks, motorbikes, segways, street furniture, signals, illogical road layouts, faded paint or any of the millions of other variables that car and driver have to.
I'm not just picking on Google here. All the manufacturers who are trying this tech have the same problems to a greater or lesser degree. Volvo and Mercedes can't even get their auto-braking systems to work reliably, and unless it's bombproof, 100% reliable, nobody is going to want it in their cars. Hunt around YouTube for videos of the various public and very embarrassing tests where manufacturers have demonstrated their auto-braking systems mowing down cardboard pedestrians, driving through foam brick walls and in one very prominent case, burying the car under the back of a real truck with some considerable force.
If you still think I'm being pessimistic, think of this : drive-by-wire cars - in particular some Toyotas. That's a single system - a throttle. Not a complex series of computers, sensors, cameras and radars. It's a pair of potentiometers a length of wire and a servo motor. And yet this very system has been accused of causing 89 deaths in Toyota vehicles - a figure Toyota deny and have now been accused of covering up evidence about. If (and it's a big IF), it turns out that their unintended acceleration woes were caused by an electrical fault in something as simple as throttle-by-wire, and if they're spending millions covering it up, can you seriously imagine any manufacturer taking responsibility for deaths caused by fully autonomous drone cars?
I for one am not looking forward to a future where drone cars are the norm. In fact, as a daily driver and motorcyclist, I can't imagine a more bleak or dangerous place to live. However if you really are pining for the day when you'll be able to eliminate all personal responsibility and get in a vehicle that just drives you to where you want to be, I have good news. That day is already here. It's called a taxi. Or a bus. Or tram. Or train.
Footnote : Forbes did a short writeup on similar issues back in March - a one-page worthwhile read if you have another three minutes : Forbes and the Google car
Monday, July 15, 2013
Guest post : How the Queen's Face Keeps Me Safe
I was at work the other week when I 'overheard' a conversation. A colleague of mine was discussing whether or not he should invest in new tyres or a new surround sound system in his living room. Admittedly, being beaten on FIFA by a 14 year old somewhere in the world, shooting the enemies on Call of Duty or watching Die Hard or other explosive, action packed films with no plot are all undoubtedly experiences that would be enhanced by the addition of unnecessarily large speakers.
I assumed, possibly incorrectly, that my opinion would be highly valued on this matter. I mean, why wouldn't it be? Right? I asked my colleague if he was sure of his need for new tyres. If he hadn't had his tyres checked and was just working on the basis that it had been a certain length of time since he had bought new ones, he may no longer have a decision to make. I continued to impart my wisdom upon the fortunate individual, or unfortunate depending on your view.
We went out to the car park on our lunch break, armed with nothing more than a 20p coin. If you look at a 20p coin you will see the outer area, around the Queen's face, is a raised margin. I turned the steering wheel so that we could measure the tread of the entire wheel; a lot of people forget the inside of the wheel which is no less important just because you can't see it. You should always check several spots on the tyre, having one weak spot can lead to aquaplaning and other serious accidents.
Many people don't know what tread achieves. Tread lifts the water off the road surface while you drive. Without tread none of your tyre would be in contact with the road, you would actually be in contact with a thin layer of moisture that sits between the road and your car. This is what is commonly known as aquaplaning.
Anyway, back to my story before I get an even higher sense of self importance and superior knowledge (If only I had knowledge on a subject that could earn me early retirement!)
I proceeded to place the 20p coin in the tread, showing my colleague that if you can't see any of the raised margin on the face of the 20p (pictured) then your tyre is still in good condition with regards to tread and wear. I would recommend separate testing for pressure and visual checks on damage that wouldn't be picked up by placing the Queen's face on your tyre!
Turns out he had no need for new tyres and subsequently I have formed a friendship with said colleague. The friendship has nothing to do with the fact he has new speakers and a gaming experience that is far superior to mine, I swear!
Jamie Doutt is a new blogger with a keen interest in anything to do with cars. He has a particular passion for road and tyre safety.
