I really do feel a need to rant about this particular piece of engineering.
The 2005 Lexus RX boasts something called the Adaptive Front Lighting System. The basic premise is that the headlights pivot as you turn, illuminating the road as your tires encounter it, not after. Lexus makes it sound like a marvelous feat of engineering. What I don’t see mentioned anywhere on their site is that this marvelous idea is over fifty years old.
Let me start with a short explanation. When a car turns, the front wheels pivot at an angle from the body of the car, by as much as 45 degrees or so. The headlights, however, usually remain fixed pointing forward, which means the beam of the headlight follows the turn, illuminating road only after the body catches up with the wheels. This can be potentially dangerous on sharp turns on a dark road, where deer or a cliff can loom around a hairpin turn.
What Lexus has done, and I do applaud them for their dedication to safety features, is make the headlights move with the front tires. The left light moves by up to fifteen degrees, while the right one moves as much as five.
So far, so good. My basic problem is that though it looks impressive, and I am sure Lexus would love to take credit for it, it isn’t new. This particular safety feature was first introduced by Preston Tucker in his 1948 Tucker Torpedo. While the two main headlamps were fixed, a third was mounted in the center of the hood and pivoted with the steering mechanisms to illuminate the road with the turn.
Alas, Tucker’s car and company suffered some major setbacks, and only fifty cars were ever produced. Interestingly, nearly all of them are still roadworthy. They had many other technological innovations to their credit, and the cars themselves boasted impressive specs, including 166 horsepower and a whopping 450 lbs/ft of torque at 1800 RPM.
Now, I know Lexus has not indicated they invented the pivoting headlight system. Nowhere do I see them saying “we invented this.” But they also make no mention that they borrowed, or even improved on, ideas that came before. I mean hell, an ad that featured a Tucker in old-town USA and then an RX in a modern metropolis followed by a catchy slogan would have been a nice homage.
Instead, those who don’t know their automotive history will be left ooh-ing and aah-ing over an invention over five decades old.
The story of Preson Tucker is a fascinating one, with just that *hint* of conspiracy theory about it — and no evidence that can conclusively show that a conspiracy to bankrupt his automobile company did or did not exist.
As for the headlights on the Lexus, I’m forced to wonder why it took so long for a car company to reincorporate that particular feature in this age of computers. The system can’t cost that much to build into a car, can it?
Carl, companies reuse old ideas all the time without mentioning where they got them from. Why are you getting your knickers in a bunch on this particular instance?
Just sticking with cars, look at GMC’s four wheel-steering feature. Are you arguing that they should have referenced the long history of four-wheel steering (and those were just the first couple google hits I got) if they wanted to advertise it? Or do you just have a hard-on for Tucker?
*cough* Apple Macintosh *cough*
So, is the Tucker Tornado anything like the Tucker Torpedo?
Tucker History
So, do all vehicles that include “adaptive headlight” technology need to pay homage, or only the Lexus RX?
Woops. I meant Torpedo. Fixed.
And yes, Dave, I think when someone gains a modicum of success using technology pioneered by forebears, it would be nice if they made the link.
Dodge reintroduced the hemi, and Ford always has some old Henry Ford footeage in its ads. Other companies have paid homage to the giants on whose shoulders they stand. Not all, but a lot do.
And there are minor differences between GMC and previous 4-wheel steering models. For one, GMC actually got it to work pretty well, and secondly, they demonstrated a good use for it. It remains to be seen if the market will continue to buy this latest 4-wheel steering installment.
BTW, I remember Volkswagen tried the 4-wheel steering thing back in the early 90s. I guess it didn’t work so well for them.
No offense, but that’s utterly idiotic.
You think so? At the very least, they shouldn’t try to lead people to believe this is a new invention. It’s disingenious at best.
As you pointed out, in no part of their advertising do they claim they invented it.
And calling me idiotic isn’t exactly constructive, now is it, Dave? Or is this merely halfhearted trolling?
When confronted with a statement as utterly asinine as the above, I find myself at a loss for means to confront it rationally.
I mean, there are so many different tacks to take here.
1) You said, presumably with a straight face, that an ad was “disingenuous at best”.
2) I could point out the infinite number of inventions that auto makers tout as their differentiating features but whose inventors they don’t somehow credit in their ads. I would then move on and broaden my scope to advertising for a larger domain of products.
3) I could point out that both of the examples you pointed out as supporting your point are spurious. A picture of the company founder in Ford ads has nothing to do with crediting the inventors of whatever car feature they’re flogging this week. All the Dodge ads say is “Hemi good! Not-Hemi bad!”.
But honestly, fully fleshing out posts for all those tracks would be tiresome, and judging from past experience, ultimately fruitless.
Ok, the way I see it:
The Tucker had a pivotng headlight. The RX has pivoting headlights. But, so do other cars. I believe BMW has had them for several years. I believe I read that an old Citroen had it years ago. I found several ATVs that had it. I guess the question I have is: Does every vehicle who ever adapts a similar technology need to pay homage? Or, is a vehicle that adapts this feature not allowed to market it as a safety feature that sets their cars apart because they didn’t invent it? If so, lots of cars with side-impact airbags or anti-lock braking systems really need to revamp their marketing materials.
Also, for how long do vehicle manufacturers have to pay homage to this feature that has been employed in quite a few vehicles over the years? And, if you think the Lexus needs to pay homage, how come GMC’s minor differences in all-wheel steering make it exempt from such homage (considering there are quite a few minor differences between the RX implementation of the headlights and the Tucker implementation)?
