The mechanical flush mount car door handles are because shaping that divot into the steel is much more complicated then punching a hole, and especially aluminum is many times more complicated and expensive. Audi was showing off their technical expertise with creasing aluminum with unlimited money in their bodywork before dieselgate, and that was pretty much peak for car body technology.
I am bemused every time I use Uber and the car has some flush-mounted door handle that I have to figure out. When exiting the car and closing the door, I end up leaving fingerprints I would not have left if the handle had been designed by someone who had been in a car before.
agreed on fingerprints, though i bet the rationale is coefficient of drag, not lack of experience with various door handle designs.
in the article, it shows a Magna-Steyr handle on a Mercedes Gelaendewagen, which looks like those on the Ineos Grenadier, and not very different than the ones that Ford uses on various trucks.
that contrasts with those on Audi and BMW evs, for examples i see often, where the CoD is a stated spec for ev shoppers, and the handles have motion to them, but are flush (but not Tesla vanishingly flush). Weirdly, some Porsches (intimately related to Audi...just read the shared parts) use flush handles and some the protruding handles with an actual handle.
i admittedly pay an unusual amount of attention to car componentry, sort of a hobby really.
The additional drag is negligible. People have been producing "racing doors" with handles for decades. They focus on cutting all the other features of the door like weight and mechanical complexity instead. It's an even more irrelevant consideration for consumers, who could save far more fuel by changing how they drive.
Flush handles exist as brand differentiators. They're a "futuristic" feel-good feature that consumers want, like engine noise, tablets, and colorful dashboards.
I'm not presenting it as a conflict. I'm presenting it as a revealed preference of how much consumers actually try to optimize fuel use. There's significant reductions to be had completely for free (or even with savings by purchasing smaller, cheaper vehicles). And yes, the savings from flush handles are too small to show up in the MPG number.
They add a tiny bit to the efficiency and/or range, they look cool (e.g. serve a gee-whiz marketing purpose), and safety evaluations in the markets where they still exist don't penalize them -- up until now they've had very little against them.
Maybe as legal and reputational backlash spreads the pros will not outweigh the cons. But someone designing a car a decade ago, marketed towards early adopter types, would have had no reason not to.
And I say this as someone who hates these handles designs personally.
All of the things you mention are considerations that every automaker considers. Product design engineering is simply an exercise in weighting those factors, among many others.
Drag is absolutely one of those factors. Yes, it only contributes a small amount to the overall drag profile of the vehicle, but a vehicle is a sum of its parts ultimately.
Kids today miss the chagrin of damaging a protruding door handle, and the entertainment of one of their elders entirely removing one against some obstacle.
> It comes as EVs are facing scrutiny from safety watchdogs around the world after a number of deadly incidents, including two fatal crashes in China involving Xiaomi EVs in which power failures were suspected to have prevented doors from being opened.
You had one job, door handles... but being made sleek and sexy and unlike normal door handles also made you a fucking liability.
People wonder "Why is there a law for this stupid thing, it's a regulatory hassle", and yet time and time again it comes around there was at least some partially legitimate reason said rule exists.
Simply put vehicles are at the point where we need a rule that says "The doors can be unlocked and open if the battery is dead" Full stop, no ifs, ands, or buts.
One of my unfavorite random car regulations is that as of some time in this millennium, cars sold in the USA may not have required lighting on movable bodywork.
This bans new cars from having clamshell bodywork like that found on classics like the Jaguar E-type and Ford GT40. I suspect it also results in many cars having narrower truck/hatch openings than they would have if they could put mandated lights on the trunk lid or rear hatch.
It's not hard to imagine the partially legitimate reason that on occasion, someone will drive with the trunk open, but do we really need a law about it?
> It's not hard to imagine the partially legitimate reason that on occasion, someone will drive with the trunk open
No, it's a much more serious and likely reason -- people stopping on a highway at night, getting out, and opening their trunk for some reason (like a spare tire, fluids, etc)?-- then their lights (and the reflectors in the lamp housings) are pointed at the sky.
