Vote For The Elgin Dash

[Elio Amazed]

I had many cars without any major markings besides 10, 20, 30... miles or km per hour. Usually there's a dot or small line for the incremental speeds.

That is more than enough, especially given that speedometers aren't all that accurate anyway, a finer readout would not give you that much more information, unless you buy your Elio with the police package that comes with a calibrated speed display.

I am taking into account what G1 has posted, but take a look at the clip again. The prototype, like I stated, has no markings between 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, ect. None. And again, other than not caring for the appearance, what I consider the major disadvantage is that I'd have to take my eyes completely off of the road to track a number instead of simply being aware of the position and movement of a larger "needle" via peripheral vision. In previous and present vehicles I can use the speedo to keep my speed at a constant and never have my direct visual focus leave the road.

My V-star's speedo is a "needle" type but it's on the tank and so far away from my normal focus of the road that I have to move that focus completely off of the road to tell how fast I'm going. Not a good feeling at all. My Virago's speedo display, on the other hand, is above the risers, identical to a sportster's, so I can keep both the road and speedo in my peripheral vision while doing a speed check. Better and safer IMO.

 

[RKing]

Exactly what "problem" with typical sweep needle gages needed "fixing" with this exercize in styling? I fine it pointlessly different, and on the Citron the first thing that i see on that dash is the clock, kinda pointless in my opinion. Give me a plain dash with simple sweep needles and include Coolant temp, oil pressure and Amps in an easy glance, along with speed and RPM. I do not want to have to "read" anything, Also, for an "and" vehicle, it would be nice if it had "normal" apearance. All 5 carry equal import for me, I drive the prevailing speed of the traffic or my comfort with an occasional check that I ain't going to jail. Tach is a diagonasic tool , I can hear/feel the engine tell me when to shift and I'm sure it has fuel cutout at redline To each their own, as I've said before, it ain't a deal breaker, but you asked!
Oh, I voted Hate It..

 

['lio]

I am taking into account what G1 has posted, but take a look at the clip again. The prototype, like I stated, has no markings between 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, ect. None. And again, other than not caring for the appearance, what I consider the major disadvantage is that I'd have to take my eyes completely off of the road to track a number instead of simply being aware of the position and movement of a larger "needle" via peripheral vision. In previous and present vehicles I can use the speedo to keep my speed at a constant and never have my direct visual focus leave the road.

You are right, no markings in the prototype for 5, 15, 25 and so on. As G1 said: keep in mind that this is only a prototype. There are some rules and conventions when it comes to speedometers in street legal vehicles and I am confident that the final result of the Elio dash will be more legible with bigger numbers on the display and likely in-between markings.

I understand your preference and it seems many share it. Personally I found no difficulty using displays without needles. I actually never got a speeding ticket in the Citroën (see pic earlier in the thread) and I wish I could say that about all the other cars with conventional analogue readouts.

 

[PJ]

I've said it more than once that dash is the 1st thing to hit the trash can. So Elio save me the head ache of replacing it.

 

[WilliamH]

If someone was giving me my choice, I liked the digital cluster in my old '89 LeBaron.

 

[Lil4X]

Just because we can measure an incoming data stream in binary language, doesn't mean we have to display it as a series of moving numbers. Digital instruments were "fashionable" back in the late '80's when everyone decided it was the "high-tech" look of the future, but I worked with the developers of an instrumentation system back then and we found it had a very serious problem - it doesn't relate well to human beings.

Imagine an instrument in front of you, say a tachometer that displays digits only. As the engine revs quickly, it takes you a moment to grasp what is going on under the hood. Your eyes catch the number "3", and a split-second later, the number "5". OK, fine - but your brain has to quickly interpret the fact that "5" is a larger number than "3", therefore the quantity being measured is rising. Then it has to decide whether that is good or bad. On the tach, is "5" safe? We have to think back to the owner's manual to decide whether "5" means something expensive is about to happen, and the relative time required to progress from "3" to "5" may mean disaster is already in the rear-view mirror . . . as in that cloud of oil smoke following you.

Water temperature is "240°" . . . again, good or bad? Is it increasing or decreasing? The same thing can happen with oil pressure - obviously "0" is not good, but where's the lower acceptable limit, and have you reached it yet? Remember, instruments can only tell you history - not always what's happening in the engine room at this very instant. Engineers try to damp out small excursions in the readings - you don't want to see your engine temperature rise and fall as the thermostat opens and closes - or read every slosh in your fuel tank - that would really be confusing.

