- Posted on Wednesday, June 28th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Cars of the Future
Twenty-one years ago this weekend (July 3, 1985), Back to the Future opened nationally, indelibly marking the audience’s minds with a souped-up DeLorean that could travel through time, fueled by plutonium and the ever-brilliant “flux capacitor.”
Short of time travel, what features would you like to see in cars of the “future?”
16 Comments
Paul
I heard an NPR story a while back about how rising car ownership in China was indicative of China becoming a “mature society.”
I beg to differ. A mature society is one where the trains run on time. A truly mature society would be one where public transportation is so reliable and effortless that you don’t have to make compromises to live your entire life without a car.
The car of the future? I say it’s no car at all. And Cesar Vergara, National Design Principal at Jacobs Civil, Inc., agrees with me. He says: “The car of the future is a railroad car and there’s a bike at the other end of it.”
chris
We are an SUV family so my comments are focused as such.
1. Improve the navigation system by allowing it to run without the use of a CD.
2. 3rd row seats automatically hide in floor with press of button (no need to take out)
3. Passenger side second row ‘reading lights’
4. System to detect problem with a trailer…flat tire, lighting issue (a systems check)
5. Satellite TV option with ability for PodCasts and Internet Access…great for kids entertainment
6. Windows have option to ‘tint darker when driving during the day. When stopped…they lighten
7. Engine muscle of a Denali with the fuel economy of a sedan
getalifeagain
Many more angles on cars. This doesn’t mean they don’t have to be aerodynamic.
leo
autopilot!
CarlD
Real time traffic navigatiion. Adjust route due to construction, accident, traffic jam, etc.
Chris
With regard to the NPR Post…neither gentleman are towing a 4 place snowmobile trailer or boat. I need more than a bike at the “other end”. If that’s the future…the future sucks.
Tom W
1) Apply all of that clever hide-away-cup-holder engineering towards a hide-away laptop holder. Include every connection you can think of, including a car stereo interface. It would be nice if the holder could retract with the laptop still connected (for security and convenience).
2) An engine management computer that can be programmed to require biometric data or a password before allowing the engine to start.
3) Radar/laser absorbing paint.
4) EMP cannon for shutting down the rap music in surrounding cars.
5) Kevlar-lined doors.
Chet
The biggest problem with cars today is the thing that connects the pedals to the steering wheel.
The sooner cars can drive themselves, the better.
Better fuel economy,
better traffic conditions,
better access for the elderly and disabled,
better moods for everyone.
Too bad our lawsuit-happy society won’t allow it.
Dave Lawson
Reliability - as defined by service free life of 10 years
Driveability - as defined by automation of safetey related tasks (ie, ABS, ESP, etc) as standard equipment
Economy - as defined by reducing fuel consumption in new models by 10% per year, over 5 years (ask GM purchasing about this concept, they will explain it to you)
Leave out the Kevlar and the bullet proof glass. Oh, the bike? Yes, make the mouting for a bike rack standard.
Karen
What I’d really like to see for basic transportation is the transporter beam from “Star Trek.” You could live anywhere you wanted, commute quickly and safely to you place of business, and still be able to whisk away to Paris for dinner. Then we could drive fun cars for pleasure - no traffic jams!
Paul
I knew someone was going to pull the old “but I tow a boat” line on me. To which I reply: Which is better; paying $400 more per year for gas for the few times you actually use the towing capacity of a vehicle, or paying $20 - $100 a pop to rent a vehicle that can handle the cargo?
Here’s what I would like to see in cars of “the future.”
- Systems that improve car sharing programs. Biometric or RFID locks that can be programmed to have multiple keys, and an internal computer that can communicate via Bluetooth or a similar short-range wireless network to let the car know which key should have access at what time. This should be built on an open standard so car sharing businesses don’t have to use only one brand. Of course, that means competition and lower profits for the manufacturers, which aren’t good for business.
Car sharing is a new idea and for people living in urban areas it presents a really great way to get the functionality of a car at a fraction of the price of car ownership, and I think it’s going to expand over time. I’d like to join one, but there isn’t one in my area.
