Shrinking car side mirrors

[mindless1]

^ True but if my timing chain breaks I feel I have a lot better chance of avoiding an accident, and that is a regularly scheduled maintenance item. Should it be scheduled to replace a camera system at a cost that could exceed $1000 plus labor when the failure period is unknown as it is subject to more variables?

I can't think of any other known wear item that one expects to replace during the average lifetime of a vehicle that costs that much except the tires, due to observable, gradual wear... and I've no interest in buying a vehicle that adds to that one-item list. I'm much rather drive 5% fewer miles if it came down to it.

 

[CycloWizard]

It's not the same thing. Even a device VERY simple compared to a webcam like a mass airflow sensor costs quite a lot to test and integrated into an automobile, or replace later. Plus you're not buying "a" webcam, you're buying a vibration and weather resistant subsystem including at least an integrating display. It will easily add a thousand dollars over mirrors because it can't be a one-off hack, it has to withstand the scrutiny of safety agencies, be idiot-proof, and good enough that the lawsuit liabilities don't increase disproportionately... to never fail because being able to see is a critical component of driving.

I'm not sure why you think electronics are so unreliable. The hardware need to have vibration and weather resistance. Digital imaging sensors are robust across a very broad range of temperatures and that's all a webcam is. Vibration insensitivity may be imbued in software. One could even get fancy with it and install a triaxial accelerometer to make it very easy to do so as such accelerometers can be had for about $5 now. Many, if not most, new cars already have built-in displays. As I said, I've never seen any digital imager lose enough pixels that it was even perceivable, let alone the entire imager going down. All of the things you stated are really non-issues, in my professional opinion.

Do you leave your webcam outside strapped to a vehicle for over a dozen years in rain, snow, cold of winter and heat of summer? We could think all it needs is a weatherproof housing, as if we can ignore that seals on vehicles fail all the time. Do you refocus the cheap webcam thousands of times every day like the human eye may, to focus on objects at different distances?

Can you travel through time to put today's inexpensive webcam on a vehicle in that grueling scenario then check it a dozen years from now? I find it extremely optimistic to think it will be reliable enough to trust your life on it and even if you plan on replacing your vehicle before it's a dozen years old, there's still the other vehicles on the road to contend with.

Essentially I wouldn't call it random failure at all, suspecting that most if not ALL of them would fail from heat, shock stress, or mechanical zoom mechanism faults within the lifespan of the vehicle unless they are very expensive and tested rigorously for years - certainly not today's cheap webcams. I'm not suggesting cameras will never be a good idea, only that we're not there yet and the risk and cost is too high to save a hypothetical 5% on fuel consumption except in niche applications.

I have a "webcam" on my current car - it's called a backup camera. It's externally attached to my car adjacent to the rear license plate. I've never had any problems with it despite living in southern Texas during the hottest summer ever recorded and in St. Louis during the coldest winter ever recorded. It also survived a 40 mph impact from an idiot driver who was texting. It's a simple technology that is very robust and inexpensive. I don't know why you want mechanical zoom. If you wanted zoom for any reason, I would simply use an electrooptical system similar to that employed on my cell phone. As above, I think you have grossly underestimated the robustness of the electronics and overestimated the capital costs associated with implementing them. That said, I don't think it's really a good idea to replace mirrors with them for a variety of reasons, mostly related to spatial reasoning and simply proper driving procedures.

 

[Howard]

^ True but if my timing chain breaks I feel I have a lot better chance of avoiding an accident, and that is a regularly scheduled maintenance item.

Not usually. Can you name a car where the timing chain is supposed to be replaced? per manufacturer's guidelines?

 

[CycloWizard]

Not usually. Can you name a car where the timing chain is supposed to be replaced? per manufacturer's guidelines?

They often are part of scheduled maintenance actually. It's usually not until 90-100k miles, but it's on there. Of course, many cars now don't even have timing chains which is good because it's bad news when they break, especially in an interference engine. Speaking from experience unfortunately. Never trust a used car dealer who says it was just changed... Or in general.

