German automotive club ADAC warns against retractable door handles

[Monkey Dust]

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Honestly though, in a lot of accidents your door is part of the crumple zone so it makes the handle pretty pointless [as even at low speeds, like sub 40 km/h is enough to make the passenger doors really difficult to open due to the warpedness].  Honestly, the only situation at the moment that I can think of is really when it's a lower speed accident and your car catches fire.

 

As for the emergency override, it's something that drivers should be responsible and know before driving...just like checking your mirrors, rear-view mirrors before driving, when you buy a new car figure out the safety features...and buy one of the window smashers, seat belt cutters, as if you fall into water that can be pretty vital.

Yes, knowing where the emergency release of your own car is not unreasonable... But, passengers may not, passers-by assisting after an accident may not, the emergency services may not. And even if you look it up when you buy the car, if you find yourself a couple of years later, car wedged in the scenery, in that high stress situation, will you remember? Not everyone will. They create a problem that has no good reason to exist IMO.   

[Senzelian]

15 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Honestly though, in a lot of accidents your door is part of the crumple zone so it makes the handle pretty pointless

A proper door handle is never pointless. Even if the door is jammed, it often is the only point to pull from.

[Spindel]

On 4/7/2024 at 1:34 AM, wanderingfool2 said:

...*snip*...

 

So even if you use side mirrors as an example, it doesn't mean you don't want to minimize it as much as you can elsewhere.  While the handles might only make up for a small percent, every bit ends up helping [even if it was 0.5% extra range, that's an extra $5 for every $1000 spent on electricity]

 

...*snip*

 

This such a BS argument when talking about Teslas (or any other everyday car) I can't even believe you believe it yourself. 

 

While technically you are correct if the extra range was so important Tesla (and most other EV car manufacturers) should focus on doing like BMW i3 route and having smaller (thinner) tyres to reduce rolling resistance. 

 

Or smaller/lighter wheels that reduces the amount of power needed when accelerating (while having both the benefits (better traction) and down sides (more noise inside the car) of lower unsprung mass), both because the lower mass of the car (albeit negligible) but mostly because of a lower rotational mass.

 

Or adding vortex generators to get separation of the air flow even further down on the car (or eliminating it completely).

 

Flush (but more specifically motorized) door handles is not the important thing. They are there just (in both Tesla and other manufacturers) to be "cool". 

 

[Neroon]

On 4/6/2024 at 10:12 PM, Poinkachu said:

*Sigh*
Like I've said, that's my preference.

And yet you are sounding like I'm fearmongering or something.

I simply do not like to rely on monitors that much when its not needed.

And I simply don't like heavier burden on me when it does break, or when I bought the car.

 

I do not fear tech, It's just that for me this particular thing is not that useful at the very least, and in fact in some countries, like mine, it might even be even useless and/or a very heavy burden in the long run.

 

For me personally, I doubt I can miss bikers. There is only around 125 million REGISTERED motorbike in my country, which at 2022 has a population of 275 million. In my city alone there's around 17 millions at 2022, and it increases exponentially each year.

And their driving habit is IMHO second to India, if not worse by now.

 

90% of the scratches and bumps on my car happened when my car is standing still, mostly by a motorbike. Not to mention they often hit my side mirror too when my car is standing perfectly still. Will digital side mirror help with that? no. Why? because my car can't move anyway.

Reimbursement? good luck.

edit : to emphasize "standing still", I don't mean I just stopped, I mean my car has not been moving at all for atleast 30 seconds.

Forgot to add, yes, I can stop farther from the front car and give me more room to move forward if I sense a motorbike gonna bump into me, but it will only either :

- Good for the next 5 minutes

or

- The motorbike will use the space as a shortcut and might bump into the front end of my car anyway.

or

- One will be pissed off that I didn't use space "efficiently", pass by my car and then slam my hood using either fist or helmet.

 

This is daily basis, non rush hour today

 

Rush hour today, well, pretty much double it.

edit : removed 2nd video because it's pointless, first video should suffice as example too.

You would have a point, if it wasn't for the fact that you talk about a fixed cable randomly breaking as a reason not to get it. If you want to not sound like you are fearmongering, then come up with a better argument than a cable breaking in a fixed system, when your entire car is wired up with like hundreds of wires, including many vital systems. If you are that worried about cables breaking, stop driving.

 

Again, if you want to argue a legit worry, then by all means do, but you just tried to argue arguably the lowest risk item on a car.

 

This camera's will help against bikers, why? Because the mirrors are much smaller.

Reimbursement? That's gonna be way simpler, because guess what, they will be hitting a camera... guess what cameras do?

 

But it seems like you have a lot of issues with bikes, not sure how that is relevant here though.

[Neroon]

On 4/6/2024 at 10:24 PM, da na said:

Electronics that have broken in my mother's car over the past 2 years, with no involvement in accidents:

-Left mirror camera

-Automatic tailgate open/close switch

-Rotary encoder to enable 4WD

-Button to retract sunroof

 

All electronics. 

 

Also, a real mirror will look way better than a camera and screen. Optical is always > digital. Why add screens and cameras anyway if a mirror can do the same job cheaper and better.

 

Electronics that add useful features, like lane assist, are appreciated. Electronics that can be ignored or turned off and have a manual override, like the automatic tailgate and camera system, are fine. 
But when a critical part of a car is dependent on tiny electronics, with no alternative... 

Loads of technology in cars are very much reliable. A lot has to do with quality of the car and the importance of it. Basically many manufacturers cheap out on non vital parts. Mirrors aren't part of that, and if they were to break, they would have to do recalls and get sued it if it causes accidents. It's simply not the same thing as a button of a sunroof breaking. Also how in the world does that break, that's some cheap shit to break.

