With all the modern tech why do we still have wing mirrors?

RobAMerc

I mean surely they'd be easy to replace with an image projected onto the inside of the screen or window or small screens in place of the dash vents even?
I'm guessing car makers could get around any EU regs that require them?
Surely given the cost on fuel the fairly narrow angles afforded by them (dangers of blind spots etc ) not to mention the noise of them it makes sense to get rid of what must be the now most low tech thing on cars no?

gooch2k9

Valeo have Sightstream(I only saw a video on this recently), but I don't know of any OEMs that have adopted it.

Continental are doing something similar AFAIK.

TherapyBoy

Lots can go wrong with cameras/screens/wiring, mirrors are simple, cheap & they work. If it ain't broke..

R.O.R

gooch2k9 wrote: »

Valeo have Sightstream(I only saw a video on this recently), but I don't know of any OEMs that have adopted it.

Continental are doing something similar AFAIK.

https://youtu.be/itzRk1gUulI

Improvements in emissions as well as the safety benefits, but the main focus for this type of system at the moment is HGV's.

Probably will cross over to passenger cars at some point though as the camera systems will be tied in with other autonomous driving aids.

mikeybrennan

TherapyBoy wrote: »

Lots can go wrong with cameras/screens/wiring, mirrors are simple, cheap & they work. If it ain't broke..

cheap?

kirving

Valeo SightStream is developed in Ireland. Absolutely the future given the CO2 savings.

However... They're complicated and have to have absolutely bulletproof and failsafe software. That means the camera and display self monitoring themselves all the time and never freezing. Lots of cool features can added too, like super wide angle node for reversing, ability to adjust the image so the driver can see better in the dark or direct sunlight.

Wing mirrors today are extremely complicated these days, so simplifying them is a huge cost saving too, nevermind the CO2.

1. Glass
2. Heater
3. Tip/Tilt motors
4. Puddle light
5. Retract motor
6. Surround View camera (made in Ireland too)
7. Blindspot indicator light
8. Thermometer
9. GPS Receiver
10. Indicator
11. Autodimmer

Cyclists would want to be very careful about kicking them off these days!

ION08

For the same reasons why some brand new cars in 2017, despite all the "new modern tech" still come with Halogen lights.

Costs.

ednwireland

TherapyBoy wrote: »

Lots can go wrong with cameras/screens/wiring, mirrors are simple, cheap & they work. If it ain't broke..

ha ha that doesn't stop them changing stuff on cars normally , electronic handbrake buttons anyone.

markpb

ednwireland wrote: »

ha ha that doesn't stop them changing stuff on cars normally , electronic handbrake buttons anyone.

They're not entirely a fad, there are good reasons for them to exist. Do some reading .

ScumLord

They're using a lot of rear facing cameras in racing cars now. Many of the cars on the grid of Le Mans from the LMP1 to the GT3s have reverse cameras because the mirrors are utterly useless and there is no rear window to look through.

wonski

ION08 wrote: »

For the same reasons why some brand new cars in 2017, despite all the "new modern tech" still come with Halogen lights.

Costs.

And only when your low beam fails you realize that you wish you had halogens. 72 euro(or 120) for a bulb instead of 3-5, maybe 20 if you are looking for a top brand. They look nice, but wtf

Mirrors are cheap, cameras are expensive.

I rather have a cheap backup than 1000 euro fix to make my car roadworthy

bazz26

Xenon bulbs start from about €40 each if bought online. They offer superior light to halogens and tend to last longer too. I'm happy to pay that bit for them than have inferior halogens. LED headlights are a different kettle of fish and if one of those goes you could be talking about a new module.

testicles

This post has been deleted.

wonski

bazz26 wrote: »

Xenon bulbs start from about €40 each if bought online. They offer superior light to halogens and tend to last longer too. I'm happy to pay that bit for them than have inferior halogens. LED headlights are a different kettle of fish and if one of those goes you could be talking about a new module.

Sure I can buy online on Thursday and wait until Monday, Tuesday for it to be delivered. In the meantime being one of the one eyed monsters on the road.

Also it is recommended they are fitted by pros.

I can only imagine how much would it cost to fix rear view cameras the op thinks are cheap.

CD changer for Volvo was 800-1000 to be fixed at the time. If they can't get simple thing like that to work for 10 years I would rather see them stay away from life saving solutions like rear view cameras

On some cars hid lights are not so great btw.

mickdw

You could drive around with one lamp or buy a bulb online and keep it for such an event.

wonski

mickdw wrote: »

You could drive around with one lamp or buy a bulb online and keep it for such an event.

