Model X Side Mirrors

[vfx]

For a car the is "close to production" these are a big move. Apparently Tesla is going to lobby to have these legal. Not even pairing with any other makers.

3 to 5% aero gain is a lot. WHile we have seen it on other design studies, they are a better solution than those headlights on the Leaf.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=4186&stc=1
4186

The car was very dusty when the curtain dropped.

[loganss]

It looks way too fragile for occasional side street bumps.

[StephRob]

Not to mention my hitting the mirrors hard while backing out of the garage which I unfortunately do with some regularity! :redface:

[vfx]

Not to mention my hitting the mirrors hard while backing out of the garage which I unfortunately do with some regularity! :redface:

They are really small. Hand sized. Never touched it but it could be cast aluminum chromed.

4193

[WhiteKnight]

The rear facing video cameras (replacing side view mirrors) do not even extend beyond the flanks of the Model X so the sides of the Model X are going to get 'mash up' before the cameras.

[efusco]

I think it is clearly time to transition to cameras in place of mirrors, at least on higher end vehicles. The aero gains are significant. As pointed out, I think there is far less chance of damage to these things than to a large mirror poking way out.

I just wonder if they'll start finding a better place to put the "mirror" The traditional location makes sense for a real mirror, but with a transition to cameras it may make sense to place the camera closer to the rear of the vehicle with a wide angle view that would show completely eliminate blind spots and show any vehicle at the side quite clearly.

If my speculation is accurate, it would seem that that would be a key selling point to getting legislative approval--prove/show improved safety and better road vision than traditional mirrors and show that we can improve fuel efficiency.

[WhiteKnight]

I think it is clearly time to transition to cameras in place of mirrors, at least on higher end vehicles. The aero gains are significant.

I would think every auto maker will want this in the future. If Tesla can see 5% gains I am sure every other carmaker could see the same.

If Chrysler has a vehicle that gets 29.5MPG on the highway, why wouldn't they want to bump it up to 31MPG on the highway by just removing the mirrors?

Go Daniel, go Daniel, go Daniel (Witt).

[JRP3]

I posted an idea to get around the mirror requirement in another thread, though don't know if it's practical. Put the smallest mirrors allowed but shape them so they can fold back and tuck into an aerodynamic shape with a camera on the edge, which would point back when folded in. That way you have mirrors you could fold out if the cameras failed for some reason, if that's the concern.

[efusco]

I posted an idea to get around the mirror requirement in another thread, though don't know if it's practical. Put the smallest mirrors allowed but shape them so they can fold back and tuck into an aerodynamic shape with a camera on the edge, which would point back when folded in. That way you have mirrors you could fold out if the cameras failed for some reason, if that's the concern.

I like that idea quite a lot. Not only would it permit skirting the law (I think), but you'd have a backup option if the camera fails for some reason.

[rabar10]

Current US law: FMVSS Standard 111 (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/49cfr571.111.htm)

Looks like mirror dimension for the driver side is based on field of view requirements. No such restrictions on the passenger side, though it will likely be the same size as the driver side mirror for aesthetic purposes.

+1 to JRP3's suggestion!

[ElSupreme]

Current US law: FMVSS Standard 111 (http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/octqtr/49cfr571.111.htm)

Looks like mirror dimension for the driver side is based on field of view requirements. No such restrictions on the passenger side, though it will likely be the same size as the driver side mirror for aesthetic purposes.

+1 to JRP3's suggestion!

You are not even required to have a passenger mirror (if your inside rearview meets some requirement). My ZERO options Dodge Neon in the 90s didn't have one until I put one on.

[doug]

I don't think it will happen till we have those Corning transparent displays.

[TEG]

I like the idea of being able to have the rear and side view inset in the driver dash cluster...
http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/02/10/x_1.jpg (http://www.reghardware.com/2012/02/10/teslas_model_x_electric_suv_to_sport_massive_touchscreen_dashboard/)

They had a 3 camera view in the prototype, but it looked like a work in progress.

[WhiteKnight]

I don't think it will happen till we have those Corning transparent displays.

Or why not have HUD technology in the lower left and right corners of the windshield.

[vfx]

They are really small. Hand sized. Never touched it but it could be cast aluminum chromed.

4193

(I guess I did touch it!)

[richkae]

I want these on my Model S.

Are you listening Tesla? Listen to this.

I want these on my Model S.

I understand that the Model S is too close to production to change this now. Take an engineering car and put them on, then figure out what tiny subtle changes you need to make to the S to make it compatible with the Model X camera mirrors so that it is an easy bolt on swap when you've got them approved.
I will take my car back to the Tesla store as soon as they are available/approved and get it done.

[vfx]

It was mentioned that having small screen on the inside near where the old mirrors used to be would be closer to when you need to check your blindspot.

Though with the placement, camera, and lens chosen correctly the field of view would show the blindspot on the dash screen as well.

