Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Best cars without too much digitalization?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 340 posts

Re: Ask HN: Best cars without too much digitalization?

#231

Post by mnemnc »

stefan_ wrote: post #195
aunty_helen wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of abs isn’t to improve your braking system. It’s to stop you from panicking in an accident situation, locking up the front wheels and losing the ability to steer. Abs actually very slightly reduces the stopping potential of your brake system. But being able to steer and control your car is a bigger benefit under these circumstances.

Now think it through. What happens if a wheel locks up? Right, it loses all stopping power. I certainly agree that you want ABS, it's just to illustrate the pitfalls it creates when you have these additional systems. You can tell much the same story around emissions controls; newer cars pass stricter emissions standards and require extra parts and technology to achieve them.

> Now think it through. What happens if a wheel locks up? Right, it loses all stopping power.

That‘s not true. Going in a straight line, blocking wheels will stop you in less distance than with active ABS.

However ABS allows you to brake and go around an obstacle without losing control of your vehicle.

Re: Ask HN: Best cars without too much digitalization?

#232

Post by chiph »

noduerme wrote: post #23
porkloin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly true, but I do feel like there's a sweet spot in the 2005-2010 area where most "critical" safety features (improved airbags, traction control, ABS brakes) are almost certainly present, but none of the modern safety features that fall more into the "augmented sensory" category (merge/blindspot detection, early braking), which I'm happy to compromise on. I drive a 2007 SUV which does everything I need…

Right on. My gf is on her second 2008 Lexus and feels exactly the same way. It's a luxury ride but it doesn't try to take over for you.

2004 GX470 here. Horrendous gas mileage, but comes with ABS, stability control, full-time 4WD, and airbags. Of the modern safety systems, the one I'd really like to have is the blind-spot monitor. I have had rentals/loaners with collision detection systems (radar/camera) and they have all false-alerted on me and applied max brakes. I'm lucky I wasn't rear-ended as a result.

Re: Ask HN: Best cars without too much digitalization?

#234

Post by otherme123 »

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #176
throw8932894 wrote: post #35

Lada Niva 4x4. Old school soviet, but modernized car. With airconditioning and some modern gimmicks. Very easy to fix and maintain. Good fuel economy, some versions even pass Euro 5 emission limits. I liked WW2 jeeps and their simplicity, this seems like modern equivalent.

Lada? O_o Isn't that the brand of car I usually see shatter like glass in a crash in dashcam videos from Russia?

They are cheap for a reason. Incredibly unreliable, if you are a mechanic it's OK because you can fix it with a clip and duck tape. But if you can't DIY, be ready to have the car for repair five times more often than a "normal" car.

They are simple, yes. So simple they don't care if the simplicity cost you your life, and maybe your family if you are brave enough to put them in that. But hey, you saved a couple of thousands when you bought it, so maybe it's worth it.

And the saddest part is that the new models have electric mirrors, rear cam, parking radar, a 7" display, electric windows front and rear... The whole package you specifically didn't want in your Lada.

Re: Ask HN: Best cars without too much digitalization?

#235

Post by throw0101a »

fletchowns wrote: post #56
kgermino wrote: post #15

They don't sell them in the US anymore, but I drive a 2019 Honda Fit and it's great. Very versatile (holds four adults, 8ft lumber, 36" doors, etc). The base trim is very tech-lite: bluetooth radio but nothing fancier than that, physically controlled hvac and chair controls, traditional key, basic LTMS (no dedicated chips in the tires, just a calculation based on different angular velocity across the wheels), etc. It…

> It's a dying breed though, complicated "driver assist" systems are becoming standard or even mandated :(. I'm on the opposite side of this. All the new safety & driver assist features are the best part about getting a new car. I wouldn't buy a new daily driver that doesn't have blind spot monitoring, collision avoidance, lane keep assist, etc. Once you have these features and you are accustomed to how they work, yo…

> I wouldn't buy a new daily driver that doesn't have blind spot monitoring, collision avoidance, lane keep assist, etc.

And here I am puttering along in my 2003 VW Golf with a manual transmission. :)

Re: Ask HN: Best cars without too much digitalization?

#236

Post by csours »

yumraj wrote: post #175
csours wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to beat a Chevy Express Van when it comes to low tech. In general, look for vehicles that have a really old platform or really old 'redesign'. Eg: Look at model history here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Express I'm not sure of any way to look this up across brands and models? Perhaps a good opportunity for a microsite? In general companies boast about how new their tech is, not how old. Disclosure: I…

> If you don't want OnStar or Satellite Radio, there are ways to disable it pretty easily. How? Any pointers?