I could and I did.

You missed my point entirely. Mirrors are just fine and no need to get rid of them just because the technology is there.

They are expensive the way they are, no need to replace them with something more expensive and more likely to fail.

ThisRegard

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Cyclists would want to be very careful about kicking them off these days!

Sure no harm if they're not used anyway!

goz83

markpb wrote: »

They're not entirely a fad, there are good reasons for them to exist. Do some reading .

They can be a PITA. My 2012 Leaf has EPB and my 2014 Leaf has a manual foot pedal PB. I much prefer the foot pedal and I am glad Nissan went back to this version.

bazz26 wrote: »

Xenon bulbs start from about €40 each if bought online. They offer superior light to halogens and tend to last longer too. I'm happy to pay that bit for them than have inferior halogens. LED headlights are a different kettle of fish and if one of those goes you could be talking about a new module.

An LED will last a hell of a lot longer than a halogen and the light is far superior. It's candles vs torches.

wonski wrote: »

I could and I did.

You missed my point entirely. Mirrors are just fine and no need to get rid of them just because the technology is there.

They are expensive the way they are, no need to replace them with something more expensive and more likely to fail.

Could say the same about the introduction of EBS.

Anyway, I am quite happy with normal mirrors tbh. I have 360 reversing view cam on my 2014 Leaf. I think it's great, but I still use the side mirrors and look over my shoulder when reversing.

ForestFire

This is what is being developed in Ireland right now, besides CMS systems.

All Filmed, directed and designed in Ireland and all Irish 'actors':cool:

Correct link added.

https://youtu.be/0u-4uldeiMo

Old link.

https://youtu.be/itzRk1gUulI

kirving

wonski wrote: »

I rather have a cheap backup than 1000 euro fix to make my car roadworthy

That's the thing though, mirrors aren't cheap any more. Hit a mirror on a new high end car and it's easily going to cost €1000+ to fix it.

mickdw

wonski wrote: »

I could and I did.

You missed my point entirely. Mirrors are just fine and no need to get rid of them just because the technology is there.

They are expensive the way they are, no need to replace them with something more expensive and more likely to fail.

I didnt miss your point. You were making the argument that these things are crazy expensive and that there is no way of avoiding the expense without being a danger on the road - using the case of a blown xenon bulb as an example. When that example is shown to be horsesh1t and totally avoidable by using a small amount of foresight, you claim i missed the point and that it wasnt an issue after all as you keep spare.
If there is an advance in tech that means the mirror pods can be removed for the most part and mirror function replaced with camera feeds, im all for it. Reduced drag, seriously reduced wind noise as the mirrors are a real pain for aero designers, reduced weight together with increased functionality with everything from traditional mirror function, night vision and warning systems being incorporated.

endacl

TherapyBoy wrote: »

Lots can go wrong with cameras/screens/wiring, mirrors are simple, cheap & they work. If it ain't broke..

NASA spent a lot of cash developing a pen that would write in zero gravity. The Russians just used pencils...

Guy:Incognito

endacl wrote: »

NASA spent a lot of cash developing a pen that would write in zero gravity. The Russians just used pencils...

Yeah but in another work of fiction the Russians spent millions developing the perfect fighter, who was beaten by an American that ran up steps and punched meat.

endacl

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Yeah but in another work of fiction the Russians spent millions developing the perfect fighter, who was beaten by an American that ran up steps and punched meat.

The point stands, all the same. It's the wheelbarrow principle. Why try to complicate the wheelbarrow. One moving part. Does the job.

Guy:Incognito

endacl wrote: »

The point stands, all the same. It's the wheelbarrow principle. Why try to complicate the wheelbarrow. One moving part. Does the job.

The amish reckon the car was perfected in around 1800.........

Isambard

it's been many years since i had a car with wing mirrors.

ForestFire

endacl wrote: »

The point stands, all the same. It's the wheelbarrow principle. Why try to complicate the wheelbarrow. One moving part. Does the job.

Did you look at the video and the advancements and improvement of a CMS system?

No blind spot, improved FOV, better weather resistant, night view plus the possibility of advanced detection features.

Do you know how many people mainly children die each year from a car reversing into them?

