When I was about 20, I had a well used AMC Spirit.
Stylish, good gas mileage, decent performance, it was a great car. It had one fatal flaw, a weak linkage in the drivers door handle.
The linkage included a small plastic clip that didn’t quite align properly. It would pop out of place periodically, making the door impossible to open. I became adept at taking apart the door from the inside and popping the pieces back into place.
I once returned to my college dorm after a snowstorm, the car got stuck in the snow. I had another trick for this situation, I’d ease the clutch out ( leaving the back tires spinning slowly ) and would exit the car, pushing it by hand. When the wheels caught and the car started creeping forward I’d jump back in and drive off. ( Foolish, I know. I was 20. )
Well, once I had both mishaps at once. The car got stuck, so I got out to push. The door handle broke, locking me out of my car with the engine running and the wheels slowly turning!
Praying fervently, I ran to my dorm room, got my spare key and went in through the passenger door to stop the engine.
The mechanical flush mount car door handles are because shaping that divot into the steel is much more complicated then punching a hole, and especially aluminum is many times more complicated and expensive. Audi was showing off their technical expertise with creasing aluminum with unlimited money in their bodywork before dieselgate, and that was pretty much peak for car body technology.
I really like Tesla's approach to door handles - it's clean, polished, and gives a fine and smooth look. But was surprised to learn that China will ban them beginning next year. Other countries might follow suit as well.
The main purpose of a handle is to open a door, not look polished. Looking polished is not helpful when you're dead because you couldn't get out of that car in an emergency . So IMHO it shouldn't be surprising that they're being banned.
I'm convinced it isn't rocket science to design a flush handle that looks as clean yet has a manual operation fallback (preferably mechanical). Eg. Something like an integral hinge where you can push the short, base end in to pop the release (provided car is unlocked).
IMO their handles are stupidly over-engineered. It shows when you get problems like ice, etc. in northern climates.
I am bemused every time I use Uber and the car has some flush-mounted door handle that I have to figure out. When exiting the car and closing the door, I end up leaving fingerprints I would not have left if the handle had been designed by someone who had been in a car before.
agreed on fingerprints, though i bet the rationale is coefficient of drag, not lack of experience with various door handle designs.
in the article, it shows a Magna-Steyr handle on a Mercedes Gelaendewagen, which looks like those on the Ineos Grenadier, and not very different than the ones that Ford uses on various trucks.
that contrasts with those on Audi and BMW evs, for examples i see often, where the CoD is a stated spec for ev shoppers, and the handles have motion to them, but are flush (but not Tesla vanishingly flush). Weirdly, some Porsches (intimately related to Audi...just read the shared parts) use flush handles and some the protruding handles with an actual handle.
i admittedly pay an unusual amount of attention to car componentry, sort of a hobby really.
The additional drag is negligible. People have been producing "racing doors" with handles for decades. They focus on cutting all the other features of the door like weight and mechanical complexity instead. It's an even more irrelevant consideration for consumers, who could save far more fuel by changing how they drive.
Flush handles exist as brand differentiators. They're a "futuristic" feel-good feature that consumers want, like engine noise, tablets, and colorful dashboards.
I'm unsure manufacturer's press kits are to be taken as an honest source of information : the goal of the authors is to make people love a brand, buy a product... but not to educate, share objective information or strategic choices.
Very peculiarly, everyone seems to actually agree the handles are a little more aerodynamic. It's the possibility the manufacturer's teams (except marketing, apparently) could ever have also considered this as one of several benefits when choosing the design which is at such levels of doubt. Moreso, people are willing to dismiss it saying they'd want a certain type of source instead rather than just seeing whether that kind of source does also agree.
> Conventional door handle designs typically have less than desirable aerodynamics due to protrusion of the exterior door handle from the surface of the door and the recessed area over which it spans. As the vehicle moves, these conventional door handles interrupt the smooth surface of the door and thereby increase the overall drag of the vehicle. Depending on the size, depth, and overall shape of the recessed area, for example, the corresponding area under the door handle further contributes to reduced aerodynamics of the vehicle. Designers have not focused on improving aerodynamics in this area as the exterior door handle seems relatively small and inconsequential.
> 104 in the retracted position provides both a smooth appearance and advantageous aerodynamic qualities when the vehicle is in motion
I'm starting to wonder if an interview with David Wheeler (what a name for a car patent) et al would even be believed here at this point.
If you read this thread, no one has claimed flush handles aren't more aerodynamic. What was claimed is that the aerodynamic benefits are negligible and as a result, that's not actually a serious consideration in choosing them.
Even the aero study done by range rover doesn't claim they're a meaningful improvement. It claims the handles came from the product design vision first.
> Depending on the size, depth, and overall shape of the recessed area, for example, the corresponding area under the door handle further contributes to reduced aerodynamics of the vehicle. Designers have not focused on improving aerodynamics in this area as the exterior door handle seems relatively small and inconsequential.
Aerodynamics is complicated. You should measure the actual impact rather than guess. "just make it smooth" is a rule of thumb, not a law. If we're following rules of thumb, my copy of Theory and Applications of Aerodynamics for Ground Vehicles specifically says this on the subject:
The door handle does not need to be flush with the car body to be aerodynamically beneficial; it only needs to blend with the car body in the same way that the posts blend with the side glass.
This is after the section where it recommends flush, airplane style handles as optimal, because again the original claim is that the magnitude of the improvement is negligible.
> If you read this thread, no one has claimed flush handles aren't more aerodynamic. What was claimed is that the aerodynamic benefits are negligible and as a result, that's not actually a serious consideration in choosing them.
I'm not sure how this differs from when I had previously started "Very peculiarly, everyone seems to actually agree the handles are a little more aerodynamic. It's the possibility the manufacturer's teams (except marketing, apparently) could ever have also considered this as one of several benefits when choosing the design which is at such levels of doubt".
Regardless, I continue to find myself in complete agreement w.r.t. this.
> Even the aero study done by range rover doesn't claim they're a meaningful improvement. It claims the handles came from the product design vision first.