I assumed, possibly incorrectly, that my opinion would be highly valued on this matter. I mean, why wouldn't it be? Right? I asked my colleague if he was sure of his need for new tyres. If he hadn't had his tyres checked and was just working on the basis that it had been a certain length of time since he had bought new ones, he may no longer have a decision to make. I continued to impart my wisdom upon the fortunate individual, or unfortunate depending on your view.
We went out to the car park on our lunch break, armed with nothing more than a 20p coin. If you look at a 20p coin you will see the outer area, around the Queen's face, is a raised margin. I turned the steering wheel so that we could measure the tread of the entire wheel; a lot of people forget the inside of the wheel which is no less important just because you can't see it. You should always check several spots on the tyre, having one weak spot can lead to aquaplaning and other serious accidents.
- Last year 1168 people were injured in accidents where faulty tyres were a contributory factor.
- 36 deaths through accidents, where on evaluation, the tyres were considered to be unsafe and in need of replacement
- The tyre is the only point of contact between you and the road
Many people don't know what tread achieves. Tread lifts the water off the road surface while you drive. Without tread none of your tyre would be in contact with the road, you would actually be in contact with a thin layer of moisture that sits between the road and your car. This is what is commonly known as aquaplaning.
Anyway, back to my story before I get an even higher sense of self importance and superior knowledge (If only I had knowledge on a subject that could earn me early retirement!)
I proceeded to place the 20p coin in the tread, showing my colleague that if you can't see any of the raised margin on the face of the 20p (pictured) then your tyre is still in good condition with regards to tread and wear. I would recommend separate testing for pressure and visual checks on damage that wouldn't be picked up by placing the Queen's face on your tyre!
Turns out he had no need for new tyres and subsequently I have formed a friendship with said colleague. The friendship has nothing to do with the fact he has new speakers and a gaming experience that is far superior to mine, I swear!
Jamie Doutt is a new blogger with a keen interest in anything to do with cars. He has a particular passion for road and tyre safety.
Monday, July 8, 2013
Unclean at any speed
A short post this week, with a link to an article I urge anyone interested in electric cars to read : Unclean at any speed. This article deals with the sobering truth that swapping from petrol powered cars to electric ones is like swapping one brand of cigarettes for another. In terms of the overall 'green' credentials that electric cars tout, they're really not that much better for the environment once you take into account the pollution caused by the manufacture and disposal of the car, it's electrical systems and batteries, and the pollution at the power generating facilities.
The last paragraph in the article sums it up nicely: "Should environmentally minded people really revere electric cars? Perhaps we should look beyond the shiny gadgets now being offered and revisit some less sexy but potent options—smog reduction, bike lanes, energy taxes, and land-use changes to start. Let’s not be seduced by high-tech illusions."
So by all means buy an electric car, but don't kid yourself that the primary reason for doing is to be 'green'.
The last paragraph in the article sums it up nicely: "Should environmentally minded people really revere electric cars? Perhaps we should look beyond the shiny gadgets now being offered and revisit some less sexy but potent options—smog reduction, bike lanes, energy taxes, and land-use changes to start. Let’s not be seduced by high-tech illusions."
So by all means buy an electric car, but don't kid yourself that the primary reason for doing is to be 'green'.
Monday, July 1, 2013
I wonder what goes through the mind of an F1 driver?
I'm always amused and entertained by the pit radio transmissions when watching F1 races. Kimi Raikkonen's recent "Leave me alone, I know what I'm doing". Lewis Hamilton's "I can't drive any slower". Mark Webber (after losing the end plates on the front wings) "I guess we figured out how to make the car faster". More entertaining is when the race engineer calls the driver and says things like "push push push". Because the driver's didn't realise they were racing?
So I often wonder what goes through the driver's minds when they are racing. Alonso, for example, at the beginning of this season had a relatively minor first-corner scuffle that deranged his front wing. Yet instead of coming in at the end of the first lap - something I'm sure his pit crew told him to do - stayed out, and on the main straight the wing folder up under the car, lifting the front wheels off the ground resulting in him crashing in the first corner of the second lap.
