Delay when in reverse and maybe in drive?

What this is really about is not a vehicle problem but how the driver gets into flow state when they're doing their driving job and how the gear shift indicator is interrupting that flow state. in other words:

Key Psychological Studies & Theories

1. Integral Affect & Time Perception
   
   • “It’s about time: How integral affect increases impatience” — This study (Laube & van den Bos) found that when people think about future rewards that evoke positive emotions, they perceive the waiting time as longer. That altered perception of future time makes them choose the smaller, sooner reward more often. PubMed+2mpib-berlin.mpg.de+2
     
     
   • This suggests that part of impatience comes not just from desire for the reward, but from how positively we feel about that reward, which warps our sense of temporal distance to getting it.
     
2. Subjective Time Salience
   
   • “A Watched Clock Never Ticks? The Role of Time Salience in Impatience” — In this set of studies, researchers looked at how aware people are of time passing (“time salience”) and how that correlates with impatience. They found that when people’s attention is strongly on the passage of time (e.g., when “the clock is ticking”), impatience is higher. eScholarship
     
     
   • Also, when time cues (like a visible clock) are less available, impatience gets amplified, because people are more focused on waiting itself.
     
3. Frustration & Time Slowing
   
   • “Increased Frustration Predicts the Experience of Time Slowing-down” (Tipples, 2018) — Using experience sampling, this study found that when people feel more frustrated, they report that time seems to drag (“time slowing-down”). Brill
     
     
   • This is quite relevant: if impatience includes frustration (or negative affect), it can literally distort your moment-to-moment perception of time, making things feel longer.
     
4. Patience as Emotion Regulation
   
   • “When Time Is the Enemy: An Initial Test of the Process Model of Patience” — This is more about the emotion of impatience/patience itself. The authors argue impatience is a distinct emotion and link it to how people regulate that feeling through time-perception-related processes. PubMed
     
     
   • Their model helps explain not just decision-making, but how people feel waiting, and why waiting can feel subjectively different depending on context and traits.
     
5. Changing Time & Emotions
   
   • A more conceptual/theoretical piece: “Changing time and emotions” (Geoffard & Luchini) argues that emotions shape how we experience time prospectively (i.e., when we imagine future events). For instance, positive future emotions (like joy) can make waiting feel like it stretches out, while negative emotions (like anxiety) can compress or warp that waiting time. PMC
     
     
   • This is useful for understanding why your internal sense of how long something takes might shift, even if the objective time doesn’t.
     
6. Impatience Over Time (Temporal Dynamics of Waiting)
   
   • “Impatience Over Time” (Roberts & Fishbach, 2023) — This recent work shows that impatience often increases as a waiting period draws toward its end. Even if you've already waited a long time, people typically feel more impatient as the end is near, driven by a “desire for closure.” Knowledge Center+1
     
     
   • This could tie into your experience: maybe when you're waiting for something simple (or routine), the perception of the remaining time stretches because you're more focused on “when will this be over?”
     
7. Memory & Time Perception in Decision-Making
   
   • “Memory shapes time perception and intertemporal choices” (Ortega & Tishby) — This more computational / theoretical paper argues that how we encode and compress memory (sensorimotor representation) affects how we subjectively experience time, which in turn affects how we make choices between “sooner-smaller” vs. “later-larger” rewards. arXiv
     
     
   • Their model suggests that perceived time dilation (or contraction) could come from the cognitive “coding” efficiency of our memory system, especially in decision contexts.
     

 

On our 2007 the MFD display can take a while to catch up with reality. Often when we come to a stop light we hear the ICE turn off, and those slight vibrations it causes stop, but the display still shows it putting out power for many seconds before it indicates that it is off. There have even been instances where the car just never seemed to notice that the ICE was off (as far as the display is concerned) but it would update to reflect that if the vehicle was allowed to roll a few inches forward and then stopped again. Also sometimes observed - the MFD shows the wheels turning after the car has fully stopped. Sometimes both together, the ICE is shown running, the wheels are turning, but in reality the ICE is off and the car is stationary.

The behavior that would be concerning on the OP's car would be if when parked on flat ground it is shifted P to D or R and then gas applied (or just brake removed) and it didn't immediately move in the designated direction when the dash display shows it in that mode. On a hill with significant grade the car might not move immediately in the desired direction because not enough accelerator depression was applied to make it move against the force of gravity.