My argument remains flush handles in the automotive industry are about more than just one thing alone (more specifically, that drag is indeed also one of those things). Hence I find myself rather lost as to how lack of being the first reason for Range Rover should strike drag as having already been shown as one of their other listed reasons. As far as I can conceive, being about more than one thing alone inherently necessitates some of those reasons are not always to be given as a first reason. Similarly, I don't follow why only the first reason might be held as non-negligible.
> Aerodynamics is complicated. You should measure the actual impact rather than guess. "just make it smooth" is a rule of thumb, not a law.
Other engineers in the field are well aware aerodynamics is a fickle beast and they are not commonly guessing their vehicle aerodynamics by rule of thumb, as you already seem to be very familiar with based on mentioning the Range Rover aero study. Of course, I don't like to leave such a claim uncited or unsourced (regardless how familiar it seems to all already) so here is an SAE paper backing claims Tesla did indeed extensively test the aerodynamics of every external component (for the same vehicle the patent is referring to) rather than guess the impact of exterior elements by rule of thumb https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Palin/publicatio...:
"Aerodynamic optimization is a major contributor to the overall efficiency of an electric vehicle and the close integration of the Design and Engineering groups at Tesla Motors was specifically arranged to process design iterations quickly and enable the fully informed development of the exterior surfaces at a very rapid pace... Following aerodynamic optimization at the overall shape level, focus switched to optimization of production parts, and every external component of the Model S has been examined in great detail searching for aerodynamic performance, since
areas that may seem insignificant in isolation can rapidly accumulate to have a substantial impact on the whole."
> If we're following rules of thumb, my copy of Theory and Applications of Aerodynamics for Ground Vehicles specifically says this on the subject...
We're not just following rule of thumb, but everything in the comments prior still appears to align with this passage anyways. One indeed does not need to make the door handle optimally flush to make a design choice which is aerodynamically beneficial. Clearly, however, the additional possible efficiency is not completely negligible (or an ignored factor) in flush door handle design consideration by many manufacturers in order to make exclusive way for reasons other than drag. One does not even need to conclude this from any of the evidence, to repeat the relevant portion of the prior citation instead:
"Following aerodynamic optimization at the overall shape level, focus switched to optimization of production parts, and every external component of the Model S has been examined in great detail searching for aerodynamic performance, since areas that may seem insignificant in isolation can rapidly accumulate to have a substantial impact on the whole."
.
Again, I'm not trying to argue drag is the only reason (or even that it's the primary reason). Just that claims the additional drag is negligible or saying that flush handles aren't about drag does not redefine what the auto makers themselves say about drag being a reason.
They're not, but range rover actually published an aerodynamic study in SAE mobilus recently. They mention the door handles as part of the product design vision and offhandedly mention it's one of multiple changes that help ensure the flows coming off the front arches don't break up as they move down. They don't bother to single it out though, or even give numbers for the effect of the group (unlike more significant improvements).
They’re also selling a massive vehicle which was designed for macho aesthetics rather than performance. Bragging about minor aerodynamic tweaks is how they convince buyers that it’s okay to spend even more money to take the edge off of that fashion decision. It’s like the places which brag about their single use plastic using some recycled material because they don’t want to say it’d be even better if you bought something which could be reused many times instead.
All of the things you mention are considerations that every automaker considers. Product design engineering is simply an exercise in weighting those factors, among many others.
Drag is absolutely one of those factors. Yes, it only contributes a small amount to the overall drag profile of the vehicle, but a vehicle is a sum of its parts ultimately.
It's not a meaningful factor in decisionmaking. Manufacturers went on an aerodynamics optimization spree in the 80s after the fuel crisis. Concepts like the Ford Probe actually dropped handles and all other protruding surfaces in favor of things like electrical touch panels. Seriously, go look at the photos. Even the pillars are flush.
The production vehicles designed after these concepts often used flush pull-up handles for aerodynamics. Those handles later disappeared in favor of the more reliable pull-bar handles we're familiar with because improved CFD made it clear how minimal their benefit actually was for the tradeoffs.
Of course, even if we accept that all the mechanical complexity of flush handles is necessary for aerodynamic reasons, it's not the only alternative to pull-bars. Look at the Volvo EX60 for an example. Designing a flush handle is hard. Tesla spent years working on it. It's not something undertaken for negligible aerodynamic benefits.
I'm not at all suggesting the primary factor for the change was made for aerodynamic benefits. I am saying that the entire concept is a nod to aerodynamics. That's where the idea conceptually originates from, and it helps more than zero.
Similar to how Mazda has bragged about shaving grams off of a rear view mirror in a Miata. Are Miata's light because their rear view mirror lost a few grams of weight? No. Are Miatas light because Mazda applied that design philosophy to the whole vehicle? Yes.
They can't take as much force and they're less reliable. Sometime in the 90s-ish a new test came into force that greatly increased the impact they had to take without unlatching and continue working. The pull bars made it easier to meet because they're secured on both sides.
The pull-up latches also caused issues for people with long nails. In some places spiders liked to nest inside them. Places with snow had issues with a sheet of ice forming over the entire panel, an issue that also occurs with modern flush latches.
> Flush handles exist as brand differentiators. They're a "futuristic" feel-good feature that consumers want, like engine noise, tablets, and colorful dashboards.
Incorrect. They are most definitely there to save money on production and development costs, like all the other stuff you misattribute to brand differentiators. Consumers like lower prices, car companies like more profit. Yes, it looks fancy, but it is cheaper to produce, judt like the tablet dash.
Literally none of those are cost savings. Touchscreens are, relative to buttons, but not relative to small touchscreens (what I was actually comparing to).
I'm not sure a flush handle is actually cheaper either. The only real difference is the metal bits that connect to the latch assembly. One goes to the interior lever, one to the exterior, and one has the lock pin.
A cost-optimized flush handle gets rid of those in exchange for a motor/encoder unit. The expensive parts of the latch mechanism remain basically identical since it has to be a giant chunk of metal for safety reasons. Maybe the handle differences make up for it, but I'd want to see numbers given that it's made its way onto high end cars first.
No, really, think about it. A touch screen is literally one component plus a computer you need anyways. Buttons need scaffolding, they need to be wired, etc. If you are designing a new car today, figuring out where all those buttons go for each model is a chore, it makes production more complicated, it requires more logistics vs just a touch screen.