[vfx]

I like the idea of being able to have the rear and side view inset in the driver dash cluster...
http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/02/10/x_1.jpg (http://www.reghardware.com/2012/02/10/teslas_model_x_electric_suv_to_sport_massive_touchscreen_dashboard/)

They had a 3 camera view in the prototype, but it looked like a work in progress.

While I tend to favor much sleeker less adorned dash designs. I do like the rich wood feel and black leather of this illustration.


Simle steampunk.

_______________________________________
I note the speedo in the working car looks very different.

[Thumper]

Love love love the idea of rear view cameras that can flip up into mirrors as a backup to camera failure. The feds should not just allow but mandate these on all new cars! We get better gas mileage and if the rearward view are implemented on either side of the speedometer as the Model X shows, you would always see someone coming up beside you. Tesla and Feds, we need this!

[AnOutsider]

Love love love the idea of rear view cameras that can flip up into mirrors as a backup to camera failure. The feds should not just allow but mandate these on all new cars! We get better gas mileage and if the rearward view are implemented on either side of the speedometer as the Model X shows, you would always see someone coming up beside you. Tesla and Feds, we need this!

Mandating something that would add cost and complexity, for what benefit? For an entry-level Nissan Versa, should they be forced to raise the price X,000 just to add cameras when side view mirrors work just as fine? It's like mandating power windows.

Though i get the benefits of removing them, I don't see anything "wrong" with side view mirrors.

[dsm363]

I don't think the side cameras would be mandated, just that they would be allowed instead of mirrors. I believe that's what Tesla is trying to do.

[Citizen-T]

When the time comes, I wonder if we could help Tesla out with lobbying for this change. I mean, obviously we can all call our senator if we wanted to, but there are a pretty good number of us...maybe if we could concentrate our efforts on a particular day. Some kind of coordinated effort might be productive? Maybe once the Model X tally gets to be a few thousand.

[shark2k]

I don't think the side cameras would be mandated, just that they would be allowed instead of mirrors. I believe that's what Tesla is trying to do.

AnOutsider was refering to Thumper's post right above him.

-Shark2k

[AnOutsider]

I don't think the side cameras would be mandated, just that they would be allowed instead of mirrors. I believe that's what Tesla is trying to do.

Agreed, my post was in response to this:


The feds should not just allow but mandate these on all new cars!

[dsm363]

Agreed, my post was in response to this:
I see. I agree with you. Mandating the cameras wouldn't make sense that this point but allowing them instead of mirrors might be nice.

[ElSupreme]

I don't know about that. I use them to look backwards in peoples mirrors to determine how well they are paying attention. Then I can figure out if they are going to camp in the left lane, and I should pass on the right. Whether they see me and will look to move over. Whether they see me and think I am an idiot and attempt to piss me off by staying in the lane. Or if they are an idiot and I see the side of their car because their mirrors are not even close to being set properly.

I guess having cameras would solve the last and probably most common, and most dangerous problem I seem to encounter.

[vfx]

... I use them to look backwards in peoples mirrors to determine how well they are paying attention. ...

Especially when cycling. Good point.

[pxy]

If google has the weight to legalize driverless cars (Nevada at least) for the sake of technology in ~20+ years , I sure hope there is legal room for something as slight as rear view cameras for the sake of a 5% reduced COD as quickly as they can be adopted. I imagine these laws were more to require a "rearward looking device" than a piece of reflective glass...

Also, did they say 5% energy savings or 5% reduction in COD? Power is CUBED (^3) that of the reduction in frontal area which I guess goes against my case...

[ElSupreme]

Especially when cycling. Good point.

Yes especially when cycling!!

[tdelta1000]

The idea is cool but I think that TM is biting off more then it can chew when it comes to moving the Fed on the camera mirrors. The Fed considers that type of system a distraction to a driver so how would Tesla Motors lobby or petition the Fed on this view?? And if TM can achieve success in this area it will cement Tesla Motors' place in the industry and history. Good Luck.

[Thumper]

I don't really think camera mirrors should be mandated it is just such a good concept that I said that to emphasize it. There is just not enough voice nuance here. Darn. Most specific technology mandates are way bad ideas. Sealed beam headlight mandates held back halogen bulbs for years.

[Mycroft]

I have very strong doubts that they'll be able to get approval for side cameras. Safety stuff like that is difficult to change unless there's a very strong safety reason for the change. There will be more than a few experts who will be against it.

Think about how we use the mirror. By moving our head and body around, we automatically expand the range of vision by at least 6X the surface area of the mirror. So the cameras would have to have at least that amount of area covered.

It's a huge change just to save a few miles in range.

[vfx]

...
It's a huge change just to save a few miles in range.

Math disagrees.

[Robert.Boston]

Math disagrees.
Problematically, regulators don't have any "$ versus life" benchmark to work to. Suppose Tesla could demonstrate that this camera option, if adopted on 5% of all production vehicles, would save $XX per year and reduce various pollutants by Q%, R%, and S%, but an opposing expert introduces evidence that there would be an expected increase of Y highway deaths annually. How should the regulator weigh these numbers?