 

[Howard]

They often are part of scheduled maintenance actually. It's usually not until 90-100k miles, but it's on there. Of course, many cars now don't even have timing chains which is good because it's bad news when they break, especially in an interference engine. Speaking from experience unfortunately. Never trust a used car dealer who says it was just changed... Or in general.

You talking about timing belts?

 

[Anteaus]

Timing chains will generally last for the life of the vehicle. Only belts are normally part of scheduled maintenance. Timing belts generally have to be changed at around 100k usually but that varies. From what I understand with an interference engine it doesn't matter whether its a belt or chain that breaks because it's the out of sync valves themselves that get damaged by pistons that ultimately kills the engine.

Belts are quieter and don't require lubrication that chains require, which are the general reasons why you'll see them in car engines.

 

[mindless1]

Digital imaging sensors are robust across a very broad range of temperatures and that's all a webcam is.

A webcam being only a digital imagine sensor is the equivalent of suggesting all a car is, is a box on wheels and we would never have a car failure of any kind nor ever have to replace anything on a car because we have built boxes and wheels for a long time. Having a webcam sit on your desk at fixed focus or even refocusing a few hundred times a week is not the same environment as in a vehicle. The environment and wear factor is always important when considering lifespan of a device.

I have a "webcam" on my current car - it's called a backup camera. It's externally attached to my car adjacent to the rear license plate. I've never had any problems with it despite living in southern Texas during the hottest summer ever recorded and in St. Louis during the coldest winter ever recorded. It also survived a 40 mph impact from an idiot driver who was texting. It's a simple technology that is very robust and inexpensive.

Does it have the resolution necessary to drive safely? How long has it been operational, for longer than the average lifespan of a car? I don't argue that you can put a 'cam on a car and have it work for a while, rather that we don't have established tech we can assume will do so for the life of the vehicle at reasonable cost. Also, your cam doesn't focus thousands of times a day does it? We can not ignore mechanical failure.

I don't know why you want mechanical zoom. If you wanted zoom for any reason, I would simply use an electrooptical system similar to that employed on my cell phone.

For it to work acceptably it has to provide a driver at least as much visual information as the human eye can perceive. If I wrote zoom which I didn't see in what you quoted, I shouldn't have, though I did write focus. A cam system will need to focus on objects with significant differences in distance both near and far to provide sufficient driver feedback.

Do you think you can strap your cell phone to your car and have it work, and focus thousands of times a day, be reliable enough to trust your life with every day for several years? That's your decision to make, and mine.

As above, I think you have grossly underestimated the robustness of the electronics and overestimated the capital costs associated with implementing them. That said, I don't think it's really a good idea to replace mirrors with them for a variety of reasons, mostly related to spatial reasoning and simply proper driving procedures.

If you are willing to trust your life to a cheap system that hasn't had much testing, you can be the pioneer that proves to me it is safe and reliable for the life of the vehicle. I'd rather wait.

 

[mindless1]

Not usually. Can you name a car where the timing chain is supposed to be replaced? per manufacturer's guidelines?

AFAIK, this is true of all vehicles. Generally the interval is somewhere between 50K to 100K miles, though I may be thinking of belts at 50K, and it's always advised to replace it before it fails at the suggested interval to avoid engine damage. It may not be stated in the owner's manual but a lot of things aren't...

 

[alkemyst]

AFAIK, this is true of all vehicles. Generally the interval is somewhere between 50K to 100K miles, though I may be thinking of belts at 50K, and it's always advised to replace it before it fails at the suggested interval to avoid engine damage. It may not be stated in the owner's manual but a lot of things aren't...

You are thinking of a timing belt. Those can snap. A timing chain is more robust and will get noisy when it's time to R&R.

As such they have no recommended replacement interval.

 

[CycloWizard]

You talking about timing belts?