Flush handles have to do with creating a recess in the body for normal handles. It’s just easier to cut a hole.
I’m guessing you aren’t willing to consider that the car companies are just being thrifty rather than extravagant, but ya, it’s a win win for them if they can save on costs at the same time as being seen as fancy.
I’m guessing you aren’t willing to consider that the car companies are just being thrifty rather than extravagant
I work in the industry, I'm well aware. It's an eternal thorn in my side.
A touch screen is literally one component plus a computer you need anyways.
Not true, and BOM cost isn't the only consideration in manufacturing costs. As I've said in many previous HN threads, the big win for touchscreens is actually on the project scheduling side. That's neither here nor there because my original comment was about the centrally mounted, massive touchscreen a la Tesla as opposed to a smaller, integrated touchscreen. Not buttons vs. touchscreen.
Flush handles have to do with creating a recess in the body for normal handles. It’s just easier to cut a hole.
That part of a door is manufactured with a series of presses. Whether it's one hole or 16 doesn't make much difference because they're cut all at once.
They add a tiny bit to the efficiency and/or range, they look cool (e.g. serve a gee-whiz marketing purpose), and safety evaluations in the markets where they still exist don't penalize them -- up until now they've had very little against them.
Maybe as legal and reputational backlash spreads the pros will not outweigh the cons. But someone designing a car a decade ago, marketed towards early adopter types, would have had no reason not to.
And I say this as someone who hates these handles designs personally.
The death trap claims come from the internal affordance, which seems to be totally independent from the exterior one.
I have a car with a "novel" handle situation. (Ford Mustand Mach E) The door is operable from the inside with a dead battery. Maybe this particular one isn't as challenging as some of the other designs, but calling it a "puzzle" definitely overstates the case. I think it took me maybe 4 seconds to figure out the first time.
The Xiaomi SU7 has notably threatened the lives of many of its occupants because rescuers couldn't open the doors from the outside after power loss from a crash or fire. This car is partly responsible for China's new safety regulation banning flush handles.
I'm not presenting it as a conflict. I'm presenting it as a revealed preference of how much consumers actually try to optimize fuel use. There's significant reductions to be had completely for free (or even with savings by purchasing smaller, cheaper vehicles). And yes, the savings from flush handles are too small to show up in the MPG number.
Exactly it is not science but purely cosmetic. Which for some reason makes HN mad but guess what people choose cars based on how they look and how they are marketed! There has never been a rational man. Spock is not real.
Kids today miss the chagrin of damaging a protruding door handle, and the entertainment of one of their elders entirely removing one against some obstacle.
> It comes as EVs are facing scrutiny from safety watchdogs around the world after a number of deadly incidents, including two fatal crashes in China involving Xiaomi EVs in which power failures were suspected to have prevented doors from being opened.
You had one job, door handles... but being made sleek and sexy and unlike normal door handles also made you a fucking liability.
People wonder "Why is there a law for this stupid thing, it's a regulatory hassle", and yet time and time again it comes around there was at least some partially legitimate reason said rule exists.
Simply put vehicles are at the point where we need a rule that says "The doors can be unlocked and open if the battery is dead" Full stop, no ifs, ands, or buts.
One of my unfavorite random car regulations is that as of some time in this millennium, cars sold in the USA may not have required lighting on movable bodywork.
This bans new cars from having clamshell bodywork like that found on classics like the Jaguar E-type and Ford GT40. I suspect it also results in many cars having narrower truck/hatch openings than they would have if they could put mandated lights on the trunk lid or rear hatch.
It's not hard to imagine the partially legitimate reason that on occasion, someone will drive with the trunk open, but do we really need a law about it?
> It's not hard to imagine the partially legitimate reason that on occasion, someone will drive with the trunk open
No, it's a much more serious and likely reason -- people stopping on a highway at night, getting out, and opening their trunk for some reason (like a spare tire, fluids, etc)?-- then their lights (and the reflectors in the lamp housings) are pointed at the sky.
Or, movable bodywork is more prone to be misaligned during normal operation.
Headlights get out of alignment sometimes. I posit that likelihood goes up if the lights are themselves mounted on a hood/door/whatever that can also go out of alignment.
He was on the right track. I put truck trailer tape on the inside lid of the trunk, not so visible when in normal operation. All of our motorcycles, OTOH, have strips of trailer tape right down the saddlebags because safety over aesthetics.
Some automakers have chosen to meet the standard while keeping their lights on movable panels by placing additional lights/reflectors in the bumper to meet requirements.
Your post reminded me of a video on the an imported TVR Tuscan, filmed by Doug DeMuro where he covers this too. The TVR Tuscan is one of those cars where if the rear trunk is open, you can’t see the turn signal lights. In the video it is claimed that because of that, by laws in the UK, the trunk must have a triangular exclamation point sign as a safety precaution to let other drivers know when the vehicle is immobile.
That particular blood was probably people stopped at night with the trunk open to access a spare tire or tools. And then there was more blood because sometimes those people forget to leave their lights on, or their lights don't function because the battery has died, so we got more regulation requiring ugly reflectors.
This has become a mantra, but it's not always true. Automatic shoulder belts, for example were a terrible idea, and 5 MPH bumpers were more about repair costs than reducing injuries.
It is not the government's job to enumerate every specific brand of stupid design that may be harmful multiplied by every class of product nor should it be.
If you want to do that stuff, do it with a performance test or criteria, not with stupid whack-a-mole rules. And don't think that weasel wording the test to the same effect is any better. If you want to do this the not stupid way you need to actually do the hard work and figure out what the over-arching general case performance characteristics need to be.
With better styling cues and design that make it obvious how to use the Tesla handles (and all the degrees of copycats) it wouldn't be an issue. But that isn't the kind of sleek sext angular bullshit modern car designers like so it never got made and here we are.
Game it out - if you issue guidelines, people abuse them, then government agencies get in trouble (isn't it your job to stop this kind of thing?), so government agencies issue strict rules.
Bureaucracies have many fathers, the society we have is the result of conflict and incentives.
>Game it out - if you issue guidelines, people abuse them,
You wind up with smaller gaps with the qualitative and rules based approach than you do with the whack-a-mole list.