 

Why are you ignoring every argument for safety of these camera mirrors? Are you saying night vision goggles are dumb? Is the military dumb for using them? Because they could use that as 1 of the camera systems. Saying it's flatout worse, ignoring facts, is just a ridiculous argument and I cannot take it seriously.

On 4/6/2024 at 10:31 PM, atxcyclist said:

I spin wrenches on my own vehicles as well as family and friend’s stuff, it’s absolutely not ‘fear’, it’s knowing from experience that those types of things usually have a higher failure rate than traditional designs; They are more complicated to diagnose and typically much harder to get replacement parts for. Car parts are cost-down as much as possible, people that don’t like all the added stuff are not luddites, they’re in many cases just pragmatic and understand that tech is a failure point.

 

I bought new basically the cheapest Japanese-made car you could get in the U.S. in 2005, it has an acceptable level of complication as far as I’m concerned: Fuel injection, power amenities like locks, windows, and mirrors, ABS, and while mine is a stick shift the 4-speed automatic that was offered is very reliable as well.

I can diagnose any OBD-II problem with a $60 scanner, and fix basically anything with a regular tool set. That simplicity means down the line that car can stay on the road, rather than going to a scrapyard because a piece of overly-complicated safety equipment has failed, and cannot be replaced.
 

Powered windows have zero safety or security reasons, and are known to fail, how can you stand behind that, when these mirrors would improve safety.

 

You can argue all you want about being able to fix things yourself, but you wouldn't be able to do that to brand new cars anyway, so this is more about disliking modern cars in general, than these mirrors specifically.

 

These camera's will have no moving parts, it's a wire and a camera, if the camera breaks they should be able to replace the unit in no time at all. And unlike what someone else worries about, fixed wires don't break all the sudden, and if that is your worry, stop driving cars.

That goes for everything btw, loads of stuff constantly wears out or breaks on a car. The main argument you can make here is costs. Yes it will cost more to fix. But since it's safer, it's easily worth the cost.

[Poinkachu]

51 minutes ago, Neroon said:

You would have a point, if it wasn't for the fact that you talk about a fixed cable randomly breaking as a reason not to get it. If you want to not sound like you are fearmongering, then come up with a better argument than a cable breaking in a fixed system, when your entire car is wired up with like hundreds of wires, including many vital systems. If you are that worried about cables breaking, stop driving.

 

Again, if you want to argue a legit worry, then by all means do, but you just tried to argue arguably the lowest risk item on a car.

 

This camera's will help against bikers, why? Because the mirrors are much smaller.

Reimbursement? That's gonna be way simpler, because guess what, they will be hitting a camera... guess what cameras do?

 

But it seems like you have a lot of issues with bikes, not sure how that is relevant here though.

Dude, what is your problem ?

 

You do realize my initial and first post that you replied to is simply :

"Oh boi, I would hate that"

Right?

 

And then you asked me why, so I said one of my concern about it.

Yet here you are, talking like I was fearmongering before you even asked me why.

Sure man, you can guarantee 100% that none of it's cable won't have a problem due to it not moving, I believe ya.

As much as I believe my cabin lamp couldn't have a cable problem, I mean, it sure as fuck did not move.

 

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHETHER ITS SAFER OR NOT, I DONT LIKE IT, FOR ME IT'S POINTLESS AND MAY EVEN BECOME A BURDEN.

What about "FOR ME" that you don't understand ?

 

Was that hard to understand at all ?

 

And if you think a fancy camera, will help you get reimbursement due to your side mirror getting smashed by bikers in my country, like I have said. GOOD LUCK

Even this I clearly pointed out that "It's for me personally".

 

You WILL end up spending money atleast double what the reimbursement is.

Even a fucking back and front dash cam won't help ya get reimbursement

At very best dash cam will only help you not end up being pressured or falsely accused as the wrong side.

No, here the cops won't help ya with it if it's just a scratch or minor to medium dent, unless you pay them to find the perpetrator, or you know a high profile person in govt.

 

And before you go all semantic or whatever on me, I included dash cam to make you know that even a recording of a major crash with biker, that makes the bike stop and don't just drive along and leave you in traffic, won't help ya get reimbursement here.

 

Not the same system in your country? good.

Feel free to use it, I couldn't care less.

Edited April 8 by Poinkachu
adding details

[Neroon]

35 minutes ago, Poinkachu said:

Dude, what is your problem ?

 

You do realize my initial and first post that you replied to is simply :

"Oh boi, I would hate that"

Right?

 

And then you asked me why, so I said one of my concern about it.

Yet here you are, talking like I was fearmongering before you even asked me why.

Sure man, you can guarantee 100% that none of it's cable won't have a problem due to it not moving, I believe ya.

As much as I believe my cabin lamp couldn't have a cable problem, I mean, it sure as fuck did not move.

 

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHETHER ITS SAFER OR NOT, I DONT LIKE IT, FOR ME IT'S POINTLESS AND MAY EVEN BECOME A BURDEN.

What about "FOR ME" that you don't understand ?

 

Was that hard to understand at all ?

 

And if you think a fancy camera, will help you get reimbursement due to your side mirror getting smashed by bikers in my country, like I have said. GOOD LUCK

Even this I clearly pointed out that "It's for me personally".

 

You WILL end up spending money atleast double what the reimbursement is.

Even a fucking back and front dash cam won't help ya get reimbursement

At very best dash cam will only help you not end up being pressured or falsely accused as the wrong side.

No, here the cops won't help ya with it if it's just a scratch or minor to medium dent, unless you pay them to find the perpetrator, or you know a high profile person in govt.

 

Not the same system in your country? good.

Feel free to use it, I couldn't care less.

I know what your problem is...

 

I said, that if you worry about a fixed position cable breaking, then you shouldn't drive a car. Like I said multiple times, the car is filled with hundreds of wires. Not just for your lights or car radio, but also powered steering, abs, airbags etc. 

