[Closed] An Audi Without Wing Mirrors. Progress?

But where would you put the side indicat....oh, never mind.

Audi e-Tron presumably.

Yes, they are legal and do work. I think the appendage left is still a bit bulky. Main reason you see them on a lot of concepts and now on a few production cars is drag - door (they're not on the wing any more!) mirrors are quite a lot of surface area to push through the air.

Some pictures of how they work here: https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/tech/audi-e-tron-virtual-mirrors-how-does-it-work/

Bet that's going to cost when one of those sensors gets banjoed off by a passing van.

I'd have been more impressed if they put the cameras nearer the front of the car - wing, not door mirrors. I think drivers would get a better idea of what's around the side of the car, even allowing for wide angle views.

They reduce drag. These have been mooted for ages, one bloke in the US fitted some DIY ones to a Honda Insight about 15 years ago IIRC.

I also read that they had to lobby to have the rules changed to make it legal in the UK (or EU).

I’d have been more impressed if they put the cameras nearer the front of the car – wing, not door mirrors.

I think that'll come - once the idea catches on there'll be all sorts of ergonomic improvements.

The only concern I have is that you'd have to refocus your eyes from distant to near in order to be able to look in the mirror. Currently with a real mirror you don't. Anyone driven one that can comment?

Mirrors are not a very practical solution really. They are fraught with blind spots, you're forever fighting for the need to make them as big as possible for improving their usefulness but minimising hteir size for economy, noise reduction and reducing the width of the car, they mist up, they only really have one function, but we could use them for more uses.

A camera system is far more flexible, can use different magnifications to suit different situations, be more easily angled so you can use the mirrors to see a wider field of view for parking or other situations, be tied up with other sensors to highlight objects like cyclists, that would normally be in your blind spot.

So progress...yes. I bet they're far more practical, useful, safer, quieter, more efficient etc. better in every way.

A chap at work has a Honda insight which has cameras instead of mirrors, had it for a fair few years now so assume it's been legal for a while...if not its clearly not something on the Police's radar to clamp down on.

I think the police have much more pressing matters than picking up on wing mirrors vs. cameras, but MOT certainly would if they weren't legal.

I bet they’re far more practical, useful, safer, quieter, more efficient etc. better in every way.

Reasons they might not be better:

1) you can't tell from outside the vehicle if a camera is working - absence of a mirror is obvious.
2) complexity of camera based systems will mean people will not get them fixed - even at £30 for a replacement bit of glass people don't bother.
3) if we assume cars will still be legal in 10 years they'll be beign scrapped in huge numbers due to failure of obsolete 'peripheral' components that manufacturers no longer support but which cause MOT failures - this is a massive waste of resources, boosts CO2 emmissions as life of vehicles is reduced.
4) the 'problem' with a lot of mirror is relatively solved with good adjustment and, if necessary, multiple mirrors giving different views, HGV's and most vans do this already.

I'm not saying cameras aren't a solution but it's a tech heavy one.

I like em.

I drove a Lexus a couple of months ago with them. The rear view mirror was also a mix of camera and reflective glass.

Seemed to work well, took me about 20 mins to get used to em.

The output from the cameras where the door mirrors would be was shown on the “nav” screen either side of the main “nav” map/infotainment screen.

Looks wise, I guess I’m an old fart because I didn’t really like the small stubby “wands”

🤷‍♂️

Edit: you can adjust the camera in the same way as you do adjusting mirrors now... with a small button.

Funnily enough I was chatting with a mate who works for Audi yesterday and has had a go with the camera wing mirrors.

He reckons they're good but he had tow 'observations'*....

1- you miss a beat when looking at them because your first instinct is to look at the mirror not the little screen in the door, that will of course change with familiarity.

2- field of view, where you can move your head about with a mirror to look from a different angle and hence shift perspective in/out or up/down, the camera is fixed and the view it displays is the view you get irrespective of where you place your head (unless you go fiddling with buttons...

ultimately it feels like a gimmick and I'm sure some of the early adopters will get to pay for a clipped camera/housing at some point (not that a normal Audi mirror would be cheap) and we can all laugh at their folly...