>then government agencies get in trouble (isn't it your job to stop this kind of thing?), so government agencies issue strict rules.
Government agencies tend to grow in scope and resources when they screw up. Even when punished, it's not like they go bankrupt and everyone is out of a job.
>Bureaucracies have many fathers, the society we have is the result of conflict and incentives.
And ideology. You can incentivize the Taliban all you want they won't send their girls to school. I postulate that the failure of american regulatory to systems to regulate without sucking is driven in large part by what goes on in the heads of the subset of people who spec out, create and operate said systems.
>enumerate every specific brand of stupid design that may be harmful
As commonly said by the libertarian at heart, right up until the point their loved one gets injured or killed, then they are at the forefront of regulation.
> But that isn't the kind of sleek sext angular bullshit modern car designers like
Who likes safety and security? These features commonly make every day use more difficult. Who needs unblocked fire exits, that takes up too much room in the building. Who needs a common interface for a safety critical device, that removes the 'cool' factor.
The video that made the rounds on Reddit yesterday really hits home how quickly an EV can become a death trap when the doors can no longer be opened from the outside
I've owned dozens of vehicles and I've only had locks or windows fail on one of them -- and both failed on this vehicle: It was a Ford with manual locks and windows. Turns out if you design something poorly enough even mechanical parts can fail. Point being: quality of construction matters more to reliability than anything else.
I tend to keep cars for decades. My Ford for 35 years. The manual windows and doors never failed. My dodge is 50 years old. Doors and windows still work.
I've had three cars where the electric windows failed and two where the electric door locks failed.
purely a matter of aesthetic preference, but I miss when the handle was literally just a handle and a big old chunky button is what operated the latching mechanism
Fun fact: a great many key fobs have --and many owners have zero idea about it-- a physical backup key. The problem is that the key is so well "hidden" inside the key fob that most simply don't know it. For example on many Porsche models, it's impossible to access the physical key inside the key fob without first removing the key ring (a very smart design btw: you cannot accidentally lose the spare key for it's "held" by the key ring): most owners literally don't know they have a spare physical key.
BMW owners often find out they have a spare key when the key fob separate, for no reason, from the physical key (those keyfobs tend to be extremely badly designed, where the plastic knobs holding the physical key tend to become loose with age).
A spare physical key of course means that the door handle has a lock that can be opened with the key.
Wife is stuck under pouring rain with the battery of her BMW's keyfob that died (because she didn't pay attention to the message on the dashboard saying it needs replacing): "Please come pick me up" / "Babe, take the physical key, open the door, start your car with the physical key, come back home and I'll go buy a new battery and place it into your keyfob".
> More recently, there's been a trend of “suck-in” handles that are flush with the body. As noted earlier, flush handles come in two basic varieties.
Handles flush with the body are nothing new that said. I've got a car from 1992 (model came out in 1989) with flush handles.
Since we're on door handle memory lane, I was a huge fan of used Volvos when I was in my 20s, had a 740 and an 850. I loved the trigger 740 handle and the 850s whole handle pull. I'm sure they were complex and expensive to replace, but if it's made right the first time you won't have to. I had over 200k on the Volvo before I sold it which it felt like the same car I bought 6y ago.
I was expecting some mention of the Dutch Reach (internal handles that are sort of backwards to force car users to look in the direction of possible approaching pedestrians or bicycles behind them while opening their door), but I guess the article's focus wasn't quite on that type of detail.
I've a bone to pick with the title, which euphemises degradation.
If they evolved, one might assume they'd survive more than a few years.
My last two vehicles have been Toyota and Hyundai, both of them having multiple broken and malfunctioning door handles.
Every time I get into a commercial* or antique vehicle, I long for the solidity, surety and hardness of the dark ages when things were built to last.
Driving semis, I'm well acquainted with automobile 'evolution', and all but a few are hardly worth entering. UPS trucks, Mac, some others still make stuff for adults, but International, Peterbilt, even Kenworth are using sillyputty for parts. Consumer vehicles, to me, are the antithesis of evolution. And for all the wondrous eco tech, their merit is contested by landfills, downtime and piles of repair receipts.
Not that eco couldn't work, but the way it's been introduced, in the US, has been replete with cut corners and outright scams. An old truck pre-DEF still runs far more reliably than anything new on the road. Volvo has done reasonably well with trucks, but no new truck can stand to the old ones. CAT!
Door handles are symptomatic of the disposable infrastructure we've built our new country on, and come hard times, when folks can no longer afford a new HVAC system every 8 years at 12 grand, coupled with everything else falling apart around us, we'll be longing for the dark ages again.
Thankfully it's not everything. I just bought a pair of Knipex pliers, which should make it well through the century.
For the young, or majority I presume, if you can suspend your contempt of a less fuel efficient steel monstrosity, hop into an old vehicle from the 70s or earlier. Close your eyes if needed, but just feel around a bit. You'll feel honest engineering. Not as safe, but there's something obnoxious anyway about being too safe and cozy trundling around in a big bulbous plastic bubble. We didn't always drive unaffordable fluorescent pillows.
When I was about 20, I had a well used AMC Spirit.
Stylish, good gas mileage, decent performance, it was a great car. It had one fatal flaw, a weak linkage in the drivers door handle.
The linkage included a small plastic clip that didn’t quite align properly. It would pop out of place periodically, making the door impossible to open. I became adept at taking apart the door from the inside and popping the pieces back into place.
I once returned to my college dorm after a snowstorm, the car got stuck in the snow. I had another trick for this situation, I’d ease the clutch out ( leaving the back tires spinning slowly ) and would exit the car, pushing it by hand. When the wheels caught and the car started creeping forward I’d jump back in and drive off. ( Foolish, I know. I was 20. )
Well, once I had both mishaps at once. The car got stuck, so I got out to push. The door handle broke, locking me out of my car with the engine running and the wheels slowly turning!
Praying fervently, I ran to my dorm room, got my spare key and went in through the passenger door to stop the engine.
It was a memorable day.
The mechanical flush mount car door handles are because shaping that divot into the steel is much more complicated then punching a hole, and especially aluminum is many times more complicated and expensive. Audi was showing off their technical expertise with creasing aluminum with unlimited money in their bodywork before dieselgate, and that was pretty much peak for car body technology.
