Only in this forum could I suggest this

Ferrari is working on this. I am not sure if it will be introduced on the new F149 or not. You will see this as an option in the future for sure.

 

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=135758297#post135758297

 

This technology is just stupid, expecially on a ferrari. My Dad had the first car ever with night vision 2000 Cadillac DTS and the technology does not make sense for the road. It was a terrible system. Fast forward to today, and I have driven the S550 with night vision and it is just as bad as the Cadillac system. The screen is too small, you can never really get used to driving and looking at the smaller screen. Also the screen is not clear like many of the photo make it seem. It is akin to looking at a low res movie blown up. Unless you live in the middle of the country in a very rural area it may make sense, but anywhere else it is useless. Just my two cents on the subject from someone that has seen this technology first hand for almost a decade.
Erik
PS Now a heads up display for information similar to corvette would be nice

 

I happen to have a Corvette Z06...it has the so-called "heads up display".

What I found out, after marvelling at it for a week or two, is that there is a fundamental problem with this principle in "distance vision focus". Humans were made with two eyes (stereo vision; distance sense) for a reason.

While you do not have to move your eyes down to see the instruments with this, you DO have to refocus your eyes from way down the road to short distance right in front of your face. You are supposed to be looking (and focused on) things way down the road if you are driving fast.

It is better to keep your eyes on the road all the time rather than being distracted by a video game taking up part of your windshield. You can always take a moment to look at the oil pressure and tach in your own good time without having it take up part of your field of view.

I keep it turned off all the time now; so does my step-son (an avid video gamer BTW) who drives the Z06 most of the time.

 

There is no technical reason why a HUD can't be focused at infinity. I have never looked at one on an automobile and am surprised to hear the Corvette display is not focused at infinity. In fact, focal distance could be offered as a user option except for additional cost to the user and perceived liability to the manufacturer.

 

While this (focus issue) is true, I still think that it might just prove to be distracting.

 

Light enhancement technology makes sense for the road, if you could implement the display. I never understood putting a HUD in a Caddy -- it's not like you're strapped into an ejector seat with limited head motion. You just can't superimpose a point on the windscreen over a direct view of the road when you can slide around on a bench seat.

You can at least ballpark a numeric display in a 'Vette with a good seat, but you'd still never get a superimposed L-E display to align.

Now if you wanted to drive wearing an Apache pilot's helmet, with that eye loupe display, ...

But given how they've moved the whole dash onto the wheel, which will be the first F1 team to implement a heads-up display built into the driver's helmet?

(Maybe Red Bull will install a collision avoidance / proximity warning system for DC. )

 

I've driven Corvettes several times and never found the HUD to be distracting. Actually, I had it turned off once and I got a glare from the small screen that projects it to the windshield. That bugged me so I turned it back on. Go figure, to each thier own....

 

+1 on this, the main drawback to every system I have used first hand is the display. The concept of being able to see animals, people, etc at night is great, but the integration is the problem. It is just too hard to get used to on both the systems I mentioned and the screen is so small that you don't even know what you are looking at. The Caddy allowed height adjustment and you could adjust the brightness but neither of those really helped as the image projected did not appear to be a truely scaled down version of what the driver was seeing. It was similar to a slightly out of scale model car. As an aside the US government called on Raytheon (sp) for infared units for the military and this caused them to limit production of the unit for the Cadillac. That is why the option was removed from any other models, and never made it onto the production XLR even though it was on the concept car.
Erik

 

im not for it.......it seems like it is just there so companies can say its there but there is no real benefit from it..........

 

Well, for the next step, and thinking "outside the box", how about a series of cameras fed to a virtual reality display, *replacing* a direct view through the windscreen with a 360-degree unimpaired virtual view around the vehicle?

The driver could then be relocated to a semi-reclined position in the interior of the vehicle. (Anyone else remember the trucks in Gerry Anderson's "Captain Scarlet", where the driver sat facing aft for improved crash safety?) No need for those big, heavy safety glass windshields, either.

One step further would be to add a network of wireless access points to highways, and control could be shifted to a remote bank of professional "virtual chauffeurs", allowing the owner to sit back with the cell phone and starbucks while someone else actually paid attention to the driving. A liability law nightmare or the ugly shape of things to come?

(Any bets this idea would get an entirely different reception on, say, a Prius board? )

 

Did you see that scene in the Mars movie where Arnold rips out the robot taxi driver, and says - "I'll drive"...?

I feel the same way.

 

Agreed. So many different manufacturers have so many different things out, I refer to them as "bells & whistles". I can't stand the way these new parking aid systems make the bumpers look like total crap, for example, but I can be thankful that at least some of the people that really need them - - have them, so they don't hit my car (when they're parking at least)!
I'm also a protestor of the automatic transmission, but hey, they're perfect for a variety of cars/trucks/vans/busses.

ROFL!! So true! ;-)

 

Does anyone actually make cars to "drive" anymore. I'm all for safety innovations (ie airbags, parking assist, ect) but do we really need all of this technology to drive a car. I think we are starting to push past the point of ridiculous...

 

Ariel Atom.

 

Apparently a lot of people like conveniences, but I'm not one of them. I'd prefer that my 348 didn't have electric door locks and I could even do well without electric windows. Just something else to break without a real need for it, and just my preference and opinion.

 

+1

I take great pride that the only computer in my 328 is in the radio! (unlike my E500 that I
think even has computerized body panels!)

Jedi

 

The anti-brain-fart hat:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24245365/wid/11915773?GT1=31037

You sometimes may just slip into a kind of stupor, you know - sliding around those curves and clicking that gated shifter up and down...science has the answer...

It will look into your cerebral cortex and pre-detect when you are going to do a screw-up: what intervention it might take is a matter of further research (and, or, speculation) -

 

I have not seen EVERY HUD option, but what would make more sense IMO is a visual illustration of the tachometer rather than numerical values. Do any HUD systems do this?



I think it's much easier to recognize an image and have a general idea of what RPM, etc. than to actually see a number and interpret it. MPH is one exception to this.


Anyone with a modern Porsche knows that the speedometer is useless

 

Have you driven a Corvette lately? The HUD in my old 2004 C5 Z06 is like a hockey stick laid down on it's side...sort of a bent bar-graph in addition to the numerical readout.

The very original C4 (1984) had an LCD display in the panel that was sort of shaped like a torque/hp curve and was colored green/yellow/red as the revs increased.

In both cases, the readouts sucked, but as these engines hardly need to be revved up much, I guess it doesn't much matter.

Care to comment more on the "modern Porsche" comment? I prefer the old 911 layout - big tach dead center with the non-overlapped 5 round dials. Four grand top dead center - sometimes, when things are really right, you should just leave them the way they are.