*(He's certainly not about to actually criticise Audi).

I don't think you can say that cameras are 'tech heavy'. The hardware is pretty simple and established and reliable and probably quite cheap. The functionality of the camera and integration into the cars system is all done by software. On modern cars even the windscreen wipers are controlled by software...no longer is it a case of a simple motor wired in to a switch...it all goes into the CANBUS system and controlled via software. On early SMAX's they used to have a problem where their windscreen wipers went haywire - turning on randomly, driver couldn't turn them off, speed varying...turned out to be a problem with the alarm system and not the windscreen wipers but it caused the CANBUS system to go a bit bonkers. So bearing all that in mind replacing mirrors with cameras is not really a giant leap at all..in fact its a pretty minor 'tweak'.

Not sure why you need to be able to see if they're working from the outside or not. A mirror might be working but doesn't mean the driver is actually using them at any given time. MOT will check all those safety essential bits and so long as cameras are working and passing MOT's then that is as good as mirrors.

Well i used to think cruise control was a gimmick until I had a car with it...now I wouldn't have a car without it. Once people are used to the change from mirror to camera i'm sure they'll never look back (no pun intended).

Not sure why you need to be able to see if they’re working from the outside or not

As a cyclist? Because I want to know if the driver is going to have a chance of seeing me if they look. If a door mirror is missing I'm very cautious passing a vehicle.

For law enforcement - the police can't make you use a mirror but they can easily see if one is there. A once a year check doesn't really provide a decent level of enforcement, imo.

I don’t think you can say that cameras are ‘tech heavy’

compared with a piece of silvered glass they are.

I'm aware of the way that integration of systems works in cars and that it's becoming increasingly the case that cars with fairly innocuous faults are being scrapped as not being economically repairable. My point was that adding more reasons for a massive waste of CO2 to create a whole new vehicle because the camera on a door got a whack on an 8 year old car and the cameras are no longer made and were proprietary due to the aforementioned Canbus integration feels like a massive waste of resources.

Both my cars have reversing camera's which I rarely use as one of them especially is blighted by reflection. But mainly because they don't really give the depth of field and range of vision needed to quickly maneuver the car - they work, but a quick lifesaver and the mirrors work better.

I've been driving for 30 years and its so instinctive to use the mirrors safely that I really couldn't be arsed to relearn something that isn't a problem that ever needed solving.

Plus cameras always get covered in dirt and eventually break.

As a cyclist? Because I want to know if the driver is going to have a chance of seeing me if they look. If a door mirror is missing I’m very cautious passing a vehicle.

As a cyclist I'd exercise equal caution passing a vehicle whether it had mirrors or not. The presence of a bit of glass doesn't tell you anything about where the driver is looking.

An obvious disadvantage of replacing a mirror with a 2D image is the loss of stereoscopic vision, and the consequent reduction of depth perception. Surely a wing mirror is one of the places where the ability to judge distances accurately is most critical?

Both my cars have reversing camera’s

When I've had reversing cameras I've used them as a supplement to mirrors and turning my head, not as a replacement for that. I found them especially useful in low-light conditions, they can see in the dark better than I can.

a couple of thoughts from me.

1) If a traditional glass wing mirror gets damaged, spares are very readily available - although not the precise correct shape most mirrors would provide the basic function with a bit of bodging. I once lost the mirror from a Ford Fiesta after someone clipped it whilst on holiday in Croatia. I bought a generic mirror glass (I think it was from a Suzuki Swift) from a petrol station for a couple Kuna and was safely back on my way again in minutes. I imagine the likelihood of losing the camera mirror in an accident would likely be the same, but the technical difficulty, cost and ease of finding a replacement camera would likely have taken the remainder of the holiday.

2) One of the primary claimed benefits of the Audi E-Trons's mirrors is aerodynamic efficiency allowing a few extra miles from a charge. If range is the main driver then the form of such a bulky SUV style vehicle might be the first place to make some aerodynamic gains.

Load of bollox if you ask me.