This is a great video by SuperfastMatt on the engineering behind and evolution of the Tesla door handle.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bea4FS-zDzc
> evolution of the Tesla door handle
I really like Tesla's approach to door handles - it's clean, polished, and gives a fine and smooth look. But was surprised to learn that China will ban them beginning next year. Other countries might follow suit as well.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-hidden-door-handles-cars-...
The main purpose of a handle is to open a door, not look polished. Looking polished is not helpful when you're dead because you couldn't get out of that car in an emergency . So IMHO it shouldn't be surprising that they're being banned.
There are obvious ways to design a door handle which looks exactly the same, but isn't electronic.
Yes, but it is expensive.
How many people have to die for aesthetics?
Form over function is not the correct approach for designing something that can kill you if it doesn’t work when you need it to.
[dead]
Even in the new version it seems like there is no fallback method for a failure.
I'm convinced it isn't rocket science to design a flush handle that looks as clean yet has a manual operation fallback (preferably mechanical). Eg. Something like an integral hinge where you can push the short, base end in to pop the release (provided car is unlocked).
IMO their handles are stupidly over-engineered. It shows when you get problems like ice, etc. in northern climates.
I don't want my door handle to look clean. I want it to be something I can quickly and easily grab and pull.
This article contains a nice chart of different types: https://www.theautopian.com/what-is-the-goat-door-handle-des...
Nice, but it would have been better with more pictures to match the description IMO
I am bemused every time I use Uber and the car has some flush-mounted door handle that I have to figure out. When exiting the car and closing the door, I end up leaving fingerprints I would not have left if the handle had been designed by someone who had been in a car before.
agreed on fingerprints, though i bet the rationale is coefficient of drag, not lack of experience with various door handle designs.
in the article, it shows a Magna-Steyr handle on a Mercedes Gelaendewagen, which looks like those on the Ineos Grenadier, and not very different than the ones that Ford uses on various trucks.
that contrasts with those on Audi and BMW evs, for examples i see often, where the CoD is a stated spec for ev shoppers, and the handles have motion to them, but are flush (but not Tesla vanishingly flush). Weirdly, some Porsches (intimately related to Audi...just read the shared parts) use flush handles and some the protruding handles with an actual handle.
i admittedly pay an unusual amount of attention to car componentry, sort of a hobby really.
The additional drag is negligible. People have been producing "racing doors" with handles for decades. They focus on cutting all the other features of the door like weight and mechanical complexity instead. It's an even more irrelevant consideration for consumers, who could save far more fuel by changing how they drive.
Flush handles exist as brand differentiators. They're a "futuristic" feel-good feature that consumers want, like engine noise, tablets, and colorful dashboards.
It's about more than just one thing alone. E.g.
https://media.landrover.com/new-range-rover-sport-press-kit-...
https://usa.infinitinews.com/en-US/releases/2025-qx80-press-...
I'm unsure manufacturer's press kits are to be taken as an honest source of information : the goal of the authors is to make people love a brand, buy a product... but not to educate, share objective information or strategic choices.
Very peculiarly, everyone seems to actually agree the handles are a little more aerodynamic. It's the possibility the manufacturer's teams (except marketing, apparently) could ever have also considered this as one of several benefits when choosing the design which is at such levels of doubt. Moreso, people are willing to dismiss it saying they'd want a certain type of source instead rather than just seeing whether that kind of source does also agree.
To complete the loop on the latter: Tesla's 2012 handle patent https://patents.google.com/patent/US9103143B2/en
> Conventional door handle designs typically have less than desirable aerodynamics due to protrusion of the exterior door handle from the surface of the door and the recessed area over which it spans. As the vehicle moves, these conventional door handles interrupt the smooth surface of the door and thereby increase the overall drag of the vehicle. Depending on the size, depth, and overall shape of the recessed area, for example, the corresponding area under the door handle further contributes to reduced aerodynamics of the vehicle. Designers have not focused on improving aerodynamics in this area as the exterior door handle seems relatively small and inconsequential.
> 104 in the retracted position provides both a smooth appearance and advantageous aerodynamic qualities when the vehicle is in motion
I'm starting to wonder if an interview with David Wheeler (what a name for a car patent) et al would even be believed here at this point.
If you read this thread, no one has claimed flush handles aren't more aerodynamic. What was claimed is that the aerodynamic benefits are negligible and as a result, that's not actually a serious consideration in choosing them.
Even the aero study done by range rover doesn't claim they're a meaningful improvement. It claims the handles came from the product design vision first.
> Depending on the size, depth, and overall shape of the recessed area, for example, the corresponding area under the door handle further contributes to reduced aerodynamics of the vehicle. Designers have not focused on improving aerodynamics in this area as the exterior door handle seems relatively small and inconsequential.
Aerodynamics is complicated. You should measure the actual impact rather than guess. "just make it smooth" is a rule of thumb, not a law. If we're following rules of thumb, my copy of Theory and Applications of Aerodynamics for Ground Vehicles specifically says this on the subject:
This is after the section where it recommends flush, airplane style handles as optimal, because again the original claim is that the magnitude of the improvement is negligible.> If you read this thread, no one has claimed flush handles aren't more aerodynamic. What was claimed is that the aerodynamic benefits are negligible and as a result, that's not actually a serious consideration in choosing them.
I'm not sure how this differs from when I had previously started "Very peculiarly, everyone seems to actually agree the handles are a little more aerodynamic. It's the possibility the manufacturer's teams (except marketing, apparently) could ever have also considered this as one of several benefits when choosing the design which is at such levels of doubt".
Regardless, I continue to find myself in complete agreement w.r.t. this.
> Even the aero study done by range rover doesn't claim they're a meaningful improvement. It claims the handles came from the product design vision first.
My argument remains flush handles in the automotive industry are about more than just one thing alone (more specifically, that drag is indeed also one of those things). Hence I find myself rather lost as to how lack of being the first reason for Range Rover should strike drag as having already been shown as one of their other listed reasons. As far as I can conceive, being about more than one thing alone inherently necessitates some of those reasons are not always to be given as a first reason. Similarly, I don't follow why only the first reason might be held as non-negligible.