But hey, let's talk about brake lines, tires, fuel systems, other drivers etc. Because if you worry about a fixed cable, the rest of it is really worrisome.

 

These mirrors are known to improve safety, it's that simple.

 

And I find these examples quite amusing. If a camera shows your parked car getting hit by a biker, they are fucked, it's that simple.

Also unlike a front or a rear dash, a camera in the mirror will give way more relevant info, like if you were properly parked, and what happened at the moment of the collision.

 

But by all means keep hating on fixed wires, keep swearing while talking about bikers, but reality won't change, and sooner or later these mirrors will become standard. Safety is number 1 priority.

[Kid.Lazer]

4 hours ago, Neroon said:

 the car is filled with hundreds of wires. Not just for your lights or car radio, but also powered steering, abs, airbags etc. 

Yep. And in my wife's car the following items no longer work due to garbage faulty cabling:

 

Lane-assist

Blind-spot monitoring

Stabili-track

DVD player

Passenger Air Bag

120v outlet

 

Stop acting like "the future of electronics" is fool-proof. If I wanted to fix all this, I would need to buy new wiring harnesses and parts AND THEN have to spend even more to have a dealership reprogram all the stupid OEM-locked-down parts. More electronics (at least in this context) = more bad.

[atxcyclist]

2 hours ago, Neroon said:

Powered windows have zero safety or security reasons, and are known to fail, how can you stand behind that, when these mirrors would improve safety.

 

You can argue all you want about being able to fix things yourself, but you wouldn't be able to do that to brand new cars anyway, so this is more about disliking modern cars in general, than these mirrors specifically.

 

These camera's will have no moving parts, it's a wire and a camera, if the camera breaks they should be able to replace the unit in no time at all. And unlike what someone else worries about, fixed wires don't break all the sudden, and if that is your worry, stop driving cars.

That goes for everything btw, loads of stuff constantly wears out or breaks on a car. The main argument you can make here is costs. Yes it will cost more to fix. But since it's safer, it's easily worth the cost.

You’re essentially making the claim that a simple mirror is less reliable than a camera module, controller board, wiring, video controller board, LCD panel, and the power management to run all of that.
 

Safety equipment does no good if it’s not working, and the pile of electronics will always be less reliable than a simple mirror. Your expectation that it’s safer is suspect as well, they both accomplish the same thing yet one is exponentially more prone to failure; The only possible benefit is reduced drag, and it’s not worth the trade-off in reliability.

 

You also don’t seem to understand how car parts work, it will not be just the camera module that gets replaced, it will be the entire, car-model-specific unit that is attached to the side of the car/door panel, or the internal screen that will have a much specificity to the model of car it is. It will probably have body color and/or interior color codes as well, so even more part numbers for each car.
 

Manufacturers almost never make entire system components repairable with sub-system parts like a camera module or controller board. It’s not like if your $4k stereo/navigation unit in a newer car fails, you can buy the internal part to fix it, you have to buy the whole unit from the manufacturer.
 

 

[Neroon]

42 minutes ago, Kid.Lazer said:

Yep. And in my wife's car the following items no longer work due to garbage faulty cabling:

 

Lane-assist

Blind-spot monitoring

Stabili-track

DVD player

Passenger Air Bag

120v outlet

 

Stop acting like "the future of electronics" is fool-proof. If wanted to fix all this, I would need to buy new wiring harnesses and parts AND THEN have to spend even more to have a dealership reprogram all the stupid OEM-locked-down parts. More electronics (at least in this context) = more bad.

So what caused these issues? 6 cables don't break all the sudden. Unlike what you are making it sound like, cables, especially thicker ones, pretty much cannot break. You blame the cables, but unless you bough a car with paper thin cables that break when you breath on it, then the real cause is something else.

 

Did I say it's fool-proof? Where did I say that? Quote me. Where did I say that these will not break. 

Just saying shit doesn't make it true.

 

2 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

You’re essentially making the claim that a simple mirror is less reliable than a camera module, controller board, wiring, video controller board, LCD panel, and the power management to run all of that.
 

Safety equipment does no good if it’s not working, and the pile of electronics will always be less reliable than a simple mirror. Your expectation that it’s safer is suspect as well, they both accomplish the same thing yet one is exponentially more prone to failure; The only possible benefit is reduced drag, and it’s not worth the trade-off in reliability.

 

You also don’t seem to understand how car parts work, it will not be just the camera module that gets replaced, it will be the entire, car-model-specific unit that is attached to the side of the car/door panel. It will probably have body color codes as well so even more part numbers. 
 

 

Where did I make that claim? Quote me. 

 

That's just not true, if it doesn't work, it will still keep you and others safe. It simply means you can't be on the road, which means that there can't be any accidents. because of a mirror. And yes, it is that simple.

When something essential breaks, you get it fixed, that's how it works.

The equation is how reliable does it need to be before we accept the risk of breaking vs the increased safety. 
Now risk can always be reduced, quality of parts is a major one, but you could also put in 2 camera's with each their own wire, that way if 1 breaks you always have a second. And btw, semi's have 2-3 camera's per side. They have different lenses but incase 1 breaks, you can still use the others.

 

So you can make it reliable, you can offset possible repair costs with less drag, and it improves on safety. It's a no brainer and will be the standard/law sooner or later.

 

 

What the hell are you talking about? Body colour? You claim to work on cars, yet you don't understand how camera's are mounted? Do you think they get fused to the plastic?

You just take the mirror apart and replace the camera. It would be like a 15 minute job + the cost of the part.

 

[Poinkachu]

 

2 minutes ago, Neroon said:

I know what your problem is...

 

I said, that if you worry about a fixed position cable breaking, then you shouldn't drive a car. Like I said multiple times, the car is filled with hundreds of wires. Not just for your lights or car radio, but also powered steering, abs, airbags etc. 

