Convenience in Design, does it sell?

[kach22i]

I got to thinking that "convenience" drives a lot of products. A Porsche have never been very convenient to drive or own, hence it occupies a small segment of the automotive market.

The Automobile in general, it's more convenient for the human body to have luxury. Don't want too sweat or freeze, that would be inconvenient, right? Have the garage attached to the house - more convenient than walking outside into the street. Fill up the massive SUV once every couple of weeks with bags of food rather than stopping everyday to pick up something fresh. All for convenience sake. When gas prices go up, why fill up gas so much draining your bank account? Drive a smaller car, that's more convenient!

The part, which puzzled me in this theory of convenience, is "PARKING". What is so convenient about parking a large car or truck which most American traditionally prefer. This was the part I never understood. Is it not a problem for most suburban commuters and dwellers?

I know trucks and SUV's have power steering, not unlike 30 years ago - but still it puzzles me. It can't be convenient crawling down from one of these giants, can it?

Why large vehicles?

What am I missing here?

Heck I remember the Corvair complaints from my childhood. One woman in a parking lot (about 1967) told my mom she did not like the car because she would pull her Corvair into a parking space, but the trunk was in the front so that getting groceries in meant she had to leave the cart and walk between the adjacent car to the front - one bag at a time. Getting the cart to the front was not always an option with closely parked cars. In fact the whole situation is coming back to me, I was about seven and stopped to look at the car, and also wondering why someone left a cart filled with groceries bag, my mom tried to hustle me along, but we got to talking to the lady.

So the Corvair was a bad car because the trunk was in the front, you could get a Mustang for less, and some lawyer wrote a book, which applied only to the earlier models.

That’s life.

My other example:
CD's replaced vinyl records because they were easier to use, and did not have to be flipped like most compact tapes. It was also more convenient to sell at a price point where an entry level CD (expensive at first) would beat the pants off a poor quality record or cheap tape. Very inconvenient to the user to have a proper LP playback setup, care, cleaning, isolation, alignment of cartridge, and storage - it was it's undoing.

[Moneyguy1]

I fondly remember the Corvair. I owned a few of them including a 1968 coupe that I transplanted a 180 HP turbo engine from a 1965 Corsa. Always figured that lack of an engine in the front was a "plus" because it preceded the more modern "crumple zone" technology.

One has to wonder how many of the "convenient" things today are really necessary. Most folks would not like to turn back the clock to the days of mechanical tuners on TV sets. Yet, if one has an assortment of electronics, one has an equal assortment of remotes. Convenience? Case in point: Sony HDTV receivers have a "control S" on the back of the set which, according to their manual "Permits the opration of other Sony equipment to utilize a single remote". The kicker is that many Sony devices do not have an input jack for this feature.

The CD phenom does add convenience but at a cost. Back in time, people could not easily record music to a vinyl disc. Enter the tape player. Record and play, but relatively bulky to some. Enter the CD. Initially a non recordable item. Now one can record even movies. But the question becomes, Does one really need the capability to archive nearly everything?

Digital cameras. Another convenience. No ruined film. Don't like the picture? Erase it and try over. No waiting for the processor to return your prints. But the convenience comes at a price as well. Most digital cameras are capable of far more than the average individual understands. Most people would simply prefer a "point and click" unit

The whole thing, IMHO, breaks down to marketing. In order to keep the assembly lines running and the executives happy, today's product must be obsolete tomorrow.

[Tervuren]

I haven't read everything you wrote yet, but I find my 944 to be extremely convient, packing almost every conveinence I want or need. Only thing I wish it had where G force meters. (Longitudal and lateral).

it carries everything I need, has back seats to car four, has a convient readable dash, air condition, heat, etc...

On the SUV/VAN/TRUCK. For my family, getting in and out is easy. In fact, quicker then a car. Generaly, we all get in at different times, but getting out is all at once. With a low car, yuo put your feet out, and pull yourself up. From a E-350, you lean out and jump, and instantly, the next person is disembarking. I'd call that convient.

Hey, we've arrived at Charlotte Int. Airport, and twelve minutes later, where parked, through security, and all luggage in the right places. That would of been harder to acheive from a smaller car. Driving on the way, we arranged all the luggage, so as we jumped out, we where pulling them out, and unloading at the back as well at the same time. From a car, the luggae would of all been in an inaccesable trunk, instead of a large rear door, with inside access as well, so luggage could be pulled from multiple locations at once.

Parking in most places is not soo bad, its mainly length. I learned to drive a 15 passenger van, so the Porsche in comparision seems a little more clumsy backing up. Serious, the 944 has poorer parkinglot awareness of where things are then the van, which has a neat box like shape, with giant mirrors, you realy know where it is.

[mudman]

Right now my truck is stuck in 4WD, and it already had a turning radius of a school bus, now every time I park it is a 3 or 4 point turn. But the 8' bed and extended cab and HD chassis are convenient, I guess...

[Dave L]

I think in part the SUV's and Minivans sales are driven by women with Kids. My wife complains of putting our kids in the back of our Protege 5. She prefers The Toyota Matrix or Mazda 5 which sit higher and require less bending and lifting of the kids. Before these "higher" small cars we are left with suvs and Minivans. I dont like SUVs, but I like minivans less.

[Jay H]

Regarding parking of large SUV's, I think there are some factors helping with coping with the larger vehicles.

Many people now shop at big box stores (whether they like it or not) which typically have huge parking lots able to handle these larger vehicles. Movie theaters are multi plex venues with huge parking lots, grocery stores are bigger, etc., etc., etc.

On the flip side, have you ever measured up a full size '60's 4 door sedan or a '70's 4 door wagon? Those were the common cars for people and they were huge and on par with some of our large SUV's that are available (along with most likely similar gas mileage to boot!). People piloted those around with no problems back then.

We've got more space in the US verses more crowded European countries, so I think we can more easily 'get away with it' here than our counterparts in other parts of the world.

However, I'd be curious to see how people cope with a large SUV in a major US city where parking is at a premium and there just isn't the space for such a large vehicle.

Jay
90 964