Or, movable bodywork is more prone to be misaligned during normal operation.
Headlights get out of alignment sometimes. I posit that likelihood goes up if the lights are themselves mounted on a hood/door/whatever that can also go out of alignment.
Some automakers have chosen to meet the standard while keeping their lights on movable panels by placing additional lights/reflectors in the bumper to meet requirements.
Your post reminded me of a video on the an imported TVR Tuscan, filmed by Doug DeMuro where he covers this too. The TVR Tuscan is one of those cars where if the rear trunk is open, you can’t see the turn signal lights. In the video it is claimed that because of that, by laws in the UK, the trunk must have a triangular exclamation point sign as a safety precaution to let other drivers know when the vehicle is immobile.
That particular blood was probably people stopped at night with the trunk open to access a spare tire or tools. And then there was more blood because sometimes those people forget to leave their lights on, or their lights don't function because the battery has died, so we got more regulation requiring ugly reflectors.
It is not the government's job to enumerate every specific brand of stupid design that may be harmful multiplied by every class of product nor should it be.
If you want to do that stuff, do it with a performance test or criteria, not with stupid whack-a-mole rules. And don't think that weasel wording the test to the same effect is any better. If you want to do this the not stupid way you need to actually do the hard work and figure out what the over-arching general case performance characteristics need to be.
With better styling cues and design that make it obvious how to use the Tesla handles (and all the degrees of copycats) it wouldn't be an issue. But that isn't the kind of sleek sext angular bullshit modern car designers like so it never got made and here we are.
Game it out - if you issue guidelines, people abuse them, then government agencies get in trouble (isn't it your job to stop this kind of thing?), so government agencies issue strict rules.
Bureaucracies have many fathers, the society we have is the result of conflict and incentives.
>Game it out - if you issue guidelines, people abuse them,
You wind up with smaller gaps with the qualitative and rules based approach than you do with the whack-a-mole list.
>then government agencies get in trouble (isn't it your job to stop this kind of thing?), so government agencies issue strict rules.
Government agencies tend to grow in scope and resources when they screw up. Even when punished, it's not like they go bankrupt and everyone is out of a job.
>Bureaucracies have many fathers, the society we have is the result of conflict and incentives.
And ideology. You can incentivize the Taliban all you want they won't send their girls to school. I postulate that the failure of american regulatory to systems to regulate without sucking is driven in large part by what goes on in the heads of the subset of people who spec out, create and operate said systems.
>enumerate every specific brand of stupid design that may be harmful
As commonly said by the libertarian at heart, right up until the point their loved one gets injured or killed, then they are at the forefront of regulation.
> But that isn't the kind of sleek sext angular bullshit modern car designers like
Who likes safety and security? These features commonly make every day use more difficult. Who needs unblocked fire exits, that takes up too much room in the building. Who needs a common interface for a safety critical device, that removes the 'cool' factor.
I've owned dozens of vehicles and I've only had locks or windows fail on one of them -- and both failed on this vehicle: It was a Ford with manual locks and windows. Turns out if you design something poorly enough even mechanical parts can fail. Point being: quality of construction matters more to reliability than anything else.
The mechanical flush mount car door handles are because shaping that divot into the steel is much more complicated then punching a hole, and especially aluminum is many times more complicated and expensive. Audi was showing off their technical expertise with creasing aluminum with unlimited money in their bodywork before dieselgate, and that was pretty much peak for car body technology.
