May I?
I have some time with this system and a couple of others and I see problems of differing types, some of which we have noted; others unmentioned. I also have witnessed the evolution of and used the 'glass' cockpits on various airplanes. I own a late model BMW and a MB with systems similar to this Corvette. This is not to crow, but to bring my experience with them here, pick the best features and offer suggestions to those interested.
The golden rule for automated systems should be that the system serve the user, be intuitive and not allow unsafe situations (unintentionally leaving the car running). It would best serve the user if that user could tailor the system as much as possible. Also, features should be helpful, not installed because 'we can do this'.
Sometimes an 'advance' is actually a step backward. Requiring three or four hand and/or eye motions to change radio volume, versus just twisting a knob which can be found without looking, is neither an advance nor good design.
Similarly, as I told my electrical engineer son, digital displays can remove some information. EX: Does a fluctuating needle give information? Of course. Do you get that piece of, possibly vital, information when displayed after digital 'smoothing'? Nope.
While user habits will be formed which may preclude future events such as the one that began this thread, what can one say about the human engineering of a system that allows it? Then again, many of these cars will be weekend rides, so habits may not be so quickly formed nor so deeply ingrained. Slowing this formation of new 'Corvette' habits is the proliferation of such systems, with similar, yet different characteristics, in other owned vehicles. The subtleties and complexities further slow habit formation.
This very conflict is why I would not own the I-drive 745 BMW and the simplified I-drive 5-series. I can become the master of one system, but cannot master and fully utilize, as designers intended, two very similar, yet different, and very complex ones. The frustration and attention diverted from the task of driving make dual ownership impractical, if not unsafe. "Gee, the other car has me push this way or click that." This is one area where software could and should allow the user to 'liken' one car's system to another's.
This is akin to the many years when we had computers at home, in search of a valuable task. I think I owned four before I actually had one make my life easier; one that served me, not vice-versa. I still have and use that HP Palmtop.
Actually, this challenge can be a marketing plus. GM, by having a human interface standard, across lines, might entice owner loyalty among multi-car owners because he/she can actually USE the damn things.
For me, much of these features are nice and interesting; might even serve me well, in a car other than he Corvette. When I drive my Vette, I am concentrating on the car, usually; not working or doing other tasks. Hence, I don't need all the periferal gadgetry. I know; some of you do, but a fantastic stereo and excellent gauges, which feed me information about the car, are all I need in my Vette.
Simple works, and wins every time. In automation, simple takes a lot of planning and some 'distant' perspective.
Actually, I found myself thinking about the Model T, when drivers had to manually adjust timing and the like; about how I could not sit down and just drive a 'T'; about how drivers have had to adjust how they operate cars, over the years; all as perspective on this new generation of Corvette.
Well, I did, anyway........
As for leaving it running... sometimes I do if I am just doing a kick in and out. But I always lock the doors. As for the wife always wanting to be with you in the C6, I got no help for you there. Never been married. :L