If you want your car's modules to work, you DEFINITELY should not remove fuses. You can look up which fuses you should not remove.

Re: Ask HN: Best cars without too much digitalization?

#237

Post by kelnos »

rpmisms wrote: post #135

Probably the best option is any car with a manual transmission. These generally don't have any cruise control beyond the basic speed-keeping, no lane-keep assist, and generally are base models with less infotainment tech. The fun factor should not be discounted, either.

As someone who's driven a manual for the last 15 years (agree they are super fun), there are definitely cons to it:

* If you live in a place with hills, it will be annoying to drive. (Initially it might feel like it'd be a fun challenge to deal with the hills, but it gets old pretty quickly.)

* If you live in a place where you have to deal with frequent stops due to heavy traffic or multiple nearby stop signs, it will be annoying to drive. (No fun challenge here; this is just flat-out annoying.)

* If you want or need a friend to drive your car in a pinch (say you've had too much to drink, or you sprained your ankle on a hike), they likely will not know how (depends on where you live; I'm in the US, where most people don't know how). On the flip side, "oh, sorry, it has a manual transmission" is a great no-blame, no-awkward excuse if you don't want to let someone drive your car.

* Related, but your significant other, if you have one, might not know how to drive it, and might not be interested in learning (before anyone says anything: no, there's nothing wrong with this attitude; being able to drive stick doesn't give you some sort of moral superiority), and that could create some annoying logistical problems at times.

* Less of an issue if you're buying used, but in many markets (again, I mainly know about the US market), manufacturers are dropping the manual transmission options, or are only allowing them on the more expensive trim levels. Even if you're buying used, your available options may be many fewer than if you were looking for an automatic car. Then again, the used car market is nuts right now, and I don't know, but maybe that's making it easier to find a manual car, since they're not usually in high demand.

I'm tiptoeing into the market for a new car now, and as much as it will sadden me, I'm almost certainly going to go for an automatic transmission. Finding a manual is requiring more compromises on other features than I want to make, and some of the cons I've listed above have, over time, hit me kinda hard.

Re: Ask HN: Best cars without too much digitalization?

#238

Post by markvdb »

I have a similar question for ebikes. I'm looking for a 45 km/h ebike for use in the EU. That means type certification required. I also need a comfortable real life 140km range at high speeds.

What I would love to see is:

- throttle

- battery status indicator leds (or similar low tech battery status feedback)

- pedal sensor

- battery management system

- charger

- reliable motor

What I would not like to see is:

- gps

- led display

- smart lock

- builtin cameras

- ...

Suggestions welcome!

Re: Ask HN: Best cars without too much digitalization?

#239

Post by 4cao »

ntoeunteohu wrote: post #51

What you want is a "driver's car". They typically have fewer bells and whistles and provide a more connected driving experience. You're expected to expend effort to pilot the car. There are actually quite a few these days, but I'm partial to Japanese cars, myself. 1) Mazda MX-5 Miata I own one. It's awesome to drive. Has few features and a simple dash. It's quite economical to operate (inexpensive to insure, gets ove…

I vouched for this comment. Perhaps it's not exactly what the question is asking for but is well-formulated (if a bit subjective), and comes from a newly-registered user (welcome to HN!), so I don't think it deserves to be "dead."

Re: Ask HN: Best cars without too much digitalization?

#240

Post by throwaway525142 »

mnemnc wrote: post #231
stefan_ wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now think it through. What happens if a wheel locks up? Right, it loses all stopping power. I certainly agree that you want ABS, it's just to illustrate the pitfalls it creates when you have these additional systems. You can tell much the same story around emissions controls; newer cars pass stricter emissions standards and require extra parts and technology to achieve them.

> Now think it through. What happens if a wheel locks up? Right, it loses all stopping power. That‘s not true. Going in a straight line, blocking wheels will stop you in less distance than with active ABS. However ABS allows you to brake and go around an obstacle without losing control of your vehicle.

I think the friction of wheels is lower when the wheels lock up vs when they go with the speed of the road.

From Wikipedia[1]:

> Kinetic friction, also known as dynamic friction or sliding friction, occurs when two objects are moving relative to each other and rub together (like a sled on the ground). The coefficient of kinetic friction is typically denoted as μk, and is usually less than the coefficient of static friction for the same materials.[40][41]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Friction&oldid=10...

Post reply on HN