The Tucker story is interesting, but I am not sure why Lexus has got you in a tizzy. Did a Lexus kill your puppy or something?
Well, to answer your points one-by-one, Dave:
1) I was not implying that the particular ad was disingenious (that would be like pointing out Smurfs are blue), only that the representation of the technology as ‘innovative’ struck me as such. A fine distinction, but a clear one, at least to me.
2) I wasn’t implying that this ad, product, or company was the only one that practiced such tactics. Only that this particular ad struck a personal chord. Had I wanted to write an article on advertising in general, I would have. Such an article would have been truly massive, and out of the scope of what I wanted to rant about at that particular moment.
3) I disagree. While the Ford ads may not support my points well, the Dodge ads certainly do a better job than you suggest. One of the original ads for the new hemi featured a pick-up alongside a 1969 Dodge Charger, implying the Hemi connection.
I don’t imply that all companies need to credit everyone who ever had anything to do with anything they use, improve, or create. Only that this particular piece of engineering struck a nerve.
Colin, If other manufacturers have used the pivoting headlight system, that’s great. But I never saw those ads. Not a one. So this being the first ad I have seen for a car with this feature, I can only comment on it, specifically. You may choose to defend it on the grounds that I should have watched more TV, but I could just as easily say that whoever I had seen do it first would have earned a rant.
I think you missed my point (well, actually it was questions that weren’t answered). It has nothing to do with how much TV you watch. It has to do with a few simple questions in my previous comment (that were never answered). I am completely baffled by why this particular vehicle manufacturer has struck a “personal chord” or “struck a nerve”. You haven’t explained that at all (in your article or in your comments). Surely it does matter that other manufacturers have used this, as isn’t this the reason you think that other such “infringements” do not have to credit the original innovator? I mean, again, not every telephone commercial is crediting the inventors of said device, nor do any commercials for a computer pay homage at all. Why are they exempt (when, especially in the computing world, we are repeatedly barraged with comments of revolutionary equipment)?
Once again, I would like to point out that the Tucker story is an interesting one. Unfortunately, it seems that the interesting bits have been overshadowed by your rant against Lexus. This is a good example of when a rant is probably not the best device to use.
It wasn’t supposed to be a story about Tucker. It was SUPPOSED to be a rant. I don’t see the unfortunate part. Although, now I AM inspired to do a write-up on Tucker as a separate article, indicating some of the better engineering concepts he and his team came up with.
AndI think this bothered me, to answer your question a bit more, because Tucker is an obscure figure. As I stated in the article, almost no one, including a good deal of car buffs I am certain, know he existed.
Everyone ‘knows’ Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. Every schoolchild ‘knows’ Thomas Alva Edison invented the lightbulb. I could easily write a rant on how Elisha Grey invented the phone and it was actually an employee of Edison’s who came up with the light bulb. And that, right there, is the point. This particular product pissed me off, and I chose to write on it. Not on how inventors and pioneers don’t get credit, not on the state of advertising, not on Preston Tucker. It was specifically on the Lexus RX. If I choose to, later I can expound further on certain ideas I may have hit on in this article through further articles.
Although, the fact that pioneers fade into obscurity is certainly a main theme and one of the points I am trying to get across.
To sum up my position a little better after a conversation with Colin…
I noticed this egregious (to me) bit of marketing wizardry mostly because I’m a fan of the Tucker Torpedo and I happened to be watching this commercial, while never having seen a car commercial with a similar feature.
Other companies may have done the same thing. As Dave pointed out, GMC certainly did not invent 4-wheel steering. But they should not pass it off as their innovation. For my example, specifically for this article, I chose the Lexus RX as a target. In a future article, I will expound further on my distaste for these practices. I can’t recall, but I think when the GMC came out I may have mentioned that Volkswagen did it years before, but this year it’s the Lexus that earned my ire.
Paying homage is not necessary. But I don’t think things that have been around for 50 years should be passed off as ‘innovation’.
So, which is it, are they passing it off as innovation or not?
Its quite apparent that Lexus has improved the idea of the Tucker single-swivel headlight with their adaptive headlights that adjust the amount they swivel by the speed of the car and the sharpness of the turn. They have also taken into consideration its affect on oncoming motorists, which the Tucker probably didn’t.
I grant that. At least, I recognize it as a cogent argument in favor of calling it an innovation.
So… doesn’t that admission basically demolish your entire argument? If the new headlights are an improvement, then certainly Lexus should feature them prominently in their car commercials, right?
So what was the point of your rant, again?
Not particularly. I recognize that they did it better (the ideal outcome to all arguments should be both sides coming away having learned something new, or at least having seen a different point of view). I still think it isn’t original, but I can understand why someone would pass off genuine improvements as being an innovation, even if I find it irksome that no one remembers it isn’t new.
But Lexus never claimed that it was new! Honestly! It’s like riding on a merry-go-round.
I think we can safely sum this rant up as follows:
“I remember the Tucker! Nobody else does! I am leet!”
Hi Carl!
While accelerating up a hill my car lost power and started to idle very rough and loud and shortly after my check engine light came on. Prior to this I did not have a warning light of any kind that there was a problem. I immediately parked the car and hesitate to drive it even though it does still run. Can you give me any idea as to what has happened and can driving it to a garage cause more damage. I have never had any problem with the car. Thanks.