A few years ago, Hamilton was in desperate need of a tyre change at the Chinese GP, and it was raining, but he stayed out one extra lap and then crashed trying to get into the pit lane when his tyres gave up.
I'm in the camp of F1 fans that believe it's always the team, the car and the driver that win races - I don't subscribe to the theory that you can put a shit driver in a great car and get wins (Scott Speed proved that when he joined Red Bull and failed to finish a single race). Conversely, you can't put the world's best driver in a sub-standard car and expect wins. Witness Schumacher in the Mercedes team for the previous few years. So yes - the drivers very much do know what they're doing. However, if your race engineer radios you to tell you you need new tyres, or you've blown a wing, or part of the bodywork is flapping about, despite the temptation to stay out, precedent would tend to suggest that coming in when the pit crew tells you to is a good idea.
In the grand scheme of things I actually wish they'd bring back in-race refueling and multiple tyre manufacturers. Having all the teams on the same tyres is beginning to make F1 more and more like American racing series where all the cars are identical (thus removing one of the team/driver/car variables). Having a single tyre manufacturer is just the FIA's latest attempt to slow F1 down by having the manufacturer deliberately make sub-standard tyres to force pit and conservative driving. Pirelli have said as much - they're perfectly capable of making a tyre last the entire race but they're not allowed to.
So maybe the thought on their minds is this - "Why the hell do we have such crappy tyres this year?".
Good news on that front though - Alonso proved in Spain this year that the philosophy of "screw the tyres - just drive it like you stole it and daddy's paying the bill" works wonders.
So I often wonder what goes through the driver's minds when they are racing. Alonso, for example, at the beginning of this season had a relatively minor first-corner scuffle that deranged his front wing. Yet instead of coming in at the end of the first lap - something I'm sure his pit crew told him to do - stayed out, and on the main straight the wing folder up under the car, lifting the front wheels off the ground resulting in him crashing in the first corner of the second lap.
A few years ago, Hamilton was in desperate need of a tyre change at the Chinese GP, and it was raining, but he stayed out one extra lap and then crashed trying to get into the pit lane when his tyres gave up.
I'm in the camp of F1 fans that believe it's always the team, the car and the driver that win races - I don't subscribe to the theory that you can put a shit driver in a great car and get wins (Scott Speed proved that when he joined Red Bull and failed to finish a single race). Conversely, you can't put the world's best driver in a sub-standard car and expect wins. Witness Schumacher in the Mercedes team for the previous few years. So yes - the drivers very much do know what they're doing. However, if your race engineer radios you to tell you you need new tyres, or you've blown a wing, or part of the bodywork is flapping about, despite the temptation to stay out, precedent would tend to suggest that coming in when the pit crew tells you to is a good idea.
In the grand scheme of things I actually wish they'd bring back in-race refueling and multiple tyre manufacturers. Having all the teams on the same tyres is beginning to make F1 more and more like American racing series where all the cars are identical (thus removing one of the team/driver/car variables). Having a single tyre manufacturer is just the FIA's latest attempt to slow F1 down by having the manufacturer deliberately make sub-standard tyres to force pit and conservative driving. Pirelli have said as much - they're perfectly capable of making a tyre last the entire race but they're not allowed to.
So maybe the thought on their minds is this - "Why the hell do we have such crappy tyres this year?".
Good news on that front though - Alonso proved in Spain this year that the philosophy of "screw the tyres - just drive it like you stole it and daddy's paying the bill" works wonders.
Monday, June 24, 2013
A tale of three rental cars.
As I'm still waiting for my new car to be delivered, I've been driving rental cars a lot over the last couple of months. Most recently I got to drive three different rentals within four days of each other and the differences were quite a surprise. Before I go any further, a quick diversion to talk about the first big difference: the rental companies. I don't know what the hell is going on over at Hertz but their customer service sucks now, and their cars are in terrible condition (the one we rented had over 75,000 miles on it) - I switched to Avis a couple of years ago but two weekends ago I had to deal with the big yellow H and it was a miserable experience. But anyway - the cars themselves.
