I was expecting a mention of the little tank-and-arrow icon on the gas gauge that tells you what side the filler door is on. Years of renting cars and randomly switching directions at gas stations before someone told me about that...
That was hiding in a little box in the middle of the article with the clicky title "How to tell which side the filler is on without getting out."
A bit of web trivia, one of the reasons web sites do this is because of Google. If you are using Google ads, and most web sites do, you have to conform to their guidelines with respect to ads when you come from Google. However, if you are transitioning from an internal link all bets are off you can do what you want. As a result you see a design pattern where a site tries to get you to the page with a search result, and then tries to get you to click to another page to get to more profitable (for the web site) ads.
It's still better than the old situation where you'd land on a page that was stacked full of heaps of ads. At least now if you're on mobile data, you see a page with a tiny bit of text and then 'next' and it warns you that the next page is going to be godawful and use half your month's quota.
> If you are using Google ads, and most web sites do, you have to conform to their guidelines with respect to ads when you come from Google. However, if you are transitioning from an internal link all bets are off you can do what you want.
The short of it is that Google penalizes pages if too big a percentage of the above-the-fold content is filled with ads. So if you want your pages to rank highly, you need to keep the ad real-estate reasonable. However, once someone gets to your site via a highly ranked landing page, there's nothing stopping you from getting a user to click on an internal link that takes them to a much more ad-filled page (which doesn't itself rank highly on Google).
The terms and conditions you have to sign as part of the application process to show Google ads. There is a fairly detailed list of do's and don't's which you are expected to adhere to.
I think Jalopnik and other Gawker media sites sacrifice too much quality for cash. Tangentially-car-related celebrity articles, clickbait galore, all their little SEO tricks. I was a long-time reader but I gave up on the site due to these tactics, which is unfortunate because some of their writers were (and presumably still are) very good.
But compare to TTAC, which manages to stay on topic, has excellent reporting, great stories, and uses simple ads.
One particularly odd exception I've encountered: lots of older Buick models have the fuel door hidden under the rear license plate. The rear license plate on these models is mounted on a hinged bracket that folds down to expose the fuel port, which isn't obvious at all by appearance.
I found myself rather confused by this when I noticed at a glance that my grandmother's car didn't seem to have anywhere to put fuel in it.
> (...) for cars that use a mechanical, cable-operated internal release for the fuel filler, it’s much easier to have the release be on the same side as the fuel filler flap (...)
The position of the mechanism that you use to unlock it can also give you a clue, on those vehicles where there isn't any arrow.
The classic design text 'The Design Of Everyday Things' praises the design of cars, and rightly so IMO. e.g. doorhandles are all intuitive and obvious how they are to be used, the knobs and controls are functional and well-shaped, etc.
Cars are getting worse as more things transition to touchscreens. As a driver, groping at a flat, featureless touchscreen to select something is far more difficult than trying to press a button.
Doors maybe, but I often hear "how do you open the trunk?"
Some only open from the cabin, some have an obvious knob outside, some have a concealed knob below the registration plate, sometimes you press the company logo...
Particularly now that backup cameras are mandatory, I often find myself pressing one thinking it's the hatchback release. Hopefully they designed for that.
Many are tempted to say "then don't operate the touchscreen when driving". But if e.g. air conditioning is controlled via touchscreen, you have little choice in case the windscreen becomes fogged while in traffic.
That touchscreen disabling is annoying. But luckily, it's pretty easy to hack into the system and disable it, so you can use the touchscreen any time.
Much of the time, though, the "commander" knob works well for controlling the system while driving. But once in a while, there's stuff that's just too annoying to do that way, like when trying to select an artist out of your large music library on the USB drive. If there's 100+ artists, and you're trying to pick one that doesn't start with 'A', it's much faster to use the touchscreen to select the first letter on the right side alphabet bar, then select the artist from there.
Also, entering in addresses on the nav system is impossible without using the touchscreen (you can only select favorites with the commander knob). So if you want to set an address while you're driving, you can't, without doing my hack above. Of course, it's probably not a good idea for you to enter an address or GPS coordinates while you're driving, but there's a second seat in the front row, next to you, which may have something called a "passenger" sitting in it, who can also easily reach the touchscreen. Preventing them from using the touchscreen when they're not even driving, and forcing the driver to find a place to pull over, is just asinine.
The Mazda3's HVAC system doesn't just have "good tactile buttons", it's entirely separate from the infotainment system. On the cheaper models, it's all mechanical, and on the more expensive models it's automatic, but either way it has no connection to the infotainment at all, it's all knobs and buttons just like it should be.
Temperature can be controlled using steering wheel controls. You do need to use the touchscreen to activate the defroster, though. I don't personally find it to be a problem, as the controls are right at the bottom (removing a dimension) and I never used the defroster often enough in other cars to be able to activate it without looking either.
