Cybertruck imagined with side mirrors and windshield wiper

[LTN COLUMBO]

Mois je verrais bien des rétroviseurs numériques avec des caméras à la place des rétroviseurs physiques. j'ai peur que cela fasse un véhicule trop large ( attention lors de la rentrée dans le garage !! )

Advertisement

 

[drscot]

Well, they would be for compliance. You'd have better views available in the cabin from the cameras.

-Crissa

They stole the mirrors off my Suburban when in Monterrey Mexico after I turned down a car wash in a parking lot. I could see well enough for the passenger side, but had to have my son stick his head out of the window and holler when it was clear to change lanes. Monterrey is a megopolis with bazillions of cars and quadrillions of people, so imagine the traffic. It worked! I imagine Elon could come up with something as low tech but highly effective as well!

 

[speach]

... Doubt the Alabama DMV will give a sh&t.

I second that!

I thought the bigger battle on the mirror requirement was being fought on the Roadster. I would hope it is a moot point by the time the first CT's roll out. Mine won't be here for 2 years (12/17/22) so I can't imagine I'll be blazing any trails with the DMV.

 

[restyle]

Been looking at the Polestar Precept & thought its "stick-like" side mirrors/cameras would also look good on the CT - Not sure how theyre going to be configured on the Precept, but just imagine if these either withdrew or folded flush into the body when parked

 

[Warhawk123162]

I actually like what it does to the look. kinda helps normalize the aesthetic a little.

Who wants “normal” I’m buying a cyber truck for Pete’s sake!

 

[LTN COLUMBO]

Je préfèrerais des rétroviseurs numériques intérieurs. ceux-ci ont plusieurs avantages pour le conducteur du véhicule.
- réduction de la largeur du CT (qui sera déjà très large)
- facilité à la rentrer dans un parking
- moins sensible à la détérioration

 

[Timoj]

I just hope they make them easy to remove. I’ll just take them off and use the cameras. Doubt the Alabama DMV will give a sh&t.

Cameras aren’t as good as a mirror. I have been trying to train myself to use the side repeaters on my Model 3; it lacks depth perception.
Maybe a larger view with augmented reality would help this, but current technology doesn’t provide a better experience than a mirror.

 

[Timoj]

I would prefer interior digital mirrors. these have several advantages for the driver of the vehicle.
- reduction of the width of the CT (which will already be very wide)
- easy to enter in a parking lot
- less sensitive to deterioration

These “advantages” do not better a mirror.
1, A mirror can fold to reduce width, then the side repeater will provide (suboptimal) vision
2, Mirrors provide a superior viewing experience when parking.
3, A mirror would be more reliable and cheaper to replace.

I think an origami style mirror supplemented by the side repeater cameras will provide the best user experience.
Mirrors could fold flat at highway speed, unfold with indicators.
Mirrors could also fold automatically when parking if a potential collision is detected.

<Ces «avantages» ne valent pas mieux un miroir.
1, un miroir peut se plier pour réduire la largeur, puis le répéteur latéral fournira une vision (sous-optimale)
2, les miroirs offrent une expérience visuelle supérieure lors du stationnement.
3, un miroir serait plus fiable et moins cher à remplacer.

Je pense qu'un miroir de style origami complété par les caméras à répétition latérales offrira la meilleure expérience utilisateur.
Les rétroviseurs pourraient se replier à plat à la vitesse de l'autoroute, se déplier avec des indicateurs.
Les rétroviseurs peuvent également se replier automatiquement lors du stationnement si une collision potentielle est détectée. >

 

[MEDICALJMP]

These “advantages” do not better a mirror.
1, A mirror can fold to reduce width, then the side repeater will provide (suboptimal) vision
2, Mirrors provide a superior viewing experience when parking.
3, A mirror would be more reliable and cheaper to replace.

I think an origami style mirror supplemented by the side repeater cameras will provide the best user experience.
Mirrors could fold flat at highway speed, unfold with indicators.
Mirrors could also fold automatically when parking if a potential collision is detected.

<Ces «avantages» ne valent pas mieux un miroir.
1, un miroir peut se plier pour réduire la largeur, puis le répéteur latéral fournira une vision (sous-optimale)
2, les miroirs offrent une expérience visuelle supérieure lors du stationnement.
3, un miroir serait plus fiable et moins cher à remplacer.

Je pense qu'un miroir de style origami complété par les caméras à répétition latérales offrira la meilleure expérience utilisateur.
Les rétroviseurs pourraient se replier à plat à la vitesse de l'autoroute, se déplier avec des indicateurs.
Les rétroviseurs peuvent également se replier automatiquement lors du stationnement si une collision potentielle est détectée. >

Mirrors do not provide depth perception. They give a 2-dimensional view just as the camera does. Remember, objects may be closer than they appear.

 

[Timoj]

Mirrors do not provide depth perception. They give a 2-dimensional view just as the camera does. Remember, objects may be closer than they appear.

Ummm... you think about that again... do you remember 3D movies that required red blue filter glasses?

Most humans have binocular vision, when using a mirror your brain triangulates the light reflected off the surface of the distant object to provide depth perception. Images received from a camera and displayed on screen do not provide depth perception because your eyes are focused at the screen not the distant object and each eye is seeing the exact same image.

The reason “objects may be closer than they appear” is because side mirrors are slightly curved to provide a slightly clearer view and people routinely misjudge the space available to change lane.

 

[Dids]

Mirrors do not provide depth perception. They give a 2-dimensional view just as the camera does. Remember, objects may be closer than they appear.

I'm going to disagree... mirrors do provide depth. The curved mirror which makes object look farther away is because the distance / placement of the mirror would cause it to display the side of your car. In order to get a clear side view it has to be curved.
The depth perception problem of cameras and displays can be overcome with overlays that tell you how far away something is so its not really an issue.

 

[MEDICALJMP]

I'm going to disagree... mirrors do provide depth. The curved mirror which makes object look farther away is because the distance / placement of the mirror would cause it to display the side of your car. In order to get a clear side view it has to be curved.
The depth perception problem of cameras and displays can be overcome with overlays that tell you how far away something is so its not really an issue.

This article disputes the depth perception hypothesis in those side mirrors, but I am no optical physicist. Not a big deal either way.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/i...bjects-in-mirror-closer-than-they-appear2.htm

 

[MEDICALJMP]

Ummm... you think about that again... do you remember 3D movies that required red blue filter glasses?

Most humans have binocular vision, when using a mirror your brain triangulates the light reflected off the surface of the distant object to provide depth perception. Images received from a camera and displayed on screen do not provide depth perception because your eyes are focused at the screen not the distant object and each eye is seeing the exact same image.

The reason “objects may be closer than they appear” is because side mirrors are slightly curved to provide a slightly clearer view and people routinely misjudge the space available to change lane.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/i...bjects-in-mirror-closer-than-they-appear2.htm

 

[Dids]

This article disputes the depth perception hypothesis in those side mirrors, but I am no optical physicist. Not a big deal either way.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/i...bjects-in-mirror-closer-than-they-appear2.htm

And I agree with that article completely. I am actually saying that cameras without the size distortion of a curved mirror and the wide field of view is better... the depth perception problem is less significant that the FOV problem.

 

[MEDICALJMP]

And I agree with that article completely. I am actually saying that cameras without the size distortion of a curved mirror and the wide field of view is better... the depth perception problem is less significant that the FOV problem.

Always learning from you.