I never said it didn’t work better in the first place.
While on that subject though, I expect ergonomics can vary for some people more than others if they happen to not be “normal” or average. Imagine drivers who may have some level of dyslexia or are visually impaired on right side. Granted it’s not a huge percentage of population but what kind of vehicle are they going to drive when all vehicles have menu-based screen controls?
I expect the popular answer is that it’s not the manufacturers’ problem. 😀
Agree Mercedes may have taken aerodynamic efficiency a bit too far for many buyers, but I give them credit for pushing limits and thereby improving the technology. All manufacturers are doing their part, but Mercedes does seem to be taking it a bit more seriously.
It wasn’t that long ago that a Cd of 0.30 was considered exceptional for a sedan, and now we have a few real production cars with 0.20. More importantly there are a lot of new designs around 0.25 or lower. 👍
My point though wasn’t just about coefficient of drag, which is no doubt very important, but also the frontal area which combines with Cd to make drag area. Mercedes has worked on and developed various models that also have smaller frontal areas. Some of these cars are pushing overall efficiency of up to 5 miles per kWh, which means a significant drag reduction compared to large pickups and SUVs that often struggle to reach 2 miles per kWh. Efficiency eventually can lead to lower costs and competitive advantage by reducing battery size, reducing power requirements, reducing energy usage, etc. Not saying we should compare large SUVs directly to mid-size sedans, but part of the needed solution is to develop and offer more efficient vehicles that buyers will prefer to own. Obviously many Americans will always prefer their super-sized SUVs and pickups, but maybe some will downsize if new vehicles are more exciting to drive and own. It took a while but I think Ford is headed in that direction, though I expect somewhat cautiously.
This form provides superior ergonomics and it allows the dash behind it to be much lower increasing visibility. Just think of what it would look like if that screen was surrounded by the dash. It would be huge. It also allows the other controls to be higher up.
Not saying you have to like it but at least acknowledge the ergonomic benefits.
rmc nailed it. It’s not an afterthought at all. Having the screen float allows the rest of the dash to be much lower and cleaner and it allows the screen to be larger and easier to reach in addition to making it easier to upgrade. It really is superior ergonomically. Once you understand that you can appreciate the design more instead of always thinking it was an afterthought.
Comment was about how it looks (aesthetics or appearance) and not how well it may or may not function. It can be incredibly functional and still look like shit. And no, I don’t have to try anything to know I don’t like how it “looks”. Furthermore, just because I don’t like the same thing as you doesn’t mean I’m stuck in the past. It only means we have different tastes and nothing more. If you want to make it personal by accusing me of being stuck in the past (which is far from truth), I will remind you that manufacturers are redesigning dash layouts so screens don’t stick up like a sore thumb out of place. You can like it all you want and I’ll still think it looks hideous, regardless of whether it works great or not. Function and appearance are two separate things.
Example for clarity of what I find out of place and stuck there like an afterthought. Chose a non-Ford example intentionally.