Do this today, if you think outside mirrors are a drag

John K

Well-known member
First Name
John
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
1,615
Location
Los Angeles
Vehicles
Volt, CT reserve day 2
Country flag
Remove mirror allows for a side gun mount… just saying


Or…mount for the laser wipers and cars who stay in the blind spots.
Advertisement

 

John K

Well-known member
First Name
John
Joined
Jan 2, 2020
Messages
1,034
Reaction score
1,615
Location
Los Angeles
Vehicles
Volt, CT reserve day 2
Country flag
Imagine being able to laser etch door panels on the cars driving next to you. 😈
 

Salty_Cobalt

New member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Location
Port St. Lucie, FL
Vehicles
2015 Escalade, 2017 Range Rover Sport, Tri Motor Cybertruck
Occupation
IT Systems Admin
Country flag
Posted a comment in favor.

Comment was as follows:


This comment is in response to Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0082.

I believe that the NHTSA should create a standard for automotive OEMs to allow for implementation and use of camera systems to replace traditional mirrors. There are several reasons as to why I feel this is a good idea. Some of which I have listed below:

1.Increased passenger safety
-Because of the advances in computer vision used by many ADAS systems provided by OEMs, I believe having a digital representation of a driver's field of view can only enhance the safety capabilities if and when it is included in the safety system evaluations that ADAS software perform. Once implemented, this may prevent some drivers from making mistakes that would normally cause property damage, bodily harm, or loss of life. With digitized imaging brings the capability for computer systems to constantly evaluate the vehicles surroundings and make the driver aware of things that may otherwise go unseen by a driver with a traditional mirror system.

2. Enhanced Visibility
-Many OEMs choose to prioritize form over function, and as such there are many vehicles on the road that have large "blind spots" that are caused by the design of a vehicles B, C, and D pillars. Sometimes mirrors are enough to overcome these obstacles, but many times they are not. having a camera based system for mirrors allows the focal viewpoint to be from an ideal location for the design of a specific vehicle, and to present that view to a driver in a location that is easier to see without having to turn their head and/or body (Taking their eyes off of the road) to try to see around vehicle pillars when attempting to maneuver through traffic. Additionally, at slow speeds, when attempting to navigate in tight spaces around objects, or when hauling a load with a larger vehicle (Truck/SUV), can provide further visibility around the load being pulled thanks to the capabilities of cameras and where they may be able to be placed as a vantage point.

3.Increased fuel efficiency
-Traditional side view mirrors create drag on a vehicle decreasing efficiency and performance. With the automobile marking seemingly moving toward electric vehicles, this is especially important, as drag can have a compounding negative effect on range. Even so, with traditional fuel powered vehicles, the decreased efficiency equates to requiring more fuel to be used, thus producing more harmful emissions that have huge negative effects on both people and the planet as a whole. More efficiency also equates to a better experience for consumers as they will need to spend less money to provide fuel/electricity for their vehicles in order to go the same distances in comparison.This could have an extremely large cost savings from a personal, governmental, and global perspective when looked at en mass.

4. Other benefits not yet understood.
-Just as most people couldn't imagine the software driven world we live in today just 30 years ago, so is it that I believe it will be in the future. As new technologies come to market, the ways in which camera and software capabilities may be used to enhance the driver experience and safety factor may not yet be knowable. These potential advancements however, can only be made if there is reason for the market to invest in the possibility of making them. While this seems to have occured in Europe at this time (As cameras are permitted to be used in lieu of side mirrors in certain countries), the US seems to be unwilling thus far to allow the regulations to be changed. Without doing so, I feel that companies will not feel there is a cost benefit in researching how our experience might be improved. As a consumer, I would like to see this changed, and as an American I don't wish to fall behind from a technological perspective to outside competitors.

It is for these reasons, and many other small ones (ie;saving road bicyclist some additional space when sharing the road, increased aesthetics, etc.) that I believe this matter should be passed and regulations established.
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
6,014
Reaction score
7,927
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
For one, as a cyclist, the more cars AND trucks on the road without bulky mirrors would make my traveling via bike, a much safer travel. I honestly feel camera based side mirrors is just another way of making our traveling experiences safer for all who share the roadways. Thank you
That was one of them I mentioned!

I didn't mention them sticking out, tho... except in that causes mirrors to be more fragile. But that pedestrians and cyclists won't have to fall into blind spots due to the really narrow space that you can use mirrors, and the fact that mirrors are limited by ambient lighting and cameras are not.