No, chains also usually need replaced. Timing belts are usually scheduled much more frequently (30k miles) in the models I've seen. Admittedly, it's been a while since I had a car with either, so my information may be outdated. I have replaced both timing chains and belts previously, though all of the vehicles were late 80's/early 90's vintage.

 

[CycloWizard]

A webcam being only a digital imagine sensor is the equivalent of suggesting all a car is, is a box on wheels and we would never have a car failure of any kind nor ever have to replace anything on a car because we have built boxes and wheels for a long time. Having a webcam sit on your desk at fixed focus or even refocusing a few hundred times a week is not the same environment as in a vehicle. The environment and wear factor is always important when considering lifespan of a device.



Does it have the resolution necessary to drive safely? How long has it been operational, for longer than the average lifespan of a car? I don't argue that you can put a 'cam on a car and have it work for a while, rather that we don't have established tech we can assume will do so for the life of the vehicle at reasonable cost. Also, your cam doesn't focus thousands of times a day does it? We can not ignore mechanical failure.

For it to work acceptably it has to provide a driver at least as much visual information as the human eye can perceive. If I wrote zoom which I didn't see in what you quoted, I shouldn't have, though I did write focus. A cam system will need to focus on objects with significant differences in distance both near and far to provide sufficient driver feedback.

Do you think you can strap your cell phone to your car and have it work, and focus thousands of times a day, be reliable enough to trust your life with every day for several years? That's your decision to make, and mine.

If you are willing to trust your life to a cheap system that hasn't had much testing, you can be the pioneer that proves to me it is safe and reliable for the life of the vehicle. I'd rather wait.

I have a webcam running in my lab that I paid $8 for about 6 years ago now. It has been exposed to both temperature and humidity cycling after I pulled the imager out of its original protective shell. It still has all pixels intact. You also have not explained why a camera would need vary its focal length and this is a huge contributor to your fail here. All of the things you claim can't be done are already common practice. Your ignorance of that practice does not imply that there is a problem with the practice.

 

[mindless1]

^ you're being a bit vague. Has your webcam been exposed to 6 years of sub-freezing and excesses of 100F temperature for the lifetime of a vehicle, and subject to continual vibration, and rain, snow, salt, road debris? Do you consider a sample size of ONE to be proof that the failure rate would be low enough to be considered safe?

What is it I need to explain about a camera needing to vary it's focal length? Don't you think a driver needs to see both near and far? Do you only look at one spot on a road a fixed distance away while driving?

I'm not claiming anything can't be done except to build it at a reliability level sufficient to trust your life on for a fairly low cost and have it last the life of a vehicle. You're selectively ignoring very real concerns and no, it is not already common practice to build a mirrorless and windowless vehicle driving system with cams and a heads up display for human use.

You can't only pick and choose one subcomponent in a system, argue that your one sample worked in a different environment, and use that as proof of anything other than that you haven't thought this through. Details matter, particularly when it comes to a radical change in how people drive a vehicle and their lives depend on near perfect function.

Even something as simple as the wiring into the door of my truck getting frayed from opening and closing the door a few years, which caused my power windows to stop working, would be unacceptable to have happen to a cam needed to see outside a vehicle to drive. There's a huge difference between an inconvenience fault and one that puts your life at risk.

I'm content to disagree and am opting out of further debate, buy a car with this feature if you want it - except there aren't any with this degree of cam integration replacing windows and mirrors for good reasons. I could accept cams for side mirrors if windows and interior rearward side mirrors remained but not without them.

 

[CycloWizard]

^ you're being a bit vague. Has your webcam been exposed to 6 years of sub-freezing and excesses of 100F temperature for the lifetime of a vehicle, and subject to continual vibration, and rain, snow, salt, road debris? Do you consider a sample size of ONE to be proof that the failure rate would be low enough to be considered safe?

What is it I need to explain about a camera needing to vary it's focal length? Don't you think a driver needs to see both near and far? Do you only look at one spot on a road a fixed distance away while driving?

