Theme
LAB Report 
By Thamer Hannona
You may have seen our entry, the OnStar Car Hero, that we submitted to the 2009 Los Angeles Auto Show’s Design Challenge, as it’s been getting some online coverage. The following isn’t an exclusive LAB reveal, but we knew that you’d want to know about it too. And we wanted to know your thoughts and insights on it. Here’s the low down on the concept:
We designed this concept vehicle with a video game type interface based around an autonomous vehicle control system (AVCS). The system allows inexperienced young drivers to improve their skills as they engage in a more familiar interface like a video game. It also lets advanced “gamers/drivers” elevate their driving skills against the car’s autonomous system. The objective of Car Hero is to re-engage the video games and app friendly phones addicted youth of tomorrow with the automobile. The concept attracts young gamers that have been disconnected to the whole driving experience. Our goal was not only to make it fun, but also help promote driver education and decrease distracted driving risks. By making the interaction between the driver and vehicle interface more focused, outside distractions become significantly reduced. We aimed to mimic that level of engagement that we see kids experience while playing video games or chatting with their friends via text messages. You know the one where they are so engaged in the moment, nothing else matters, not even the fact that dinner is ready. That’s the focus and drive we were going after.
As you advance from level to level in the game, the vehicle demonstrates a metamorphosis from a four-wheel traditional layout to a three-, two-, and eventually, the ultimate extreme challenge, a one-wheeler. Now, keep in mind this is just a concept–but, as the game advances, the circular centerline also changes to reflect what’s happening in the game–meaning while the round shape body of the vehicle is dominant throughout all stages, the additional wheels deploy or stow away creating a flexible morphable platform.
If tomorrow’s youth are as disconnected and unconventional as today’s, why create a vehicle as traditional as the one they’ve been ignoring all along? We wanted to create a car to meet the needs and passions of the social networking, smart phone-loving generation. Car Hero’s unique signature is so memorable and off the grid it would make a kid drop his cone and all 31 flavors.
So, what are your thoughts? Would you be interested in engaging in an interface like this? Do you think the next generation needs a new driving experience?
19 Comments
Leave a Reply
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
to this comment On November 25, 2009 at 5:11 pm Matthew Nordeman said:
I am 20 years old, active participant of the social-networking world and I am also a car-lover. I think that a game such as Car Hero would increase the overall driving experience, and as I have noticed lately, many people need to increase their driving skills! I don’t believe the next generation needs a new driving experience, because nothing can compare to a thick V8 growl going down the highway, but the game sounds engaging!
to this comment On November 26, 2009 at 1:30 am Vikingsoftpaw said:
You people need to quit smoking chronic and find individuals that know how to design and build cars. Creative type are sooooo out there…..
to this comment On November 29, 2009 at 6:19 am Michael said:
One interface change that would make sense in cars is to replace steering wheels with side mounted control sticks (maybe have two, one for right handers, one for left). Move it left or right to steer, forward or back to accelerate or decelerate. Keep pulling back to go backwards. Use force feedback to present road feel. Now the driver won’t hit the wheel in an accident, and gets a lot more room. Appeals well to people who grew up with digital game control interfaces. Saves lots of weight. Easy to arrange for right hand drive. Ties in nicely to existing drive by wire systems. I’d be more likely to consider a car with this sort of interface.
to this comment On December 1, 2009 at 1:47 pm TerryB. said:
Over the years, I’ve driven everything from two to eighteen wheels, and some things with treads. The vehicles that gave me the most satisfying ‘driving experience’ were the ones that let me feel most in charge of what was going on. For four wheels, GM came close with the Sky/Solstice. Take a look at a late-1950s MGA for a car that was fun to drive, had room for a passenger and a little luggage, and a few bags of groceries behind the seats. Manual everything. Cheap to run – except for having to buy British parts made out of unobtanium. Build the same car all over the world and you won’t have that problem.
