It’s carsinisation but for cars. Everything evolves into a type of SUV. It makes sense since physics kind of dictates how aerodynamics works and engineers just have to work around that.
I’m looking forward to the day when we don’t have rear-view mirrors and just use cameras. Kind of surprised we haven’t just gone that direction already. Screens and camera tech has gotten good enough that we can do that pretty efficiently.
The issue I have with some of the more “modern” cars is getting rid of the door handles on the outside. These pop-out things are just a hazard for people in colder climates or places where dust and other ingress can cause problems opening the door. Although, it would be nice to have my kids walk up to the door and not jerk on the handle 2-3 times before I can get the keys out to unlock it.
Mirrors just work. No electricity, no lenses to get covered and blocked.
Cameras are good for the places mirrors can’t see, but otherwise it’s more shoving electronics in places were it’s not needed driving up cost, complexity, and decreasing repairability.
I like function over form for safety items. Simple, reliable, and imo there is beauty in something clearly being designed for a purpose.
Another factor that seems to get ignored with mirrors vs cameras is depth. A mirror is still a 3D reflection and there’s usually enough depth information to judge distances pretty well. You lose all sense of scale and distance with a lens and screen.
That label is used for convex mirrors that show a wider area at the tradeoff of shrinking things. You get some depth perception in a mirror (unlike a camera, as otacon pointed out), but the shrinkage in a convex mirror throws that off. The object itself (not the reflection) is physically closer to you than what your depth perception on the reflection would indicate.
Sure but if they break, it’s a more expensive repair, one that I may be able to do myself whereas replacing a mirror or mirror housing isn’t that hard.
I want less computerization of cars, personally. Or at least a repairable, customizable, and FOSS system, if I have to have computers in my car.
They do, but know what works better? A single panel in front of you with all the views - you don’t even have to turn your head.
As someone who’s raced, "Wink" mirrors demonstrated this fantastically: multi-panel rear-view mirrors where you could see everything behind and beside you in a single mirror.
I used one in my daily driver when I had a neck injury (whiplash) and could barely turn my head for 2 years. Way easier to see all around you, and better too.
The tech for a camera system has been available and trivial since the 90’s. A single 4" tall wide screen on the dash, or built into the center rear view would work.
Clearly you’ve never driven in rain, snow, fog. Side mirrors are very problematic. Cameras can be better protected, and done right even deal with rain and ajow a lot better.
I know of those mirrors and surprise, I have driven in adverse conditions.
I’m not saying there aren’t better ways. But cameras in their current implementation isn’t the answer.
There becomes a point where there is too much in front of a driver. I also believe the frequent “feedback” from driving assists causes me, at least, to take my eyes off the road to figure out what it’s beeping at me for and it’s usually because the system doesn’t recognize a bend in the road or the car in front of me is turning.
One of my cars is a Chevy Bolt EUV. The rear view mirror, in place of the classic switch to change between day and night mode, has a switch that alternates the view between reflection and camera.
It’s carsinisation but for cars. Everything evolves into a type of SUV. It makes sense since physics kind of dictates how aerodynamics works and engineers just have to work around that.
I’m looking forward to the day when we don’t have rear-view mirrors and just use cameras. Kind of surprised we haven’t just gone that direction already. Screens and camera tech has gotten good enough that we can do that pretty efficiently.
The issue I have with some of the more “modern” cars is getting rid of the door handles on the outside. These pop-out things are just a hazard for people in colder climates or places where dust and other ingress can cause problems opening the door. Although, it would be nice to have my kids walk up to the door and not jerk on the handle 2-3 times before I can get the keys out to unlock it.
Mirrors just work. No electricity, no lenses to get covered and blocked.
Cameras are good for the places mirrors can’t see, but otherwise it’s more shoving electronics in places were it’s not needed driving up cost, complexity, and decreasing repairability.
I like function over form for safety items. Simple, reliable, and imo there is beauty in something clearly being designed for a purpose.
Another factor that seems to get ignored with mirrors vs cameras is depth. A mirror is still a 3D reflection and there’s usually enough depth information to judge distances pretty well. You lose all sense of scale and distance with a lens and screen.
(i still have zero idea what this means…is the object closer in the mirror or is closer irl?)
That label is used for convex mirrors that show a wider area at the tradeoff of shrinking things. You get some depth perception in a mirror (unlike a camera, as otacon pointed out), but the shrinkage in a convex mirror throws that off. The object itself (not the reflection) is physically closer to you than what your depth perception on the reflection would indicate.
I suppose cameras can give you a better field of view than a mirror can though.
Sure but if they break, it’s a more expensive repair, one that I may be able to do myself whereas replacing a mirror or mirror housing isn’t that hard.
I want less computerization of cars, personally. Or at least a repairable, customizable, and FOSS system, if I have to have computers in my car.
“If they break”, oh yes, let’s fund a strawman.
Go see what a broken mirror costs today.
Glass alone, if heated (many are) $100+. Actual motorized mirror: $300+. Then there’s painting to match.
Cameras would be smaller, less likely to get damaged, and are pretty commodity tech these days.
…you don’t think car parts break? Or are you the type to just get a new one every few years so you’ve never experienced it?
Who exactly is the one building a strawman, here? 🤔 sources, please
Fair, debatable, and fair. Definitely not cheaper than a mirror, though. Maybe on a luxury car, absolutely not on anything more common.
https://www.rockauto.com/en/catalog/toyota,2002,camry,2.4l+l4,1434102,body+&+lamp+assembly,outside+mirror+&+glass+assembly,1304
Try $30 and fuck painting. Old car better.
They do, but know what works better? A single panel in front of you with all the views - you don’t even have to turn your head.
As someone who’s raced, "Wink" mirrors demonstrated this fantastically: multi-panel rear-view mirrors where you could see everything behind and beside you in a single mirror.
I used one in my daily driver when I had a neck injury (whiplash) and could barely turn my head for 2 years. Way easier to see all around you, and better too.
The tech for a camera system has been available and trivial since the 90’s. A single 4" tall wide screen on the dash, or built into the center rear view would work.
Clearly you’ve never driven in rain, snow, fog. Side mirrors are very problematic. Cameras can be better protected, and done right even deal with rain and ajow a lot better.
I know of those mirrors and surprise, I have driven in adverse conditions.
I’m not saying there aren’t better ways. But cameras in their current implementation isn’t the answer.
There becomes a point where there is too much in front of a driver. I also believe the frequent “feedback” from driving assists causes me, at least, to take my eyes off the road to figure out what it’s beeping at me for and it’s usually because the system doesn’t recognize a bend in the road or the car in front of me is turning.
One of my cars is a Chevy Bolt EUV. The rear view mirror, in place of the classic switch to change between day and night mode, has a switch that alternates the view between reflection and camera.