3 ms·

I'm just waiting for an affordable electric SUV. I wish big Japanese manufactures would release one. That being said, has anyone driven a car with virtual side

I'm just waiting for an affordable electric SUV. I wish big Japanese manufactures would release one. That being said, has anyone driven a car with virtual side mirrors before? I can't imagine them being better than regular side mirrors...

MrAlex94 8y ago
Hyundai Kona Electric? 300 mile WLTP range and £32k cost.
cobookman 8y ago
give it 3 years. Pure Electric Cars depreciate like crazy right now.
illegalsmile 8y ago
I don't drive much at all on busy highways/interstates/city roads but when I do the side mirrors are often unused. The most used is my memory and spatial awareness of the cars around me, the cars I have passed or who have passed me along with the rear-view mirror. If it's tight traffic and there's uncertainty I will turn my head to look. With that said, I can see virtual side mirrors giving me an advantage to the analog version by having a wider range of view, lane change assist with lines like a backup camera, night-mode, etc...
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Virtual mirrors really only exist because of fuel economy requirements. Mirrors have long been a thorn in automakers side when it comes to aerodynamics. It's just now that every .0001mpg (or mile of range) matters enough to justify the cost of tackling the problem. In the case of this Audi I suspect this ads a handful of extra miles of range when cruising on the highway. Whether or not they're "better" depends wholly on what your metrics are and their relative importance. If you care about cost or reliability beyond the warranty period then it's not gonna beat a traditional mirror. You could easily implement a bunch of little luxury feature type things with virtual side mirrors, like show a line where the vehicle will go (like a backup camera), dim them at night, point them more inboard and low when reversing, etc. If they ever find their way onto a Land Rover or Jeep I can see them having a "rock crawl mode" that points the camera where needed for visibility. Personally I don't think those sorts of things are important enough to justify the cost.
- yardie 8y ago
  > Mirrors have long been a thorn in automakers side when it comes to aerodynamics. Formula 1 still uses everyday side view mirrors. Those cars are at the pinnacle of technology and engineering. So if there was ever a case to decrease the drag coefficient F1 cars would be the place. I just don't think side mirrors contribute that much to be worth replacing them with a camera based system.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >Formula 1 still uses everyday side view mirrors. Those cars are at the pinnacle of technology and engineering. So if there was ever a case to decrease the drag coefficient F1 cars would be the place. F1 is highly restricted as to what they can and can't do as far as vehicle design. If the class rules said they needed to tow a parachute they'd tow parachutes. They would be highly aerodynamic parachutes but parachutes nonetheless. F1 also doesn't care about cabin noise. Mirrors cause a fair bit of cabin noise. >I just don't think side mirrors contribute that much to be worth replacing them with a camera based system. Me either, but through a combination of people at various levels responding to incentives here we are.
  - alphabettsy 8y ago
    They’re also extremely weight sensitive. Is a camera system with two screens lighter and more useful?
mdorazio 8y ago
Last I checked, in the US these were not allowed due to safety concerns (Tesla tried to remove the side mirrors from the Model 3 originally). There are potential benefits to the driver in the form of wider FOV, low-light boosting, hazard highlighting, etc. but these are pretty minor improvements over a properly configured mirror with a warning LED. The big benefits are really improved aerodynamics and reduced parking damage potential.
nawtacawp 8y ago
About the mirrors. Since it is a screen, would it make more sense to put the screen in the drivers field of vision? That way they do not need to turn their head away from the road to look in the mirror. Only downside would be checking the blindspot -- this mirror system could be setup without a blindspot.

MrAlex94 8y ago

Hyundai Kona Electric? 300 mile WLTP range and £32k cost.

cobookman 8y ago

give it 3 years. Pure Electric Cars depreciate like crazy right now.

illegalsmile 8y ago

I don't drive much at all on busy highways/interstates/city roads but when I do the side mirrors are often unused. The most used is my memory and spatial awareness of the cars around me, the cars I have passed or who have passed me along with the rear-view mirror. If it's tight traffic and there's uncertainty I will turn my head to look. With that said, I can see virtual side mirrors giving me an advantage to the analog version by having a wider range of view, lane change assist with lines like a backup camera, night-mode, etc...

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

Virtual mirrors really only exist because of fuel economy requirements. Mirrors have long been a thorn in automakers side when it comes to aerodynamics. It's just now that every .0001mpg (or mile of range) matters enough to justify the cost of tackling the problem. In the case of this Audi I suspect this ads a handful of extra miles of range when cruising on the highway. Whether or not they're "better" depends wholly on what your metrics are and their relative importance. If you care about cost or reliability beyond the warranty period then it's not gonna beat a traditional mirror. You could easily implement a bunch of little luxury feature type things with virtual side mirrors, like show a line where the vehicle will go (like a backup camera), dim them at night, point them more inboard and low when reversing, etc. If they ever find their way onto a Land Rover or Jeep I can see them having a "rock crawl mode" that points the camera where needed for visibility. Personally I don't think those sorts of things are important enough to justify the cost.

yardie 8y ago
> Mirrors have long been a thorn in automakers side when it comes to aerodynamics. Formula 1 still uses everyday side view mirrors. Those cars are at the pinnacle of technology and engineering. So if there was ever a case to decrease the drag coefficient F1 cars would be the place. I just don't think side mirrors contribute that much to be worth replacing them with a camera based system.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  >Formula 1 still uses everyday side view mirrors. Those cars are at the pinnacle of technology and engineering. So if there was ever a case to decrease the drag coefficient F1 cars would be the place. F1 is highly restricted as to what they can and can't do as far as vehicle design. If the class rules said they needed to tow a parachute they'd tow parachutes. They would be highly aerodynamic parachutes but parachutes nonetheless. F1 also doesn't care about cabin noise. Mirrors cause a fair bit of cabin noise. >I just don't think side mirrors contribute that much to be worth replacing them with a camera based system. Me either, but through a combination of people at various levels responding to incentives here we are.
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  They’re also extremely weight sensitive. Is a camera system with two screens lighter and more useful?

mdorazio 8y ago

Last I checked, in the US these were not allowed due to safety concerns (Tesla tried to remove the side mirrors from the Model 3 originally). There are potential benefits to the driver in the form of wider FOV, low-light boosting, hazard highlighting, etc. but these are pretty minor improvements over a properly configured mirror with a warning LED. The big benefits are really improved aerodynamics and reduced parking damage potential.

nawtacawp 8y ago

About the mirrors. Since it is a screen, would it make more sense to put the screen in the drivers field of vision? That way they do not need to turn their head away from the road to look in the mirror. Only downside would be checking the blindspot -- this mirror system could be setup without a blindspot.