I am bemused every time I use Uber and the car has some flush-mounted door handle that I have to figure out. When exiting the car and closing the door, I end up leaving fingerprints I would not have left if the handle had been designed by someone who had been in a car before.
agreed on fingerprints, though i bet the rationale is coefficient of drag, not lack of experience with various door handle designs.
in the article, it shows a Magna-Steyr handle on a Mercedes Gelaendewagen, which looks like those on the Ineos Grenadier, and not very different than the ones that Ford uses on various trucks.
that contrasts with those on Audi and BMW evs, for examples i see often, where the CoD is a stated spec for ev shoppers, and the handles have motion to them, but are flush (but not Tesla vanishingly flush). Weirdly, some Porsches (intimately related to Audi...just read the shared parts) use flush handles and some the protruding handles with an actual handle.
i admittedly pay an unusual amount of attention to car componentry, sort of a hobby really.
The additional drag is negligible. People have been producing "racing doors" with handles for decades. They focus on cutting all the other features of the door like weight and mechanical complexity instead. It's an even more irrelevant consideration for consumers, who could save far more fuel by changing how they drive.
Flush handles exist as brand differentiators. They're a "futuristic" feel-good feature that consumers want, like engine noise, tablets, and colorful dashboards.
> It's an even more irrelevant consideration for consumers, who could save far more fuel by changing how they drive.
These are not in conflict. The energy you save from drag stacks with the energy you save from "learning how to drive".
I'm not presenting it as a conflict. I'm presenting it as a revealed preference of how much consumers actually try to optimize fuel use. There's significant reductions to be had completely for free (or even with savings by purchasing smaller, cheaper vehicles). And yes, the savings from flush handles are too small to show up in the MPG number.
Yeah, but making opening doors a puzzle to solve is an incredibly terrible trade off.
And that’s before we consider the other aspects of these door handle designs that make the cars a death trap.
They add a tiny bit to the efficiency and/or range, they look cool (e.g. serve a gee-whiz marketing purpose), and safety evaluations in the markets where they still exist don't penalize them -- up until now they've had very little against them.
Maybe as legal and reputational backlash spreads the pros will not outweigh the cons. But someone designing a car a decade ago, marketed towards early adopter types, would have had no reason not to.
And I say this as someone who hates these handles designs personally.
All of the things you mention are considerations that every automaker considers. Product design engineering is simply an exercise in weighting those factors, among many others.
I'm saying flush handles aren't about drag, not passing judgement on whether those other factors are bad.
Drag is absolutely one of those factors. Yes, it only contributes a small amount to the overall drag profile of the vehicle, but a vehicle is a sum of its parts ultimately.
People who race stock cars will even dip body panels into acid to make the panels thinner. Anything to reduce weight!
Those that care about fingerprints on their car seem like they're different people from those that drive for Uber.
This is a great video by SuperfastMatt on the engineering behind and evolution of the Tesla door handle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bea4FS-zDzc
Kids today miss the chagrin of damaging a protruding door handle, and the entertainment of one of their elders entirely removing one against some obstacle.
See also: China bans hidden car door handles over safety concerns
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp37g5nxe3lo
> It comes as EVs are facing scrutiny from safety watchdogs around the world after a number of deadly incidents, including two fatal crashes in China involving Xiaomi EVs in which power failures were suspected to have prevented doors from being opened.
You had one job, door handles... but being made sleek and sexy and unlike normal door handles also made you a fucking liability.
People wonder "Why is there a law for this stupid thing, it's a regulatory hassle", and yet time and time again it comes around there was at least some partially legitimate reason said rule exists.
Simply put vehicles are at the point where we need a rule that says "The doors can be unlocked and open if the battery is dead" Full stop, no ifs, ands, or buts.
One of my unfavorite random car regulations is that as of some time in this millennium, cars sold in the USA may not have required lighting on movable bodywork.
This bans new cars from having clamshell bodywork like that found on classics like the Jaguar E-type and Ford GT40. I suspect it also results in many cars having narrower truck/hatch openings than they would have if they could put mandated lights on the trunk lid or rear hatch.
It's not hard to imagine the partially legitimate reason that on occasion, someone will drive with the trunk open, but do we really need a law about it?