The first one I had was a Nissan Maxima 3.5 V6. That was a strange beast. The driver's seat has a distinct bucket shape to it that you can't tune out through adjustment, meaning you sort of fall into the car, and then it always feels like the car is higher up than you are. Even with the seat on it's highest height adjustment I felt like I was having trouble seeing over the hood (and I'm over 6ft tall). The drivers view was sort of fun though - with the hump in the middle of the hood and the two flared quarter panels it was like looking out of the batmobile. Sadly that's largely where the fun stopped. For a Japanese car, it's clearly been built for the US market. The power steering was massively over-sensitive which made it exhausting to drive because it would follow every minor imperfection in the road on it's own so I spent the whole time trying to steer it in a straight line. The engine was super lazy, responding as if I'd sent the accelerator commands via the postal service, and the CVT - whilst a fantastic idea in principle - seems to have been implemented in the strangest way in this car, to the point where it was quite unpleasant to drive. It was like permanent turbo lag - only the engine never caught up with the throttle input. Driving at 30mph was OK but then if you put the boot in, there was no real 'downshift' or change of ratios in the CVT. It was like a 6th-gear low-speed roll-on - quite slow and lazy. The interior was a bit drab and I wasn't a fan of the keyless entry - more on that in a later blog post - but I suppose I'm going to have to get used to it - my new car will have it.
The second car was a total surprise - I had a Chevy Cruze. Long-time readers of this blog will know I pretty much despise most American cars. But the Cruze was oddly enjoyable. The version I had was an LTZ which I think is about as top of the line as they come - it seemed to have everything from nav to bluetooth audio, USB inputs, flappy-paddle gearbox, power everything - the works. The steering was firm and at speed it felt like I was actually steering the car instead of stirring milk (ahem - Nissan?). The interior had some properly decent fabrics and touch-friendly plastics (not like the scratchy, rattly old crap they used to use) and the transmission was very responsive. The car I drove had 36,000 miles on it but felt like it was a lot newer. There were a couple of things I didn't like though; as with most American cars, there was silver/chrome bling inside, which is utterly pointless on a sunny day because you just end up dazzled by it (not what you want when you're driving). And I didn't like the positioning of the heated seat/AC controls low down on the centre stack - the left one was exactly where my knee falls when I rest my leg against the console when driving. Oh - and the keyless entry system again.
The third car was a current-generation Subaru Impreza. My problems here started with the design. We owned two Subarus in the early 2000's when the design was still distinct and clearly a Subaru. The current Impreza looks like a Daewoo, or any other generic far east box. It's truly terrible and there's no longer anything unique or edgy about it. Things got worse inside - the interior was essentially exactly the same as the one I owned 10 years ago, and it was dated even back then. Hard squeaky plastics, smooth controls that are hard to grip, cheap-feeling steering wheel, cheep-feeling fabrics, and a central dot-matrix display straight from the early era of videogames, that made Space Invaders seem high-res. This one was similarly loaded - like the Cruze - but nothing seemed to work. The bluetooth wouldn't connect to my phone, the nav didn't work (could never find the satellites) and the power seat had about 2mm of adjustment in any direction. The CVT transmission was - not to put too fine a point on it - shit. Oddly, it had flappy paddle gearbox controls, which makes no sense given that CVT transmissions have no gears. That might explain why the paddles didn't do anything. The steering was connected to the front wheels via bush telegraph, the accelerator was like pushing on a poorly-baked sponge cake, the brakes had no feel and the whole package drove like it was always 3 seconds away from a crash. Now I don't know if this is the car itself or because of the mileage - this was the one with over 75,000 miles on it. But if you'd blindfolded me and taken me for a drive in the Subaru, I would have guessed it was a mid 70's American land yacht from the way it behaves.
So I guess I've found an American car that I like now - the Cruze - which is a total left-field thing for me because if you'd asked me to pick a US car that I'd want to drive, the Cruze would have been pretty much last on the list.