The primary purpose of any kind of instrument display is communication - not necessarily with other binary devices, but with that grey lump of flesh between our ears. Our brains have to recognize and interpret inputs, and that takes a bit of effort. Scanning the instrument panel should be simple - communicating instant information. Most designers of instrumentation systems subscribe to the convention that all the needles pointing up means you are in good shape - with some allowance for a bit right or left of vertical saying all is well. A needle on the peg - either maxed or dead - is VERY bad news. We determine this by its relative position on the scale - we can go back and read off the numbers if we need to, but a quick scan of the information presented should instantly communicate what's happening out front, and which is important to us.

With just a glance, which means more to YOU:

or:

The oilfield instrumentation company I worked with had produced a terrific panel of extremely accurate LCD digits, but in an emergency, numbers speeding by on the screen were not helpful. They had to put a status bar alongside each digital display simply to inform the operator whether the numbers were increasing or decreasing because a spinning four-to eight digit display was meaningless. In a disaster scenario, it was a matter of life and death - not just whether you were going to void your warranty. They ended up with a panel that had at least two readouts for every function, one digital and one simulated analog, plus color-coding that would flash yellow or red to draw attention to the most critical changes taking place. All of this was to replace a simple set of needles and numbers. It just didn't work well with humans.

There is a good reason that wristwatches that once went to digital displays came back to three hands. Sure, if you were asked the time you could say "It's 11:45:42." with great authority - but you had to think about it for an instant to determine it was just under 15 minutes 'til lunch. That's the problem with digital readouts - humans are relational in their thinking - we need to see numbers in a context that is meaningful. If the temperature gauge is in the green, that's good. If it says "240°" we have to think about pressure and bring in a couple of Gas Law equations to understand something's about to let go. Sometimes an analog display is "close enough". It's how we interpret things quickly.

Digital displays don't even work for watches - even less well for mission-critical instruments.

 

[WilliamH]

Just because we can measure an incoming data stream in binary language, doesn't mean we have to display it as a series of moving numbers. Digital instruments were "fashionable" back in the late '80's when everyone decided it was the "high-tech" look of the future, but I worked with the developers of an instrumentation system back then and we found it had a very serious problem - it doesn't relate well to human beings.

Imagine an instrument in front of you, say a tachometer that displays digits only. As the engine revs quickly, it takes you a moment to grasp what is going on under the hood. Your eyes catch the number "3", and a split-second later, the number "5". OK, fine - but your brain has to quickly interpret the fact that "5" is a larger number than "3", therefore the quantity being measured is rising. Then it has to decide whether that is good or bad. On the tach, is "5" safe? We have to think back to the owner's manual to decide whether "5" means something expensive is about to happen, and the relative time required to progress from "3" to "5" may mean disaster is already in the rear-view mirror . . . as in that cloud of oil smoke following you.

Water temperature is "240°" . . . again, good or bad? Is it increasing or decreasing? The same thing can happen with oil pressure - obviously "0" is not good, but where's the lower acceptable limit, and have you reached it yet? Remember, instruments can only tell you history - not always what's happening in the engine room at this very instant. Engineers try to damp out small excursions in the readings - you don't want to see your engine temperature rise and fall as the thermostat opens and closes - or read every slosh in your fuel tank - that would really be confusing.

The primary purpose of any kind of instrument display is communication - not necessarily with other binary devices, but with that grey lump of flesh between our ears. Our brains have to recognize and interpret inputs, and that takes a bit of effort. Scanning the instrument panel should be simple - communicating instant information. Most designers of instrumentation systems subscribe to the convention that all the needles pointing up means you are in good shape - with some allowance for a bit right or left of vertical saying all is well. A needle on the peg - either maxed or dead - is VERY bad news. We determine this by its relative position on the scale - we can go back and read off the numbers if we need to, but a quick scan of the information presented should instantly communicate what's happening out front, and which is important to us.

With just a glance, which means more to YOU:

or:

The oilfield instrumentation company I worked with had produced a terrific panel of extremely accurate LCD digits, but in an emergency, numbers speeding by on the screen were not helpful. They had to put a status bar alongside each digital display simply to inform the operator whether the numbers were increasing or decreasing because a spinning four-to eight digit display was meaningless. In a disaster scenario, it was a matter of life and death - not just whether you were going to void your warranty. They ended up with a panel that had at least two readouts for every function, one digital and one simulated analog, plus color-coding that would flash yellow or red to draw attention to the most critical changes taking place. All of this was to replace a simple set of needles and numbers. It just didn't work well with humans.

