That though readable during the day, their gauges are a big complaint of near every reviewer.

"Honda can learn a lesson from BMW's analog gauges" I remember one review saying...

Maybe it's better to have analog ones. Personally I don't care one way or another, I just want the RX-8(!!), but it would be nice to have it win all the points reviewers give it, making it more appealing to a mass market and for Mazda to make some money off it, so they can keep makin rotaries! :)

I'd rather that they have smaller analog gauges for speed and rpm, rather than a giant one for rpm and a digital for speed. But that's just me.

THe Honda S2000 is convertable... and hence they will have a real problem with the digital display in bright sunlight... this is not likley to be a problem for the RX-8

While we live in the digital age, we still drive cars by the seats of our pants. Meaning, that we prefer the more "human" aspect and the "touchy feely" aspect of driving, and analog speedo and tach is more "human" and "touchy feely" than digital. I personally enjoy seeing both the tach and speedo PHYSICALLY moving in front of my eyes.

All the arguments about digital giving you an exact speed at an exact time are misplaced as analog does the exact same thing. In fact, it takes more time to mentally process the digital numbers whereas when you look at an analog speedo/tach the mind has accustomed itself to the placement of the numbers and at a glance the EXACT SPEED or REVS can be assessed.

Besides, digital gauges are to quartz watches as analog gauges are to a fine mechanical timepiece.

Gimmie ANALOG GAUGES on my car please!! Hear me Mazda??

I actually don't agree on many of the points you make "Donny Boy"...

Reading analog gauges is approximate at best... and infact the tacho IS an analog (mechanical) gauge!...

I think we need to distinguish between electronic and mechanical as well as analog and digital... since even the S2000 has an analog tacho dispite the fact that it is an electronic display.

This is simply progress, and there are pro's and cons... I personally have no preference between electronic and mechanical displays.... if used appropriately, both can be very effective and give the fight feel of quality....

As for analog/digital, an approximate reading that you can see move is better for the tacho, and so an analog gauge is clearly necessary... however the speed is another animal....

I don't accept that you can get a reading from an analog speedo any faster than a digital one... infact to get an accurate reading I find it takes significantly longer... With a numerical readout you can glance down at the display and then back at the road while the number processed into your conciousness... Sure you can get a feel for the speed by the position of a needle, but in todays environment you have to drive at a specific speed, not at whatever speed feels safe/right... so you need to know the number... and converting a needle position feeling for speed to a number is no less taxing than converting a number into a feeling for speed (Which you should already have from so many other sources anyway!)...

I vote digital, so long as it looks as good as the display in the promo pictures and doesn't suffer in bright light.

Originally posted by Donny Boy
...In fact, it takes more time to mentally process the digital numbers whereas when you look at an analog speedo/tach the mind has accustomed itself to the placement of the numbers and at a glance the EXACT SPEED or REVS can be assessed... You're missing something. It's not that simple.

In certain situations, like when you are reading a clock, and are more concerned with the fact that it is "a quarter to ten" as opposed to "9:48", an analog format has been shown to be easier to read. It's because in most cases, you are interested in where things are in relation (as in, you have a little time before ten), not as an accurate measurement. In that situation, if you are only concerned with the relation, then your brain actually has to figure out where ":48" is in relation to everything else on the dial, so an analog is easier to "read" than a digitial in that case.

Same thing applies to a tachometer, where you are normally concerned with where the rpms are in relation to the power band and redline, as opposed to what exact rpm you are turning. Regardless of which gear you are in, the redline stays the same. So your brain has to do precious little processing to figure out whether or not the needle being here or there is good or bad. Same thing goes for something like a pressure gauge, or a temperature gauge, or anything else where there is a particular threshold that you don't want to cross. In those cases, an analog format is in fact easier to read.

On the other hand, depending on which street you are driving, speed limits are going to be different. Since the threshold changes, the location where that needle is good or bad changes. Your brain actually has to go through the extra process of determining where the reference point is, then it can determine if you are higher or lower, and if by a lot or a little. If the display is digital, then your brain just has to figure out if you are higher or lower, and if by a lot or a little. If the car was always supposed to be doing a certain speed, take 45 mph for an example, then it would be easy to put a big ass red mark at 45 at the top of the guage, and you can quickly determine if you are higher or lower because you don't need to "think" about where that point is (why do you think alot of cars came with red tick marks at 55 when that was the national highway speed limit?). But since it changes, it's more about the number, not the relationship of the needle on the gauge. And in that case, a digital gauge is actually easier to read.

