Unnecessary step too far for side mirrors?
Discussion
The main reason claimed by manufacturers for these things is aerodynamics. The smaller external camera undoubtedly does help, but whether it's enough to make such complexity worthwhile is definitely debatable. As long as people are buying humongous brick-shaped pseudo-offroaders, I can't help but feel that it's counting paperclips.
On most models this stuff is optional, is it not with the Ioniq 5?
ETA: On the other hand, the technology is genuinely game-changing for HGVs where enormous, draggy side mirrors can be replaced by composite camera images which can see through the trailer.
On most models this stuff is optional, is it not with the Ioniq 5?
ETA: On the other hand, the technology is genuinely game-changing for HGVs where enormous, draggy side mirrors can be replaced by composite camera images which can see through the trailer.
Edited by kambites on Sunday 16th August 14:59
Clad-Hach said:
An unnecessary gimmick which has zero improvement over a standard door mirror.
There's no need to do this.
I think you underestimate quite how much drag conventional door mirrors create. I'm certainly not saying these things are worthwhile, but to say they provide "zero improvement' is simply not true. There's no need to do this.
Despite generally only presenting about 2-3% of a typical car's frontal area, the mirrors can induce nearly 10% of its total aerodynamic drag.
I like the idea and if i was in the market for a car with this as an option, i'd tick that box as i think wing mirrors as they currently exist are outdated. Same goes for wiper blades and i seem to recall when Ron was still the Boss, Mclaren were looking at air bleed technology similar to fast jets to do away with wiper blades. I guess that never came to anything.
Of course the other point to make, is that camera based systems are probably actually cheaper than mirrors.
A suitable quality camera costs, what, £20; and the screen wont be more than £20 per side. All the adjustment motors, self-dimming surfaces, defrosters, etc. that modern mirrors have will be far more expensive. I think it's analogous to moving all the interior controls to screens - a cost-cutting exercise which can be sold as "technology".
A suitable quality camera costs, what, £20; and the screen wont be more than £20 per side. All the adjustment motors, self-dimming surfaces, defrosters, etc. that modern mirrors have will be far more expensive. I think it's analogous to moving all the interior controls to screens - a cost-cutting exercise which can be sold as "technology".
theoperative said:
I like the idea and if i was in the market for a car with this as an option, i'd tick that box as i think wing mirrors as they currently exist are outdated. Same goes for wiper blades and i seem to recall when Ron was still the Boss, Mclaren were looking at air bleed technology similar to fast jets to do away with wiper blades. I guess that never came to anything.
Wing mirrors went out decades ago! Some of them were conical so were a bit aerodynamic, and weren't obscured by front seat passengers moving their arms or leaning forward, unlike door mirrors.Now, normal, glazed door mirrors do allow you to move your head to adjust the view.
We had this discussion when the Honda-e came out.
Ifinishposts said:
Clad-Hach said:
An unnecessary gimmick which has zero improvement over a standard door mirror.
There's no need to do this.
Just add them to the list of unnecessary gimmicks on new cars...There's no need to do this.
Edited by Pica-Pica on Sunday 16th August 18:04
Sporky said:
LuS1fer said:
Last I checked, the simple reflection of light off a 20p mirror on a swivel worked just fine and it never goes wrong.
If the mirror was 20p I'm guessing the last time you checked was many decades ago!LuS1fer said:
Probable cost to the manufacturer though that was a slight exaggeration...
For very basic setups, certainly, but modern door mirrors with all the adjustment motors, heating elements, etc. are considerably more expensive to produce than the relatively low quality cameras and screens required. The actual manufacturing cost of a complete, sealed camera pod will be... maybe £15. A non-IP rated interior screen of acceptable quality will be about £10. A modern mirror pod with all the electrics will at at last £50 to make, probably more like £100. Of course those numbers don't stop manufacturers charging £500 for the mirror and £1000 for the camera setup!
Edited by kambites on Sunday 16th August 15:49
kambites said:
Of course the other point to make, is that camera based systems are probably actually cheaper than mirrors.
A suitable quality camera costs, what, £20; and the screen wont be more than £20 per side. All the adjustment motors, self-dimming surfaces, defrosters, etc. that modern mirrors have will be far more expensive. I think it's analogous to moving all the interior controls to screens - a cost-cutting exercise which can be sold as "technology".
I'm sure you're right. They'll be paying far less than £20 for the camera and screen too, and for all the "more to go wrong" complaints there is actually more to go wrong with an auto folding, electrically adjustable, heated wing mirror than there is with a small fixed focus camera and yet another pair of little screens.A suitable quality camera costs, what, £20; and the screen wont be more than £20 per side. All the adjustment motors, self-dimming surfaces, defrosters, etc. that modern mirrors have will be far more expensive. I think it's analogous to moving all the interior controls to screens - a cost-cutting exercise which can be sold as "technology".
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff