I would like the lack of vibration and noise compared to an IC bike but yes, range anxiety is still an issue.

http://bgr.com/2016/04/14/tesla-model-3-hud-dashboard/

HUD it is, I think.

A HUD really makes the most sense and I was surprised how long it took manufacturers to pick up on it. I am still amazed that it isn't offered on more models.

Agree 100% .
I add that I've been amazed at how long it took for manufacturers to adopt digital instrumentations, in general. I was never entirely sold to the justification that visibility in the sun etc. is an issue.

When I was a kid, I used to believe that my first car would not have real analog gauges at all. Not only that wasn't true, but the revolution we're about to see - I believe - will be a jump from mostly analog instruments to HUD directly, skipping "traditional" LCDs (of course, with few exceptions today, in top of the line luxury models, Model S included). And once again, I think it will be Tesla to drive and push such change, simply because they're going to do it right, the market will rightfully like it, and all others will follow.

LCDs don't work all that well in the Cold. They do work, but sluggishly. That's one reason electro-mechanical gauges have hung on for so long.

Yes, I wonder if manufacturers have actually ever invested resources in addressing that, since say... the 80s?
I mean, Tesla Model S instruments seems to be pretty OK in the cold, as far as I know?

In other words, I am not sure that cause-effect relationship is that and not the opposite. I would guess that because the whole industry never really tried, then LCDs instruments never really evolved to work as desired (with few notable recent exceptions).
Opposite example: diesel engines never really worked nicely in the cold, when I was a kid. Now they do, brilliantly, because many manufacturers worked on that technology and improved it.

You must be younger than me... Around 1980 the car industry went out for digital gauges in a big way. Most of these were VFD (like our empegs) and worked well in cold, were not slow, etc...

The reason that they quit making them is that customers hated it. Some things are just better suited to needles.

Are the Tesla displays plain LCDs? Or are they OLED/Amoled?

I think with smartphones pushing display tech in the past five years, things (such as temperature tolerance) are improving rapidly.

Yes, execution has been often poor in the past. I guess what I am saying is precisely that it seems to me that the automotive industry decided not to invest to improve technology for digital instrumentation, and simply gave up. Actually, I think that the overall industry has been generally slow in evolving and catching up with new technology. The general low quality in infotainment systems and on board electronics of all sorts - the Empeg is to this day the best in-car head unit I've ever used! - seems to support my impression. I may be ignoring some real technical challenge here, but, I have the impression they needed an newcomer (Tesla) to wake up and start taking IT/digital technology seriously.

Example: yes, I too think computer industry and smartphones pushed the display tech significantly, but, until Tesla, car manufacturers have been really slow in adopting display tech already in the market for years. I have a end-of-2013 Mazda CX-5 with top of the line infotainment system, and the small dashboard display (6", good for a car in 2013) was bad virtually on everything. I ended up replacing it with a cheap Chinese Android-based head unit, which, with all its limits and glitches and bugs, looks like SciFi in comparison. ANY smartphone in 2013 was better than my stock Bose infotainment system. I suspect in 2016 the situation has only minimally improved.

Not to mention shockingly naive poor design of keyless systems, hackable by anyone with some googling and few dollars, or cloud-based services that allowed your car to be hacked and controller remotely.

Honestly, at present, when it comes to in-car electronics - mostly in the area of human interface, but, sadly, not only there, I doubt anyone is in really good shape with the very notable exception of Tesla, a car manufacturer born in 2002.

http://jalopnik.com/theres-a-new-tesla-model-s-rival-and-its-from-the-chine-1772005727

Here's an electric with out a grill that doesn't look unfinished.

I'd say that that car does have a grill, it just happens to be filled in.

Other than that part, and the antenna, LeSEE is a fairly good looking car.

I'm not sure what Tesla uses, but it's definitely not some sort of OLED, because the black levels aren't anywhere near. Apparently one of the many rolling changes to the Model S has been improved contrast of the driver's display, so Tesla is definitely trying to ride the curve as these things improve.

My own Tesla (a late 2013 model) is perfectly fine in this regard, but then I think it's spent exactly one evening in its life in anything resembling below-freezing weather. Otherwise, well, it's Texas.