I'm not claiming anything can't be done except to build it at a reliability level sufficient to trust your life on for a fairly low cost and have it last the life of a vehicle. You're selectively ignoring very real concerns and no, it is not already common practice to build a mirrorless and windowless vehicle driving system with cams and a heads up display for human use.

You can't only pick and choose one subcomponent in a system, argue that your one sample worked in a different environment, and use that as proof of anything other than that you haven't thought this through. Details matter, particularly when it comes to a radical change in how people drive a vehicle and their lives depend on near perfect function.

Even something as simple as the wiring into the door of my truck getting frayed from opening and closing the door a few years, which caused my power windows to stop working, would be unacceptable to have happen to a cam needed to see outside a vehicle to drive. There's a huge difference between an inconvenience fault and one that puts your life at risk.

I'm content to disagree and am opting out of further debate, buy a car with this feature if you want it - except there aren't any with this degree of cam integration replacing windows and mirrors for good reasons. I could accept cams for side mirrors if windows and interior rearward side mirrors remained but not without them.

There have been over 1.5 million Toyota Priuses with backup cameras sold just in the US. There are millions of other vehicles with the same technology. It costs almost nothing to implement and the catastrophic failure rate of the system is nil. It's built on robust technology with costs that are very minimal relative to the benefit in my estimation - that's why I bought one. You can prance around however you like, but in the end this is a highly technical forum and I'll not stand for your rubbish arguments which appeal to your own ignorance as their only foundation.

 

[SMOGZINN]

^ you're being a bit vague. Has your webcam been exposed to 6 years of sub-freezing and excesses of 100F temperature for the lifetime of a vehicle, and subject to continual vibration, and rain, snow, salt, road debris? Do you consider a sample size of ONE to be proof that the failure rate would be low enough to be considered safe?

One of the things you have not explained is why such a camera would be so expensive that it could not be replaced as often as needed. Right now video camera's are ranging down in the 3-4 dollar range wholesale and are only going to get cheaper. If the housing is designed to allow the camera to snap in and out, then the entire camera set-up should be able to be replaced in a few minutes with little cost. They are not going to catastrophically fail, like most electronics they are going to fail slowly and predictably, and software should be able to detect a failure and warn the passengers in plenty of time to have them replaced. Put 20 of them on the car, and replace them as necessarily.

 

[greenhawk]

You could make it controllable too. That way you don't get those "brights" reflected in your eyes either.

so adjusting your "mirrors" while driving? readlly not a smart idea at any time. Making it adjustable for different drivers when stationary, a different story.

As to the "bright" issues, far far better to actually have some decent filtering like night vision systems use.

 

[greenhawk]

With current technology we could ....

Throw in some ambient advertising ....

Personally, I think cameras are coming to cars very soon. Just think of the advantage such a thing would be to insurance companies!

on the frist part, why not jump to the end game and get the auto-drive setups working. A better use of resourses than creating a remote view in a solid ball aka an armoured tank.

on the second, really want to distract the driver while they are driving? tuning out from the radio (if not turning it off) or tuning out from road signs is one thing, trying to drive when a "flash banner" or similar is right where you are looking to drive or covers the apporaching car. Any rules or systems put in place will have companies looking around to find ways around it.

On the last, probably could be good, but the same cameras can be used to void your insurance claim as "your car camera system clearly showed you were in the wrong by being not being exactly centre of your lane, so we will not pay out on your claim". I am sure that will go down well.

 

[Howard]

so adjusting your "mirrors" while driving? readlly not a smart idea at any time. Making it adjustable for different drivers when stationary, a different story.

Um, no. You just limit the brightness of the display.

 

[CycloWizard]

Um, no. You just limit the brightness of the display.

I think he was talking about the user adjusting the mirror while driving, whereas you are talking about an auto-adjustment of brightness. Yours is definitely better.

 

[Howard]

I think he was talking about the user adjusting the mirror while driving, whereas you are talking about an auto-adjustment of brightness. Yours is definitely better.

Yeah...