Pointless Cybertruck mirrors!

[TyPope]

Cameras are definitely cheap enough now. So are displays. My daughter drives a Toyota Yaris... Used, and about the cheapest thing around here. It's cheap when we bought it for her 5 years ago but she's been payment-free for 3 years now. ANYWAY, 3 years ago, I saw a cheap backup camera/monitor setup on Amazon for, like $19.95. It was really cheap but I figured it'd be worth a shot because she really wanted a backup camera for when she backs into her garage at her apartment complex. The camera worked fine and the display crisp enough. Here it is 3 years later and her only complaint is that it doesn't stick to her dash as well as it once did and it falls off sometimes.

Not ideal but wanted to throw this up here as a real-world case to show cameras are cheap and reliable enough. Though, to be fair, it's only on when her car is in reverse...

Sponsored

 

[Tenksen]

I'd be fine with camera-based mirror replacements on the sides, so long as we have the option to put on tow mirrors if need be. I don't plan on having on hauling around a 35-foot camper much, but even something like a dual-axel wide stance utility trailer with a tall load is a lot easier to handle and back up with tow mirrors.

Kind of what I'm thinking, I loved the sleek look of CT with no mirrors and for General use its how I would roll

On a side note since this started a debate on practicality of mirrors/cameras, The Honda E already has a full camera system thats functional. There are few more new evs going that way so I guess they work and are now legal.

My hope is even though they have added mirrors they keep cameras as an option.

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Kind of what I'm thinking, I loved the sleek look of CT with no mirrors and for General use its how I would roll

On a side note since this started a debate on practicality of mirrors/cameras, The Honda E already has a full camera system thats functional. There are few more new evs going that way so I guess they work and are now legal.

My hope is even though they have added mirrors they keep cameras as an option.

There are several countries that allow side cameras and monitors of those cameras, but not the U.S. When I saw your note I looked up the Honda E and it was only showing at Honda in the U.K. and not in the U.S. and one of the links said that Honda expects to introduce it in the U.S. in 2024 but the picture had side mirrors. We know that several auto makers, including Tesla, have petitioned the NHTSA to allow side cameras in lieu of side mirrors, but the fact that the current Cybertuck prototype has side mirrors tells us that the ruling hasn't been made yet and likely won't for the first production versions. Sad, but if it is ok to take them off after the purchase, and if the way to view the images makes sense (not on the main monitor) then I would at least give it a try.

 

[charliemagpie]

Birds eye view with persistent vision, so you can see stuff still when you drive over it. Ideal for off-road.

Just won't be Bluetooth, bandwidth is to low for decent video.

I cannot comprehend the sheer ability of computers these days.

I expect any grainy video received by V4 will be AI enhanced to be clear as day.

 

[ED_SFO]

Not sure what the fuss is about CT with mirrors. Every car has mirrors, and the drag penalty is stupid. Most ppl are not trying to hyper mill every electron out of their normal day to day commute. Have never seen one Tesla remove their mirrors because they wanted that extra 4% range lol

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

Not sure what the fuss is about CT with mirrors. Every car has mirrors, and the drag penalty is stupid. Most ppl are not trying to hyper mill every electron out of their normal day to day commute. Have never seen one Tesla remove their mirrors because they wanted that extra 4% range lol

Good point. I remember when the Prius came out with 50+ mpg and all I saw was Prius drivers driving around like maniacs and then complaining that they weren't getting 50+ mpg. The first guy I knew that bought a Model S said he wasn't getting anywhere near the quoted range and then I found out that he was routinely driving 85 mph. I have to say that most of the work trucks I see out on the road seem to think that they are race car drivers; drive fast and more interested in getting to the next job site than in safety. None of these people would even notice 4%. But they would still complain about range.

For me it isn't about the range but about someone hitting my mirror or having increased difficulty getting into/out of parking spaces, even when they fold. I know that whatever mechanism Tesla offers me for side visibility it will be adequate for the view.

 

[Rutrow]

I'm no luddite, and I don't even expect new systems to excel in every aspect to, in the long run, be better, but on the issue of mirrors I'm in the "Hold on a second" camp.

Physical mirrors have the distinct advantage of allowing you to move your head around to effectively increase their apparent size! If you adjust your SIDE VIEW mirrors correctly (as driving manuals instruct you to*) they provide you a perfect view of your blind spot when your head is in its normal driving position. It's supposed to be pointed that way so that you'll catch a car slightly behind you in your peripheral vision, even if you're not paying attention to the cars coming from behind you in your REAR VIEW mirror.

