Technical "Stealing" ergonomics.

The first thing I do when I buy an old car is move and adjust the seating position. It is almost never far enough back to suit my 6'2", long thigh, frame. Also, if the foam is worn out, it gets replaced.

When I build one, I spend a lot of time getting it right because I regularly drive them on 4-500 mile trips.

 

Of course modern car designers goof, too. Someone mentioned touch screens: those are to me the epitome of bad ergonomics. Controls ought to be varied in type, size, shape, and location, so that you know by feel what you've got hold of when you reach for something while concentrating on driving. You shouldn't have to look. You certainly shouldn't have to do any actual reading.

I am tempted to speculate that there is a functional agenda, if not a conscious agenda, behind touch screens to create a demand for ever more complete automation: bad controls as a pretext for no controls. The "don't have to" to "can't" pipeline is a bitch.

Because there is a cultural-philosophic angle to this. Perhaps the art or science of ergonomics has overshot its mark and gone into the realm of the ridiculous. Things no longer "fall readily to hand" as the expression beloved of old road testers had it; things respond to hand-waving gestures of command and only to hand-waving gestures of command. It is another instance of the shift from the ergonomics of tools to the ergonomics of slaves: things are expected to obey us rather than be manipulated by us in the simplest physical sense. And therein something has been lost.

Our interaction with machinery is no longer informed by any expected understanding of the mechanism which makes the action of control obvious. Rather it takes the form of a chauffeur or concierge's invitation to instruct, with the implied promise to make it so without the need to worry your pretty head. In fact worrying your pretty head about understanding the mechanism is positively discouraged, deemed a threat to the reigning order and possibly an IP violation. And touch screens are part of that.

The starter pull-knob on my Morris Minor was the way it was, and exactly where it was, because it was connected by a steel rod to a whopping great unrelayed full-current pull-to-make-release-to-break switch directly in front of it on the firewall, wired between the battery right next to the switch and the starter motor obliquely below the switch. What modern car has that sense of ubiety? On the dream '31 I want vacuum wipers operated by positive pressure over the windscreen, and I want the controls for that in the same place — because the controls aren't switches but valves, and that is something I'm reasonably expected to be aware of when driving.

There is something immensely valuable about being able to use my God-given paw to grab hold of a physical object as I see fit, without the object necessarily being moulded in anticipation of that eventuality. But that doesn't mean that things ought to be gratuitously uncomfortable. A little wooden sphere would suffice: I don't need a glove.

Indeed, some modern uncomfortablenesses I should wish to avert include doors of a size as to arouse envy in aircraft hangars covering tiny orifices through which I struggle to pass myself in one go. Since none of my limbs are detachable, that is a problem. But in this respect one indispensible advantage of pre-c.1933 automotive construction is the possibility of having, in addition to doors of decent actual opening size, door sills below floor level.

Then, the ergonomics of service access is a thing. It is perhaps a different discussion.

 

Done that

 

@Ned Ludd you need to watch dadcars on youtube latest review of the Lotus SUV (ugh) to fully appreciate the modern tech! So much wrong!

 

Okay, to be a sport I watched that eight and a half minute Lotus infomercial. It appears to me to have been entirely made and narrated by an AI, appropriately enough. Sure not my thing.
The antithesis of Hamb cars.

 

Dadcars is AI? Um, his experience was dreadful and outlined all the ways modern tech sucks and that manufacturers, service and recovery are not ready for it. It is showing that modern stuff is poorly conceived, unable to meet expectations and is overly trendy.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKDuxcOc20A

 

Okay, that's much better!
But in my defense, you didn't post the actual link, and my search just got me the horrible AI crap.

I suffered through a painful AI infomercial, and you did it to me!

 

I didn't look for the video. Simply learning that there is such a thing as an electric Lotus SUV was enough trauma!

 

I did the same thing when I made my mockup seat for my A. I tried to copy the seat to pedal setup for my 04 Crown Vic. Obviously the kickup at the front of the seat isn't going to be so abrupt for the final product but thats about the high I want the leather to sit statically with some stiffer foam. Should be pretty nice to sit in and I can still chop it. The column height is also adjustable via the heim when it attaches to the dash.

 

I was driving my T coupe when it dawned on me that if I changed the angle of the steering column just a wee bit that I would have a better view of my speedometer instead of that spoke on my steering wheel. Changed it and now it is a lot better.

 

When I bought my '29 Model A, the cab was a redwood C cab configuration with a stock cowl and windshield. I purchased used doors ($750 each) and new quarter panels that had been extended 6-1/2" along with new rear panel. Seats were brand new Jeep CJ-7 high backs. Used a lot of scrap lumber to get the correct angle of the seat base that I fabricated out of 1” square tubing. Still using the stock A steering wheel position. Plenty of leg room with the stretched cab and mounted the radio on the roof. Still need a prism to see the traffic lights with the visor.