That is just plain dangerous. There have been times that I needed the defroster, couldn't safely stop, and had to keep looking out of my rapidly-fogging window.
This probably doesn't happen where Tesla's engineering is located. The typical conditions are probably 100% humidity, then suddenly getting cold rain on the windshield.
The door handles on the rear doors of my Chevy Sonic are mostly hidden. I have to show people where they are. They usually conclude that there is no handle before I get around to telling them where they are.
That said, I love the way they look, so I'm not complaining. I don't usually have passengers anyhow.
I have to disagree. I think cars have pretty great UX. Do you remember learning to drive? At any point, was there any doubt as to what turning the steering wheel right or left would do? At any point, was there any doubt as to what the pedals did? Or the gear shifter? Or turn signals? The easiest, most intuitive software wishes it could be as immediately understandable as the control system for an automobile.
Much of that stuff has been standardized over a century. They weren't always that way on all cars.
For example, you cite the steering wheel as intuitive and obvious. It's actually not: in many early cars, there was no steering wheel. They had a "tiller" instead (a lever that you pushed from side to side to steer). There was a huge debate at the time over whether tillers or steering wheels were better. Obviously, the steering wheel won out, but if you could transport some people from 1895 to today, they'll complain that tillers should have been used instead.
The gear shifter is another example. If you drive a stick, you probably take it for granted that the gearshift is a lever in the middle between the seats. It wasn't that long ago that some cars and trucks had "3 on the column": the gearshift (manual transmission) was on the steering column. And automatic transmission gearshifts on the column persisted much longer than that; I think it took until the 90s for them to finally die out.
Turn signals aren't that obvious either; you're just used to them. My mom got a ticket in 1965 because her boss gave her his car keys to drive his car somewhere nearby. She had never driven a car before, only ridden as a passenger, but of course didn't tell him this because it would look really bad. She managed driving it ok (steering, gas), probably because she had watched others do it, but she screwed up with the turn signals and signaled the wrong direction for a turn while a cop was looking.
Most "intuitive" things aren't intuitive at all; people are just used to them because they're more or less standardized, and people have gotten used to them or have watched other people use them and learned that way. Take some primitive person from the Amazon rainforest who's never even seen a car and stick him in one (on a closed track) and see how well he figures out how to operate it. If he can't figure it out very quickly with zero instruction, then it's not "intuitive".
I just drove a 2006ish BMW and was confused at the turn signal as it didn't "click in" when pushed up or down but immediately returned to center. It operated correctly though, turning off when the turn was completed.
Also the windshield wiper control was "opposite" of what I am accustomed to: down was pulse and up was constant. I got mad the first two times I wanted pulse but then realized it was better as my right hand is typically above the stalk on the steering wheel and it is much easier to simply swipe down than have to swipe down then up.
My car was built in Europe so the turn signals are to the left of the wheel and the wiper controls on the right.
I'm used to it now but I can't tell you how many times I put the wipers on instead of indicating when I first got the car.
The car is a right-hand drive car (I'm in Australia) and a manual, so I actually think it's a bit stupid because both the gearstick and the indicator are on the left side of the steering wheel.
So it's not really possible to indicate while changing gears.
Perhaps that is part of the reason that people with European cars are so infamous for not indicating!
Unlikely. All the European cars I've seen also have the signals on the left stalk. However, this is the US, where the steering wheel is also on the left.
It sounds like your car cheaped out and kept the same control layout for both LHD and RHD versions. Having never driven in a LHD country, I have no idea what other car companies do about this.
I suspect you're right about them cheaping out on my car, but I have also driven a LHD Audi that had the same setup. So it might be common to cheap out in that way.
Can any other LHD people with european cars comment? Are your indicators on the left side of the steering wheel also?
I never said it really was superior, just that some people (living around 1900) thought so. Also, we're talking about how "intuitive" a user interface is here, not about the safety implications. It took many decades for cars to finally get airbags, collapsible steering columns, etc. It was quite routine for people to be impaled on steering columns until the late 20th century.
I wasn't arguing about superiority. It was just a though of what things would be like if it had gone the other way.
Speaking of intuitive, a tiller on a car is only intuitive if you've used it on a boat. Pushing the lever in the opposite direction of where you want to go is counter-intuitive.
No, but I was learning on an 1985 Ford F150 with a 5-speed manual transmission. There were so few controls available that my lawn mower was more complex.
My 2010 F150 now has a baffling array of buttons and switches and extra levers hanging off the steering column. It's a crapshoot getting in a strange car and figuring out how the headlights and windshield wipers work in particular.
Cruise control and audio and sometimes hazard lights too.
There's a classic Star Trek movie scene where helmsman Sulu is trying to fly a helicopter, I believe in the movie with the whales, and the helicopter stick controls do the car thing of randomly turning on windshield wipers and things.