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2010/04/danger-zone-how-big-is-your-vehicle-s-blind-spot/index.htm

http://www.drivearabia.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/parking-sensors-7.jpg

Do you know how many people die each year due to truck blind spots?

https://wrightstart.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/image6.jpeg

Also just spotted this in woddies today, proabl y not much better than the one I already have though

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheelbarrow#/media/File%3ANoe_schubkarre.jpg

RobAMerc

ForestFire wrote: »

This is what is being developed in Ireland right now, besides CMS systems.

All Filmed, directed and designed in Ireland and all Irish 'actors':cool:

https://youtu.be/itzRk1gUulI

I must admit this is far clunkier than I had imagined it would be but then I guess this is a after market item.

I imagine having multiple cameras around the car with image overlays could provide blindspot free motoring without the need for bus/truck style wind jammers hanging off the sides of it. Some decent design would
mean there would be no need for the protruding mirror pods seen in this.
1 camera for rear vision could be in the D pillar with something for blind spots in the side of the car facing 90degs to the driver.

I hadn't even considered the low speed and parking benefits although this is kinda being handled by a lot of cars at the moment.

There has been more investment put into less useful tech on a car believe me - so I dont believe the cost vs benefit argument.

RobAMerc

OSI wrote: »

I'm not really seeing anything that would compel me to go for the cameras over mirrors.

Mirrors are a disaster for wind drag. Noisy,cost fuel, ugly, difficult to offset efficiency versus usefulness. They also dont work so well in any low light situations. Cameras will be much better in almost every way, bar maybe cost.

ForestFire

OSI wrote: »

I'm not really seeing anything that would compel me to go for the cameras over mirrors.

So you don't think being able to see kids in your blind spots and reacting yourself or having the CMS software automatically use pedestrian detection to break and avoid collisions and death as compelling?

Thats 50 children a week with 2 deaths per week.

Link again. http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2010/04/danger-zone-how-big-is-your-vehicle-s-blind-spot/index.htm

There are many other advantages but I guess if you don't think above is worth cameras nothing else will.

scamalert

id like to see actual stats how much drag due to mirrors driving at legal speed limits there is as in extra fuel consumption, grand if your doing 160m/ph theres drag but not at 70miles that would make a difference.

cost is no1 reason, look at cars back 20yrs you could change oil do bulbs and stuff easily,now your lucky to get finger into engine compartment,and every bit requires half front disassembled to get to, on most cars.

ongarite

scamalert wrote: »

id like to see actual stats how much drag due to mirrors driving at legal speed limits there is as in extra fuel consumption, grand if your doing 160m/ph theres drag but not at 70miles that would make a difference.

Article here says wing mirrors ad somewhere between 2% and 7% drag to a car, could be even larger on HGV with the large surface area of mirrors on them.

gctest50

ForestFire wrote: »

This is what is being developed in Ireland right now, besides CMS systems.

All Filmed, directed and designed in Ireland and all Irish 'actors':cool:

https://youtu.be/itzRk1gUulI

Did they get a lollipop and a medal for bolting two 9 inch monitors and a pair of cameras with wash onto a car ?

redcup342

Volkswagen XL1 has them, had a sit in one here in Germany:





To be honest I didn't like it, the perspective is a bit weird and if the sun is shining the wrong way it can be difficult to see the screen sometimes.

I much prefer normal mirrors

RobAMerc

scamalert wrote: »

id like to see actual stats how much drag due to mirrors driving at legal speed limits there is as in extra fuel consumption, grand if your doing 160m/ph theres drag but not at 70miles that would make a difference.

cost is no1 reason, look at cars back 20yrs you could change oil do bulbs and stuff easily,now your lucky to get finger into engine compartment,and every bit requires half front disassembled to get to, on most cars.

2 to 7 % as far as this article goes. It's actually the main argument Tesla are making to have the regs changed to allow them from what I can gather. ( I've only scanned over this )

Tesla Plan to get rid of mirrors

ForestFire

OSI wrote: »

How is any of that demonstrated in the video? 99% of what was shown in that video would be solved by spending 30 seconds to adjust your mirrors correctly, and the other 1% is solved with heated mirrors.

I was actually thinking I was going a bit crazy there for a second, are you not watching the same video as me? As it turns out your not:o

I have the incorrect link (I am linking from phone with some issues.)

