“It shall be the Source of All Things, or, How Much is Too Much?”

As I’ve previously stated, I think that there are some odd things going on in the world of automotive design. One of most notable is also one of the most understandable. I’m talking about the “go anywhere, do anything” phenomenon that seems to be cropping up in new designs.

This phenomenon takes the notion of “market segments,” shreds it, and then throws it to a group of wolves that haven’t eaten in 6 weeks for disposal.

Final Destination for the Market Segment.

A prime example is the new Nissan Quest minivan. Let’s be clear, this is a minivan. A machine designed to allow a young mother to cart around 3 children, a load of groceries, and several dogs at once and with great economy. That’s all it’s supposed to do.

A Somewhat Liberal Interpretation of the Concept.

So, you can imagine the confusion now that Nissan has unveiled the newest iteration of the Quest.

Here was a minivan that claimed to be the start of a new chapter in the grand tale of minivans. Here was a minivan that promised classic hauling capacity along with unprecedented levels of luxury and sumptuous comfort. In short, Nissan tried to break the mold and satisfy everyone.

And it failed. Horribly. Cataclysmically.

Mere words cannot describe the awful nature of the Quest. That said, I will endeavor to do so anyway.

First, let’s start with the exterior. There’s no other way to say this. It appears to have been designed by someone that at some point lost the gift of sight. I mean, honestly, what were they thinking? The mirrors are straight off of a delivery van. The body has a Janus-like split identity. The front looks like a minivan and the back looks like a small truck. The fusion is spectacularly awful.

KILL IT! KILL IT WITH FIRE!
Image courtesy of the NY Times.

My Labrador saw a picture of this car on my computer and was promptly sick.

The interior isn’t much better. The steering is a bit numb and the button configurations and total layout appear to have been drawn up for a driver with several tentacles and a complete lack of spatial awareness. Most notably, silence, the most important hallmark of any luxury car (or any car designed to take many people a long way) is utterly and completely absent. The shocking amount of road noise would convince a blindfolded passenger that they were in New Orleans, circa 2004.

It's Sort of Like This, But Louder.

The car is awful. Biblically awful. And this is because it tries too hard to satisfy everyone. There is a reason that there are market segments. There is a reason that people buy cars with different priorities in mind. The Nissan Quest is a perfect example of the horrors that result when a company tries too hard to please everyone. They please nobody.

"The Doritos Locos Taco is Ruining My Life," or, "Why Driver's Aid Technology is A Menace."

While driving down the highway today, I saw a large billboard that proclaimed, "Your Doritos is Tacos." This declaration caused me to almost ram my truck into the artfully bearded hipster driving the Chevy HHR in front of me. My indescribable shock was not a result of the grammatical sacrilege that had been committed by the sign, but by Taco Bell's temerity in insinuating that a Doritos taco was something desirable. Something that I wanted. Frankly, I have no desire to eat a Dorito taco. If I want a Taco, I will damn well have a taco, not a poorly seasoned corn chip with elephantiasis. 

Stay out of my lunch! And my car!

The foisting of a revolting chip taco on the public made me consider a similar situation in the automotive world. Every model year, car manufacturers unveil the newest generation of technology designed to "aid" your driving experience. Mercedes, for example, is quite fond of a little gadget that will stop your car for you if it senses danger ahead. I'm sorry, but would it not be more prudent to maintain your road speed and simply swerve around the log in the side of the lane? How are you supposed to drive safely when a machine is intervening every time something is in the road ahead of you? 

It's the same story with modern supercars. In the olden days, supercars were impossible to drive. If you turned too aggresively, they would oversteer massively, and you would hit a tree and die. If you used too much throttle, they could understeer OR overstter wildy, and you would hit a lampost and die. If you missed a shift, the transmission would explode and send half of what used to be third gear through your face, and you would die. Sometimes, you would start them and they would explode. You would then die. On occasion, the brakes would inexplicably fail, causing you to launch off of a cliff and die. In sum, old supercars were devilishly tricky. Just ask James Dean.