There is a good reason that wristwatches that once went to digital displays came back to three hands. Sure, if you were asked the time you could say "It's 11:45:42." with great authority - but you had to think about it for an instant to determine it was just under 15 minutes 'til lunch. That's the problem with digital readouts - humans are relational in their thinking - we need to see numbers in a context that is meaningful. If the temperature gauge is in the green, that's good. If it says "240°" we have to think about pressure and bring in a couple of Gas Law equations to understand something's about to let go. Sometimes an analog display is "close enough". It's how we interpret things quickly.

Digital displays don't even work for watches - even less well for mission-critical instruments.

I can appreciate what you are saying.
This is the digital display I was talking about.

Obviously not what you were thinking about.

 

[PJ]

Just because we can measure an incoming data stream in binary language, doesn't mean we have to display it as a series of moving numbers. Digital instruments were "fashionable" back in the late '80's when everyone decided it was the "high-tech" look of the future, but I worked with the developers of an instrumentation system back then and we found it had a very serious problem - it doesn't relate well to human beings.

Imagine an instrument in front of you, say a tachometer that displays digits only. As the engine revs quickly, it takes you a moment to grasp what is going on under the hood. Your eyes catch the number "3", and a split-second later, the number "5". OK, fine - but your brain has to quickly interpret the fact that "5" is a larger number than "3", therefore the quantity being measured is rising. Then it has to decide whether that is good or bad. On the tach, is "5" safe? We have to think back to the owner's manual to decide whether "5" means something expensive is about to happen, and the relative time required to progress from "3" to "5" may mean disaster is already in the rear-view mirror . . . as in that cloud of oil smoke following you.

Water temperature is "240°" . . . again, good or bad? Is it increasing or decreasing? The same thing can happen with oil pressure - obviously "0" is not good, but where's the lower acceptable limit, and have you reached it yet? Remember, instruments can only tell you history - not always what's happening in the engine room at this very instant. Engineers try to damp out small excursions in the readings - you don't want to see your engine temperature rise and fall as the thermostat opens and closes - or read every slosh in your fuel tank - that would really be confusing.

The primary purpose of any kind of instrument display is communication - not necessarily with other binary devices, but with that grey lump of flesh between our ears. Our brains have to recognize and interpret inputs, and that takes a bit of effort. Scanning the instrument panel should be simple - communicating instant information. Most designers of instrumentation systems subscribe to the convention that all the needles pointing up means you are in good shape - with some allowance for a bit right or left of vertical saying all is well. A needle on the peg - either maxed or dead - is VERY bad news. We determine this by its relative position on the scale - we can go back and read off the numbers if we need to, but a quick scan of the information presented should instantly communicate what's happening out front, and which is important to us.

With just a glance, which means more to YOU:

or:

The oilfield instrumentation company I worked with had produced a terrific panel of extremely accurate LCD digits, but in an emergency, numbers speeding by on the screen were not helpful. They had to put a status bar alongside each digital display simply to inform the operator whether the numbers were increasing or decreasing because a spinning four-to eight digit display was meaningless. In a disaster scenario, it was a matter of life and death - not just whether you were going to void your warranty. They ended up with a panel that had at least two readouts for every function, one digital and one simulated analog, plus color-coding that would flash yellow or red to draw attention to the most critical changes taking place. All of this was to replace a simple set of needles and numbers. It just didn't work well with humans.

There is a good reason that wristwatches that once went to digital displays came back to three hands. Sure, if you were asked the time you could say "It's 11:45:42." with great authority - but you had to think about it for an instant to determine it was just under 15 minutes 'til lunch. That's the problem with digital readouts - humans are relational in their thinking - we need to see numbers in a context that is meaningful. If the temperature gauge is in the green, that's good. If it says "240°" we have to think about pressure and bring in a couple of Gas Law equations to understand something's about to let go. Sometimes an analog display is "close enough". It's how we interpret things quickly.

Digital displays don't even work for watches - even less well for mission-critical instruments.

Bingo!

 

[Elio Amazed]

It's often stated that EM reads these forums.
This is the equivalent of free market research for them.
So far they've professed that they know the value of listening to their market...

 

[NSTG8R]

Give me a yaw indicator and a windsock for all I care. I'm going whatever speed the rest of the fools on the road are going during rush hour.

[Gawkers could present a problem when they first hit the road!]