> It's not hard to imagine the partially legitimate reason that on occasion, someone will drive with the trunk open
No, it's a much more serious and likely reason -- people stopping on a highway at night, getting out, and opening their trunk for some reason (like a spare tire, fluids, etc)?-- then their lights (and the reflectors in the lamp housings) are pointed at the sky.
Or, movable bodywork is more prone to be misaligned during normal operation.
Headlights get out of alignment sometimes. I posit that likelihood goes up if the lights are themselves mounted on a hood/door/whatever that can also go out of alignment.
Yeah that is important for headlamps -- but for signal and marker lamps, the point is visibility.
My dad, in the 1960s, put reflective tape on the rear bumpers.
Some automakers have chosen to meet the standard while keeping their lights on movable panels by placing additional lights/reflectors in the bumper to meet requirements.
Your post reminded me of a video on the an imported TVR Tuscan, filmed by Doug DeMuro where he covers this too. The TVR Tuscan is one of those cars where if the rear trunk is open, you can’t see the turn signal lights. In the video it is claimed that because of that, by laws in the UK, the trunk must have a triangular exclamation point sign as a safety precaution to let other drivers know when the vehicle is immobile.
That is around the seven minute mark of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u6KPTALxg
Every safety regulation is written in blood.
That particular blood was probably people stopped at night with the trunk open to access a spare tire or tools. And then there was more blood because sometimes those people forget to leave their lights on, or their lights don't function because the battery has died, so we got more regulation requiring ugly reflectors.
And so on.
It is not the government's job to enumerate every specific brand of stupid design that may be harmful multiplied by every class of product nor should it be.
If you want to do that stuff, do it with a performance test or criteria, not with stupid whack-a-mole rules. And don't think that weasel wording the test to the same effect is any better. If you want to do this the not stupid way you need to actually do the hard work and figure out what the over-arching general case performance characteristics need to be.
With better styling cues and design that make it obvious how to use the Tesla handles (and all the degrees of copycats) it wouldn't be an issue. But that isn't the kind of sleek sext angular bullshit modern car designers like so it never got made and here we are.
Game it out - if you issue guidelines, people abuse them, then government agencies get in trouble (isn't it your job to stop this kind of thing?), so government agencies issue strict rules.
Bureaucracies have many fathers, the society we have is the result of conflict and incentives.
>Game it out - if you issue guidelines, people abuse them,
You wind up with smaller gaps with the qualitative and rules based approach than you do with the whack-a-mole list.
>then government agencies get in trouble (isn't it your job to stop this kind of thing?), so government agencies issue strict rules.
Government agencies tend to grow in scope and resources when they screw up. Even when punished, it's not like they go bankrupt and everyone is out of a job.
>Bureaucracies have many fathers, the society we have is the result of conflict and incentives.
And ideology. You can incentivize the Taliban all you want they won't send their girls to school. I postulate that the failure of american regulatory to systems to regulate without sucking is driven in large part by what goes on in the heads of the subset of people who spec out, create and operate said systems.
>enumerate every specific brand of stupid design that may be harmful
As commonly said by the libertarian at heart, right up until the point their loved one gets injured or killed, then they are at the forefront of regulation.
> But that isn't the kind of sleek sext angular bullshit modern car designers like
Who likes safety and security? These features commonly make every day use more difficult. Who needs unblocked fire exits, that takes up too much room in the building. Who needs a common interface for a safety critical device, that removes the 'cool' factor.
I don't like electric windows, either. They like to fail in the rain, and are expensive to repair.
Manual windows roll up and down for decade after decade...
Electric door locks are bad, too. After a while, they won't lock or unlock.
I've owned dozens of vehicles and I've only had locks or windows fail on one of them -- and both failed on this vehicle: It was a Ford with manual locks and windows. Turns out if you design something poorly enough even mechanical parts can fail. Point being: quality of construction matters more to reliability than anything else.
What do you _do_ with your cars!?!