R2 overhead window switches: backwards?

[emroch]

Why not just put this switch somewhere else, facing up instead of down? Then nobody would have an issue (federal or otherwise).

Because people will always find a reason to complain. Two more switches (rear window + 5x) on the driver door? Too many switches to deal with while driving. And now the passenger can't reach it. Switches near the charging mats/cupholders? In the way and easy to hit accidentally. Vertical on the dash? Ruins the aesthetic. Software-only buttons? People want physical controls.

Any one of those might be a fine tradeoff for you or me, but it wouldn't end the debate because someone would still be annoyed by it.

The fact that RJ agrees that it feels backwards means he probably asked the design team for other solutions and they decided the best tradeoff was to have the "backwards" button on the roof instead of somewhere else.

Sponsored

 

[keamoro]

Because people will always find a reason to complain. Two more switches (rear window + 5x) on the driver door? Too many switches to deal with while driving. And now the passenger can't reach it. Switches near the charging mats/cupholders? In the way and easy to hit accidentally. Vertical on the dash? Ruins the aesthetic. Software-only buttons? People want physical controls.

Any one of those might be a fine tradeoff for you or me, but it wouldn't end the debate because someone would still be annoyed by it.

The fact that RJ agrees that it feels backwards means he probably asked the design team for other solutions and they decided the best tradeoff was to have the "backwards" button on the roof instead of somewhere else.

It's most likely the best option for now. They have a lot of better things to worry about, and people will just have to learn to get used to it.

 

[GABarber]

Because people will always find a reason to complain. Two more switches (rear window + 5x) on the driver door? Too many switches to deal with while driving. And now the passenger can't reach it. Switches near the charging mats/cupholders? In the way and easy to hit accidentally. Vertical on the dash? Ruins the aesthetic. Software-only buttons? People want physical controls.

Any one of those might be a fine tradeoff for you or me, but it wouldn't end the debate because someone would still be annoyed by it.

The fact that RJ agrees that it feels backwards means he probably asked the design team for other solutions and they decided the best tradeoff was to have the "backwards" button on the roof instead of somewhere else.

i would agree it would be more intuitive if the same switch was reversed so the lift was upward rather than downward

 

[Mos Eisley]

Over/Under on 20?

 

[JetSpeed]

Not sure if this has been covered yet, but it’s actually required by regulation.

(ducks for cover)

 

[Mos Eisley]

Not sure if this has been covered yet, but it’s actually required by regulation.

(ducks for cover)

Am sure you didn't read the thread first

 

[JetSpeed]

Am sure you didn't read the thread first

You need a little pot-stirring if you want it to get over 20.

Who am I kidding? It gets there anyway

 

[junglebird]

Those switches are like USB-A cables. Try it one way, and when (not if) it doesn't work, try it the other way.

 

[VSG]

"Ooops"

 

[bgg1]

It's not backwards. Federal regulations also require it to be the way it is. There's discussions and threads on this already.

PULL = window up
PUSH = window down

A bit off topic, and I'll have to do more snooping around before my next SC visit, but this bit of information gote thinking. On my R1S when the windows are vented (either via the app or if I manually open them slightly) and I try to close them using the buttons (both sides at once), inevitably at least one of the windows (almost always the front passenger one) will go down halfway instead of closing. I've brought this to the attention of the SC numerous times, and have even been able to reproduce it on other cars they had there, but they claim it must be a design feature. The fact that there's a federal regulation about this leads me to believe otherwise.

 

[evilyn]

Here I found it (apologies if somebody already mentioned it).

The relevant rule is FMVSS No. 118, 49 CFR § 571.118, which governs power-operated windows, partitions, and roof panels.

Most importantly, §571.118(S6)(c) explicitly says that a power-window control used to close a window must operate by pulling it away from the surface on which the control is mounted. For a control mounted on the underside of an overhead surface, the regulation specifically says the closing action must be pulling the switch downward.

The underlying safety objective is to prevent accidental closing of a window.

 

[CharonPDX]

All windows are the same on every car ever made.

PULL = window up
PUSH = window down

Except they haven't always been that way.

"Pull = up" is somewhat recent safety regulation.

Most cars until even the mid '90s had "rocker switches" that were "push one side down to lower the window, push the other side down to raise the window". And which side was "up" and which side was "down" was completely arbitrary per manufacturer. I had two cars at the same time that had reversed operation compared to each other. On some, the "forward" direction was "window down", on others it was "window up."

Here's the window switch assembly from a mid 90s Ford F-series pickup:

Note that they use the exact same physical switch for the door lock - which works in reverse! All three switches have a "sticks up" bit and a "indented down" bit. For the windows, forward/sticking-up rolls the windows up; rearward/indented rolls the windows down. For the lock, sticking-up *LOCKS* the door, which makes the lock lever go DOWN, while the indented side UNLOCKS the door, making the lock lever go UP.

Chevy used similar switches, and while the usage for the windows was the same, the door lock functionality was reversed. "indented" locked, "sticking up" unlocked.

Yet the Saab window switches from the same era were reversed - forward was *DOWN*, and rearward was up. (The opposite of Ford.)

And if you want really screwed up, when Saab implemented the modern-style "pull to raise, push to lower", the front and rear were reversed in orientation!

 

[Jeremy3292]

Except they haven't always been that way.

"Pull = up" is somewhat recent safety regulation.

Most cars until even the mid '90s had "rocker switches" that were "push one side down to lower the window, push the other side down to raise the window". And which side was "up" and which side was "down" was completely arbitrary per manufacturer. I had two cars at the same time that had reversed operation compared to each other. On some, the "forward" direction was "window down", on others it was "window up."

Here's the window switch assembly from a mid 90s Ford F-series pickup:

Note that they use the exact same physical switch for the door lock - which works in reverse! All three switches have a "sticks up" bit and a "indented down" bit. For the windows, forward/sticking-up rolls the windows up; rearward/indented rolls the windows down. For the lock, sticking-up *LOCKS* the door, which makes the lock lever go DOWN, while the indented side UNLOCKS the door, making the lock lever go UP.

Chevy used similar switches, and while the usage for the windows was the same, the door lock functionality was reversed. "indented" locked, "sticking up" unlocked.

Yet the Saab window switches from the same era were reversed - forward was *DOWN*, and rearward was up. (The opposite of Ford.)

And if you want really screwed up, when Saab implemented the modern-style "pull to raise, push to lower", the front and rear were reversed in orientation!

Yeah man you got me on semantics lol. I was only referring to this century I guess

 

[VSG]

Except they haven't always been that way.

Yes, safety standards are continually evolving based on lessons learned. Cars haven't always had airbags or anti-lock brakes or even seat belts. Complain all you want, but the reason rules like this are put in place is because people HAVE been injured or killed by windows being accidentally closed, and this is one small thing that the regulators came up with that can be shown to prevent some of the specific instances they investigated

 

[CharonPDX]

Yeah man you got me on semantics lol. I was only referring to this century I guess

Yeah, if you had said "modern cars" or "cars with modern-style switches" - you'd absolutely have been true. But before those style switches, it was the Wild West.

I'm glad we standardized on this style switch with consistent usage across brands. Even if it means roof-mounted switches seem backward sometimes.

Sponsored