When I was a kid, I couldn't for the life of me figure out how my parents knew which way to operate the turn signals. It was to me unintuitive as the lever was operated up/down whereas the turn lights were right/left, and as on the car we had back then (a Saab 96, IIRC) the instrument panel had only a single blinking light for when either turn signal was enabled, instead of separate left and right turn signal lights.
But yeah, IIRC there has been research suggesting that cognitive load on aircraft pilots in old-fashioned aircraft (lots of separate switches and gauges) is lower than in modern aircraft with touchscreens.
Steering wheel and pedals, sure. Gearstick, mostly, although the positioning of reverse is different in different cars, and often there's a little trick to engaging it (push the stick down, or pull up a ring just under the handle). The shifter on automatics is often weird (but at least you never have to use it while driving).
Headlights, wipers, cruise control, trip indicator, window controls, A/C, radio -- all different on different cars.
Even the turn signals can vary. If I'm signalling left and want to turn it off, I expect to be able to cancel the signal by clicking the lever upwards, but I've driven cars where that causes it to signal right instead.
Shifters with the various "reverse lockout features".
I remember being flagged down in a mall parking lot, and being asked why they couldn't shift into reverse (this shifter required being physically pushed down to move).
I had a GTI with the shifter lockout was broken (reverse all the way left and up, where 1st is..)
I grew up in cars with column shifters and front bench seats, but they were all automatic (my mom had a 1985 Oldsmobile Ninety-Eight Regency (lemon!) and a 1993 Pontiac Bonneville SE). I can't imagine the awkwardness of operating a manual in that position.
That would be a 3-speed manual with the shift lever on the steering column. I never understood how all those complicated linkages from the column down to the transmission ever seemed like a good idea to an engineer...
When I worked for the Park Service, we had this positively ancient Chevy van we inherited from the Air Force. Thing was older than me, I think. No one knew exactly how many miles it actually had on it because the odometer only had five spaces.
Anyways, it had a 3-speed column shifter, and the top linkage off the column would often pop out first thing in the morning. You could tell when it happened because it would just shift with no effort, but you wouldn't move. Then, you'd have to pop the hood and fiddle with it until you got the link reconnected.
I had an '82 Chevy pickup with that shifter arrangement and it actually wasn't that bad even though the bushings had long fallen out all the joints so there was a good inch of slop in the travel of each of the arms.
Still shifted fine. Unless you didn't get it all the way engaged and the gears would bounce instead of mesh and jam the transmission into 2nd and 3rd at the same time requiring you go get out, open the hood and give the control linkage a good yank before continuing.
Haha I have enough problems with the shift linkages on an old tractor of mine, on which the shift levers are located 4" above the transmission. I'd hate to have to deal with what you're describing here...
When I got a ride from a friend long time ago, I was puzzled by how that operates. And, of course, there were two different W patterns manufactured at different times: one where R is top-left, and one where R is bottom-right (pictured above).
However, with modern Renault shifters you can't put it into reverse when you didn't intend to, because there's that ring that you lift before it goes to R.
Many years ago we had a Renault 4 hire care in Morocco and my wife was driving and she wasn't happy using that control so she got me, the passenger, to change gear.
She'd hit the clutch, shout the gear she wanted ("Second"), I'd change gear, she'd put the clutch in and on we'd go....
However, in modern Renaults some models (Scenic) have an electric handbrake near the driver door, where the passenger possibly cannot reach it. The electric handbrake is a hill start assist as such, though. And it's one of those electric subsystems that can break, is necessary for the annual MOT check, and is very expensive to fix... (900 € for the part, plus cost of work).
And all of the special electrical thingies in my Renault are keyed to the VIN, so you can't get a used/refurb part, they've got to be new. And the Renault dealer is the only one that can program the VIN into the part.
I think my electric hand brake was 660€, but I've got a mechanic who's good at finding parts. But he still had to take it to the Renault dealer for programming.
And it relies on a 161€ clutch position sensor (which is different than the interlock for startup sensor)
Mechanically, Renaults seem pretty good. Electrically, I'm not so sure.
I actually don't remember too many problems - we drove from Marrakesh over the Atlas mountains and stayed at Ouarzazate for a while before driving back.
The problem we did have was caused by a lack of clarity as to whose responsibility it was to keep an eye on the fuel gauge... :-)
I managed 20 years of driving without seeing the arrow, probably because I was never looking for it?
I heard it mentioned on a radio show once but they said the side the tank filler was on corresponded to the nozzle on the pump icon - no mention of an arrow.
I still didn't notice an arrow until the time the nozzle on the icon actually didn't correspond to the filler tank.
> I managed 20 years of driving without seeing the arrow, probably because I was never looking for it?
Or because most cars historically haven't had it. I've only seen it in relatively recent cars (last 5 years maybe?) and even then not on all of them.
