It’s great for Tesla, for one reason - modularity.
If your input/control has a physical button, that immediately needs independent wiring, assembly steps, A THOUGHT OUT PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, another BoM item to build the car/widget, and usually markings that limit its use for other functions (present and planned).
Tesla can bury controls and change interfaces as much as they like on the main touchscreen, or even add new features. It’s still trash for driver usability except when parked for all the obvious reasons, but hey they get to ‘push’ new features over cellular networks as they’re developed. Y’know, instead of selling a complete product in the first place.
If your input/control has a physical button, that immediately needs independent wiring
No it doesn’t. It just needs a PCB and a microcontroller connected to a CANbus. And that’s what we’ve had for decades.
another BoM item to build the car
I don’t really understand this either. Like yes, it is, but if we’re taking that approach, why not remove the door panels? And the trunk liner? And that pesky center console? Oh what’s that, these are all valuable features of the car?
Wiring/PCB header or connector/common data hub yes - but my point was that has to be thought out ahead, and cannot be modified afterwards in the same way touch screens can
BoM complexity and cross commonality is a challenge in manufacturing. It’s why we see all these ‘global platforms’ among automakers trying to build one unibody core subframe for all or most of their cars, adding different panels and roof assembly for an SUV or sedan respectively. Fewer parts to stock and build is a cost saving (for the manufacturer, don’t expect them to pass that saving along) - same with tactile controls.
Of course it does. The entire vehicle does. They don’t just not make the entire vehicle because they have to think about it. They think very hard about these things.
and cannot be modified afterwards in the same way touch screens can
There’s no reason you should have to modify anything. It doesn’t matter how you modify touchscreen controls, they will always be inferior to physical buttons and dials.
BoM complexity and cross commonality is a challenge in manufacturing.
So make them all use the same controls? You don’t need different climate controls or shifter controls or wiper controls for different vehicles. Many OEMs have standard controls across their entire lineup already.
Wiring/PCB header or connector/common data hub yes - but my point was that has to be thought out ahead, and cannot be modified afterwards in the same way touch screens can
BoM complexity and cross commonality is a challenge in manufacturing. It’s why we see all these ‘global platforms’ among automakers trying to build one unibody core subframe for all or most of their cars, adding different panels and roof assembly for an SUV or sedan respectively. Fewer parts to stock and build is a cost saving (for the manufacturer, don’t expect them to pass that saving along) - same with tactile controls.
The (capacitive) turn signal buttons are on the steering wheel, not the touch screen. You’re thinking of the mirrors, wipers, etc., which is not what this article is about.
It’s great for Tesla, for one reason - modularity.
Not really as far as the touch controls on the steering wheel goes. The icons are static and can’t be changed, so their functionality is kind of tied to the icon.
As for configuring additional controls for them, it’s exactly the same as if they were physical buttons, it’s all a wiring harness going to the computer either way, what that computer does with the input signal is not any less configurable for a physical button. The limiting factor is the static icon, not whether it’s touch/tactile.
In regards to selling incomplete products, this is unfortunately not even limited to Tesla. All car manufacturers release several updates and bugfixes for new cars, they just can’t send them OTA, they need to get them in the shop. My colleague’s VW ID4 has been in the shop for no less than 3 SW updates to fix various bugs and add basic features (such as battery preheating doe DC charging, it fucking shipped without that!)
It’s great for Tesla, for one reason - modularity.
If your input/control has a physical button, that immediately needs independent wiring, assembly steps, A THOUGHT OUT PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT PLAN, another BoM item to build the car/widget, and usually markings that limit its use for other functions (present and planned).
Tesla can bury controls and change interfaces as much as they like on the main touchscreen, or even add new features. It’s still trash for driver usability except when parked for all the obvious reasons, but hey they get to ‘push’ new features over cellular networks as they’re developed. Y’know, instead of selling a complete product in the first place.
No it doesn’t. It just needs a PCB and a microcontroller connected to a CANbus. And that’s what we’ve had for decades.
I don’t really understand this either. Like yes, it is, but if we’re taking that approach, why not remove the door panels? And the trunk liner? And that pesky center console? Oh what’s that, these are all valuable features of the car?
Wiring/PCB header or connector/common data hub yes - but my point was that has to be thought out ahead, and cannot be modified afterwards in the same way touch screens can
BoM complexity and cross commonality is a challenge in manufacturing. It’s why we see all these ‘global platforms’ among automakers trying to build one unibody core subframe for all or most of their cars, adding different panels and roof assembly for an SUV or sedan respectively. Fewer parts to stock and build is a cost saving (for the manufacturer, don’t expect them to pass that saving along) - same with tactile controls.
Of course it does. The entire vehicle does. They don’t just not make the entire vehicle because they have to think about it. They think very hard about these things.
There’s no reason you should have to modify anything. It doesn’t matter how you modify touchscreen controls, they will always be inferior to physical buttons and dials.
So make them all use the same controls? You don’t need different climate controls or shifter controls or wiper controls for different vehicles. Many OEMs have standard controls across their entire lineup already.
Wiring/PCB header or connector/common data hub yes - but my point was that has to be thought out ahead, and cannot be modified afterwards in the same way touch screens can
BoM complexity and cross commonality is a challenge in manufacturing. It’s why we see all these ‘global platforms’ among automakers trying to build one unibody core subframe for all or most of their cars, adding different panels and roof assembly for an SUV or sedan respectively. Fewer parts to stock and build is a cost saving (for the manufacturer, don’t expect them to pass that saving along) - same with tactile controls.
The (capacitive) turn signal buttons are on the steering wheel, not the touch screen. You’re thinking of the mirrors, wipers, etc., which is not what this article is about.
Not really as far as the touch controls on the steering wheel goes. The icons are static and can’t be changed, so their functionality is kind of tied to the icon.
As for configuring additional controls for them, it’s exactly the same as if they were physical buttons, it’s all a wiring harness going to the computer either way, what that computer does with the input signal is not any less configurable for a physical button. The limiting factor is the static icon, not whether it’s touch/tactile.
In regards to selling incomplete products, this is unfortunately not even limited to Tesla. All car manufacturers release several updates and bugfixes for new cars, they just can’t send them OTA, they need to get them in the shop. My colleague’s VW ID4 has been in the shop for no less than 3 SW updates to fix various bugs and add basic features (such as battery preheating doe DC charging, it fucking shipped without that!)