As a cyclist looking to see if the driver is looking in the door mirror is not something i'd use as a marker to decide if they've seen me or not. They might be looking in the mirror to judge the distance to the kerb and not actually seen you. Best to always assume the driver has not seen you and even if they have seen you they might have they still can make a silly decision, like not judging your approach speed correctly, or thinking you're further off than you really are and still making that turn you're not expecting them to make because you've seen them looking in the mirror and have decided to make a dive up the inside as you're approaching the junction. Best to always assume they've not seen you. It's simple things like this I was taught in primary school on my cycling proficiency test that for some reason are not taught any more. The risks some cyclists are taking at busy junctions totally relying on others for their safety staggers me sometimes.

Cameras will be far less likely to be broken in the first place. they will be smaller and wont need to stick out as much as the camera can be easily angled to get a wider viewing range.

Yes cameras for reversing are into great...clearly better cameras would be used for door mirror replacements.

I agree if efficiency is important to people then maybe not getting a bulky SUV is the best choice....but making bulky SUV's more efficient is a worthwhile endeavour and the technology can be transferred to other vehicles so everyone is a winner. Really i'm struggling to recognise the downsides. Mirrored door mirrors are getting increasingly tech packed...with indicators, aerials, complicated motors that angle the mirror down when you go into reverse and fold them in when parked (though door mirrors are so bulky these days you barely get any width reduction when they're folded), sensors to detect approaching cars already being incorporated into them. Also they already are getting cameras incorporated into them for those enhanced areal view systems that give you a better all round areal view. So the complexity and cost compared to current mirrors on the higher spec cars is not going to be that different in reality. In fact they could simplify them and even make them cheaper by combining functionality into fewer sensors.

Give it 5 years and all cars will have them. We'll be staggered that something as crude and flawed as a mirror was ever used.

4) the ‘problem’ with a lot of mirror is relatively solved with good adjustment and, if necessary, multiple mirrors giving different views, HGV’s and most vans do this already.

I work at a company developing this stuff and the whole reason the project was started was because of the problem with HGV's! Looking at 12 mirrors simultaneously is incredibly difficult which is why they are involved in so many accidents.

Apparently on a supercar they can add 10kmh to the top speed, which doesn't sound much but that would take a lot of extra bhp with mirrors.

Better than electric windows, powered seats etc.

At least this offers some benefit.

Not gone far enough, we should be in motorized versions of the HPV world speed record holder (the only view outside is via a camera with 2 displays - in case one fails). What could possibly go wrong?

Avoid all the bulky aero disadvantages of windscreens and windows, and indeed any disturbance to a fully aero section in the form.

Use a standardized hardware solution to introduce competition in the spares market and avoid undue cost. Or go full communist and fix the cost and installation of the state manufactured component at a reasonable price.

Really i’m struggling to recognise the downsides.

It replaces a stereoscopic view with a monoscopic image, with consequent loss of depth perception.

As someone said, it's a load of bolloxs... But bolloxs is (are?) on trend at the moment in the UK.

Also agree with pretty much everything wwaswas said above.

I was chatting about this yesterday with friends and we were all amazed it wasn't mainstream already. Mirrors add loads of drag, especially important now with EV and high MPG cars.

On my test drive ^^ I didn’t see any cyclists, but I did get cut up by a knob end in a Southern Water van... who obvz didn’t bother looking in his glass mirrors.

pdw

An obvious disadvantage of replacing a mirror with a 2D image is the loss of stereoscopic vision, and the consequent reduction of depth perception. Surely a wing mirror is one of the places where the ability to judge distances accurately is most critical?

pdw

It replaces a stereoscopic view with a monoscopic image, with consequent loss of depth perception.

I'm struggling to understand this. Can you explain?
Looking in a traditional wing mirror, you are effectively looking at a 2D image. How does it differ (from a mono/stereoscopic view) whether you are looking at a screen showing you the view taken from a camera, or directly at an image cast onto a mirror.

I've no experience of driving a car fitted with a camera & screen wing mirror solution, to be able to have an opinion on it from a usability point of view.

I imagine it has significant benefits in terms of aerodynamics & noise reduction.
Reduced risk of getting mirrors clouted. I imagine if something comes close enough to damage a camera you've got bodywork damage & all sorts to deal with.