But hey, let's talk about brake lines, tires, fuel systems, other drivers etc. Because if you worry about a fixed cable, the rest of it is really worrisome.

 

These mirrors are known to improve safety, it's that simple.

 

And I find these examples quite amusing. If a camera shows your parked car getting hit by a biker, they are fucked, it's that simple.

Also unlike a front or a rear dash, a camera in the mirror will give way more relevant info, like if you were properly parked, and what happened at the moment of the collision.

 

But by all means keep hating on fixed wires, keep swearing while talking about bikers, but reality won't change, and sooner or later these mirrors will become standard. Safety is number 1 priority.

Don't worry, if that become the standard I WILL find a way to turn it to old time mirror. Sure as fuck easier than turning a normal mirror to digital, that's for sure.

Oh, don't worry too, even if all the first world country makes that a standard, most likely my country wouldn't.

Premium stuff cost a lot here, and expensive cars means less people will be able to buy it.

Yes, even automatic folding side mirror is considered a premium option here.

Even if they do, they wouldn't do anything about cars that still uses normal mirror.

Keep on fixating on ONE of my various PERSONAL problem with it, which I obviously never said that other people should be concerned with, you're doing great really.

As for safety level :

Like I have said, whether or not it will improve the safety of the user, depends on the user. Situation and condition plays a part too.

Welcome to real life where it's not just about a testing data done in one part of the world, if not just in a damn testing site somewhere with a limited amount of tester.

I sure know someone who still get in accident a lot despite his car having 360 cam, multiple sensors, and various assist system.

He also dent the back of his car a lot too despite having back camera. Conclusion : Shit driver drive like shit and cause trouble and endanger himself and other people regardless of how much safety thing you gave them.

Oh..., I sure hope it's atleast an already tested data instead of just personal thoughts tho.

 

And just to tickle your fancy :

I mean, sure, they wouldn't lie about testing data.

Unlike Mitsubishi scandal long time ago.

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

- I repeat-

 

 

By all means, keep on acting like I'm trying to prevent technological advancement for the world and/or trying to make other people not buy car with digital side mirror. Despite I repeatedly stated "It's my preference"

You sure makes me thinking to be the latter though, even if it's for just out of spite.

 

Don't bother replying btw

I sure am done talking with someone who somehow have a delusion of other person being fearmongering, despite that person only said his personal concern and/or problem due to being asked by the delusional person.

Think whatever you want man. I sure as heck will too.

 

 

Oh btw :

 

 

And here's one of my past statement:

 

In case you are unable to think deeper of "heavier burden", it's :
#1 More troublesome to repair
#2 More expensive to repair

 

And here's me when I want to fearmonger :

You guys do know that a camera is more expensive than a simple mirror, right ?

Take it how you guys want to take it, be it more expensive to replace, or more prone to being stolen due to it's price

Sure the cost might be manageable somehow, but the downtime man...
Going without one is a no go too especially in countries where going without side mirror gonna net you a very hefty fine or your driver license being suspended or revoked.

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, Spindel said:

This such a BS argument when talking about Teslas (or any other everyday car) I can't even believe you believe it yourself. 

 

While technically you are correct if the extra range was so important Tesla (and most other EV car manufacturers) should focus on doing like BMW i3 route and having smaller (thinner) tyres to reduce rolling resistance. 

 

Or smaller/lighter wheels that reduces the amount of power needed when accelerating (while having both the benefits (better traction) and down sides (more noise inside the car) of lower unsprung mass), both because the lower mass of the car (albeit negligible) but mostly because of a lower rotational mass.

 

Or adding vortex generators to get separation of the air flow even further down on the car (or eliminating it completely).

 

Flush (but more specifically motorized) door handles is not the important thing. They are there just (in both Tesla and other manufacturers) to be "cool". 

 

There are trade offs between the tires though [and not just purely cost].

 

Things like wearing of them, stability during turns etc.  Thinner tires can be better for crunchy snow and straight sections, but in terms of braking performance they actually can be worse in those situations [likely down to tread patterns and the variety that you can do on thicker ones].

 

The difference between that and a flush door handle [I'm not talking about motorized but the idea of having a flush one] is that it's downsides aren't really overall relevant as in terms of what they are talking about safety I don't think is actually too much of an issue when all things are considered...what would save more lives would be to require people to start carrying the windshield breakers/seatbelt cutters inside all vehicles.

 

Overall as well, there is a trade-off between ugly designs vs efficient ones vs cost.  Lucid for example is incredibly aerodynamic, but it comes at the sacrifice of being insanely expensive to build.  I'm not saying that the handles weren't also made to be "cool" but you can't deny that it actually does also function as a secondary purpose of lowering the drag.

 

1 hour ago, Kid.Lazer said:

Yep. And in my wife's car the following items no longer work due to garbage faulty cabling:

 

Lane-assist

Blind-spot monitoring

Stabili-track

DVD player

Passenger Air Bag

120v outlet

 

Stop acting like "the future of electronics" is fool-proof. If wanted to fix all this, I would need to buy new wiring harnesses and parts AND THEN have to spend even more to have a dealership reprogram all the stupid OEM-locked-down parts. More electronics (at least in this context) = more bad.

Admittedly that's one thing I like about Cybertruck, and their next vehicle...it's going to be using a 48V architecture which is designed to reduce the number of cables within the vehicle and run communication effectively on ethernet [while keeping a loop of wire so if there is a single break the thing still operates].

 

Overall I would say adding more electronics isn't necessarily more "bad".  Everything has it's trade-offs.  e.g. adaptive headlights are good.

 

46 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

You’re essentially making the claim that a simple mirror is less reliable than a camera module, controller board, wiring, video controller board, LCD panel, and the power management to run all of that.

That's going to greatly be a "it depends".  There are so many vehicles I see driving around with missing mirrors [it fell out], missing wing mirrors etc., mirrors not setup correctly to detect blind spots.