Many people set their SIDE VIEW mirrors to be able to see traffic coming up from behind in the lane to your left (in non-UK countries) Doing this leaves more than enough of your blind spot for a car to hide in. If you have these mirrors set correctly, you have to lean your head against your side window to be able to see the lane behind you. This is okay, because unless you're changing lanes, the traffic way behind in that lane isn't as important and can be monitored adequately in the REAR VIEW mirror.

With physical mirrors, you can move your head around to view areas that you don't normally need in view at all times, ex: your tires when parking, the top of a tall trailer when driving under low clearances, etc. Your physical REAR VIEW mirror is used a lot more than you probably realize to monitor and converse with passengers/kids/pets in the back seats. I've driven cars with the virtual rear view mirror, to find that I, and the car's owner, use the real mirror >90% of the time. It's just more useful. It's nice to have the camera one available in many situations, but they're rare. I cannot use the repeater cameras, nor the backup camera on my Tesla to accurately put my tires where I want them when backing. I like to back into parking spots right next to lot islands, getting my passenger side wheels within an inch of the curb, so that I have the greatest distance from the car on my driver's side (minimizing door dings) The lines of the back up camera and the repeater displays aren't of high enough resolution to do that.

I can hear people starting to type to say that cameras can have a wide angle view that shows all of the things you'd need to see in your SIDE VIEW mirrors, but by doing that, you're reducing the size of the objects in that display to a level that distorts distances and makes small things very hard to see. Notice that the driver's side mirror doesn't have the warning "objects in mirror are closer than they appear" This warning is important for the passenger's side mirror because the field of view would be too small to be useful, but the government doesn't allow those type mirrors on the driver's side because changing lanes into someone closer than they appear is more likely to be deadly on the driver's side.

So... I'm a little ambivalent about changing the laws to allow virtual mirrors. They ARE much more aerodynamic. The shortcomings of virtual mirrors can be overcome with driver training and Automatic Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), but I would like to keep real mirrors as an option. I like Elon's comment that manufacturers currently have to deliver cars with them, but that owners can always remove them if they want! I'd have them on my car.

* Arkansas Driver's manual screen shot

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

I'm no luddite, and I don't even expect new systems to excel in every aspect to, in the long run, be better, but on the issue of mirrors I'm in the "Hold on a second" camp.

Physical mirrors have the distinct advantage of allowing you to move your head around to effectively increase their apparent size! If you adjust your SIDE VIEW mirrors correctly (as driving manuals instruct you to*) they provide you a perfect view of your blind spot when your head is in its normal driving position. It's supposed to be pointed that way so that you'll catch a car slightly behind you in your peripheral vision, even if you're not paying attention to the cars coming from behind you in your REAR VIEW mirror.

Many people set their SIDE VIEW mirrors to be able to see traffic coming up from behind in the lane to your left (in non-UK countries) Doing this leaves more than enough of your blind spot for a car to hide in. If you have these mirrors set correctly, you have to lean your head against your side window to be able to see the lane behind you. This is okay, because unless you're changing lanes, the traffic way behind in that lane isn't as important and can be monitored adequately in the REAR VIEW mirror.

With physical mirrors, you can move your head around to view areas that you don't normally need in view at all times, ex: your tires when parking, the top of a tall trailer when driving under low clearances, etc. Your physical REAR VIEW mirror is used a lot more than you probably realize to monitor and converse with passengers/kids/pets in the back seats. I've driven cars with the virtual rear view mirror, to find that I, and the car's owner, use the rear mirror >90% of the time. It's just more useful. It's nice to have the camera one available in many situations, but they're rare. I cannot use the repeater cameras, nor the backup camera on my Tesla to accurately put my tires where I want them when backing. I like to back into parking spots right next to lot islands, getting my passenger side wheels within an inch of the curb, so that I have the greatest distance from the car on my driver's side (minimizing door dings) The lines of the back up camera and the repeater displays aren't of high enough resolution to do that.

I can hear people starting to type to say that cameras can have a wide angle view that shows all of the things you'd need to see in your SIDE VIEW mirrors, but by doing that, you're reducing the size of the objects in that display to a level that distorts distances and makes small things very hard to see. Notice that the driver's side mirror doesn't have the warning "objects in mirror are closer than they appear" This warning is important for the passenger's side mirror because the field of view would be too small to be useful, but the government doesn't allow those type mirrors on the driver's side because changing lanes into someone closer than they appear is more likely to be deadly on the driver's side.