Not gone far enough, we should be in motorized versions of the HPV world speed record holder (the only view outside is via a camera with 2 displays – in case one fails). What could possibly go wrong?

Avoid all the bulky aero disadvantages of windscreens and windows, and indeed any disturbance to a fully aero section in the form.

The best thing about this is that everyone in the car could sit facing backwards which is safer.

A camera system is far more flexible, can use different magnifications to suit different situations, be more easily angled so you can use the mirrors to see a wider field of view for parking or other situations, be tied up with other sensors to highlight objects like cyclists, that would normally be in your blind spot.

We have had one in at work, the rear vision with the cameras actually has much larger blind spots than a mirror, there is limited adjustment with them and the screen on the door inner takes a long time to adjust to its perspective, also, having used mirrors for 30+ years of driving looking somewhere different takes a while to get used to.

I’m struggling to understand this. Can you explain?

Try an experiment....

Look at a picture on a  computer / tv screen and close each eye in turn. Each eye sees exactly the same picture.

Look in a mirror and close each eye in turn. Each eye sees a slightly different picture allowing depth perception.

Looking in a traditional wing mirror, you are effectively looking at a 2D image

No, you're not. you're seeing  a 3 d picture due to the varying positions of your eyes and external objects. The normal rules of reflection i.e angle of incidence = angle of reflection apply.

To achieve the same with a camera / screen arrangement you'd need two cameras and some 3d specs.

I wonder idly, is the A-pillar the best place for them? Door mirrors are where they are by necessity of the driver being able to see them, but in removing this restriction they could be anywhere. Would they be better placed further forward (reducing fore blindspot as a car has passed outside the mirror's range) or rearward (reducing blindspot between interior and exterior mirrors)? Or even both / multiple to give a hybrid image.

Also, why not add the ability to record footage?

I don’t think you can say that cameras are ‘tech heavy’. The hardware is pretty simple and established and reliable and probably quite cheap.

Of course if you want an even less "tech heavy" simple, established, reliable and quite cheap solution... There's always mirrors 😉

I do think it's funny that drag reduction is being used as the justification, I mean these cameras are being fitted to Q7s and the like, like anyone buying shiny new feature packed family waggon really cares about minimal drag, if drag really mattered manufacturers would be making more of a fuss about closing/minimising panel gaps...

It's just a techy gimmick for current generation vehicles.
Embedding lots of cameras (and other sensors) in a car does make sense of course, for when the driver is upgraded from meat-sack to silicon in a few years.

No good for us when you have a knob of a neighbour that tried to shoulder off my wife's wing mirror. I can't see a stick lasting long. Saved the CCTV image in case he does it again. Seems to be OK for him to park his van completely blocking the pavement. Quite like the 360 cameras in my wifes car for parking though, just weird looking in the middle and at real mirrors.

Better than electric windows, powered seats etc.

At least this offers some benefit.

Electric windows are a godsend if you live in a hot country.

Cougar - I wondered exactly the same thing. The article linked above mentions a warning about cars going into the blind spot. Why not move the camera so that there isn't a blind spot? Maybe it'd be confusing to see an image which isn't consistent with what you'd see from a mirror placed in the position that you're looking at?

If anyone has tried using them, how does it feel adjusting focal depth?

When looking through the windscreen you are focused on things in the distance. When looking at things in the wing mirror, you are still focusing on things in the distance, albeit through the medium of the mirror. With these I imagine you have to focus on something that is close by (the screen) which takes a small (but possibly significant) amount of time to do.

As an experiment, look at the reflection of something in the mirror. Then without moving look at the mirror (the frame, or a sticker on the mirror). Then back at the reflection. Then back at the mirror sticker/frame. I imagine doing to every few seconds whilst driving could be tiring.

Cheers perchypanther - well explained - and obvious when I'd given it a bit more thought!

It replaces a stereoscopic view with a monoscopic image, with consequent loss of depth perception.

Distance isn't always easy to judge through a mirror anyway.