-Crissa
 

madquadbiker

Well-known member
First Name
Tony
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
187
Reaction score
198
Location
Weston Super Mare, UK
Vehicles
Nissan Navara NP300, Smart fortwo, Honda TRX700XX, Honda MSX125SF.
Occupation
Retired
Country flag

anionic1

Well-known member
First Name
Michael
Joined
Apr 30, 2021
Messages
246
Reaction score
255
Location
Yorba Linda
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Occupation
Estimator
Country flag
Many of you will probably not like this, not only because it is a little long, but because of truth factors relevant here which many hesitate to objectively discuss. But truth is truth, so here goes:

Regardless of quality in a camera driven panel display substituting for a mirror, fundamental differences must be considered and tested thoroughly to determine weighted factors of these differences for safety. I'll note these differences:

Mirrors provide depth perception via seamless stereo vision reflection to both human eyes, but a flat panel reproduced image can not provide immediate depth perception. Mirrors provide through focus to the reflected object and scene to the rear, so reaction time integrating re-focus through a mirror from forward windshield to the rear view in a mirror is minimally affected, because drivers don't have to re-focus to a different distance when checking their rear view mirror and then looking forward again. For a reproduced image in a display acting as a pseudo-mirror, drivers must re-focus from the distant front drivers view, to a very close near sighted view to look at and process the image in this display. Then, drivers must re-focus again when looking away from the interior display and resuming view out the front windshield. This is an inherent additional delay that will increase reaction time in sudden critical situations.

Without stereo vision depth perception, pseudo-mirror panel displays will require more concentration, thus distraction and time lag away from forward and other driver views. Unless displays can be implemented with distant focal lengths just as a traditional mirror does, such a display will be inferior to a mirror and less safe. Even 1/20 of a second lost in reaction time can easily be the difference between avoiding an accident at highway speeds. This not only applies to vehicles in the rear view, but also vehicles ahead because prolonged distraction of analyzing rear view content can delay attention toward the front and divert attention from a potential crash.

I own a Tesla Model 3 but I try to maintain a realistic perspective when evaluating new or proposed technology honestly comparing the full spectrum of relative functionality, pros, and cons. I feel that NHTSA should test Camera-Based Rear Visibility systems much more thoroughly for at least two or so years before making fast decisions to approve them for widespread public use.

Having said all that, Camera-Based Rear Visibility Systems do of course offer some unique benefits because they do not need 'Line-of-Sight' access, and therefore can be implemented in configurations to provide visibility where where traditional mirrors cannot view, such as rear corners of trailers, and even the side repeater cameras on Tesla cars for example. But I think whenever possible, these displays should be used to augment a traditional mirror for rear visibility, but maintain the use of a traditional rear view mirror as long as line-of-sight access for it is available.

So, in my opinion, the interior rear view mirror for Cybertruck should be a hybrid traditional mirror with both a display behind the glass and traditional mirror reflection (like the backup camera display integrated in some Toyota Tacoma truck rear view mirrors) which could be activated whenever the rear line-of-sight is not directly viewable, for example when the rear tonneao cover is closed, etc. But, I think traditional side mirrors having line-of-sight rear visibility access, should be mandated on the Cybertruck until such additional thorough testing or refined technology can be implemented providing depth perception and through-focus as discussed above.

Most side mirrors housings are designed to induce very little additional drag, and no one here has posted any concise thorough wide sampling studies to even indicate what percentage of range is reduced or what additional drag side mirrors may induce. Keep in mind, many of you are selective in your concern where you think its ok to have all kinds of external mods such as campers, roof racks, and many will pull trailers too - so with all these factors any possible drag induced by side mirrors is going to be quite negligible in comparison.

Many here are also concerned about 'widespread EV adoption', which is good. But, isn't it better to get a lot of Cybertrucks manufactured and sold into the mainstream first? - where the public can assimilate, feel and truly realize all of the other great EV benefits of the CT, and then if technological substitutes for traditional mirrors indeed prove beneficial and viable after a couple years many more will be open to it. Trying to 'jump the gun' with early implementation of tech that obviously could still be refined, by adding more radical changes to features one would expect - may be the 'deal-breaker' that turns many would-be early adopters off, and give the nay-sayers something more to squawk about. The CT doesn't 'need' by any measure the feature of a camera driven psuedo-mirror display in order to succeed. With regular side mirrors it will do just fine.

Insisting on radical publicly untested features will serve to make EV adoption a wider 'leap' for many, so those of you pushing this type of implementation at this early stage - you are actually Hurting the Cause and are actually Slowing Adoption. You should be willing to wait and allow the public to assimilate what's already great in the Cybertruck and EVs for a while, and then the 'sell' will be much easier. Pushing too much radical change at early stages only incites controversy and division, and will actually serve to polarize the public more on such features and EVs in general. Seriously, what's the big rush? The technology isn't going anywhere - and it's only going to get better; and unlike FSD it doesn't need to be publicly deployed to get better either - there is a lot of room for prototyping improvement of this tech at the research and development scale.