Cars which have issues backing up a grade are not uncommon. Our 1998 Accord is a PITA to back up even a slight grade since the acceleration which results from pushing on the accelerator jumps too rapidly from none to "more than you wanted". It doesn't do that when pointed in the other direction. I vaguely recall that the 1st generation Prius also had some issue reversing up slopes, but have never owned one, so that's just hearsay.

 

And with Gen2 Prius which is limited to electric only in reverse I once had a problem in my fully loaded with stuff 2007 that refused to back up my sisters steep sloped entry into her garage and I kept having to try again with more speed. Finally, I unloaded the car and then it was fine.

 

Not the gear shift indicator—post #11 confirmed that's responding instantly. Delay is only in the MFD switching to the backup-camera display.

The MFD, being a 2006-era computer, might run a bit more snappily after a reboot. (It normally only sleeps when the car is off; it doesn't power down, because rebooting it takes so long.) No guarantee, but it would be no surprise. It may not have rebooted since the last time the 12-volt battery was changed.

 

Nice AI post. It would be good if you could be upfront about the fact that you used AI, the prompt you used to generate the AI response, and which AI generator was used.

 

Almost all that information already exists within the post I made... Had you looked at links that were referenced you'd see that information after "?" symbol. And honestly, telling people you used AI rather than Google as a search engine creates all kind of angst and trolling. As in people who don't use AI treat it like a threat and people who use AI realize it's just a better tool, not a replacement of the work, just what search engines would of naturally turned into had Google not become so greedy and evil for ad revenue that they've become unusable.

 

Using Google search vs using AI is not comparable.

When you use Google, you have to process the hits you get. You must also read and comprehend the information. When you create a post from that, it is your work, intellectual effort, and opinion.

When you use an AI, none of that personal effort takes place. It is not your work or opinion. The information may not even be correct, and because you don't necessarily have the training or background in the expert field (you are, after all, using Google to inform you), you wouldn't know that it was incorrect.

It just seems disingenuous to use an AI to create a post without crediting the AI for the post.

LLM (that is to say AI) have their place, but I think you're wrong to assume that you can contract out your research to it and expect you will get 100% correct and accurate results.

As someone who has dabbled a little bit with LLM's, I can say people need to use extreme caution using them. My biggest concern is people who think they are the be-all and end-all for scraping the internet, not realising the very real limitations of the technology.

 

Classic response from an AI illiterate... Google search floods you with ads and gives misleading information that leads you to more ads. A year or two ago you'd be right about AI and latest info search to links online. But I've actively used 7 different AI services in just the past couple weeks that consistently outperformed intelligence and reference accuracy of Google to such an extreme that I've built an entire computer that is no longer dependent on the failed corruption of Google search as it circles the drain. And the entirety of this effort is soley because as you say, which I'll say back to you: "The information may not even be correct, and because you don't necessarily have the training or background in the expert field (you are, after all, using Google to inform you), you wouldn't know that it was incorrect."

 

You are very good at skirting around questions and deflecting. Not to mention your go-to ad hominem.

The crux of my comment is about posting with honesty and being transparent that you are using AI to create posts, which you conveniently avoided.

Best keep the thread on topic. We can meet at Fred's if you like.

 

Those generated links appear to have a query parameter "utm_source=chatgpt.com" added, perhaps something ChatGPT does on all links it generates (whether the linked website pays any attention to a utm_source parameter or not).

What it doesn't reveal is the prompt that was used to generate the AI response. You can get that by asking the chatbot for a shareable link to the chat. Then someone who clicks the link will see the chat that produced the response, including what prompting was used.

As far as I can tell, you can generate a shareable link for any Gemini chat, but can only generate one for a ChatGPT chat if you have a ChatGPT account and are signed in at the time.

Because AI chatbots are nothing if not eager to please, it's often possible to get one to defend whatever position you want according to the way you prompt it (and some early appearances of AI responses in PriusChat threads were great illustrations of that). That's why including the prompt that generated the response is just plain good form.

As a further matter of form, even when you generate a shareable link to a chat, that still requires every reader to click it to see what prompts were used, and may then also require readers to adjust JavaScript security settings and such before the information can be seen. A trivial amount of effort by the poster—just copy/pasting the prompt as well as the response—saves all readers that runaround.

 

Stop pretending... When I use AI its obvious, especially if someone like you is able to recognize it.

 

It might be obvious to some, but noobs (especially) who may not be as familiar with your post history, it might not be so easy.

In any case, being transparent goes to character and should be the standard.

 

^ This.