Why touchscreens are in every new car

Very thought-provoking short video. Once the point was made, I slapped myself for not realizing it myself, because its obvious: it's cheaper to run and control everything through a screen, rather than gauges, dials, buttons, slides, wiring for all the buttons, designing the dash around multiple elements... Of course manufacturers are going to choose the cheaper option.

In another thread (or two) I was making a point that it's my personal preference to use a contactor for my builds rather than relying on controlling BMS on/off via a screen. Nice to see that I'm not the only one who feels that way.

harrisonpatm said:

Very thought-provoking short video. Once the point was made, I slapped myself for not realizing it myself, because its obvious: it's cheaper to run and control everything through a screen, rather than gauges, dials, buttons, slides, wiring for all the buttons, designing the dash around multiple elements... Of course manufacturers are going to choose the cheaper option.

In another thread (or two) I was making a point that it's my personal preference to use a contactor for my builds rather than relying on controlling BMS on/off via a screen. Nice to see that I'm not the only one who feels that way.

Click to expand...

Again, the BMS on/off is controlled by a physical button.
And it's not like you use this button every day, if your motorcycle is correctly built you never have to touch it except maybe once per year for wiring inspection.

Why not going a step further and use contactors to switch phase power to the motor ? you need six contactors to create a 3 phase half bridge system, then you can manually switch them in the correct order to make the motor move. This way you don't have to deal with a controller, since these devices are controlled through an app on a phone screen.

I completely agree with you on the fact that is sucks to use a screen for daily used features. Not having a physical switch for stuff like wipers, headlights or air conditioning settings is a deal breaker for me in most of the current electric cars. But for the stuff that you'll use once a year it does make perfect sense to get rid of the unnecessary complexity.

It's because car drivers are protracted infants. Giving them a video device keeps them quieter.

I really like the physical controls on my Mazda and don't want a car like this. Touch screens suck and i like keeping my eyes on the road.

Dui ni shuo de dui said:

Why not going a step further and use contactors to switch phase power to the motor ? you need six contactors to create a 3 phase half bridge system, then you can manually switch them in the correct order to make the motor move. This way you don't have to deal with a controller, since these devices are controlled through an app on a phone screen.

Click to expand...

Don't tempt me, I'll do it!

Edit: I responded sarcastically, but then immediately started considering the possibility. So yeah, I'll totally do it if it can be done! Imagine the sound of 6 contactors clicking on and off rapidly as you're throttling down the street.

For the record, I posted 2 years ago wondering about the possibility of an analog BLDC controller, so if anyone would want that despite its massive inefficiency and bulk, it'd be me.

Crappy thing about touching the touch screen while moving is, you can’t “feel” if you’ve properly pressed the “button”. Did your touch register? You really have to focus on the area you are tapping. The touchscreen isn’t for everyone. I have a touch screen in my 2018 mazda3, but I never use it. I’d much rather use the controls on the wheel or the knobs in the center console for the radio.

Right, there's no muscle memory because the screen continually changes where buttons are located as you use it. There's usually no feedback - even then, that's not helpful. These interfaces usually have high latency, so you must wait and watch for the next button to be available in a sequence. Sometimes turning on or off a single feature requires going through and back many screens.

It's an interface that requires taking your eyes off the road almost every time you use it, and isn't designed in such a way that it minimizes that negative, even though there are opportunities to do so.

Not a fan!

Per a new law passed in the EU, a car built there cannot get a top safety rating unless it uses physical controls for the most basic functions (turn signal, lights, wipers etc.)

JackFlorey said:

Per a new law passed in the EU, a car built there cannot get a top safety rating unless it uses physical controls for the most basic functions (turn signal, lights, wipers etc.)

Cars will need fewer screens and more buttons to earn five-star safety rating in Europe

Euro NCAP will release new testing guidelines in 2026.

www.theverge.com

Click to expand...

Good

slaphappygamer said:

Crappy thing about touching the touch screen while moving is, you can’t “feel” if you’ve properly pressed the “button”

Click to expand...

Haptics can help with that.

I have no problem with on-screen controls for 90% of car controls, especially if they are done well (haptics, large buttons, good registration etc.) But the most often used controls, and the controls you need in a hurry, should always be manual:

Directional
Wipers
Hazard
Horn
Volume
Gearshift
Parking brake
Answer and hang up (if so equipped)
Cruise control (also if so equipped)
Temperature

Manual includes physical buttons, switches, dials, stalks and rollers. Also they should be directly accessible - no going to a menu to get to them.

harrisonpatm said:

it's cheaper to run and control everything through a screen

Click to expand...

Putting the controls through a screen means it can be hacked.

Can we build such a system that is more difficult to hack? Or course, but so what? Manufacturers will not do that - it's not something they are rewarded for doing (or punished for not doing - yet).

The control system must be diagnosable, repairable, perhaps configurable or tunable - this means there is an external path to access. And that means there is a way to hack it.

There might even be a built-in wireless approach to accessing it for 'convenience'.

But it's hackable. It's just a question of how to access it.

It's also a single-point-of-failure (actually it's probably many single-points-of-failure).

offGridDownUnder said:

Putting the controls through a screen means it can be hacked.

Click to expand...

This is also the case for most traditional switches.
The reason is that traditional switches arent directly connected to the thing they are powering, they usually are connected to a microprocessor inside the car accessory control unit and then the microprocessor has outputs connected to relays or mosfets to activate whatever you need to power on. This can be achieved via various ways or protocols, but usually CAN is the most used as far as I know.
This is done depending on whatever firmware is loaded in the microprocessor, and this can be hacked. As an illustration, some advanced car scanners allow you to test whatever function you like on the car, so you could diagnose them more easily. It's basically some kind of way to remote control most of the functions of the car. If you can do that through the car scanner then there are surely some ways to do it with another vector.
There is really not much difference between both systems, contrary to the intuitive belief.