[Atlant]

To bring this thread back on topic somewhat:
Why do you say that, I am really curious.

Here's an example of the ID.4's clever design elements synergistically acting to cause a problem:

All 4 windows opened by themselves

2023 pro I picked up my kids from school and parked my car in the driveway. All the windows were closed when I went into the house. When I came out to the car later, all 4 windows were down. Does anyone know if the key fob can roll down the windows? Has this happened to anyone else?

www.vwidtalk.com

 

[Tank]

I say that most of the ID team needs to be fired because nearly every aspect of the car works less well than cars have historically worked.

It's is as if the designers said “Wow; we could do feature X this way!”, ignoring a hundred years of car designers figuring out how best to do certain things.

Pick any feature on the car from door handles to windshield wipers to interior controls to… and the ID.4's design is less useful and often, far less intuitive than the standard way of doing things.

They changed everything solely for the sake of change.

Yes they definitely tried to rethink alot of tried and true features, but that is what change is all about. Sure, maybe they went too far or did not test enough. Breaking new eggs is important to do and it is the way to move forward. The design team needs the support of the entire organization in order to implement change to communiate the ideas or just to receive input. to kill the bad ones.

Part of the problem is this trend we see in software to release what might be Beta knowing it cam be improved with an update. It's harder when hardware is involved.

My two cents is the ID 4 needed to be more tested prior to release and some of the goofs would have been fixed if the process for constant improvement was present
Things like the omission of lighting on the volume and HVAC controls should have been immediately fixed.

 

[Atlant]

Yes they definitely tried to rethink alot of tried and true features, but that is what change is all about. Sure, maybe they went too far or did not test enough. Breaking new eggs is important to do and it is the way to move forward. The design team needs the support of the entire organization in order to implement change to communicate the ideas or just to receive input. to kill the bad ones.

I'm sorry but (to take one example) there's no advantage at all that I can see with the needlessly-complex door latch mechanism. Door latches, even fancy door latches with electronically-controlled locks and proper child-safety controls have been working well for decades but the latches on the ID.4 are 1) difficult to understand, 2) unintuitive to operate, 3) excessively complex, and 4) prone to failure as shown by all the discussions that have been posted in this forum about them.

Change for the sake of change is what leads to cars having tail fins; it doesn't lead to a smooth user experience.

 

[ChristophW]

I say that most of the ID team needs to be fired because nearly every aspect of the car works less well than cars have historically worked.

It's is as if the designers said “Wow; we could do feature X this way!”, ignoring a hundred years of car designers figuring out how best to do certain things.

Pick any feature on the car from door handles to windshield wipers to interior controls to… and the ID.4's design is less useful and often, far less intuitive than the standard way of doing things.

They changed everything solely for the sake of change.

Good that you phrased it ID team this time, because I am not sure who in what role made all these decisions.

We have an interesting example in Europe in the Skoda Enyak, which is in most things more conservative than the ID4 while sharing the same platform and form factor, and pretty much the same software. Some people prefer the Enyak, some the ID4. It seems like you cannot make everyone happy with just one decision.

 

[Atlant]

It seems like you cannot make everyone happy with just one decision.

You're letting VW off to easily here. Can you find ANYONE who says “I really like the changes that VW made to the door handle/door latches! I've been waiting for those changes for years!”?

That particular change may have not made everyone unhappy but I'm not sure you can find anyone who was made anyone happy (except maybe the guy who designed the new system).

 

[Huey52]

You're letting VW off to easily here. Can you find ANYONE who says “I really like the changes that VW made to the door handle/door latches! I've been waiting for those changes for years!”?

That particular change may have not made everyone unhappy but I'm not sure you can find anyone who was made anyone happy (except maybe the guy who designed the new system).

Once early in my HVAC control design career I was happy with my engineering choice but my user group I found, when also having to train them, was not as enamored. So, it happens.

I'm ambivalent about the door locks, as the easy finger swipe to lock of my prior TTS became a firm thumbprint on the ID.4 icon. However the latching itself was intuitive for both my wife and I from day one, so I didn't even know there was an "issue" until discussion here. I guess we fell into the design demographic on this one. 🤷‍♂️

 

[Froggy]

I don’t require a firm thumbpress to lock it, just brushing it with the back of my hand works every time.

 

[Atlant]

I'm ambivalent about the door locks, as the easy finger swipe to lock of my prior TTS became a firm thumbprint on the ID.4 icon. However the latching itself was intuitive for both my wife and I from day one, so I didn't even know there was an "issue" until discussion here. I guess we fell into the design demographic on this one. 🤷‍♂️

I'm not so much referring to the user controls but rather to the electrical-unlatching mechanism with backup mechanical unlatching mechanism. That strikes me as an utterly useless bit of engineering and it wouldn't surprise me if it factors in to many of the problems people have reported here with doors and latches.

I also think the design of the rear door child safety locks is ridiculously complex and prone to error as compared to the old “flip the lever” child safety locks.

 

[Dougie01]

My experience with CEOs is that they care about one thing and one thing only: this quarter's sales. Whether a new design is good or bad or will be popular or unpopular is a guessing game. Getting the car into production on schedule and sold to customers is something that can be measured. I would guess that there was a delivery timeline problem related to the design team.

 

[Atlant]

I would guess that there was a delivery timeline problem related to the design team.

But that would have argued AGAINST reinventing every aspect of the car's User Experience, wouldn't it? For example, didn't VW/Audi/Porsche already have some working door handles and latches somewhere in their collection of Lego Bricks?

 

[Dougie01]

But that would have argued AGAINST reinventing every aspect of the car's User Experience, wouldn't it? For example, didn't VW/Audi/Porsche already have some working door handles and latches somewhere in their collection of Lego Bricks?

Maybe, but the ID.7 interior video shows almost exactly the same configuration as the ID.4. What the future designs might look like is unknown.

 

[Tank]

It seems to me all the peculiarities of the ID4 are the result of new design being presented and then being green lit without any testing or being justified by cost savings.
What you'd expect to happen is someone in management says hey "we need to save money on the interior."
The design team presents a sketch that saves one window switch and says we can use software to get the function we need.

The review team buys in but fails to recognizes how clumsy this may be. What they should do is mock it up and test it. This would have revealed how good or bad the idea really is.
It seems like VW just moved forward without consideration. Who knows, maybe they thought they had cover to change almost everything given what Tesla had gotten away with.

 

[Nai3t]

Any part that moves is a cost and a liability that should be scrutinized on an ongoing basis to see if it can be designed differently.

I happen to like the two switch arrangement (my wife not a fan but doesn't hate it), and I'm betting the "don't like it" votes are simply louder because they're stuck with it for this model.

I don't doubt that VW tested this arrangement internally, maybe even externally, but I think it would be impossible to receive an impartial assessment without putting this out in the wild to see how owners react. Any "tests" are automatically going to be biased unless they could do something like an A/B blind study in a fleet of rental cars.

 

[Dougie01]

I like the two switch arrangement, too. I think the problem is people thinking they are going to be rolling down the back windows from the front, which they rarely do. So there are actually two main functions plus one that is rarely used:
1.) roll down one or the other of the front windows (feature used 90% of the time),
2.) roll down all the windows (feature used 9% of the time),
3.) roll down individual rear windows (feature used 1% of the time).
YMMV obviously but that is accurate in my case at least.

 

[agzand]

Many MEB problems are VW specific. If you look at European reviews the Skoda Enyaq is generally well regarded (one of the top EVs). Audi Q4 and Cupra Born reviews are also generally more favorable. VW new cars (ICE and EV) in general do not meet the high standards their pervious generation of cars used to meet.