> Aerodynamics is complicated. You should measure the actual impact rather than guess. "just make it smooth" is a rule of thumb, not a law.
Other engineers in the field are well aware aerodynamics is a fickle beast and they are not commonly guessing their vehicle aerodynamics by rule of thumb, as you already seem to be very familiar with based on mentioning the Range Rover aero study. Of course, I don't like to leave such a claim uncited or unsourced (regardless how familiar it seems to all already) so here is an SAE paper backing claims Tesla did indeed extensively test the aerodynamics of every external component (for the same vehicle the patent is referring to) rather than guess the impact of exterior elements by rule of thumb https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert-Palin/publicatio...:
"Aerodynamic optimization is a major contributor to the overall efficiency of an electric vehicle and the close integration of the Design and Engineering groups at Tesla Motors was specifically arranged to process design iterations quickly and enable the fully informed development of the exterior surfaces at a very rapid pace... Following aerodynamic optimization at the overall shape level, focus switched to optimization of production parts, and every external component of the Model S has been examined in great detail searching for aerodynamic performance, since areas that may seem insignificant in isolation can rapidly accumulate to have a substantial impact on the whole."
> If we're following rules of thumb, my copy of Theory and Applications of Aerodynamics for Ground Vehicles specifically says this on the subject...
We're not just following rule of thumb, but everything in the comments prior still appears to align with this passage anyways. One indeed does not need to make the door handle optimally flush to make a design choice which is aerodynamically beneficial. Clearly, however, the additional possible efficiency is not completely negligible (or an ignored factor) in flush door handle design consideration by many manufacturers in order to make exclusive way for reasons other than drag. One does not even need to conclude this from any of the evidence, to repeat the relevant portion of the prior citation instead:
"Following aerodynamic optimization at the overall shape level, focus switched to optimization of production parts, and every external component of the Model S has been examined in great detail searching for aerodynamic performance, since areas that may seem insignificant in isolation can rapidly accumulate to have a substantial impact on the whole."
.
Again, I'm not trying to argue drag is the only reason (or even that it's the primary reason). Just that claims the additional drag is negligible or saying that flush handles aren't about drag does not redefine what the auto makers themselves say about drag being a reason.
They're not, but range rover actually published an aerodynamic study in SAE mobilus recently. They mention the door handles as part of the product design vision and offhandedly mention it's one of multiple changes that help ensure the flows coming off the front arches don't break up as they move down. They don't bother to single it out though, or even give numbers for the effect of the group (unlike more significant improvements).
They’re also selling a massive vehicle which was designed for macho aesthetics rather than performance. Bragging about minor aerodynamic tweaks is how they convince buyers that it’s okay to spend even more money to take the edge off of that fashion decision. It’s like the places which brag about their single use plastic using some recycled material because they don’t want to say it’d be even better if you bought something which could be reused many times instead.
All of the things you mention are considerations that every automaker considers. Product design engineering is simply an exercise in weighting those factors, among many others.
I'm saying flush handles aren't about drag, not passing judgement on whether those other factors are bad.
Drag is absolutely one of those factors. Yes, it only contributes a small amount to the overall drag profile of the vehicle, but a vehicle is a sum of its parts ultimately.
It's not a meaningful factor in decisionmaking. Manufacturers went on an aerodynamics optimization spree in the 80s after the fuel crisis. Concepts like the Ford Probe actually dropped handles and all other protruding surfaces in favor of things like electrical touch panels. Seriously, go look at the photos. Even the pillars are flush.
The production vehicles designed after these concepts often used flush pull-up handles for aerodynamics. Those handles later disappeared in favor of the more reliable pull-bar handles we're familiar with because improved CFD made it clear how minimal their benefit actually was for the tradeoffs.
Of course, even if we accept that all the mechanical complexity of flush handles is necessary for aerodynamic reasons, it's not the only alternative to pull-bars. Look at the Volvo EX60 for an example. Designing a flush handle is hard. Tesla spent years working on it. It's not something undertaken for negligible aerodynamic benefits.
I'm not at all suggesting the primary factor for the change was made for aerodynamic benefits. I am saying that the entire concept is a nod to aerodynamics. That's where the idea conceptually originates from, and it helps more than zero.
Similar to how Mazda has bragged about shaving grams off of a rear view mirror in a Miata. Are Miata's light because their rear view mirror lost a few grams of weight? No. Are Miatas light because Mazda applied that design philosophy to the whole vehicle? Yes.
What tradeoff is there between pull-up and pull-out handles?
They can't take as much force and they're less reliable. Sometime in the 90s-ish a new test came into force that greatly increased the impact they had to take without unlatching and continue working. The pull bars made it easier to meet because they're secured on both sides.
The pull-up latches also caused issues for people with long nails. In some places spiders liked to nest inside them. Places with snow had issues with a sheet of ice forming over the entire panel, an issue that also occurs with modern flush latches.
good points and the icing i had thought of, but not the others, certainly nails or spiders. thanks.
> Flush handles exist as brand differentiators. They're a "futuristic" feel-good feature that consumers want, like engine noise, tablets, and colorful dashboards.
Incorrect. They are most definitely there to save money on production and development costs, like all the other stuff you misattribute to brand differentiators. Consumers like lower prices, car companies like more profit. Yes, it looks fancy, but it is cheaper to produce, judt like the tablet dash.
Literally none of those are cost savings. Touchscreens are, relative to buttons, but not relative to small touchscreens (what I was actually comparing to).
I'm not sure a flush handle is actually cheaper either. The only real difference is the metal bits that connect to the latch assembly. One goes to the interior lever, one to the exterior, and one has the lock pin.
A cost-optimized flush handle gets rid of those in exchange for a motor/encoder unit. The expensive parts of the latch mechanism remain basically identical since it has to be a giant chunk of metal for safety reasons. Maybe the handle differences make up for it, but I'd want to see numbers given that it's made its way onto high end cars first.
No, really, think about it. A touch screen is literally one component plus a computer you need anyways. Buttons need scaffolding, they need to be wired, etc. If you are designing a new car today, figuring out where all those buttons go for each model is a chore, it makes production more complicated, it requires more logistics vs just a touch screen.