The first one I had was a Nissan Maxima 3.5 V6. That was a strange beast. The driver's seat has a distinct bucket shape to it that you can't tune out through adjustment, meaning you sort of fall into the car, and then it always feels like the car is higher up than you are. Even with the seat on it's highest height adjustment I felt like I was having trouble seeing over the hood (and I'm over 6ft tall). The drivers view was sort of fun though - with the hump in the middle of the hood and the two flared quarter panels it was like looking out of the batmobile. Sadly that's largely where the fun stopped. For a Japanese car, it's clearly been built for the US market. The power steering was massively over-sensitive which made it exhausting to drive because it would follow every minor imperfection in the road on it's own so I spent the whole time trying to steer it in a straight line. The engine was super lazy, responding as if I'd sent the accelerator commands via the postal service, and the CVT - whilst a fantastic idea in principle - seems to have been implemented in the strangest way in this car, to the point where it was quite unpleasant to drive. It was like permanent turbo lag - only the engine never caught up with the throttle input. Driving at 30mph was OK but then if you put the boot in, there was no real 'downshift' or change of ratios in the CVT. It was like a 6th-gear low-speed roll-on - quite slow and lazy. The interior was a bit drab and I wasn't a fan of the keyless entry - more on that in a later blog post - but I suppose I'm going to have to get used to it - my new car will have it.
The second car was a total surprise - I had a Chevy Cruze. Long-time readers of this blog will know I pretty much despise most American cars. But the Cruze was oddly enjoyable. The version I had was an LTZ which I think is about as top of the line as they come - it seemed to have everything from nav to bluetooth audio, USB inputs, flappy-paddle gearbox, power everything - the works. The steering was firm and at speed it felt like I was actually steering the car instead of stirring milk (ahem - Nissan?). The interior had some properly decent fabrics and touch-friendly plastics (not like the scratchy, rattly old crap they used to use) and the transmission was very responsive. The car I drove had 36,000 miles on it but felt like it was a lot newer. There were a couple of things I didn't like though; as with most American cars, there was silver/chrome bling inside, which is utterly pointless on a sunny day because you just end up dazzled by it (not what you want when you're driving). And I didn't like the positioning of the heated seat/AC controls low down on the centre stack - the left one was exactly where my knee falls when I rest my leg against the console when driving. Oh - and the keyless entry system again.
The third car was a current-generation Subaru Impreza. My problems here started with the design. We owned two Subarus in the early 2000's when the design was still distinct and clearly a Subaru. The current Impreza looks like a Daewoo, or any other generic far east box. It's truly terrible and there's no longer anything unique or edgy about it. Things got worse inside - the interior was essentially exactly the same as the one I owned 10 years ago, and it was dated even back then. Hard squeaky plastics, smooth controls that are hard to grip, cheap-feeling steering wheel, cheep-feeling fabrics, and a central dot-matrix display straight from the early era of videogames, that made Space Invaders seem high-res. This one was similarly loaded - like the Cruze - but nothing seemed to work. The bluetooth wouldn't connect to my phone, the nav didn't work (could never find the satellites) and the power seat had about 2mm of adjustment in any direction. The CVT transmission was - not to put too fine a point on it - shit. Oddly, it had flappy paddle gearbox controls, which makes no sense given that CVT transmissions have no gears. That might explain why the paddles didn't do anything. The steering was connected to the front wheels via bush telegraph, the accelerator was like pushing on a poorly-baked sponge cake, the brakes had no feel and the whole package drove like it was always 3 seconds away from a crash. Now I don't know if this is the car itself or because of the mileage - this was the one with over 75,000 miles on it. But if you'd blindfolded me and taken me for a drive in the Subaru, I would have guessed it was a mid 70's American land yacht from the way it behaves.
So I guess I've found an American car that I like now - the Cruze - which is a total left-field thing for me because if you'd asked me to pick a US car that I'd want to drive, the Cruze would have been pretty much last on the list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)