> I heard it mentioned on a radio show once but they said the side the tank filler was on corresponded to the nozzle on the pump icon - no mention of an arrow.
That one's not actually true, at least not consistently. Sometimes it works sometimes it does not so it's useless. The arrow, when present, is always correct.
I have a 2006 Chevy Impala, and the arrow is there. I had it for about two years before reading about the arrow and never noticed ("saw") it, but now it's the first thing I notice when looking at another car's instrument panel.
I would love to see what your desired car interior would look like, with little plaques everywhere for "A/C", "Headlights", "Turn Signal", "Hazard Lights", etc.
Yes, I would. I have a car with dozens of icons on the buttons, and I still cannot figure out how to turn on the heat. I know I could read the 200 page manual, but I'm too lazy, so I just punch buttons and turn knobs more or less at random.
I nearly drove of the road the other day trying to adjust the volume on the radio. It got stuck in some incomprehensible mode where the volume knob meant some other madness. I gave up and had to wait until I was stuck at a red light.
What's wrong with the labels "heat", "fan", "defroster"?
> I would love to see what your desired car interior would look like
It's not hard to find out. Look at the dash on an older car, before the Mac came out.
Absolutely yes. I can read quickly and accurately. I'm terrible at guessing and remembering pictograms. Maybe if I were an ancient Egyptian... but I'm not. I like my alphabet; it's a very good invention.
This goes for other things too: home appliances, computer software, etc.
The picture is a bit fuzzy, but the switches and knobs are clearly labeled with english words. Including words like "on" and "off". It's deadly to confuse pilots with what the latest trendy icon for "aileron trim" is.
There's something about cars that leads people who write about them to adopt a wonderfully refreshing and engaging tone. It's like they all listened to Car Talk way back when and took copious notes. You don't see this with other topics.
I don't love cars, but I _love_ Top Gear. It's got that tone you describe, sort of breezy and light but about something real.
Like the sister comment said, maybe it's vessels, because aviation news can be similar. I don't know why, but it's one of the last things untainted by politics and division.
At first I had it worked back to America's tinkering past. I don't make that association, so I find the tone really interesting, but I can see how it would be easy to get a sense of Wilbur and Orville Wright building their first aircraft and feeling the joy of moving in a manner you've never moved before.
When heroin hit the streets back in the 1980's and burglary/theft became a thing, cars in the UK, built for the UK market with the fuel filler cap on the left would be the ones targeted by thieves. So the filler cap might have been in a great position for when stranded on the motorway due to lack of fuel but it was also in a position convenient for thieves. The first scenario can be avoided by looking at the fuel gauge, the second scenario couldn't really be avoided if junkies roamed the streets every night. You could park the other way round to make the fuel filler cap be road side, but that might not be practical.
I remember when my boss's 'Transit' van was raided for fuel during these high crime times, all the thieves had to do was pull a tube from under the bonnet. I don't think they even had to siphon anything and the filler cap made no difference.
Before this crime wave the idea of locking a petrol tank seemed a bit excessive, who would want to steal petrol, particularly if they had to siphon it and could get caught for stealing? Much more convenient (and affordable) to buy one's own. But then this crime wave of heroin addicts happened so common sense no longer mattered, things had to be zombie-proofed and the idea of an unlocked fuel filler cap now started to seem crazy. Who would invite the world to steal their petrol?
This crime wave also came at a time when people started being truly mobile for work, driving everywhere. No longer did you have the community of normal people walking the streets to make it difficult for thieves, we started to hide inside behind burglar alarms and CCTV. I preferred the former security model where everyone knew everyone else's movements and gossip with strangers duly noted, but such is progress. Note lead was in fuel back then too.
So in the UK it was the natively built Ford and Vauxhall models that were ripe for being raided and the hidden location of the fuel tank made matters worse. Fancier targets, e.g. BMW, would not get attacked even though they contained fuel too, it was the lock on the cap security plus the location that made the difference.
I had to replace the filler tube on my Land Cruiser a while ago; I was momentarily puzzled why there were a couple of angled pieces of sheet metal tacked to the lower tube interior.
Then I realized that it would make it near impossible to get a hose of any significant diameter into the tank.
I bet some Toyota engineer had to experiment for a while to come up with a solution which enabled the fuel to flow down the tube fast enough to avoid a diesel geysir - while still making siphoning impractical...
I have driven in the UK for 12 years and genuinely have never heard of that rule (obviously did not study the highway code well enough before the test).
They need to standardize many characteristics of the filler port beyond which side of the car it's located so that they can have an automatic fill station robots.
When my self driving car shows up, I'll be damned if it's going to have to drive me to the gas station so that I can fill it up.