 

Cameras can offer a better range of visibility and at night could provide a better contrast than what you could see with your eyes.  They do have more potential failing points, but again it's a trade off...lot easier to accidently snap off a side mirror (or drive with the mirror in a position that makes it useless)

 

  

10 minutes ago, Neroon said:

So what caused these issues? 6 cables don't break all the sudden. Unlike what you are making it sound like, cables, especially thicker ones, pretty much cannot break. You blame the cables, but unless you bough a car with paper thin cables that break when you breath on it, then the real cause is something else.

Lots of vehicles actually have tons of smaller cables carrying the power...and lots of them can sometimes be routed in a way that creates pinch points.  Also you add on that rats like the insulation that is used on some vehicle wires and it's a recipe for disaster [or the cables run in an area that they could be exposed to corrosive material if it was spilt and it ends up making the rubber hard so even a bump can cause a short]

[Neroon]

15 minutes ago, Poinkachu said:

 

Don't worry, if that become the standard I WILL find a way to turn it to old time mirror. Sure as fuck easier than turning a normal mirror to digital, that's for sure.

Oh, don't worry too, even if all the first world country makes that a standard, most likely my country wouldn't.

Premium stuff cost a lot here, and expensive cars means less people will be able to buy it.

Yes, even automatic folding side mirror is considered a premium option here.

Even if they do, they wouldn't do anything about cars that still uses normal mirror.

Keep on fixating on ONE of my various PERSONAL problem with it, which I obviously never said that other people should be concerned with, you're doing great really.

As for safety level :

Like I have said, whether or not it will improve the safety of the user, depends on the user. Situation and condition plays a part too.

Welcome to real life where it's not just about a testing data done in one part of the world, if not just in a damn testing site somewhere with a limited amount of tester.

I sure know someone who still get in accident a lot despite his car having 360 cam, multiple sensors, and various assist system.

He also dent the back of his car a lot too despite having back camera. Conclusion : Shit driver drive like shit and cause trouble and endanger himself and other people regardless of how much safety thing you gave them.

Oh..., I sure hope it's atleast an already tested data instead of just personal thoughts tho.

 

And just to tickle your fancy :

I mean, sure, they wouldn't lie about testing data.

Unlike Mitsubishi scandal long time ago.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

- I repeat-

 

 

By all means, keep on acting like I'm trying to prevent technological advancement for the world and/or trying to make other people not buy car with digital side mirror. Despite I repeatedly stated "It's my preference"

You sure makes me thinking to be the latter though, even if it's for just out of spite.

 

Don't bother replying btw

I sure am done talking with someone who somehow have a delusion of other person being fearmongering, despite that person only said his personal concern and/or problem due to being asked by the delusional person.

Think whatever you want man. I sure as heck will too.

 

 

Oh btw :

 

 

And here's one of my past statement:

 

In case you are unable to think deeper of "heavier burden", it's :
#1 More troublesome to repair
#2 More expensive to repair

 

And here's me when I want to fearmonger :

You guys do know that a camera is more expensive than a simple mirror, right ?

Take it how you guys want to take it, be it more expensive to replace, or more prone to being stolen due to it's price

Sure the cost might be manageable somehow, but the downtime man...
Going without one is a no go too especially in countries where going without side mirror gonna net you a very hefty fine or your driver license being suspended or revoked.

These things are not a test, they are all over the roads, like for many many years. I remember paying attention to it, and about a third of the trucks (semi's) have them over here.

You know someone who gets in accidents with 360 degree cams... well great argument. I know someone who keeps tripping. Walking must be unsafe! What a ridiculous argument.

 

They are not more troublesome to repair. That is assuming you didn't have a rodent chewing up all your cables, but in that case you are fucked anyway.

If the camera goes dead, it's as easy as replacing a mirror. Why I said it was far more problematic, is because a cracked mirror will still work, but a broken camera won't. 

 

Price is a bullshit argument, reduced drag will absolutely compensate in no time for the cost of a camera.

Downtime would be pretty much nothing, as these only take 5-15 minutes to replace.

Prone to being stolen? If you are worried about people stealing a camera, you must be really worried about your rims.

 

Stop acting like a child.

  

7 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

 

Lots of vehicles actually have tons of smaller cables carrying the power...and lots of them can sometimes be routed in a way that creates pinch points.  Also you add on that rats like the insulation that is used on some vehicle wires and it's a recipe for disaster [or the cables run in an area that they could be exposed to corrosive material if it was spilt and it ends up making the rubber hard so even a bump can cause a short]

Not only is that a design flaw, but also greatly cheaping out. I've said this before, but the essentials of a car are much better made than the parts that are considered non-essential. 
Mind you, I absolutely do not believe those cables just broke, especially since there are vital ones in there, and the cables go all over. A rodent getting in there is absolutely possible. If that happens and your mirror doesn't work, you might get upset about having a mirror like that, but in reality, if a rodent had it's way with your cables, you want to have that checked out before you end up with way more damage.

[atxcyclist]

2 hours ago, Neroon said:

That's just not true, if it doesn't work, it will still keep you and others safe. It simply means you can't be on the road, which means that there can't be any accidents. because of a mirror. 
 

‘It will keep you safe because if it’s broken you cannot drive’

 

Well, that’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve read in a long time. My entire point is that mirrors work fine, are simple thus more reliable, and BETTER as a safety device because their spontaneous failure rate is an incredibly small fraction of an electronic system. There just isn’t a reasonable argument you or anyone else could make, that validates replacing a mirror with a bunch of electronics.

 

Car parts are not sold at a component level, go to the dealership and try to buy a replacement button for the factory radio in your car, or try to buy a replacement stepper motor for one of the gauges in your dash; You can’t. Those are sold as a complete unit, just like the cameras and whatever body part or display and whatever dash trim part they’re a part of; You’re incredibly naive to think manufacturers have any motivation to make these parts separate, they don’t in all other systems so this one would be no different.