So... I'm a little ambivalent about changing the laws to allow virtual mirrors. They ARE much more aerodynamic. The shortcomings of virtual mirrors can be overcome with driver training and Automatic Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS), but I would like to keep real mirrors as an option. I like Elon's comment that manufacturers currently have to deliver cars with them, but that owners can always remove them if they want! I'd have them on my car.

* Arkansas Driver's manual screen shot

I doubt that anyone would challenge anything you said. When I said that I think camera monitors could do both I meant that I see no reason why you couldn't have 'both' a near and a wide-angle view from the same camera, or that you could orient the view in the same way we orient a physical mirror. That said, I use my mirror, my camera view, and I turn my head just in case ... because I just don't trust any of them alone

 

[flowerlandfilms]

Safety, sure. Cost savings, maybe.
Here's the real reason to get rid of mirrors, making it easier to filter through traffic on a motorcycle.
Added benefit, biker can't kick your mirrors off when you piss them off.

 

[flowerlandfilms]

Here in Australia it is legal as long as you are going less than 30km.
Turns a 30 minute standstill on Pennant Hills road into a 5 minute joy ride amongst pissed off commuters. You can even give cops the finger on your way past because they can't chase you!
It's one of lifes little joys.

 

[TyPope]

There are several countries that allow side cameras and monitors of those cameras, but not the U.S. When I saw your note I looked up the Honda E and it was only showing at Honda in the U.K. and not in the U.S. and one of the links said that Honda expects to introduce it in the U.S. in 2024 but the picture had side mirrors. We know that several auto makers, including Tesla, have petitioned the NHTSA to allow side cameras in lieu of side mirrors, but the fact that the current Cybertuck prototype has side mirrors tells us that the ruling hasn't been made yet and likely won't for the first production versions. Sad, but if it is ok to take them off after the purchase, and if the way to view the images makes sense (not on the main monitor) then I would at least give it a try.

NHTSA put out a call for comments on whether or not they should devote resources to the study of using cameras in lieu of mirrors. The request for comment period is over (I followed their rules and got a comment in... MANY people didn't follow the rules and put in comments that don't count towards the decision... alas) Anyway, they were looking at starting the study next year, I believe.

I found the link:

NHTSA Vehicle cameras for mirrors study

 

[Jhodgesatmb]

NHTSA put out a call for comments on whether or not they should devote resources to the study of using cameras in lieu of mirrors. The request for comment period is over (I followed their rules and got a comment in... MANY people didn't follow the rules and put in comments that don't count towards the decision... alas) Anyway, they were looking at starting the study next year, I believe.

I found the link:

NHTSA Vehicle cameras for mirrors study

I also commented on that request for comment, and on the earlier one. It wasn't until I read the entire request that I realized what they were asking for. They weren't asking for comment on whether side cameras and camera monitors should be allowed but on the specifics of the testing program:

Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspects of this information collection, including (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

I did not think that I was qualified to comment on any of (a)-(d), especially (b).

 

[Crissa]

Alas, 'impractical' it's not.

Motorcycles accelerate far more quickly than other vehicles. So letting them to the front of red light queues reduces overall traffic. Are you saying you don't have red lights?

Motorcycles sideswipe collisions are far less deadly, so allowing them to share lanes in heavy traffic, again, reduces overall traffic and traffic deaths. Are you saying you don't have freeways or suburban multilane roads?

And the original reason it used to be allowed: Motorcycles were air-cooled, and sitting around in traffic is bad for them, leading to more breakdowns and, again, traffic delays.

Yeah, it's only fully legal in California. But it's not impractical anywhere. And all states allow for motorcycles to queue up more tightly than other vehicles, the standard following distance being a staggered 1 second instead of the 3 second non-staggered for full sized vehicles.

-Crissa

 

[Crissa]

NHTSA put out a call for comments on whether or not they should devote resources to the study of using cameras in lieu of mirrors. The request for comment period is over (I followed their rules and got a comment in... MANY people didn't follow the rules and put in comments that don't count towards the decision... alas) Anyway, they were looking at starting the study next year, I believe.

I found the link:

NHTSA Vehicle cameras for mirrors study

Yeah, they're lying about people following the rules. A comment saying they're long behind on their studies is not a comment saying they shouldn't study it!

I do not understand why they're so laggardly about this. They had approval to do the study four years ago - why only last year just open up the question about studying at all? It's ridiculous.

-Crissa

Sponsored