Skimmed thru the article, and didn't read the comments - so maybe I missed it somewhere - but I once read a story in an old issue of Popular Science (1940s or 50s), probably "The Model Garage" (my favorite part of that era's magazine) - where the explanation given as to which side the filler was on seemed logical enough (perhaps for the time - but it still seems to hold on most vehicles today):
The filler is always on the opposite side of where the exhaust pipe is routed.
Granted, this doesn't help if you have dual tailpipes (though usually the pipe is y-split just before the output), or if you have dual straight-pipes (I don't believe any production vehicles have this as an option - it is usually an aftermarket performance mod).
But ultimately - the explanation was with the filler opposite that of the exhaust pipe, you decrease the issue of the heat from the pipe, or leaks from the filler, becoming a dangerous combination.
That said - now that I think about it (I guess I'll need to crawl back under), my Isuzu VehiCROSS has the exhaust running down the passenger side, and the filler is on that same side. However, the exhaust is routed out the left (driver) side - I'm not sure how the filler pipe and everything else fits in there.
Knowing the VX, though - given its "odd-duck" and somewhat hand-built "custom" status in the car world (rumor has it that with so few built, an assembly line wasn't created for them, and they were all hand assembled; it's known that a ton of parts for them are the same between the VX and Rodeo/Trooper/Hombre) - there's a good chance the routing isn't "optimal" (I just had a custom heat shield made to fit between the exhaust and a connector for the TOD module - owners have had it melt and water intrude into the connector - burning it and sometimes the module out - and given that they aren't exactly easy to obtain...well, I wanted to protect it from that possibility).
Why is it a good thing to standardise? Given that most petrol stations have equal access for both sides, you'd start losing efficiency once the number of standardised cars reached a certain proportion. I figure that by that point, electric cars will have rendered this obsolete. If the entire nature of transportation hasn't changed by that point. And civilisation as we know it still exists.
In California (at least), the pumps work regardless of which side the car is parked on. The hoses are longer and the hands free mechanism is very different from the east coast. Actually, I prefer to extend the hose over the car as it feels more sturdy. So, dictating which side the fuel door is on doesn't necessarily create gas pump asymmetry.
If that were the standard, it would no longer matter which side the hose is on. I'm from the midwest: If you pull into a gas station, it is highly unlikely that the hose will stretch across the car.
I'd report on the hoses here in Norway, but honestly I haven't driven since I moved here a few years back.
Norwegian hoses are, in general, too short to reach over the car. (If they're long enough, you've probably wound up at a truck pump, and had better think twice before pulling the trigger on the filler pistol...)
My filler cap is on the left (Toyota Land Cruiser); my wife cannot remember which side the cap is on, but she DOES remember that she can spot the lid using the mirrors, so we're both happy.
That is very very helpful, thank you! And I'll definitely try to avoid the truck fuel.
Well, it will be helpful once I am legal to drive. Both my spouse and I forgot about my driving - he didn't own a car when I moved (we own a cheap one now). Quite unfortunate, considering the cost of driving classes, but probably a plus considering winter driving seems a slightly different beast comparatively..
Winter driving is a slightly different beast indeed; however, a lot is achieved if one makes an effort to drive more passively - increasing the distance to the car in front, start braking early, &c.
Any driving school will be happy to give winter driving lessons even if you have a valid licence, by the way - and no, no matter what shenanigans you pull during the lesson, they cannot have your licence revoked.
So, if your spouse isn't too comfortable driving on the icy stuff[0], just get in touch with a driving school (preferably in winter, though we do have dedicated tracks with artificial cooling here and there - nothing like skidding around on half an inch of ice in July...)
I have a valid American licence for a while more, but I missed the window for taking only the written exam. Therefore, I am required to take the classes nevertheless. I understand that winter driving is part of the standard lessons, though I considered taking the class during the winter just for the experience. (Of course, if the winters have as little snow as this past one, it might not make a difference).
He's Norwegian, and very comfortable. The differences on his caution and mine is striking. He drives faster than I would, in mountains, with little to no sliding. Average "snow speeds" are faster here, but I'm sure some of that is because folks use snow tires instead of the "all weather" tires folks used in the states. But to be fair, I'm actually luckier than immigrants having no practical experience with snow and cold and I'm sure most of my previous caution will transfer over nicely.
Suggestion: If he's eligible for doing driving practice with you (Basically - older than 25 and has had his licence for more than five years uninterrupted), just find a large, open parking lot once some snow and ice is around.
Honestly, simply spending a few hours in an empty parking lot did more for whatever winter driving skills I may have picked up than any formal driving lesson did. There's a lot to be said for trying to maneuver the car and failing miserably to do so - repeatedly - without hitting anything. Most educational. (And fun! Just don't get too carried away, or the police will chew on you + spouse for reckless driving if they are bored.)
