Don’t get me started on push-button start
When I was a kid, our family transportation was a 1951 Austin A40 that required the use of a key as well as a push-button starter.
And when it didn’t start, which was surprisingly often, my father had to resort to cranking the car by hand to get the evil-tempered Austin to fire up. Eventually, he traded up to a more modern North American car that only required a twist of a key.
It’s a starting system that’s incredibly simple and straightforward to use: Insert key into slot; twist to engage the starter; wait for the engine to come to life. To shut down the engine, just twist the key in the opposite direction, remove and you’re done.
You would think that the world’s automakers would conclude that starting a vehicle can’t get any easier than that, but no. Now we have complicated electronics that take care of the car-starting process, and anti-theft gizmos that won’t let the car start if the owner’s key fob is not present. This has led to more push-button starters. In all but a few cases, there is no longer any physical contact between a car and a key.
On the surface, that seems like an OK deal, but in most cases the fobthing that must be nearby to start the car must be somewhere on your person, or invariably resting in some cubby or stashed in a nearby cupholder. In other cases, you need to first jam the fob into a receptacle on the dash and then push the starter button.
In my estimation, neither of these two systems ranks as forward progress, despite the back-end electronics. It seems as though more and more there are engineer-types working on automotive systems that don’t consider the end user. That’s you and me. There always seems to be a trade-off somewhere, and these days functionality in its purest form is losing out to a level of complexity that is deemed a necessary part of technological advancement.
Take run-flat tires … please, take them. These stiff-walled donuts are designed to replace the oh-so-yesterday spare tire. When punctured, they allow you to drive without air to the nearest service station for repairs. But unless the puncture is located close to dead center on the tread area, the run-flat can’t be repaired.
Reports on this will vary slightly, but the upshot is that you have to go out and purchase a replacement tire that costs significantly more than a standard tire. And if you’re at a service station 500 miles from home at 6 p.m., what are the odds they’ll have your brand and size in stock? Virtually zero.
And you best not drive over any major potholes with your run-flats. That’s because the sidewalls are so rigid they don’t give so much as an inch when encountering rough road surfaces that any “normal” tire can absorb.
It’s your bent wheels and your wallet that take it on the chin. All this hassle so you don’t have to carry a spare tire … or so that automakers can package their cars better?
There are other examples of automotive progress gone amok, but these two lead the parade and have replaced reason and sanity in today’s hyper-engineered automotive environment.
Malcolm Gunn is Wheelbase Media’s senior editor. He can be reached on the web at www.theoctanelounge. com by using the contact link. Wheelbase supplies automotive news and features to newspapers across North America.