Electronic Shifter Saves Space, Feels Odd - 2015 Kia K900 Long-Term Road Test

Comments

• donszr1 Member Posts: 12

  October 2014

  When the F16 fighter jet was first built the electric control stick didn't move at all, just responded to the inputs. Pilots complained of cramped forearms postflight from yanking on the immovable control, so they built in a little unnecessary motion. We humans are often stubbornly unadapting.

  0
• allthingshonda Member Posts: 878

  November 2014

  The console mounted shifters don't save that much more space over their traditional counterparts. The Mercedes redesign of the column mounted shifter frees up much more space (are you listening Ford and Chevy). With that being said I still prefer a traditional console mounted shifter.

  0
• quadricycle Member Posts: 827

  November 2014

  donszr1 said:

  When the F16 fighter jet was first built the electric control stick didn't move at all, just responded to the inputs. Pilots complained of cramped forearms postflight from yanking on the immovable control, so they built in a little unnecessary motion. We humans are often stubbornly unadapting.

  Or the controls engineers could have paid more attention to how much humans need and prefer physical feedback, which they eventually did. Of course, that was a military jet which had that interface and many other at-the-time new electronics partly to help keep the negative stability in check, while this is a Kia following BMW's attempt at reinventing the automatic transmission control interface.

  1
• nomercy346 Member Posts: 69

  November 2014

  That BMW shifter slowly grows on me, push forward for reverse, pull straight back into drive as you would on a traditional shifter. The button for park still sucks, I often just press the shift-lock and shove it all the way forward and end up in reverse again.
  
  What was so bad about the shifter we have been using over the last, like, 6 decades, though? I mean, Chrysler just went back to the traditional shifter with the 15 Charger...

  0