Flush handles have to do with creating a recess in the body for normal handles. It’s just easier to cut a hole.
I’m guessing you aren’t willing to consider that the car companies are just being thrifty rather than extravagant, but ya, it’s a win win for them if they can save on costs at the same time as being seen as fancy.
People who race stock cars will even dip body panels into acid to make the panels thinner. Anything to reduce weight!
> It's an even more irrelevant consideration for consumers, who could save far more fuel by changing how they drive.
These are not in conflict. The energy you save from drag stacks with the energy you save from "learning how to drive".
Yeah, but making opening doors a puzzle to solve is an incredibly terrible trade off.
And that’s before we consider the other aspects of these door handle designs that make the cars a death trap.
They add a tiny bit to the efficiency and/or range, they look cool (e.g. serve a gee-whiz marketing purpose), and safety evaluations in the markets where they still exist don't penalize them -- up until now they've had very little against them.
Maybe as legal and reputational backlash spreads the pros will not outweigh the cons. But someone designing a car a decade ago, marketed towards early adopter types, would have had no reason not to.
And I say this as someone who hates these handles designs personally.
The death trap claims come from the internal affordance, which seems to be totally independent from the exterior one.
I have a car with a "novel" handle situation. (Ford Mustand Mach E) The door is operable from the inside with a dead battery. Maybe this particular one isn't as challenging as some of the other designs, but calling it a "puzzle" definitely overstates the case. I think it took me maybe 4 seconds to figure out the first time.
The Xiaomi SU7 has notably threatened the lives of many of its occupants because rescuers couldn't open the doors from the outside after power loss from a crash or fire. This car is partly responsible for China's new safety regulation banning flush handles.
I'm not presenting it as a conflict. I'm presenting it as a revealed preference of how much consumers actually try to optimize fuel use. There's significant reductions to be had completely for free (or even with savings by purchasing smaller, cheaper vehicles). And yes, the savings from flush handles are too small to show up in the MPG number.
Exactly it is not science but purely cosmetic. Which for some reason makes HN mad but guess what people choose cars based on how they look and how they are marketed! There has never been a rational man. Spock is not real.
Those that care about fingerprints on their car seem like they're different people from those that drive for Uber.
Or someone who had to open their own car door before lol
Kids today miss the chagrin of damaging a protruding door handle, and the entertainment of one of their elders entirely removing one against some obstacle.
Bloomberg Originals had recently published a video "The Dangerous Feature in Tesla's Doors" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2lFzqBt3z0w
See also: China bans hidden car door handles over safety concerns
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp37g5nxe3lo
> It comes as EVs are facing scrutiny from safety watchdogs around the world after a number of deadly incidents, including two fatal crashes in China involving Xiaomi EVs in which power failures were suspected to have prevented doors from being opened.
You had one job, door handles... but being made sleek and sexy and unlike normal door handles also made you a fucking liability.
People wonder "Why is there a law for this stupid thing, it's a regulatory hassle", and yet time and time again it comes around there was at least some partially legitimate reason said rule exists.
Simply put vehicles are at the point where we need a rule that says "The doors can be unlocked and open if the battery is dead" Full stop, no ifs, ands, or buts.
One of my unfavorite random car regulations is that as of some time in this millennium, cars sold in the USA may not have required lighting on movable bodywork.
This bans new cars from having clamshell bodywork like that found on classics like the Jaguar E-type and Ford GT40. I suspect it also results in many cars having narrower truck/hatch openings than they would have if they could put mandated lights on the trunk lid or rear hatch.
It's not hard to imagine the partially legitimate reason that on occasion, someone will drive with the trunk open, but do we really need a law about it?
> It's not hard to imagine the partially legitimate reason that on occasion, someone will drive with the trunk open
No, it's a much more serious and likely reason -- people stopping on a highway at night, getting out, and opening their trunk for some reason (like a spare tire, fluids, etc)?-- then their lights (and the reflectors in the lamp housings) are pointed at the sky.
Or, movable bodywork is more prone to be misaligned during normal operation.
Headlights get out of alignment sometimes. I posit that likelihood goes up if the lights are themselves mounted on a hood/door/whatever that can also go out of alignment.
Yeah that is important for headlamps -- but for signal and marker lamps, the point is visibility.
My dad, in the 1960s, put reflective tape on the rear bumpers.
He was on the right track. I put truck trailer tape on the inside lid of the trunk, not so visible when in normal operation. All of our motorcycles, OTOH, have strips of trailer tape right down the saddlebags because safety over aesthetics.
When I began dirt biking, I bought the suit and armor. I picked a florescent red color.
Some automakers have chosen to meet the standard while keeping their lights on movable panels by placing additional lights/reflectors in the bumper to meet requirements.
Your post reminded me of a video on the an imported TVR Tuscan, filmed by Doug DeMuro where he covers this too. The TVR Tuscan is one of those cars where if the rear trunk is open, you can’t see the turn signal lights. In the video it is claimed that because of that, by laws in the UK, the trunk must have a triangular exclamation point sign as a safety precaution to let other drivers know when the vehicle is immobile.
That is around the seven minute mark of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32u6KPTALxg
Every safety regulation is written in blood.
That particular blood was probably people stopped at night with the trunk open to access a spare tire or tools. And then there was more blood because sometimes those people forget to leave their lights on, or their lights don't function because the battery has died, so we got more regulation requiring ugly reflectors.
And so on.
I have a hard time following the descriptions here and imaging what is going on.
People stopped at night with the trunk open to access a spare tire or tools, ok. How did that get them killed?
> Every safety regulation is written in blood.
This has become a mantra, but it's not always true. Automatic shoulder belts, for example were a terrible idea, and 5 MPH bumpers were more about repair costs than reducing injuries.
It is not the government's job to enumerate every specific brand of stupid design that may be harmful multiplied by every class of product nor should it be.
If you want to do that stuff, do it with a performance test or criteria, not with stupid whack-a-mole rules. And don't think that weasel wording the test to the same effect is any better. If you want to do this the not stupid way you need to actually do the hard work and figure out what the over-arching general case performance characteristics need to be.