An enclosed two or three-wheeler could give a similar driving experience and still have all-weather usefulness. Something that requires constant driver input and involvement to keep the trip from becoming boring.
Space Cadet cars might be cool to look at, and to game with, but how practical would they be where roads have potholes and traffic jams, and dealers want to charge you $50 just to plug in their computer and see why you have an error code on your complicated car electronics?
to this comment On December 3, 2009 at 2:08 am ed said:
An . . . inexpensive . . . electric . . . mini-pickup, that can be used for:
. . . carrying 4′ X 8″ sheets of plywood,
. . . drywall,
. . . haul a small trailer,
. . . snowplowing, etc.
http://www.vicky.in/straightfrmtheheart/tata-ace-electric-pictorial-preview/
In this economy and with the current deficit,
. . . i’d like to buy something like that,
. . . . . . I think a lot of people would like to buy something like that,
but . . . as GM’s CEO could tell you, we don’t have time to play GAME’s.
to this comment On December 14, 2009 at 1:05 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
One of the criticism of semi-autonomous vehicles is that they would make lazy drivers, unable to make crucial decisions in an emergency. Another is that if you make the vehicle so heavily dependent on sophisticated electronics it’s that much more prone to (expensive) failure.
Follow the K.I.S.S. principle, keep it reliable and easy to fix. Simply address those components and systems that tend to break down, improve their reliability and longevity, and you’ll attract more buyers.young and old alike.
On the other hand, a semi-autonomous or autonomous vehicle control system might be of better use for older drivers who may be losing their senses and driving skills- so, make simple. reliable vehicles for the kids and they’ll adapt to using them, make the “failsafe” products for the seniors.
to this comment On December 20, 2009 at 7:59 pm getalifeagain said:
I think it is time GM takes the initiative and starts designing radically different cars; not just me too jellybean ones.
to this comment On December 21, 2009 at 3:12 pm ed said:
If you must design something,
Basic delivery vehicle, all in one.
. . . why NOT design a Multi-functional Vehicle,
. . . that everyone can use.
How is this for a Design: ANT (A Necessities Transporter)
1) Basic commuter car and
2) Basic pickup and
3) Basic van and
4) Basic camper and
5) Basic boat hauler and
6) Basic snowplow and
7) Basic tow truck and
. . . (Depending on which options you purchase)
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13648#p93271
to this comment On December 22, 2009 at 3:42 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
I’ve suggested a possible configuration for “A Necessities Transporter” for some years already: the passenger-carrying minivan (with seats that fold flush into the floor) that converts to a cargo-carrying van or open bed pickup truck. When in 2-seat “commuter” mode, the pickup bed could be covered with a “boattail” drag-reducing cap.
Some years ago I made a safety demonstrator out of my personal car, using 2 micro-switches, a relay, and some wire. Energized by the ignition circuit, so the circuit was active only while the car was running, the micro-switches were both closed when the driver’s foot was off the accelerator and the brake at the same time; this lit up the amber turn signal lamps. In use, the amber lights lit up in that moment when the driver’s foot left the accelerator to step on the brake, giving the following driver an extra fraction of a second to react. Perhaps the system needs another switch to be active only when the car is in a froward gear, for manual transmissions, or in “drive” for automatics.
Most of the wiring was done under the dash and under the hood of the car. All that’s needed are a couple of (or maybe three, counting the transmission switch) automotive-rated microswitches, mounting brackets fabricated as needed, a headlight or horn relay, and some 14-ga wire, and of course the car needs to have amber turn signals. I think I spent all of $10 and an afternoon to figure how to route the wires.
to this comment On December 27, 2009 at 10:27 am ed said:
Are GM and Ford doing the the right thing?
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=13648#p93713
to this comment On December 28, 2009 at 1:21 pm cobra767 said:
I commend you on this site for wanting insight from the end user. That being said I have been reviewing this site for a couple of months now. The concept is great however I have to question if this is just a placebo or if GM is really interested in making changes that the general auto consumer is interested in. Thus far I have not seen anything that I find interesting one way or another.