Although this ended very badly for Mr. Dean, it created what was undeniably a pure driving experience. When everything came together properly on the road, you were in driving nirvana: a perfect synthesis of man and machine. If you knew what you were doing, you were a hero. If you didn't, you died horribly in a flaming wreck. 

The experience itself was completely different as well. The interiors of these old cars were sparse. Stripped down. Facing you was an array of gauges, a steering wheel, some pedals, and a shift lever. Now compare that to the driver's view in a new Ferrari 458.

It's a mess of mind-numbingly complicated gadgets. Happily, this picture doesn't show the back of the wheel, which has even more buttons. Consequently, every time you try to park, you activate twelve different functions, all of which are so distracting that you can't park your car, you look like an ass, and Keira Knightley gets out of the passenger seat to go cozy up with the man who almost died in his old Porsche on the drive in.

At the end of the day, all of these add-ons, although initially palatable, are simply diluting the driving experience for those of us that actually care. Like the Doritos Locos Taco, they are well-intentioned attempts to please consumers that simply fail.

"I'll have a double whiskey ginger..No, wait...scratch that...I'll have bird flu" or, "Is driving with a cold the same as driving drunk?"

I don't know how I didn't hear about this before today, but earlier this year, Cardiff University in Wales released a study that said that driving with a cold was the same as driving whilst massively drunk. According to the study, driving with a cold or bout of the flu is equivalent to "driving under the influence of four double whiskeys."

This is easily the most ludicrous thing that I have ever heard.

Last week, I drove to work with a mild sore throat and runny nose. It fit all the symptoms of the common cold. Despite this, I did not veer off of the road. Nobody was killed. After I exited my car, I was fully capable of walking into my office in a straight line. I did not slur my speech, nor did I text embarrassing things to people that I used to date. I had no craving for bad Mexican food. In short, my behavior was not that of a drunk person.

According to statistics provided by ABC News, there are about 500 million colds per year in the United States. So....there are 500 million instances of drunk driving that don't have any relation to alcohol per year in the USA? If this was even close to accurate, our streets would look like something from "The Road."

I have been forced to conclude that this is part of a Welsh strategy to curb CO2 emissions by getting fewer people to drive, thus providing a better climate for raising sheep, which is what one does in Wales. That is literally the only rational explanation for this study.

"The Ever Increasing Terrors of Government Regulation", or, "Why Driving is Doomed"

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that "Obamacare" is indeed a constitutional program. This incensed those that think that the government should do nothing but build them park benches and stay the Hell out of their lives and it brought orgasmic delight to those that think that the government should regulate every last detail of their lives so that they can enjoy life to the fullest extent. As this blog strives to be apolitical, I'll endeavor not to comment on that. However, these developments have gotten me thinking about driving regulations.

Every year, it seems like there are new laws designed to create a safer road experience for everyone. On the surface, this is excellent. To be clear, I do not like crashing. Crashing is bad. Crashing is unhealthy. Especially if it involves injury. But is increased litigation the answer?

Frankly, I'm in favor of going in the opposite direction and raising freeway speed limits. Statistically speaking, the vast majority of fatal crashes occur on roads with speed limits of 30 mph or below. Why? Because people aren't paying attention. Think about this: would you be willing to text your cousin or turn back to pet Mr. Patches, the domesticated iguana that is sitting in a rear facing child seat in the back of your car, if you were hurtling down the road at 95 mph?

No. You would not. You would be clutching at the wheel like a kamikaze pilot and sweating profusely as you used every ounce of your concentration to not drive into the car in the next lane over.

The problem is, it's difficult to argue against the people in favor of increased litigation. I certainly won't be the person who has to tell a member of MADD that the cars that killed their children should be made to go faster or that drivers should be bound by fewer restrictive pieces of legislation.

This is why I believe that the joy will soon be sucked out of driving. As more and more people beg those in power to regulate the automotive world, the pure experience of driving will suffocate and die under the weight of 8 trillion new laws. Because it's impossible to say no.