Proper winter tires helps a lot. As does a gentle right foot and slow, smooth operation of the steering wheel (And if you really want to go native - studded tires and 4x4)
(Not that I expect this to be news to you; I'm just making small talk, as it were. :))
-Oh, I wasn't concerned about accidentally filling diesel on a gas powered car; more that the truck diesel comes gushing out much faster than it would from a 'normal' pump. (Though I have to admit, having never tried, I don't know whether the truck diesel nozzles are even larger than the regular diesel ones. (that would make sense, though.)
I don't think I've ever come across a hose that doesn't stretch to the opposite side of the car here in the UK. It always makes me laugh to see people queuing for a particular side when the pumps on the other side are all vacant.
The hose would stretch, but it could touch the body of the car and filling on the other side isn't as convenient because the hose gets bent near the handle.
A similar number of cars with LHS/RHS filler caps would make for some nice load balancing at the pumps, but the problem is that most European and American manufacturers put it on the right side, regardless of vehicle model. Japanese cars sold in the US and Europe mostly have it on the left because the cars were originally designed for LHT and the engineers didn't bother to switch it. Many Nissans also have the dials of the dashboard in the center in order to cut some expenditure in producing LHT/RHT cars.
UK petrol stations usually have a marked entrance and exit giving an implicit one-way system. Along with the quite tight dimensions, it's quite tricky to approach the pump from the other direction.
That's something that never occurred to me. Even in cities, US gas stations have plenty of room to turn around if you need to approach a pump from the other side.
At this point we should be thinking bigger and saying something like "by 2025 all new cars must not fill up at all because they must not use carbon-emitting fuel".
The problem persists with which side of the electric car gets the SAE J1772 receptacle? Of course because the only think more fun than one standard, is two standards, and that increments inductively, so universal charging stations are not only going to have cable side problems, but they're going to have a lot of cables to choose from.
There is a UI problem for EV in that we're culturally programmed to get our energy from 80s style chrome and plastic R2D2 sized monoliths that plug into the side of our vehicles, whereas technologically theres no reason an overhead retractable cord or ground mounted cord couldn't work as well or better.
EVs do have a hood. Most of them use it to hold drivetrain and various other equipment just like a traditional car. Teslas have enough surplus volume to provide a cargo area under it.
Charging cables are more flexible than gasoline hoses, so they're easier to manage. They tend to be pretty long, so you don't usually have to park any particular way. If the charger is on the wrong side, you can easily plug in anyway.
An exception to this is Tesla Superchargers, where the cable is just barely long enough to reach the charge port when you park the way you're intended to. But since all Supercharger-capable vehicles have the charge port in the same location, it's not an issue.
Regarding the original comment's proposal to standardize this stuff, I can only imagine that California would mandate it on one side, New York would mandate it on the other side, and then we'd be even more doomed than we are already.
You just described the Nissan Leaf. And, yes, it has a hood. That's where the accessory battery and wiper fluid live (and some other stuff that needs access).
No offense, but I would like to see other global automotive standards addressed first - primarily "safety related". Differences between Euro and US standards mean the same exact car can't be sold in the two markets, so they have to make at least 2 versions of every car. Ridiculous.
A lot of vehicles meet both US and European standards for safety out of the factory now. It was was my understanding that there are two versions due to fuel economy restrictions (and fuel type differences).
There are several small differences. I can't find an exhaustive list, but windshield material, bumper height, headlights, and taillights are some that come to mind immediately. Yes, it's the same platform, but the vehicles are "tweaked" for each market safety regulation.
It's not that US is "safer" than EU or vice-versa, it's that the standards are different.
Almost every pump I've ever used in the UK can reach to the far side of my car, so I don't even think about which side to go anymore.
Lots of people do though, and many petrol stations have big signs to try to educate people that the hose will reach if your filler cap is on the other side of the car.
Of course, if you're driving a big van that's not going to work out (and lorries have their own pumps and their own problems), but most cars is fine.
I see people doing this in UK and I don't understand - aren't you worried about scratching the paint? I'd rather reverse in front of the pump so I'm on the correct side than run the hose over my car if it had to rest on the bodywork.
I do it all the time and it's never scratched the paint of my (admittedly small) car. It makes it much more efficient to just drive up to any spare pump without worrying about the side.
Every petrol station I use has hoses that pull out enough to reach the other side. I didn't realise there were places that weren't like this. People still queue up for 'their' side resulting in the occasional free cut to the front for me.
A friend noticed that people would pull up to the wrong side of the Costco pump, even if there was an open position on the more natural side. He was never able to figure out why someone would do that.
Maybe because they can't remember which side their wife's car fuel filler is on and know it doesn't matter at Costco (and they don't know about the arrow on the fuel gauge trick)
Since electricity isn't flammable, I'd like to see charging ports in the front center. That means a charger can be on either side, and a home charger might be located at the front of the garage so it can reach either car in a 2-car setup.