 

I do work on cars and understand how even moderately complex car parts are sold as assemblies, you very clearly don’t know this. You’re just arguing to argue.

[da na]

9 hours ago, Kid.Lazer said:

Yep. And in my wife's car the following items no longer work due to garbage faulty cabling:

 

Lane-assist

Blind-spot monitoring

Stabili-track

DVD player

Passenger Air Bag

120v outlet

 

Stop acting like "the future of electronics" is fool-proof. If I wanted to fix all this, I would need to buy new wiring harnesses and parts AND THEN have to spend even more to have a dealership reprogram all the stupid OEM-locked-down parts. More electronics (at least in this context) = more bad.

At this point, when the car breaks down you might as well take it into Best Buy for repair

[wanderingfool2]

8 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

My entire point is that mirrors work fine, are simple thus more reliable, and BETTER as a safety device because their spontaneous failure rate is an incredibly small fraction of an electronic system. There just isn’t a reasonable argument you or anyone else could make, that validates replacing a mirror with a bunch of electronics.

If you actually look around you will notice that an abnormal amount of vehicles have essentially defective side mirrors [either positioned in a way that they don't do their job correct, broken off, or the mirror portion of missing].

 

Justification though, a large efficiency gain, better vision at night, larger viewport so less blindspots [especially when when it's the repeater cameras], ability to do a safer merge when there is an oddly obstructed view [and the mirrors don't work].

 

Like I said before, there are trade-offs

 

There are pros and cons of getting rid of wing-mirrors...and some which do actually go along with safety aspects as well [both ways]

 

10 hours ago, Neroon said:

Not only is that a design flaw, but also greatly cheaping out. I've said this before, but the essentials of a car are much better made than the parts that are considered non-essential. 
Mind you, I absolutely do not believe those cables just broke, especially since there are vital ones in there, and the cables go all over. A rodent getting in there is absolutely possible. If that happens and your mirror doesn't work, you might get upset about having a mirror like that, but in reality, if a rodent had it's way with your cables, you want to have that checked out before you end up with way more damage.

Well I should have said data along with power.  You cannot really design with less without changing up standards.

 

Rodents are attracted to some of the wire insulation, so it's not a huge stretch...it happens and especially if you live in an area with rodents it's more likely to happen [they will chew through almost anything]..and some can get into areas with holes as small as a quarter.  It's not always preventable, and it's not even rats needing to be established...especially when you have a warm engine that makes it a good place to hide out when it's cold.

 

Also, the insulation on cables can deteriorate if exposed to some types of chemicals...it happens [at one place I worked at there was a spill that got on the computer cables, and within a few months I was replacing all the cables because they were cracking]

[atxcyclist]

25 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

If you actually look around you will notice that an abnormal amount of vehicles have essentially defective side mirrors [either positioned in a way that they don't do their job correct, broken off, or the mirror portion of missing].

 

Justification though, a large efficiency gain, better vision at night, larger viewport so less blindspots [especially when when it's the repeater cameras], ability to do a safer merge when there is an oddly obstructed view [and the mirrors don't work].

 

Like I said before, there are trade-offs

 

There are pros and cons of getting rid of wing-mirrors...and some which do actually go along with safety aspects as well [both ways]

 

That's driver error, the mirrors work if attached and adjusted correctly. The owner's manual in a car and driver's education explain how to adjust mirrors. There doesn't need to be more tech in cars for the sake of saving people from having pieces of their vehicle falling off or mis-adjusted. I don't even think TPMS is necessary, a tire gauge is cheap and easy to use, yet another thing gone over in driver's education and a vehicle owner's manual. The sensors are expensive, have to be programmed/paired, and even if they don't fail from abuse the batteries wear out and they'll eventually need to be replaced regardless; I'm glad I don't have them.

 

It's really not that large of an efficiency gain, whatever savings in energy probably wouldn't offset the cost to pay a mechanic to diagnose and repair one of the pieces of that system down the line. People should be doing a shoulder check when they change lanes anyway, there shouldn't be a blindspot between mirrors and a shoulder check, no passenger vehicle I've ever been in had this issue and it's yet another thing they teach in driver's education.

 

The problem with the trade-offs is that it ultimately engineers more failure points into cars. I don't want camera mirrors on my car, I don't want that to be a future failure point. Also, every one of these expensive electronic items raises the cost to insure vehicles, because they get more expensive to repair in a collision. If you've ever seen an estimate for a vehicle with something as common as damaged parking sensors in a low-speed collision...it's actually shocking what those little pieces cost. These cameras will be much worse, at least with something like a parking sensor Ford or Toyota may have a 'bin part' that fits most of their vehicles, exterior embedded parts in a stylized assembly will not be universal and so much more expensive.

 

I see no real benefit from an owner's perspective if they're driving their vehicle as they have been instructed to.

[Senzelian]

18 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

driver's education

Is there even any education in the US? The driver's licenses in Germany cost somewhere around 3-4000€ right now because each student gets individual lessons from professionals. And that's really where the much lower casualty rate in comparison to the US comes from -> Education!

[Stahlmann]

18 hours ago, Neroon said:

You just take the mirror apart and replace the camera. It would be like a 15 minute job + the cost of the part.

Have you ever needed to repair a side mirror? Firstly, unless someone broke the complete thing off, likely not. And if you have to repair the mirror glass, it's repaired in less than a minute, not to mention a mirror glass may cost $10, unlike a camera. The only reason I've ever had to replace a mirror glass was because the electric heating died. And even for my Audi, the mirror glass, including the heating element, cost me 20€.

 

No matter which way you spin it, an analog mirror using glass will always be more reliable and easier to repair than a camera and display system.