Why do you have to 'have it right now'?? Traditional side mirrors won't impede the success of the Cybertruck one bit - but taking them off at this early stage will most certainly turn some would-be early adopters off. So what is it you're really wanting with this change? Without thorough and concise studies you have no verified or consistent range improvements or differences to cite. You're just guessing emotionally at this point. And no one is saying anything about the drag increases caused by all the proposed roof rack mods and camper ideas. So what is the Real reason many are 'hung up' on side mirrors for the CT? No one has made a definitive concise and supported case to date - only shallow sound-bytes. Public safety deserves better.

- ÆCIII
Definitely didn’t read this whole thing but I agree with your first paragraph a lot. Our van has a side camera and it sucks. No way would I ever think it would be ok to ditch the mirror for that camera. Maybe the Tesla cameras and monitors are amazing but I totally see the issue with depth perception. That’s 75% of why we use the mirrors. Is there someone there and how close are they. Again maybe I just haven’t experienced the Tesla difference but I think this remove the mirror thing is just for looks and will very likely sacrifice function. I hope the NHTSA does do a thorough study to determine if cameras and monitors can match the reaction time and recognition of mirrors and if they can I fully support that change in the code. I think I will like the truck more with side mirrors. I could care less about the rear view mirror being a camera or not
 

MEDICALJMP

Well-known member
First Name
Jeff
Joined
Apr 28, 2020
Messages
960
Reaction score
1,778
Location
Omaha, NE
Vehicles
Toyota Avalon, Rav4, Tri-motor Cybertruck
Occupation
Nurse
Country flag
Do those of you who fret over removal of side mirrors wonder if European cars, where side mirrors are no longer required, have been involved in more side-side impacts? Maybe you should get some real world data before going all a Twitter.
 

JBee

Well-known member
First Name
JB
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
434
Reaction score
437
Location
6000
Vehicles
Cybertruck
Country flag
Many of you will probably not like this, not only because it is a little long, but because of truth factors relevant here which many hesitate to objectively discuss. But truth is truth, so here goes:

Regardless of quality in a camera driven panel display substituting for a mirror, fundamental differences must be considered and tested thoroughly to determine weighted factors of these differences for safety. I'll note these differences:

Mirrors provide depth perception via seamless stereo vision reflection to both human eyes, but a flat panel reproduced image can not provide immediate depth perception. Mirrors provide through focus to the reflected object and scene to the rear, so reaction time integrating re-focus through a mirror from forward windshield to the rear view in a mirror is minimally affected, because drivers don't have to re-focus to a different distance when checking their rear view mirror and then looking forward again. For a reproduced image in a display acting as a pseudo-mirror, drivers must re-focus from the distant front drivers view, to a very close near sighted view to look at and process the image in this display. Then, drivers must re-focus again when looking away from the interior display and resuming view out the front windshield. This is an inherent additional delay that will increase reaction time in sudden critical situations.

Without stereo vision depth perception, pseudo-mirror panel displays will require more concentration, thus distraction and time lag away from forward and other driver views. Unless displays can be implemented with distant focal lengths just as a traditional mirror does, such a display will be inferior to a mirror and less safe. Even 1/20 of a second lost in reaction time can easily be the difference between avoiding an accident at highway speeds. This not only applies to vehicles in the rear view, but also vehicles ahead because prolonged distraction of analyzing rear view content can delay attention toward the front and divert attention from a potential crash.

I own a Tesla Model 3 but I try to maintain a realistic perspective when evaluating new or proposed technology honestly comparing the full spectrum of relative functionality, pros, and cons. I feel that NHTSA should test Camera-Based Rear Visibility systems much more thoroughly for at least two or so years before making fast decisions to approve them for widespread public use.

Having said all that, Camera-Based Rear Visibility Systems do of course offer some unique benefits because they do not need 'Line-of-Sight' access, and therefore can be implemented in configurations to provide visibility where where traditional mirrors cannot view, such as rear corners of trailers, and even the side repeater cameras on Tesla cars for example. But I think whenever possible, these displays should be used to augment a traditional mirror for rear visibility, but maintain the use of a traditional rear view mirror as long as line-of-sight access for it is available.

So, in my opinion, the interior rear view mirror for Cybertruck should be a hybrid traditional mirror with both a display behind the glass and traditional mirror reflection (like the backup camera display integrated in some Toyota Tacoma truck rear view mirrors) which could be activated whenever the rear line-of-sight is not directly viewable, for example when the rear tonneao cover is closed, etc. But, I think traditional side mirrors having line-of-sight rear visibility access, should be mandated on the Cybertruck until such additional thorough testing or refined technology can be implemented providing depth perception and through-focus as discussed above.

Most side mirrors housings are designed to induce very little additional drag, and no one here has posted any concise thorough wide sampling studies to even indicate what percentage of range is reduced or what additional drag side mirrors may induce. Keep in mind, many of you are selective in your concern where you think its ok to have all kinds of external mods such as campers, roof racks, and many will pull trailers too - so with all these factors any possible drag induced by side mirrors is going to be quite negligible in comparison.