---jps

Sputnik-

I fail to understand your reasoning. You say that an analog clock is good for determining time in relation to something else which is true, then why is the case for the speedometer the same? As with meeting times and other things that we use time for, the time in relation to those constantly changing times is still important, some would say even more so than you think. So as for the case of the speedometer wouldn't it be the same? No one cares if it's 10:13, even if you have a digital watch you will most likely say 10:15. The same with speed, 81 is 80, 37 is 35, everything is relative. Not to mention the ability to see the placement of a needle with respect to your speedometer with your perihperal vision, something you cannot do with a digital speedometer. Analog is good for relationships and exact numbers, if you so choose. Digital is only good for exact numbers.

Wow, sorry if that didn't make any sense. I at least think I got my point across though. :)

Sputnik, excellent point... i was thinking of a way to explain what you said and you had it right on!

i know what you mean about relative speed!! that's what i keep trying to explain to the cops!! 80kmph is 60kmph, and 140kmph is only 100kmph, really!! ahahahaa!! ;) just kidding, but i think that either is fine, as long as they're readable (not that i worry abotu teh speed so much, i just judge by how fast everyone else is going...)

Originally posted by tallguylehigh
Analog is good for relationships and exact numbers, if you so choose. Digital is only good for exact numbers.



As I tried to explain before... I agree with MOST of what you said, but NOT what I've quoted... your argument hinges on the assumption that analog performs 2 functions well, where digital only performs one function well...

I suggest that an analog gauge is pretty useless for determining exact speed,... which you then have to compare to a NUMERICAL posted speed limit...

I'm prepared to accept that each is better at one task... but not that analog is better (or even necessarily any good) in both. 99% of what you'll be doing with a speedo is comparing it to a posted speed limit...

Mabe I'm just very comfortable with numbers.... although I don't concider myself to be a younger generation... weird!

These days, it'd be JUST as easy to have a big TFT/Plasma display and have a set of preferences.... you could have either... (Or both)

Younger generation? I'm only 22, uh-oh, am I old? obsolete??!! j/k. In all seriousness I would prefer an analog speedometer, but that gauge cluster reminds me of that off a Yamaha R1, and then I get happy again :)

Originally posted by tallguylehigh
Younger generation? I'm only 22, uh-oh, am I old? obsolete??!! j/k. In all seriousness I would prefer an analog speedometer, but that gauge cluster reminds me of that off a Yamaha R1, and then I get happy again :)

LOL... I'm 28...

Originally posted by tallguylehigh
...You say that an analog clock is good for determining time in relation to something else which is true... No one cares if it's 10:13, even if you have a digital watch you will most likely say 10:15... Okay, then we are agreed as far as that is concerned. ...The same with speed, 81 is 80, 37 is 35, everything is relative... Yes, I will also agree that those numbers are generally rounded up/down. It's not a question of accuracy, per se. ...Not to mention the ability to see the placement of a needle with respect to your speedometer with your perihperal vision, something you cannot do with a digital speedometer... Peripheral vision and quick glancing is where the difference is. The problem with the speedometer is that the reference point changes, which means that you mentally have to figure out where the reference point is, and then figure out where the needle is in relation to it. Compare two schedules for example:

One schedule has meetings and appointments always scheduled at the top of the hour. Since the "reference" point is always the same, you only have to glance at the minute hand to figure out how long the darn meeting has been. This would be true even if everything was scheduled at the bottom of the hour, or even quarter after. The fact that the reference point is always in the same spot means that you don't have to think about it.

Another schedule has meetings and appointments scheduled at all times of the hour. Most at :00, but some at :30, some at :50, some at :25, etc. etc. They last different lengths, and they change from day to day. In this case, if your next appointment is at 10:25, and it's 10:15, then when you glance at an analog clock, you have to (albeit briefly) think about when the next event is, make a mental note of where that reference point is on the clock, and then compare that to where the minute hand is. Three steps. When you glance at the digital clock, you have to think about when the next event is, and compare that to the current time. Two steps.