I'd believe this if the filler door was on the left side in the Japanese domestic version. As such, I believe it is still on the right side of the car. The article says Toyota switches the filler side for JDM and the American market, but Subaru tends to reuse as many parts as possible between markets due to markedly smaller market share.
Not mentioned in article but I assumed car companies looked at what the majority went with and if any skew would swap to the other side. This would make filling potential quicker as most station have pumps that operate on both sides. This way if most cars had left side tanks then it would be advantageous to have a right side fill as slots are more likely to be open.
At many gas stations, at least in Europe, you can only drive trough in one direction. There is just no space to turn your car in the other direction without getting blocked if the station is busy.
I also always thought there was some kind of inofficial agreement between the various OEMs which one uses which side, so that it's about evenly spread in total. It would at least have made sense for maximizing gas station throughput.
Something that made filling rentals cars easier: there's a triangle on the dash that points to which side the cap is on next to the "fuel" symbol on all the cars I've been in.
The article is kinda empty, but the video showing the lady trying to fill her tank made me laugh a lot. Here's the direct link to it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vupgBykQnko
Some cars (but not all) have an arrow that show which side the filler is (Honda, Ford...). Some cars (but not all) have the pump icon with the handle on the filler side (Volvo, Renault...). Some car have neither and it's pretty maddening really.
But on your own car you'll know once you've had to fill it once. And for other cars it's probably rather irrelevant as the hoses on filling stations are long enough to reach over/around the car. Seems like something pointless to be mad about, actually.
Chevy Volt: charging port is on the driver-side front fender; fueling port on the passenger-side rear fender. I guess I'd prefer the driver side. Seems a bit easier to pull up to the pump and you don't have to walk around to fuel.
One of my cars has the tank on the driver's side and the other on the passenger. I didn't think I cared till reading this thread. Now I prefer the passenger side because I can open my car door all the way to get out at the pump and if refilling with a gas can on the side of the road I'm further from traffic. But ya, the convenience of easily getting out an not walking around the car is nice too and more useful.
Traditional luxury brands have the filler on the right because rich people use full-service gas stations, and traditional budget brands have it on the left because poor people use self-service gas stations.
However in Germany (where a lot of the higher priced brands come from) all normal gas stations are self serviced, which makes it less likely that they have thought about this during the design process. However thats only my current point of view, probably gas stations looked completely different mid of last century and they just kept the inlet position from back then.
Sorry for the Americentrism. Driver side is more convenient for filling at self-service station. Passenger side filling at full-service keeps the mess & stink away from the driver, who is presumably the only one that opens their window.
"Passenger’s side—and by that I mean the right side here—proponents generally include most continental European carmakers, and many American ones, while the biggest driver’s side—the left side—advocates seem to be from Japan."
Not sure this is true. Anecdotal observation of any gas station where I live has damn near every vehicle with the tank on the left side, regardless of make or model. All of my vehicles (the Japanese brands as well as the American brands) have always had the tank on the left/driver's side.
I'm not sure that would make any difference. At most gas stations I go to, people jam themselves in whichever way they fit. And at Costco, where queuing is enforced, people just ignore the filling side and take the shortest queue, and let the attendant drag the hose over/behind their car as necessary.
At the local membership warehouse with enforced queueing, the pumps are accessible from either side and drivers tend to line up with the pump on the correct side.
Makes it a real pain in the ass when there is a huge line and you need to come in from the opposite way instead of the "queue" Had a japanese car with filler on the right side. It was even more of a PITA when only a few pumps had E85 and I had to go against the stream to get in there.
i was told the fillers are on the passenger side because if it were otherwise it might get hard to get out of the car if you park too close to the pump.
Hmm, that is an interesting thought, but at most gas stations I've been to the pumps have about three car widths between them, at worst, two and a half. Also being on the driver side judging distance to the pump right next to you is a lot easier than doing so from the far side of the car.
I have a Mazda so I've got a driver side gas door. Personally I like it as I just step out, swipe my card, plug in the line and wait. No walking around the car necessary.
It seems to me driver side is for gas station convenience, passenger side is for road-side safety. Both are fairly minor conveniences so it seems manufacturers just pick a side and stick to it.
I am exactly the opposite. I preferred the placement on German cars.
I try to park pretty close to the pump. With the filler on the same side as the driver door I have to be careful not to bang the door into the structure around the pump. That's much easier when it is on the other side.
I don't care at all to walk around the car to pump the petrol.
After driving German cars for some years it was a disadvantage of my new Japanese car for me.
But I've never filled my car on the side of a road, so this argument didn't work for me at all.
It seems in my area at least most fillers are on the driver's side. My car has its filler on the passenger's side, and I've had to wait out of the way a few times because every single pump had people filling on the driver's side.
I found out the hard way that even though the dash still says it has 80km to go until empty, my car will not start if parked on a steep incline. I live on a hill of course.