Why mount the cameras where wing mirrors would be? How about above the rear window by the high level brake light? You could get a wider field of view and perhaps incorporate range finding tech to show distance (and closing speed) of vehicle behind. Slight issue when towing of course.

Electric windows are a godsend if you live in a hot country.

Why?

Remote opening them all to let hot air out before you get in?

I can't see any advantages to electric windows.
Or seats.

Added weight and complexity for little gain other than laziness.

I can see the advantages to electrically adjustable mirrors.

Remote opening them all to let hot air out before you get in?

I had no idea this was a thing.
Why not just open a door?

I can’t see any advantages to electric windows.

Until you're alone in the car and driving along on a lovely warm day and decide to open all the windows.

It's much more difficult to open the rear passenger side window whilst driving along at 40 mph if they're old school keep fit windows.

Why not just open a door?

Open the windows, drive off and close the windows when all the superheated air has gone. And if you've got remote opening (my car doesn't, wish it did...) that's even better.

Until you’re alone in the car and driving along on a lovely warm day and decide to open all the windows.

That's a good point.
🙂

I can’t see any advantages to electric windows.

Lotus fitted electric windows to the Europa in the 60s. They pretty much stripped everything else to basics but the electric windows were there because there wasn't enough space to move your arm enough operate a wind up or sliding window.

Lotus fitted electric windows to the Europa in the 60s. They pretty much stripped everything else to basics but the electric windows were there because there wasn’t enough space to move your arm enough operate a wind up or sliding window.

They should have just fitted fixed windows in that case as the electric windows would have stopped working within a few minutes. And it would have been lighter, what was Chapman thinking.

powered seats

Mynext car will definitely have mempry powered seats. Ever shared a car with someone seven inches shorter with an upright driving position?

And the blindspot warning lights in the mirrors. Thought they were a gimmick.

As for the Audi, I'd much prefer some form of optics that did not need stalks at all. But th eloss of perception is real, as is the ability to move one's head forward slightly - see warning lights.

I had no idea this was a thing.
Why not just open a door?

If I press and hold the 'door open' button on the remote, all the windows wind down for as long as I hold the button (and ditto closing with the close button).

I could just open a door, it's part of my routine before driving off after all, but the windows shift more air faster and I can trigger it from across the car park rather than standing around with the door open and the car at Gas Mark 6.

if you’ve got remote opening (my car doesn’t, wish it did…)

This isn't a particularly new thing, my old Vauxhall Cavalier did it and that was from 1991. I imagine more modern cars do this than don't, it's just not very well publicised. Have you tried it?

I imagine more modern cars do this than don’t, it’s just not very well publicised.

You'd imagine. You'd probably be wrong.

I 've had a few that did and many more that should but don't.

Which is a pity coz it is quite handy.

I can’t see a stick lasting long.

It could be rubber mounted, that would help.

Or they could put it on the rear quarter pillar of the car. That would help a bit more I think. You could have a 180 view around the back of the car split into three screens - one bigger one where the rear view mirror would be, and two either side.

I wonder if you could add some sort of optics in front to alter the focus point? Might not be possible given the dimensions.

I can’t see any advantages to electric windows.
Or seats.

Seriously? Ever tried leaning across a car to manually wind down a window in order to ask someone something, or try to adjust a mirror that isn’t electrically adjustable?
Or even just winding a window down on your own side to get a ticket from a car park machine? Believe me, having driven cars where everything was manually adjustable, driving cars where windows, seats and mirrors can be easily adjustable without having to move from your preferred driving position is something you never want to go back to.
I guess if someone is driving a car with no electric adjustments of any kind, they get someone to adjust the mirrors and then hope they never get knocked out of alignment, and set the seats once for themselves, hoping nobody else will want to drive it, and never park where it’s necessary to wind the window down to get a ticket, but people often share cars, and have a need to adjust seating position, mirrors, etc.
I can drive thirty-odd cars a day, maybe more, of many different makes and models, being able to quickly make fine adjustments from my ideal driving position is a godsend.

Plus cameras always get covered in dirt and eventually break.

Mirrors on the other hand, famously robust and permanently immune to dirt 👍

I've always subscribed to this view ..

😁