Giga Windshield Wiper BAW closeup look 💧

[Rutrow]

If Sentry mode is on, as soon as the vandal grabs the BAW, Sentry mode turns the BAW on max and the BAW judo flips the vandal into the next block over.

... and the sound emitted from the Pedestrian Warning System* is "HiYahhhh"


*acronymed as "Pwiss"

Sponsored

 

[PilotPete]

“Rain-X works against rain; not bugs, mud, and salt.”

It does help with all those by limiting adhesion to the glass.

my question is; With the aero of the CT, are we likely to see fewer bug guts and other debris on the glass? What I mean is this… on a “normal” car/truck, there is an angle change at the hood/windshield line. This rapid angle change doesn’t disturb the airflow in front very far ahead of the glass. A bug then has very little deflection upward before impact.

The CT has a constant angle from the front edge to the peak of the roof. Might this create a thicker and less turbulent layer of air that does a better job of deflecting bugs and some other objects upward and over the vehicle? We see this on differing aircraft windscreens and other sections of the aircraft.

 

[Rutrow]

I've been long considering a lawsuit* against Rain-X.

It IS a wonderful product. When freshly applied it fairly effectively clears the windshield even at low speeds. but if you're stopped for a minute or so the beaded up droplets will obscure you vision until you get some wind moving across your windshield. In heavy rain at ~35 mph its effectiveness is marginal. It gets better at 45 mph, even better at 55 mph. This improvement continues linearly at increasing speeds, just egging me to drive faster and faster as road conditions deteriorate. At 100+ mph seeing conditions are FANTASTIC but the speed at which obstacles are barreling towards you is HORRIFYING

*

 

[CyberGus]

In heavy rain at ~35 mph its effectiveness is marginal. It gets better at 45 mph, even better at 55 mph.

When you hit a critical speed with Rain-X, the water droplets hit lightspeed

 

[Setok]

I'm betting it'll be both, like most (all?) the others these days.
I want it to be a virtual mirror when the tonneau is closed, but I want it to be a real mirror for anytime it has a clear view to the rear. Real mirrors have the elegant quality of allowing your eyes to stay focused to infinity while your driving. A virtual mirror will require me to put on reading glasses (I'm pretty severely old age far sighted) if I need to see details (walls, trees, sign posts, etc.) when backing.

This is also the reason I won't be removing my side view mirrors (if allowed). I sometimes will use the repeater camera views along with the side view mirrors when changing lanes, but if I only have time for one... I stick with the real mirror. I can judge distance and speed of cars approaching from the rear MUCH better with the real mirror.

The real mirrors have the benefit of being effectively much larger than they really are. By moving my head around, the actual field of view is about 4X as large as they seem.

Wise words. A lot of people mumbling about cameras versus mirrors don’t realise these things. Perhaps they’ve never even been in vehicles with only cameras. Plus cameras get dirty and covered in ice and rain a lot worse than mirrors.

 

[Crissa]

Plus cameras get dirty and covered in ice and rain a lot worse than mirrors.

...In that mirrors basically suck all the time, but because they suck, they rare completely fail?

Just stop and wipe down the cameras, man. When we get robotaxi, they'll figure out something.

-Crissa

 

[Setok]

...In that mirrors basically suck all the time, but because they suck, they rare completely fail?

Just stop and wipe down the cameras, man. When we get robotaxi, they'll figure out something.

-Crissa

In non Californian weather you might find yourself stopping every couple kilometres, so that's not really a possible solution (it's also why I was always skeptical about robotaxi appearing, at least with current hardware).

I don't find mirrors to particularly suck in comparison to cameras, so I'm not sure what you mean by the first comment.

 

[charliemagpie]

When my side mirrors are fogged up.. I wipe them

Its not that mirrors are perfect either.

 

[Crissa]

In non Californian weather you might find yourself stopping every couple kilometres, so...

If you're riding around in driving mud, I think you have bigger problems than 'cameras can get fouled'.

-Crissa

 

[Setok]

If you're riding around in driving mud, I think you have bigger problems than 'cameras can get fouled'.

-Crissa

Sometimes I would expect to do that in a CT. But mostly my cameras became fouled in very normal Finnish weather. Rain, sleet, dirty salty wet roads, snow.

 

[Crissa]

Sometimes I would expect to do that in a CT. But mostly my cameras became fouled in very normal Finnish weather. Rain, sleet, dirty salty wet roads, snow.

Then you should stop and clean your windows and cameras.

You're basically driving in mud.

Also, you would have better fish exports if you didn't salt your roads.

-Crissa

 

[Setok]

Then you should stop and clean your windows and cameras.

You're basically driving in mud.

Also, you would have better fish exports if you didn't salt your roads.

-Crissa

And if I did, I would have to do that every few kms. As mentioned.

 

[cvalue13]

With the aero of the CT, are we likely to see fewer bug guts and other debris on the glass? What I mean is this… on a “normal” car/truck, there is an angle change at the hood/windshield line. This rapid angle change doesn’t disturb the airflow in front very far ahead of the glass. A bug then has very little deflection upward before impact.

easy to get dazzled by the strange beauty of the CT design

buuuuuuut….

Lambos still get debris on the windows

 

[Crissa]

And if I did, I would have to do that every few kms. As mentioned.

Then stop.

Clean your windshield, mirrors, and cameras.

Or don't drive.

Don't drive unsafe.

-Crissa

 

[PilotPete]

easy to get dazzled by the strange beauty of the CT design

buuuuuuut….

Lambos still get debris on the windows

No doubt you still will get some debris. I said “are we likely to see less…” My point was, POSSIBLY less.

Sponsored