Unfortunately I ended up learning this lesson twice because I'm a dummy who needs to test boundaries. But at least I had the jerry can from the first time on the second occasion.
> So the truth is, nobody really has any idea. Once the cheapest, most convenient solution, the middle, was made illegal, everything became a nightmare of relativism and equally rational justifications. Both sides have their advantages and disadvantages, and we’re left, wandering, alone, confused.
I actually enjoyed the research bits, and the partial justifications from various manufacturers. Their rationale was interesting even if inconsistent.
I'm also against these sort of "click saving" summaries. What's next? Two star-crossed lovers commit suicide, someone climbs mountain and makes it down ok ... Sometimes the journey or narrative is interesting even if the outcome is not extraordinary.
> Two star-crossed lovers commit suicide, someone climbs mountain and makes it down ok ... Sometimes the journey or narrative is interesting even if the outcome is not extraordinary.
I like to think double suicides are extraordinary no matter how they occurred. And frankly, I think it's pretty unlikely that anyone would bother to tell the "someone climbs a mountain and makes it down ok" story unless the odds of not making it down were good enough to make the story interesting. There are plenty of stories consisting mostly or entirely of dialogue in banal surroundings, but those are usually set "at home" or similar.
I heard that German manufacturers but the gas inlet on the right side whereas manufacturers from the east put it on the left side. For the many types of cars I drove that was right.
For US cars, I used to see mostly left side gas caps but now see them all over the place due to global sales. I'd rather have the gas cap on the driver's side. It makes pulling into gas pumps easier and is just a little closer to the door. It's just convenient. My 2006 Nissan has it on the right, I hate it. My 2000 Ford had it on the left. My 1991 Ford had it on the left too.
Is there a specific reason why drivers side is more convenient? Only because it doesn't make you walk around the car? Mine is on the passengers side and it never even occurred to me that having it on the drivers side would be more convenient.
And there's a simple solution that seems to elude everyone - have filler caps on both sides. There are cars like this already(although only the most extreme ones, I think the Veyron has two, I guess it would be too peasantly too run the hose over a million dollar car). I guess it makes the production slightly more complicated, but it solves the problem entirely.
A teenage friend of mine had a pickup truck that had two tanks connected to the two filler caps, which was interesting, almost aircraft like.
We're talking about a 70s beater pickup truck modified as only a 80s/90s teenager has spare time to modify, so I have no idea if this was normal for construction grade trucks or not.
The theory is he could operate his gas powered generator/welder or gas powered air compressor off one tank at a job site, and even if he ran it dry he could drive home on the other tank. There was also some manner of fuel transfer pump(s).
It was pretty common in trucks of that era. My father who -owns a construction company - has owned several of these. Never had any external devices, just used it as a "range extender".
And then you forget to fill both and you are stranded... :-D
A friend of mine in college had an ancient VW bug that had no fuel gauge, by design.
When it ran out of gas, you had to switch a foot pedal to the emergency tank, then you had maybe 10km to get to a Petrol Station before you were stranded.
My first car, we couldn't keep the gas gauge working reliably, so I had to reckon the mileage from the odometer to keep track of whether it needed to be filled. At least it did have dual gas tanks, so in the worst case, you'd notice the engine was chugging and trying to die, and have to flip the switch to the other tank in time.
Filling up both tanks kind of sucked, back when gas was $3.50-4.00/gallon.
Huh, interesting that having an emergency tank with some mechanism to switch between tanks was a cheaper/easier solution than just having a fuel gauge.
I would hate having to replace a rusty fuel filler neck that runs across the wrong side of the car and over the exhaust.
We should just go back to the 70s-era centre-mounted fillers behind the license plate holder. Those were great, until you got rear ended or it was frozen solid.
These were depopularized after the arrival of self-service gas stations due to modesty issues regarding drivers refueling themselves while wearing skirts or dresses.
I think there is some kind of standard or arrangement, if not we could end up with a disproportionate number of cars with the filler in the same side of the vehicle. Which could make gas stations inefficient.
I'd never ever run the hose over my car as it can easily scratch the paint. If there are no pumps available with the hose on the right side, I'll reverse so that the cap is next to the pump.
I've never used a hose that wasn't rubberised - that's in the UK and a few other western European countries. What material are the hoses you use made of (and in what country)?
The hose may have a collar on it to help it retract back which is often plastic. Stretching the hose to its limit can also potentially damage the hose and/or the nozzle depending on how rough you are with it so back in my gas-jockey days it was policy that you don't do it at all.
Interesting. Perhaps I should clarify that I meant the hoses have a rubberised sheath; not that the hose was necessarily just rubber. I'm not aware that hoses do stretch particularly.
This still is possible if you manual override on minivans like the Toyota sienna. Makes fillups tense if your kids are impatient, strong and use the wrong door.