- More modularity. The idea of owning a large vehicle for the few times you “need” to tow a boat is inefficient. A car that “resizes” itself in some way to efficiently haul one person when commuting, four or more people for road trips, and a cargo area when that’s needed, along with the necessary change in propulsion system to maximize fuel efficiency.
- A more open architecture. One thing I don’t like about most consumer products is the way they lock you into certain vendors unless there’s a workaround. Once cars have an IP based vehicle-area-network (VAN) to run the electrical devices, I would like to be able to use any computer system to monitor or modify the vehicle.
It would be great to be able to have my plugin hybrid sync with my calendar and “know” that I’ll be taking a road trip tomorrow, and to take measures the night before to make that easier for me. It would also be nice for a car to notify the owner that it needs service. OnStar offers this, but it’s not an open system. (Because open systems aren’t profitable, this is also unlikely to happen.)
- Plugin hybrids. These have the benefits of an electric car with the range of an ICE car. Ideally, they should be serial hybrids. That is, the engine runs a generator that only charges the batteries. This would save wear and tear on the engine, would allow different engine types such as Atkinson cycle or even turbines, and would allow the use of hub motors, allowing designers to get truly creative.
Also, a motor in each wheel would make all-wheel drive standard on all vehicles and would allow for millisecond torque adjustments without a lot of engineering.
- Less emphasis on power and utility and more of an emphasis on efficiency and capability despite size. This is less about the cars and more about the companies that make them. For too long car companies have been pushing ever powerful engines and ever larger vehicles, emphasizing their speed and power. I’d like to see companies using the advances in engine technology to make cars that get acceptable, not great, performance out of smaller, more efficient engines, and emphasize and engineer smaller cars that can still do a lot of stuff. (Like my Mazda Protege that was able to haul 1500 pounds of paving stones and sand home from Lowes without complaint.)
Buying a vehicle with an emphasis on 0-60 times or a high horsepower engine ignores the fact that there are very few times you’re ever going to use that much power, and that you’re not even allowed to go over 65 in most places. Buying a vehicle that can carry seven passengers, even though 90% of the time you’re the only one in the car is just as short-sighted.
Paul
Chet: We’ve already got self-driving cars, they’re called buses, trains and taxis.
Jon
Ogg Vorbis or AAC support for the head unit would be nice. I can’t stand the 2 second gap between songs on a MP3 CD. Though you could probably fix that with a flash. Maybe an USB reader, USB keys are getting dirt cheap and one can put a heck of a lot of music on one.
How about a second horn that says, “Look buddy, you’re in the passing lane… either pass or move over.” Only downside of dropping from a V8 to an I4, can’t pass like I used to.
Gas prices haven’t keep me from cruising around in my Sol, so I can’t say I’m worried about mpg. 8~10 hours of mindless pleasure driving a week and I’m not feeling the bite of gas prices and I use 93.
Plug-in hybrids… think of how many people will need 2 city blocks worth of power cord to plug-in. There’s a lot of people out there without a garage.
chris
Paul…now that’s a much better post. I may not agree with everything, but I like the ideas. They have merit.
Dave Lawson
The modularity concept is interesting, as it might give small young families an upgrade path to greater utility as their family needs grow.
If you want a benchmark, look at the 60’s Volkwagen Beetle. There was quite an industry going for many years that was build around the re-skinning of the VW. The VW had a body that could be lifted off the chassis (ala the GM Skateboard concept a couple years ago). Why not revisit this for the modern multi-use vehicle? Some infrastructure might be required in the dealerships to perform the refitting, or some customers might like to do the work themselves (depending on FMVSS compliance concerns).
I always wanted an Austin Healey 3000. Why not on the same rolling chassis as the Next Gen Cobalt?
Robert Wilson
The modularity concept is being worked on as we speak. If you’ve been watching auto concepts of the past few years you might have seen the Autonomy concept vehicle from GM. It is a Drive by Wire vehicle with a fuel cell propulsion system. It is made to be kind of a skateboard on which many different body styles can be fit. It was introduced in 2002 and is a really cool concept.
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)