• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    410 months ago

    Potatoe Potatoh. Point is you size the overall system for quick adjustments, not continuous use. If you can get by with less weight and cost then you do as continuous use does not even begin to appear in the requirements sheet.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        2
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Do you think that being able to fiddle with your seat position for minutes on end is any way insufficient? Will you ever come close to actually using that feature?

        If you answered those with “no”, then any extra weight and cost is too much. If you answered with “yes” then get a massage chair and leave the poor car be a car. Feature set follows function.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          110 months ago

          Adding this functionality will:

          Require more IO, add complexity to any wiring harnesses, make repair or replacement more difficult. This all increases cost, probably more than a mass-produced seat motor used by other manufacturers.

          For weight and cost, a proper design would have been negligible. Why do you think every other car isn’t made this way if it comes down to cost?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            110 months ago

            Require more IO, add complexity to any wiring harnesses, make repair or replacement more difficult.

            None of those: In modern cars you just plug those things into the CAN bus. One connector.

            Why do you think every other car isn’t made this way if it comes down to cost?

            Most cars don’t have seat adjustment motors. And as to others that have that functionality being able to operate it continuously: [citation needed]. Remember these are off the shelf German car supply parts, you’ll find the exact same hardware in, say, a BMW.