With better styling cues and design that make it obvious how to use the Tesla handles (and all the degrees of copycats) it wouldn't be an issue. But that isn't the kind of sleek sext angular bullshit modern car designers like so it never got made and here we are.
Game it out - if you issue guidelines, people abuse them, then government agencies get in trouble (isn't it your job to stop this kind of thing?), so government agencies issue strict rules.
Bureaucracies have many fathers, the society we have is the result of conflict and incentives.
>Game it out - if you issue guidelines, people abuse them,
You wind up with smaller gaps with the qualitative and rules based approach than you do with the whack-a-mole list.
>then government agencies get in trouble (isn't it your job to stop this kind of thing?), so government agencies issue strict rules.
Government agencies tend to grow in scope and resources when they screw up. Even when punished, it's not like they go bankrupt and everyone is out of a job.
>Bureaucracies have many fathers, the society we have is the result of conflict and incentives.
And ideology. You can incentivize the Taliban all you want they won't send their girls to school. I postulate that the failure of american regulatory to systems to regulate without sucking is driven in large part by what goes on in the heads of the subset of people who spec out, create and operate said systems.
>enumerate every specific brand of stupid design that may be harmful
As commonly said by the libertarian at heart, right up until the point their loved one gets injured or killed, then they are at the forefront of regulation.
> But that isn't the kind of sleek sext angular bullshit modern car designers like
Who likes safety and security? These features commonly make every day use more difficult. Who needs unblocked fire exits, that takes up too much room in the building. Who needs a common interface for a safety critical device, that removes the 'cool' factor.
The video that made the rounds on Reddit yesterday really hits home how quickly an EV can become a death trap when the doors can no longer be opened from the outside
https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/1qwfjuu/i...
I don't like electric windows, either. They like to fail in the rain, and are expensive to repair.
Manual windows roll up and down for decade after decade...
Electric door locks are bad, too. After a while, they won't lock or unlock.
I've owned dozens of vehicles and I've only had locks or windows fail on one of them -- and both failed on this vehicle: It was a Ford with manual locks and windows. Turns out if you design something poorly enough even mechanical parts can fail. Point being: quality of construction matters more to reliability than anything else.
I tend to keep cars for decades. My Ford for 35 years. The manual windows and doors never failed. My dodge is 50 years old. Doors and windows still work.
I've had three cars where the electric windows failed and two where the electric door locks failed.
What do you _do_ with your cars!?!
I use them as counterweights on my trebuchet. Doesn't everyone?
purely a matter of aesthetic preference, but I miss when the handle was literally just a handle and a big old chunky button is what operated the latching mechanism
Website crashes mobile safari?
Edit: correction it seems to be crashing on my adblock.
Fun fact: a great many key fobs have --and many owners have zero idea about it-- a physical backup key. The problem is that the key is so well "hidden" inside the key fob that most simply don't know it. For example on many Porsche models, it's impossible to access the physical key inside the key fob without first removing the key ring (a very smart design btw: you cannot accidentally lose the spare key for it's "held" by the key ring): most owners literally don't know they have a spare physical key.
BMW owners often find out they have a spare key when the key fob separate, for no reason, from the physical key (those keyfobs tend to be extremely badly designed, where the plastic knobs holding the physical key tend to become loose with age).
A spare physical key of course means that the door handle has a lock that can be opened with the key.
Wife is stuck under pouring rain with the battery of her BMW's keyfob that died (because she didn't pay attention to the message on the dashboard saying it needs replacing): "Please come pick me up" / "Babe, take the physical key, open the door, start your car with the physical key, come back home and I'll go buy a new battery and place it into your keyfob".
> More recently, there's been a trend of “suck-in” handles that are flush with the body. As noted earlier, flush handles come in two basic varieties.
Handles flush with the body are nothing new that said. I've got a car from 1992 (model came out in 1989) with flush handles.
Since we're on door handle memory lane, I was a huge fan of used Volvos when I was in my 20s, had a 740 and an 850. I loved the trigger 740 handle and the 850s whole handle pull. I'm sure they were complex and expensive to replace, but if it's made right the first time you won't have to. I had over 200k on the Volvo before I sold it which it felt like the same car I bought 6y ago.
Ummm, hidden door handle, nope.
Bring back window-opener crank handles.
And ditch the touch-surface of the LCD screen too.
I was expecting some mention of the Dutch Reach (internal handles that are sort of backwards to force car users to look in the direction of possible approaching pedestrians or bicycles behind them while opening their door), but I guess the article's focus wasn't quite on that type of detail.
I've a bone to pick with the title, which euphemises degradation.
If they evolved, one might assume they'd survive more than a few years.
My last two vehicles have been Toyota and Hyundai, both of them having multiple broken and malfunctioning door handles.
Every time I get into a commercial* or antique vehicle, I long for the solidity, surety and hardness of the dark ages when things were built to last.
Driving semis, I'm well acquainted with automobile 'evolution', and all but a few are hardly worth entering. UPS trucks, Mac, some others still make stuff for adults, but International, Peterbilt, even Kenworth are using sillyputty for parts. Consumer vehicles, to me, are the antithesis of evolution. And for all the wondrous eco tech, their merit is contested by landfills, downtime and piles of repair receipts.
Not that eco couldn't work, but the way it's been introduced, in the US, has been replete with cut corners and outright scams. An old truck pre-DEF still runs far more reliably than anything new on the road. Volvo has done reasonably well with trucks, but no new truck can stand to the old ones. CAT!
Door handles are symptomatic of the disposable infrastructure we've built our new country on, and come hard times, when folks can no longer afford a new HVAC system every 8 years at 12 grand, coupled with everything else falling apart around us, we'll be longing for the dark ages again.
Thankfully it's not everything. I just bought a pair of Knipex pliers, which should make it well through the century.
For the young, or majority I presume, if you can suspend your contempt of a less fuel efficient steel monstrosity, hop into an old vehicle from the 70s or earlier. Close your eyes if needed, but just feel around a bit. You'll feel honest engineering. Not as safe, but there's something obnoxious anyway about being too safe and cozy trundling around in a big bulbous plastic bubble. We didn't always drive unaffordable fluorescent pillows.
[dead]