The real cold-weather issue isn't the LCDs as much as it's the battery pack. When the pack is cold, it has reduced regeneration capacity. Tesla indicates this with a line in the power meter. After you've driven a few miles, the pack warms up and the problem goes away. If, however, you live at the top of a hill, parking outdoors in a cold climate, and your initial commute is downhill, then this lack of regeneration capacity would be an issue.

Or you can have digital gauges made to look like analogue!

Of course, and those are the few exceptions I was referring to.

Or it could just be some overlarge panel lines.

New model S nose is pretty awesome too (IMO), actually better than the Model 3's we've see in the unveil 1.

I never understood why commercial aircraft that have glass cockpits have displays that replicate the steam gauges. They were created in that shape due to limitations. For some reason, they insist on recreating the same shapes where there are no limitations.

One example is dial gauges.

It baffles me.

I believe that it's because it's easier to see if anything's amiss by glancing at the dial, without having to actually read the number off it. This is not strictly relevant to car instruments, but it's why (along with the inertia systemic in aviation) glass cockpits still use steam gauges.

I could have sworn that there was a similar question (with answers) on http://aviation.stackexchange.com, but I can't find it now.

This is exactly right. The gauges on a plane are arranged such that all the needles point the same direction when everything is ok. It only takes a second to scan them all. Reading digits requires comprehension.

Also, it's nice when all planes are similar, so you don't have to search for what you want. It's why they standardized the layout (mostly) back in the '50s.

Bar graphs that are colored green, yellow, or red also just require a glance, no digits need to be read.

So, I just got a new motorbike (Honda Africa Twin) and for the first time I am using entirely digital instrumentation in my daily commute to work.

When it comes to speedometer, looking at pure numbers (90Km/h, for example) is just fine with me. Actually, I find it better than a gauge, as unexpected as it is.

As to revs, the bike comes with a bar graph, and I never know what revs actually are: I only know visually how far I am from the red zone, which is most likely what the instrument was designed to show at a glance. But, whether that is 7,000 rpm or 10,000 rpm, it took me a two weeks driving it before being able to read it with a glance; and actually, I do not READ the value on the graph. I just learned that a that point of the scale I should be around 8,000, for example. I am not particularly happy with the bar graph. It does work, but leaves me a bit lost.

So, I find it all is working the OPPOSITE of what I expected (and what seems to be the general consensus), with me. Weird.

Here: https://allroadendurotouring.com/wp-cont...rumentation.jpg

and here:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/c9/97/46/c9974635b87d62b30e9e6f4d7625e87f.jpg

and here:
http://www.xrv.org.uk/forums/attachments...15-clocks-2.jpg

Bad choice for the ~6% of the male population who's red/green colour blind.

Raises hand... I routinely send reminders to the washington post on this very issue.

-jk

I have normal vision, but I am still flabbergasted by how many things in the world don't properly take color blindness into account.

For aircraft controls, for instance, a glass cockpit with bar graphs that change red/green, I think that might be OK, because isn't it true that you can't be a commercial pilot if you're color blind? I could be wrong about that. I think my information on this topic comes from an old episode of Northern Exposure. :-) But anyway, might point is, though that might be acceptable for a plane, it's not acceptable for a car.

But think about the simple idea of putting red and green lights on boats and planes so that you can tell which way they're heading at night. Whoever started that trend didn't take into account color blindness.

And traffic lights, for that matter. Yes, we have a system now where the vertical position of the lights takes care of that, but think how much nicer and more compact traffic lights could be if we simply had taken color blindness into account when we designed them in the first place?

I remember some video games catching flak a while back for making puzzles that couldn't be solved by color blind people. You'd think that in the game company there'd be at least a few team members who were color blind.

14 CFR Part 67: (the pilot must have) "the ability to perceive those colors necessary for the safe performance of airman duties" for all medical certification classes.

Color blindness prevents a successful Class I Medical certificate. Class II is still possible, but the limitation is on any night flights and using color signal controls, which means no airports that use color signals for ground guidance.

Edit: That should be 'certain colorblindness'. Specifically the ability to distinguish between white, green, and red/amber.