This is where the speedometer differs from the clock. The reference point (your target speed) changes so much that you can't quite get a good idea without actually focusing on the numbers to gauge if the needle is in the right area. Like I said before, if you'd drive 45 everywhere, then you'd have the consistent reference point like the schedule that revolves around :00. But most of us drive through different speed zones everyday, and whether you think you are or not, your mind has to think about where that reference point is, and you actually have to read those numbers off of that guage to see what the needle is actually reading, or even if it is close to 35 (say 36 or 34). If you think you can see your speed out of the corner of your eye, then you've either been driving cross country at the same speed for a day or so (because of the same, consistent reference point), or you are fooling yourself.

There are personal preferences, too, which is okay. But the contention that an analog speedo is easier to read than a digital is incorrect.

---jps

To all,

FWIW, I went through a Masters Degree program in Human Factors Engineering. HFE’s specialize in the human / machine interface aspect of system design so instrument panel considerations are something I’ve studied formally. Basically, Sputnik nailed it square on the head. Study after study has shown analog indicators to be superior to digital indicators…recognition times are quicker, misinterpretations are fewer / less severe & cognitive demands are less. Sputnik was extremely insightful in understanding the relative nature of information; analog blows away digital in this regard. Analog also communicates the rate of change better than digital. Also, rough approximations can be made out of the corner of the eye so that attention can be uninterrupted.

Digital does have its advantages though, for instance, it takes up less space so it’s a good choice in situations where a lot of information needs to be presented in a small space (I’m a pilot & the trend in aircraft instrumentation is definitely towards digital for this reason). Digital is cheaper so it’s the way to go in disposable applications. Digital may also be selected for esthetic reasons such as wanting to look “high tech” what ever that means.

Anyway, in the case of primary consumer vehicle instruments, analog is quite superior to digital.

RX7 Guy-

I just received my Bachelors in Mechanical Engineering and I love it. Although I do crave more design oriented projects. This masters in Human Factor Engineering, is that a common program? This is the first I have heard of it and am kind of interested in what exactly it teaches and what its graduates do. Thanks if you choose to tell me about the program.

I'm one of those who perfer a wrist watch that has both a digital and an analog dial for all of those reasons stated above.

But, please Mazda, no idiot warning lights! Make some kind of digital bar chart or analog dial!!!

Originally posted by RX7 Guy
To all,

FWIW, I went through a Masters Degree program in Human Factors Engineering. HFE’s specialize in the human / machine interface aspect of system design so instrument panel considerations are something I’ve studied formally. Basically, Sputnik nailed it square on the head. Study after study has shown analog indicators to be superior to digital indicators…recognition times are quicker, misinterpretations are fewer / less severe & cognitive demands are less. Sputnik was extremely insightful in understanding the relative nature of information; analog blows away digital in this regard. Analog also communicates the rate of change better than digital. Also, rough approximations can be made out of the corner of the eye so that attention can be uninterrupted.

Digital does have its advantages though, for instance, it takes up less space so it’s a good choice in situations where a lot of information needs to be presented in a small space (I’m a pilot & the trend in aircraft instrumentation is definitely towards digital for this reason). Digital is cheaper so it’s the way to go in disposable applications. Digital may also be selected for esthetic reasons such as wanting to look “high tech” what ever that means.

Anyway, in the case of primary consumer vehicle instruments, analog is quite superior to digital.

What you just said is inconsistent!! Sputnik seemed to me to be arguing that there is a good arguement for digital, over analog for a speedo... at least for some people and some applications...

While you first said that he had "nailed it no the head" and then went on to argue that "analog is quite superior "....

DIGITAL, is not cheaper, ELECTRONIC is cheaper... perhaps.... but there is nothing to say that your ELECTRONIC display cannot render an analog scale...

I say just make it one big TFT screen in there and let people design their own dash on their PC.

TFT screen, thats a really cool idea. I've always wanted an instrument cluster that looks like the Porsche Boxter Concept car :cool:

BlueAdept,

I haven’t reread the posts on this thread as they’re pretty lengthy but as best I can tell, Sputnick changed his/her position…I was referring to an earlier post where Sputnick argued in favor of analog due to the relative nature of the indications. In terms of digital vs. electronic, you’re right, I wasn’t thinking about the backend…that stuff is for the electrical / mechanical / hydraulic guys.