I grew up during the muscle car era so I want to see ideas that promote performance, engineering, and design. I have said for years the auto industry as a whole has dipped their cars in white wash and everything looks and performs the same. The only car that has come out in quite some time that I said I have to get is the Australian based G8 GT, of which I know own.
If GM wants to make a difference in the market why not start out with things like On Star. This is a great option because it promotes safety so why not include it on all models free?
Why not put a program together the end user could utilize to build their own prototype. Much like a GM website to build their own car you could build this program so that the builds would belong to GM. This could address any market the end user has an interest in. This could be for small, mid, large vehicles and trucks. It seems to me if you have 200 designers working on new models vs thousands of submissions GM would be able to bring more ideas to the table.
Just my two cents.
to this comment On December 29, 2009 at 4:08 pm Jean-Paul Beaugrand said:
I like the idea of a do-it-yourself car design website, or maybe a downloadable car design software package. Perhaps it could be an add-on to a free design program like Google Sketchup, with a website devoted to styling designs submitted by the public.
to this comment On January 1, 2010 at 10:22 pm ed said:
Why should a car cost me $20,000 to $40,000 ? ? ?
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13685
to this comment On January 6, 2010 at 2:05 pm kenZ300 said:
There needs to be a site where customers can comment on each vehicle within a brand.
If you want to learn what customers and potential customers like and dislike about a vehicle a blog for each vehicle would work.
It would also help if you note the best selling competitor to each vehicle in the size and class and ask for comments.
This would be a more precise way to get comments about your vehicles. While the lab is mostly looking at new vehicles to introduce the comments about existing vehicles may be eye opening.
to this comment On January 9, 2010 at 11:36 am MikesZ said:
Why don’t you make this site more interactive? Put up your general design scheme e.g. sport coupe, small truck, or micro utility vehicle with a click-and-drag “parts store” for us where we can change/mix/match interior and exterior parts e.g. front/rear clips, fenders, hood, grills, lights, wheels, dash, seating, etc. so we can give you a better idea of what we are wanting in the different types of vehicles.
to this comment On January 23, 2010 at 1:10 pm R.VENUGOPAL said:
though general motors is a giant mfg unit in united states
they should have come up with small cars, economically within the reach of common
people all over the world, but also with their design and development capacity
they could have captured world market and they would not have gone to debts
as seems to day
any way even now it is not too late to realise this and concentrate on high volume
low cost , economically efficient small veicles with 4 cylinder engines both diesel
and petrol vehicles
my best wishes to top personalities and ceo and managing directors
with regards
venugopal, engineer from india
to this comment On January 31, 2010 at 12:04 pmJohn Ttrick said:
Why should a car cost me $20,000 to $40,000 ? ? ?
——
hgh
to this comment On February 5, 2010 at 11:20 am ed said:
Advertising Vs PR : Chevy Beat Vs Tata Nano
http://forums.treehugger.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=14147&start=15#p98392
to this comment On February 22, 2010 at 4:30 am Chris R said:
While all of this is interesting, and might be cool to have in a vehicle. GM really needs to design vehicles that just plain work. You’re starting to do that, but corner cutting does show. Why, for example, did GM go away from the really strong door stops on your full size trucks that had been used successfully for decades? The truck I use at work, a 2007 Silverado, has twice gone to the body shop to get the drivers door fixed because a strong wind caught it when it was being opened and slammed it against it’s stop. The door didn’t stop there like it was supposed to, instead things got really bent up and required an expensive trip to the body shop on each occasion. Trucks are supposed to be tough. Chevy trucks always were tough. This truck just shatters that image. So maybe on the next redesign, test your doors to make sure they will still be serviceable even if a 40mph wind catches them and blows them open. Please?