 

The negligible change in aerodynamic drag is not a good reason to go with a technically more demanding, and at the same time inferior alternative.

 

The digital side mirrors I've seen so far didn't have significantly more FOV than a normal glass mirror. And even if you'd want more FOV, you can just curve the glass to get the same effect...

[atxcyclist]

7 hours ago, Senzelian said:

Is there even any education in the US? The driver's licenses in Germany cost somewhere around 3-4000€ right now because each student gets individual lessons from professionals. And that's really where the much lower casualty rate in comparison to the US comes from -> Education!

It’s been over twenty years since I originally got licensed, but there is some obviously. Driving is much more of a necessity here, it couldn’t cost that much to get licensed because even poor people in most places have to drive to work.

 

[Senzelian]

6 minutes ago, atxcyclist said:

It’s been over twenty years since I originally got licensed, but there is some obviously. Driving is much more of a necessity here, it couldn’t cost that much to get licensed because poor people have to get to work.

In Germany, people are just as much car-dependent as in the US. You might be driving further, but we still require cars to get to work. The high entry price sucks, but doesn't stop anyone from getting a license here.

 

Cars / 1000 people

Germany: 586

Poland: 703

US: 788

[atxcyclist]

2 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

In Germany, people are just as much car-dependent as in the US. You might be driving further, but we still require cars to get to work. The high entry price sucks, but doesn't stop anyone from getting a license here.

 

Cars / 1000 people

Germany: 586

Poland: 703

US: 788

It would here though, someone poor couldn’t afford to get licensed at that cost. I still think it’s over $1,000 US to get through the course, but nowhere near equivalent cost. I went through motorcycle licensing about a decade ago, that’s not one-on-one training but much closer. It was about $300 US and took almost twenty hours. That course builds on a standard driver’s license, they’re teaching you vehicle control rather than what signage is, the idea is that you already have a driver’s license before you take the class.

 

i very much preferred the motorcycle class to driver’s ed, at least learning vehicle control was the main focus.

[wanderingfool2]

8 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

That's driver error, the mirrors work if attached and adjusted correctly. The owner's manual in a car and driver's education explain how to adjust mirrors.

Doesn't matter if it's the driver error or not...the fact is there is a large number of people who will NOT check that their side mirrors have been hit/nudged out of alignment prior to driving.  The fact is it happens and happens frequently enough that switching to digital mirrors WILL have an impact in that regards.

 

8 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

It's really not that large of an efficiency gain, whatever savings in energy probably wouldn't offset the cost to pay a mechanic to diagnose and repair one of the pieces of that system down the line. People should be doing a shoulder check when they change lanes anyway, there shouldn't be a blindspot between mirrors and a shoulder check, no passenger vehicle I've ever been in had this issue and it's yet another thing they teach in driver's education.

Again, you are assuming the mirrors are setup correctly.  There is also an abnormal amount of people who don't do shoulder checks...otherwise we would end up with a whole lot less accidents [my vehicle was totaled because a person didn't do a shoulder check/mirror check and just entered into my lane from a standstill]

 

In regards to the side repeater cameras, the most expensive would be if you have a wiring issue; but even then what's the probability of the electronics failing vs lets say having your side-mirror break off.  Of all people I know with Tesla's, I haven't seen a single one who has had an issue with the cameras not working...yet I do know 2 people who had their mirrors damaged in parking lots [presumably as people tried sliding by].  Also, as I mentioned it adds like 5 - 8% range; so it would greatly depend where you charge and how often you drive.

 

9 hours ago, atxcyclist said:

The problem with the trade-offs is that it ultimately engineers more failure points into cars. I don't want camera mirrors on my car, I don't want that to be a future failure point. Also, every one of these expensive electronic items raises the cost to insure vehicles, because they get more expensive to repair in a collision. If you've ever seen an estimate for a vehicle with something as common as damaged parking sensors in a low-speed collision...it's actually shocking what those little pieces cost. These cameras will be much worse, at least with something like a parking sensor Ford or Toyota may have a 'bin part' that fits most of their vehicles, exterior embedded parts in a stylized assembly will not be universal and so much more expensive.

Things such as cameras aren't the ones that are raising the price though, as you said parking sensors [i.e. ultrasonics and radar].  Actually what is a great cost is all the "safety" features which actually have risen the cost of repairs.

 

Things such as ultra-sonic sensors placed on the bumpers and around the vehicle, along with designing it to crumple when it's in an accident to reduce injury are what's eating up a whole lot of the cost.  That I would say has little to do with the replacement of conventional parts, but to have the exacting standards placed on by the governments to have things such as forward collision warning.  The irony is that those features which also increase repair value also "decrease" the severity of accidents so the insurance pushed for a long time to have those as discounts.

 

As an example, if a current model Tesla gets into a fender bender [they replaced the ultra sonics with just using the cameras]...what needs to be replaced, the bumper assembly...the labor assembly would be relatively cheap...on a car with ultra sonics the labor costs become a whole lot more as now you need to do all the calibration, wiring, etc when you get into a small fender bender.  So overall the usage of cameras would lower the overall cost [vs ultra sonics].

 

While you are talking about "bin parts", the problem isn't necessarily the cost of the part [they range like $2-3 but $5 when sold commercially], but the fact that a mechanic has to go in remove all the sensors to remove the bumper, and then reassemble it and attach the sensors and do the initial calibration.

 

Then you get into the whole concept of crumple zones, where there has been a push to make lower speed collisions result in less injuries.  This push has made it so that more components get trashed when you get into an accident.

 

With cameras as well, specifically Tesla, with sentry mode [or even without it] it actually stores accidents on it's camera.  The reason I say this is that when you are in an accident it speeds things along a whole lot more when you are able to essentially use video as evidence.  It's easy to assess fault...and in the case of Tesla's as well the vehicle uses the cameras to detect evens and apply hard braking/turning to minimize impacts and tighten the seatbelts.