Originally posted by RX7 Guy
BlueAdept,

I haven’t reread the posts on this thread as they’re pretty lengthy but as best I can tell, Sputnick changed his/her position…I was referring to an earlier post where Sputnick argued in favor of analog due to the relative nature of the indications. In terms of digital vs. electronic, you’re right, I wasn’t thinking about the backend…that stuff is for the electrical / mechanical / hydraulic guys.

Don't know... I think he just argued one point then the other... you probably missed the second half of the post... I didn't disagree with anything Sputnik said... but I can't entirely agree with your position... so there must be SOME confusion... LOL.

Not an issue anyway, we'll take what we get and like it!

Yeah, my posts were a bit windy, and I can see how they can get misconstrued.

In summation, my contention is that for most gauges in a car (tach, pressure gauges, fuel gauges, temperature gauges), an analog guage is easier to use. But for gauges like a speedometer, my contention is that the digital speedo is actually easier to use.

---jps

I'm always fiddling with digital displays when I drive (elapsed time, trip computer etc). I always find I need more effort to read them than to glance at the speedometer.

I agree with most people that analog displays are much quicker (less effort) to read to get an APPROXIMATE measure. Digital displays may be slightly less effort to read to get a PRECISE measure than analog, but I doubt it (personal opinion).

As far as driving goes I never care about the exact speed shown on the dial - a glance to show that I'm almost at 100mph (and rising quickly) is enough for me to slow down - I don't care if it was actually 97.8mph one second and 98.9 the next. That's the other thing a digital speedometer display is missing - a fast moving needle tells you about acceleration/deceleration, whereas fast moving digits are just a blur.

Of course I will be happy with whatever Mazda gives me, but every car magazine I've read hates digital displays. It would be a shame for RX-8 reviewers to go on and on about "perfect sports car except for the awful dash" and have readers (potential buyers) only remember that something was awful.

Hmmm... well I know about reading whatever fiddly trip computer you've got... but imagine if the digits were 2 inches tall, not 1/4 inches tall!

Here's a picture, not very good I'm afraid... of the last digital dash I had... It worked very well and I'd have another one in a second.

http://www.fsck.co.uk/Digital_dash_night.med.jpg

My personal experience is very good, and many people that saw it also said they liked it.... I don't know why it's such a big deal for people.

Not a big deal for me, but I don't like the asthetics. The number changes on a digital dash are sudden, quick. An analog dial has a calming, smooth rotation that is predictable. I just find things that constantly blink at me annoying.

I've thought about it, and now I prefer the analog over the digital.

It's true that it's easier to track your speed by looking at its place between two points.. I'm afraid the numbers of 80 or 90MPH wouldn't be as scary (tickets!) unless I was rapidly approaching the 100 mark. You can't see that on a digital speedo.

Originally posted by pelucidor
...As far as driving goes I never care about the exact speed shown on the dial - a glance to show that I'm almost at 100mph (and rising quickly) is enough for me to slow down - I don't care if it was actually 97.8mph one second and 98.9 the next. That's the other thing a digital speedometer display is missing - a fast moving needle tells you about acceleration/deceleration, whereas fast moving digits are just a blur... Do you think that a digital speed is going to show tenths of an mph?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you're accelerating fast enough that the digital gauge is a blur, then the speedometer is NOT what you need to be looking at.

---jps

Originally posted by Sputnik
Do you think that a digital speed is going to show tenths of an mph?

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you're accelerating fast enough that the digital gauge is a blur, then the speedometer is NOT what you need to be looking at.

---jps
*nod*, but I think the sweep of the gauge will make me more aware of it... or at least some type of 'progress' indictator is good, even if it's digital.

I currently drive a Grand Prix GTP with a HUD. Personally I think my HUD is the best thing since sliced bread. I know exactly how fast I'm going without taking my eyes off the road. At first I found I had to concentrate a bit to get the grasp the value because it is digital but after a few weeks I can easily know "about" what I'm going at all times. I think I must be monitoring the number all the times (sub-consciously) but my brain distills the info down to approximations unless I specifically think about it.

