...overcomplicating things

Firstly, an apology. I don't write here much any more. Several factors are to blame, not least for the past few months I've been writing for the excellent allcarselectric.com about the rapidly increasing world of electric vehicles. It's certainly killed my motivation for my personal green car blog, but I'm hoping to keep Think Cars open since it's much more of a "column" format and a bit more general and opinion-based. Anyway...

Overcomplicating things

I'm not a fan of overcomplication. Actually, is anybody? Overcomplication implies too much complication. And complication implies something that's perhaps more difficult to operate than it needs to be, so all around it's a pretty negative term. It's like saying "excess disease". It's too much of something that's already bad.

However, that doesn't stop car manufacturers from overcomplicating things. There are some high-profile examples, like how much the motoring press hated BMW's i-Drive when it was launched because rather than just controlling a few simple functions via a simple control method, it was used for functions that already had simple control methods, like turning on your stereo, via a new and unfamiliar device.

Another good example is the proliferation of multiple engine maps and chassis settings. Sometimes this is a brilliant thing - every test I've read of Ferrari's F458 Italia waxes lyrical about how every function accessed through the Manettino dial has a distinct and useable result.

Most people cock it up though. Alfa Romeo's DNA ("Dynamic, Normal and All-weather") switch consists of two settings that make the car mushy and unresponsive and one that leaves you lighting up your tyres at every junction. Or Honda's Sport, Normal and Eco modes on the CR-Z, the first of which is great fun and the others which feel nigh-on identical. At the most, the car should only have the Sport and Eco modes.

There's overcomplication in more fundamental areas, too. Fiat have just launched their Tributo Ferrari 500 Abarth. Now apart from the fact they're charging £30,000 for a £15,000 car with a lick of red paint, it's also a nice way for the Fiat group to cock it's corporate leg and urinate all over Enzo Ferrari's grave, adding to the rather large puddle already left by Ferrari themselves when they decided to sell branded teddy bears and all sorts of other Cavallino-badged crap.

The biggest problem though is that it's too much car. Lest we forget, on the same platform you can buy the Fiat Panda 1.1 Active Eco, for less than a quarter of the price. Sure, it's not remotely as fast, but it's also not remotely as absolutely vile. In fact, it still looks quite funky (as all Pandas do), the ride is still as bouncy as the Tributo Ferrari and you still get a tiny, revvy engine, like all small Fiats should have. And a snicky, dash-mounted manual gearbox that the 500 loses for flappy paddles.

In fact, it's a proper small Fiat. In real terms, the new 500 Grave Desecrator is by far and away the most expensive Fiat that's ever been on sale, but that actually makes it less of a Fiat. They've overcomplicated things. Stick a bog-basic Panda and the Grave Desecrator in a Fiat's natural environment - a city centre - and tell me that the four-times more expensive car is four-times more fun.

The driver of the £7k car probably won't be cursing the granite ride quality, worry about scraping the expensive front splitter on the ground or torque-steering into bus queues of nuns and schoolkids.

Please, Fiat. Don't overcomplicate things. The Tributo Ferrari loses the essence of what makes small Fiats so special. Cheap fun.

At least you still produce a proper old-style sporting Fiat. The Panda 100HP. A third the price of the 'Ferrari, but a hell of a lot more than a third as fun.

(Images: AutoExpress)