This is the correct link I hope, you might see more benefit here.

https://youtu.be/0u-4uldeiMo

scamalert

id agree its beneficial to have rear view camera since its only that much you can see trough the back window,and huge in parking assist.But rest of technology is decades away since dont imagine many can fork out 100k+ for tesla or x5 with all the ding dongs in it.

since concept of having two lcd streams id imagine would be like looking at dual monitors for each mirror which is eye strain.

RayCun

ForestFire wrote: »

Thats 50 children a week with 2 deaths per week.

and how many would actually be saved by cameras instead of mirrors?

Neither will do any good when people don't use them

Sam Kade

RobAMerc wrote: »

I mean surely they'd be easy to replace with an image projected onto the inside of the screen or window or small screens in place of the dash vents even?
I'm guessing car makers could get around any EU regs that require them?
Surely given the cost on fuel the fairly narrow angles afforded by them (dangers of blind spots etc ) not to mention the noise of them it makes sense to get rid of what must be the now most low tech thing on cars no?

You mean like parking sensors when some fool hits my parked car and then blames his car sensors :rolleyes:

gctest50

ForestFire wrote: »

I was actually thinking I was going a bit crazy there for a second, are you not watching the same video as me? As it turns out your not:o

I have the incorrect link (I am linking from phone with some issues.)

This is the correct link I hope, you might see more benefit here.

https://youtu.be/0u-4uldeiMo

That's a bit snazzy,

(i thought for a minute the team went to Ibiza with the development budget )

ForestFire

RayCun wrote: »

and how many would actually be saved by cameras instead of mirrors?

Neither will do any good when people don't use them

The cameras will use automatic pedestrian detection and automatic breaking, so if you are not paying attention the car is.

kirving

RayCun wrote: »

and how many would actually be saved by cameras instead of mirrors?

Neither will do any good when people don't use them

Hundreds annually is a common estimate. Cameras can see in the dark, detect pedestrians, kids, babies crawling along the ground, cyclists and lots more without you ever looking in your mirror.

Alun

ForestFire wrote: »

The cameras will use automatic pedestrian detection and automatic breaking, so if you are not paying attention the car is.

I don't want my car to break automatically

ForestFire

Alun wrote: »

I don't want my car to break automatically

I really do despair.. .

So you want your car to run over an unseen child in your blind spot causing serious injuries or death?

Alun

ForestFire wrote: »

I really do despair.. .

So you want your car to run over an unseen child in your blind spot causing serious injuries or death?

Whooooooosh

ForestFire

Alun wrote: »

Whooooooosh

Okay I take your not adverse to safety technology then.;)

Also missed the play on words

RayCun

ForestFire wrote: »

The cameras will use automatic pedestrian detection and automatic breaking, so if you are not paying attention the car is.

Now you're talking about self-driving cars, which is different matter

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Hundreds annually is a common estimate. Cameras can see in the dark, detect pedestrians, kids, babies crawling along the ground, cyclists and lots more without you ever looking in your mirror.

Hundreds of cases where the driver says they didn't see the person they hit.
That is not the same as hundreds of cases of cars reversing into people and killing them.
How fast do you have to be reversing to kill someone?

The problem is bigger than blind spots.

Alun

ForestFire wrote: »

Okay I take your not adverse to safety technology then.;)

No. My current car already has 360 degree all round view cameras with forward emergency braking (not breaking!) blind spot detection, lane assist warning and moving object detection while parking etc.

ForestFire

RayCun wrote: »

Now you're talking about self-driving cars, which is different.

No I'm not talking about self drive cars. Some of this technology is already in production vehicles and will progress into new vehicles as and when available.

DaveyDave

ForestFire wrote: »

No I'm not talking about self drive cars. Some of this technology is already in production vehicles and will progress into new vehicles as and when available.

True. As far as I know all Volkswagens have city emergency braking and the likes of the Golf and upwards have pedestrian braking too.

kirving

RayCun wrote: »

Now you're talking about self-driving cars, which is different matter



Hundreds of cases where the driver says they didn't see the person they hit.
That is not the same as hundreds of cases of cars reversing into people and killing them.
How fast do you have to be reversing to kill someone?

The problem is bigger than blind spots.

That's semantics, it doesn't matter whether the child was in the blindspot or child was visible in the mirror but the driver didn't look. And the camera doesn't care about the root cause either. It sees the child and applies the brakes.

The problem isn't speed, it's the crushing effect of the car that rolls over the child.


http://www.kidsandcars.org/media/statistics/

Backovers averaging approx. 65-70 child deaths per year over the past 5 years.