What do you think the chances are of us getting a HUD in the RX-8?

A HUD is great not only for things you need to see all the time like speed and engine rpm, but you can also have it constantly scroll through other operational information like temp and oil pressure, keeping you constantly abreast of the vehicle's vitals.

You can also attach it to your AN/AWG-9 weapons control system, with ability to detect airbone targets at ranges of more than 65-170nm according to their size, and track 24 enemy targets and attack six of them simultaneously at varied altitudes and distances with the RX-8's on board AIM - 54 Phoenix long-range air-to-air missile launcher, or the MK-61A1 Vulcan 20mm cannon. :D

Originally posted by Hercules

*nod*, but I think the sweep of the gauge will make me more aware of it... or at least some type of 'progress' indictator is good, even if it's digital.

I'm right there with you!

Originally posted by kalahari
... You can also attach it to your AN/AWG-9 weapons control system, with ability to detect airbone targets at ranges of more than 65-170nm according to their size, and track 24 enemy targets and attack six of them simultaneously at varied altitudes and distances with the RX-8's on board AIM - 54 Phoenix long-range air-to-air missile launcher, or the MK-61A1 Vulcan 20mm cannon. :D

and I'm going to stay definitely behind you ... especially if you have a "double oh" license! ;)

(But who am I to judge - this sure would fit nicely into either my James Bond's Aston Martin DB5 or Batmobile fantasy)

Originally posted by ddaiker
... What do you think the chances are of us getting a HUD in the RX-8?

I'd be for it! :D

I wonder if boowana has any comments or answers on this?

Also, welcome to this forum, ddaiker.

I don't know if I really care too much about the digital speedo. I do like the fact that the tach dominates the insrument cluster!

I have owned nothing but manual shift cars for the last 20 or so years and have found that, after I become familiar with a car, I seldom have to look at the tach or speedometer to know how fast the car, or motor, is going. I know what gear I'm in, and I can hear and feel the RPM's, so deducing an approximate speed seems to happen automatically.

Anyone else drive this way?

you've owned rotary cars?? i've never driven one, but the thing everyone says is that because of the low (really, really, really low) amount of vibration caused by the engine, you'd have a tough time feeling the vibration, although hearing it isn't a problem (at least from the outside ;))
so, the tach might be a necessity... and the rev buzzer, can't forget about the rev buzzer :D

Originally posted by kalahari
A HUD is great not only for things you need to see all the time like speed and engine rpm, but you can also have it constantly scroll through other operational information like temp and oil pressure, keeping you constantly abreast of the vehicle's vitals.

You can also attach it to your AN/AWG-9 weapons control system, with ability to detect airbone targets at ranges of more than 65-170nm according to their size, and track 24 enemy targets and attack six of them simultaneously at varied altitudes and distances with the RX-8's on board AIM - 54 Phoenix long-range air-to-air missile launcher, or the MK-61A1 Vulcan 20mm cannon. :D
i'm with you there bud, especially the 20mm vulcan cannon. gotta have the vulcan! maybe one mounted in a turret to take out any incoming missles like on us navy ships! don't know where i'd put all the ammo though? turn the rx8 into another puff the magic dragon ac130 herc gunship! that will get the slow people out of the fast lane. take the speedo out then wont need it anyway!speeding ticket? whose gonna give me a ticket?:D

I understand your point...a rotary may take some adjustment.

As to the digital vs. analog discussion, c'mon people, the only time we really need to look at the speedometer is when we pass a keeper-of-the-peace at a high rate of speed. Then our glance at the speedo leaves the issue of a fast moving needle indicating rates of acceleration/deceleration as moot. We just want to know our speed RIGHT NOW!

Originally posted by wakeech
...i've never driven one, but the thing everyone says is that because of the low (really, really, really low) amount of vibration caused by the engine, you'd have a tough time feeling the vibration... :rolleyes: From someone who actually has owned a rotary (needless to say driven one), it is just as easy to drive by sound and feel. It ain't an electric car.

---jps

Sputnik,

I just wait until that star streak, warp drive look starts to slow down a little & then I shift; no problem. :D

If that doesn’t work, just position your rear view mirror so that you can see yourself…When you stop looking like Chuck Yegar, shift. :D