 

9 hours ago, Senzelian said:

Is there even any education in the US? The driver's licenses in Germany cost somewhere around 3-4000€ right now because each student gets individual lessons from professionals. And that's really where the much lower casualty rate in comparison to the US comes from -> Education!

While I do get that there is potentially better education, I know plenty of people who went through their education and still are what I consider to be bad drivers.

 

It's overall I think a mentality vs actual skill [with concepts of like road rage/owning the road].  With that said as well, using a casualty rate isn't necessarily correct.

 

Most people quote the deaths per capita, vs deaths per milage.  When you factor in that, the number drops a lot.  Then you compare it to Canada, which has a very similar type of education as the US [although I do think ours is slightly more stringent, but still not required education] and the number becomes almost within statistical noise.

 

You also have to consider the different types of roads that are encountered, like highway driving accidents will cause a lot more deaths and general cities where you have pedestrians who literally jaywalk on busy 4 lane streets will also cause a lot more issues.

 

Nothing I've seen seems to suggest education is the driving factor in regards to the US numbers, rather I would hazard a guess that the types of roads being driven on and the overall attitude is what's the overall factor.  [Seriously, there are sections of the US where you can drive and there aren't any street lamps...it can be a bit scary only having your headlights lighting your way when the speed limit is 100+ km/hour]

 

 

 

[Senzelian]

15 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

[Seriously, there are sections of the US where you can drive and there aren't any street lamps...it can be a bit scary only having your headlights lighting your way when the speed limit is 100+ km/hour]

Funny you say that, cause that's normal in Germany. Only city streets are lit. 

 

Here's what it looks like to drive at 300kph into the darkness. lol

[atxcyclist]

57 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Doesn't matter if it's the driver error or not...the fact is there is a large number of people who will NOT check that their side mirrors have been hit/nudged out of alignment prior to driving.  The fact is it happens and happens frequently enough that switching to digital mirrors WILL have an impact in that regards.

 

Again, you are assuming the mirrors are setup correctly.  There is also an abnormal amount of people who don't do shoulder checks...otherwise we would end up with a whole lot less accidents [my vehicle was totaled because a person didn't do a shoulder check/mirror check and just entered into my lane from a standstill]

 

In regards to the side repeater cameras, the most expensive would be if you have a wiring issue; but even then what's the probability of the electronics failing vs lets say having your side-mirror break off.  Of all people I know with Tesla's, I haven't seen a single one who has had an issue with the cameras not working...yet I do know 2 people who had their mirrors damaged in parking lots [presumably as people tried sliding by].  Also, as I mentioned it adds like 5 - 8% range; so it would greatly depend where you charge and how often you drive.

 

Things such as cameras aren't the ones that are raising the price though, as you said parking sensors [i.e. ultrasonics and radar].  Actually what is a great cost is all the "safety" features which actually have risen the cost of repairs.

 

Things such as ultra-sonic sensors placed on the bumpers and around the vehicle, along with designing it to crumple when it's in an accident to reduce injury are what's eating up a whole lot of the cost.  That I would say has little to do with the replacement of conventional parts, but to have the exacting standards placed on by the governments to have things such as forward collision warning.  The irony is that those features which also increase repair value also "decrease" the severity of accidents so the insurance pushed for a long time to have those as discounts.

 

As an example, if a current model Tesla gets into a fender bender [they replaced the ultra sonics with just using the cameras]...what needs to be replaced, the bumper assembly...the labor assembly would be relatively cheap...on a car with ultra sonics the labor costs become a whole lot more as now you need to do all the calibration, wiring, etc when you get into a small fender bender.  So overall the usage of cameras would lower the overall cost [vs ultra sonics].

 

While you are talking about "bin parts", the problem isn't necessarily the cost of the part [they range like $2-3 but $5 when sold commercially], but the fact that a mechanic has to go in remove all the sensors to remove the bumper, and then reassemble it and attach the sensors and do the initial calibration.

 

Then you get into the whole concept of crumple zones, where there has been a push to make lower speed collisions result in less injuries.  This push has made it so that more components get trashed when you get into an accident.

 

With cameras as well, specifically Tesla, with sentry mode [or even without it] it actually stores accidents on it's camera.  The reason I say this is that when you are in an accident it speeds things along a whole lot more when you are able to essentially use video as evidence.  It's easy to assess fault...and in the case of Tesla's as well the vehicle uses the cameras to detect evens and apply hard braking/turning to minimize impacts and tighten the seatbelts.

 

While I do get that there is potentially better education, I know plenty of people who went through their education and still are what I consider to be bad drivers.

 

It's overall I think a mentality vs actual skill [with concepts of like road rage/owning the road].  With that said as well, using a casualty rate isn't necessarily correct.

 

Most people quote the deaths per capita, vs deaths per milage.  When you factor in that, the number drops a lot.  Then you compare it to Canada, which has a very similar type of education as the US [although I do think ours is slightly more stringent, but still not required education] and the number becomes almost within statistical noise.

 

You also have to consider the different types of roads that are encountered, like highway driving accidents will cause a lot more deaths and general cities where you have pedestrians who literally jaywalk on busy 4 lane streets will also cause a lot more issues.

 

Nothing I've seen seems to suggest education is the driving factor in regards to the US numbers, rather I would hazard a guess that the types of roads being driven on and the overall attitude is what's the overall factor.  [Seriously, there are sections of the US where you can drive and there aren't any street lamps...it can be a bit scary only having your headlights lighting your way when the speed limit is 100+ km/hour]

 

 

 

If you’re happy with vehicles being made more expensive to purchase and repair to compensate for bad drivers, I guess that is what it is. I’m not however, I like my vehicle being simple and easily repairable by me the owner, so I will continue to drive my old car with none of the superfluous equipment on it.