Many here are also concerned about 'widespread EV adoption', which is good. But, isn't it better to get a lot of Cybertrucks manufactured and sold into the mainstream first? - where the public can assimilate, feel and truly realize all of the other great EV benefits of the CT, and then if technological substitutes for traditional mirrors indeed prove beneficial and viable after a couple years many more will be open to it. Trying to 'jump the gun' with early implementation of tech that obviously could still be refined, by adding more radical changes to features one would expect - may be the 'deal-breaker' that turns many would-be early adopters off, and give the nay-sayers something more to squawk about. The CT doesn't 'need' by any measure the feature of a camera driven psuedo-mirror display in order to succeed. With regular side mirrors it will do just fine.

Insisting on radical publicly untested features will serve to make EV adoption a wider 'leap' for many, so those of you pushing this type of implementation at this early stage - you are actually Hurting the Cause and are actually Slowing Adoption. You should be willing to wait and allow the public to assimilate what's already great in the Cybertruck and EVs for a while, and then the 'sell' will be much easier. Pushing too much radical change at early stages only incites controversy and division, and will actually serve to polarize the public more on such features and EVs in general. Seriously, what's the big rush? The technology isn't going anywhere - and it's only going to get better; and unlike FSD it doesn't need to be publicly deployed to get better either - there is a lot of room for prototyping improvement of this tech at the research and development scale.

Why do you have to 'have it right now'?? Traditional side mirrors won't impede the success of the Cybertruck one bit - but taking them off at this early stage will most certainly turn some would-be early adopters off. So what is it you're really wanting with this change? Without thorough and concise studies you have no verified or consistent range improvements or differences to cite. You're just guessing emotionally at this point. And no one is saying anything about the drag increases caused by all the proposed roof rack mods and camper ideas. So what is the Real reason many are 'hung up' on side mirrors for the CT? No one has made a definitive concise and supported case to date - only shallow sound-bytes. Public safety deserves better.

- ÆCIII
A bunch of cars in Europe already have mirrorless designs and they have a more rigorous testing regimen that has been going on for a while. The CT is not the first by far to not have side mirrors. USA is lagging behind in this.

I agree with your argument, regarding the comparisons to drag from campers etc. But consider mirrors are permanent, campers need not be. Many trucks have them as well already.

With the refocusing issue it's possible to display the mirror image via lenses so that they seem more distant for eye focusing purposes. HUDs commonly use this because you can see the display over the road at the same focal length without refocusing. Something similar with just the rear view is easily possible as a display. Displays can also augment camera views with automatic warnings and symbols, like lane change or side traffic alerts etc. Also something that is already done on mirrors, but would be easier to ingrate on a display.

As for replicating stereoscopic depth perception, this is a bit more of a problem, but at the ranges and small surface areas used in common mirrors the eye trigonometry barely adds any extra depth perception. Hence the sticker "Objects seem closer". Most of that depth perception stems from proportional perspective relationships that the mind can also do with just one eye. (close one eye to test it on things on distances greater than a few meters)

Otherwise well argued post. :)
 

Crissa

Well-known member
First Name
Crissa
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
6,014
Reaction score
7,927
Location
Santa Cruz
Vehicles
2014 Zero S, 2013 Mazda 3
Country flag
Generally, you'll only see objects with one eye through a side mirror anyhow, since the view angle is so narrow. And stereoscopic vision is not required to drive a car.

-Crissa
 

Cybr on

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
227
Reaction score
217
Location
California
Vehicles
17 UncorkedMS75awd+Upgrade fsd,M3LRawd+fsd,CT3FSD
Country flag
Again maybe I just haven’t experienced the Tesla difference but I think this remove the mirror thing is just for looks and will very likely sacrifice function.
This is truly funny. It’s NOT for looks. 🤣 It’s about safety and efficiency. Safety is always first with Tesla. I’m not sure if you know this, but Tesla’s are one of the safest vehicles on this planet. I own 2. If you have the chance , even today,😊 to get out and test drive one, you will see what we are all talking about here. The future is NOW. Nothing is going to stop any technology that comes to fruition that can aid any of us in a much safer travel and tomorrow. Military included.
have a good morning.
 

Cybertruck Hawaii

Well-known member
First Name
Michael
Joined
Apr 24, 2021
Messages
106
Reaction score
46
Location
Honolulu
Vehicles
Sienna
Occupation
Retired
Country flag
Mirrors on the Cybertruck will be useless with the blind spots of the vault cover and the side of the bed storage panel. Cameras will be the only way to see pass the panels that are not obstructed.
 
Advertisement

 
Advertisement
Top