I think we all could agree that if X=$1 and Y=100 lives, we should reject the change. Most people would agree that if X=$1 billion and Y=1 life, we should accept the change. But what about intermediate values? And how should Q, R, and S figure in?

The world of regulatory economics is not cut-and-dried.

[richkae]

Any improvement in range due to reduced drag is amplified at higher speeds.
A 5% improvement at 55mph could be a 7 or 8% improvement at 75mph.

You could eliminate the side pods and put multiple cameras on the side of the car. With 2 or 3 cameras, you could stitch the images together and have no blindspot at all.
That's what I would do.

Head tracking software could pan the image, I think the software could make it feel just like a mirror - but better by amplifying the movements to give you a better view with smaller motions. I'd be happy to come write it for them.

[richkae]

Problematically, regulators don't have any "$ versus life" benchmark to work to. Suppose Tesla could demonstrate that this camera option, if adopted on 5% of all production vehicles, would save $XX per year and reduce various pollutants by Q%, R%, and S%, but an opposing expert introduces evidence that there would be an expected increase of Y highway deaths annually. How should the regulator weigh these numbers?

I think we all could agree that if X=$1 and Y=100 lives, we should reject the change. Most people would agree that if X=$1 billion and Y=1 life, we should accept the change. But what about intermediate values? And how should Q, R, and S figure in?

The world of regulatory economics is not cut-and-dried.

The opposing expert would be an idiot. But you could placate those idiots with the physical mirror that deploys if the camera fails.

[Doug_G]

For a car the is "close to production" these are a big move. Apparently Tesla is going to lobby to have these legal. Not even pairing with any other makers.

3 to 5% aero gain is a lot. WHile we have seen it on other design studies, they are a better solution than those headlights on the Leaf.

I guess this explains why Tesla hired a lobbyist.

[Lloyd]

The opposing expert would be an idiot. But you could placate those idiots with the physical mirror that deploys if the camera fails.

Easier yet Just have a manual one that you store in the Frunk that clips on in the event o a failure!

[dsm363]

People merge all the time without signaling or using their mirrors although that's not something they could argue of course. I think multiple cameras covering especially what would normally be the blind spot would be great. Hopefully the Tesla lobbyist has some luck.

[AnOutsider]

People merge all the time without signaling or using their mirrors although that's not something they could argue of course. I think multiple cameras covering especially what would normally be the blind spot would be great. Hopefully the Tesla lobbyist has some luck.

This comment made me realize that it's more and more common to have turn signals on mirrors. Wonder if that will affect things?

In all though, I won't be upset if the mirrors make a return. They look fine on the S, and they'll look fine on a bigger vehicle. We'll take the range hit, but at the end of the day, it won't kill the vehicle.

[dsm363]

I'm fine with mirrors too but would love to have cameras on the rear pillars covering the blind spot. Was hoping they'd have this on the Model S.

[Bearman]

I'm fine with mirrors too but would love to have cameras on the rear pillars covering the blind spot. Was hoping they'd have this on the Model S.

That is a very good idea.

[meepz11]

I am not sure if the idea has been previously discussed, but wouldn't having rear facing camera's potentially open up all sorts of interesting capabilities as far as warning solutions? I.E. when merging, etc. Furthermore I would imagine they could do things like highlight cars on the screen, etc to make them even more obvious to a driver at even a small glance? I don't know, I just think it's a logical step from many levels (not merely aerodynamics), moving everything to an electric/computerized system has many benefits and I don't doubt that regulators may be interested in approving this sooner rather then later.

[ElSupreme]

I am not sure if the idea has been previously discussed, but wouldn't having rear facing camera's potentially open up all sorts of interesting capabilities as far as warning solutions? I.E. when merging, etc. Furthermore I would imagine they could do things like highlight cars on the screen, etc to make them even more obvious to a driver at even a small glance? I don't know, I just think it's a logical step from many levels (not merely aerodynamics), moving everything to an electric/computerized system has many benefits and I don't doubt that regulators may be interested in approving this sooner rather then later.

These are good ideas but there are problems that come up when you start to implement stuff like this. Soon people will start to rely on items like this. And when they do you have to make sure they work for all cases. What about motorcycles, mopeds, bicycles? All of these things are common on roads and already have a hard time with people not 'seeing' them (at least in most of the US). If people stop actually looking and trust the computer tells them something is there they will just go there.

As an avid cyclist (more so in the past) and bicycle commuter for quite some time this is a real problem. They started using low-res video cameras at intersections to detect cars waiting at stop lights. Most of them when they got put in would not detect myself on my bicycle, which caused safety problems because I would cross on red, or scramble over to the pedestrian x-ing button and then back onto the road. Where I could set off the induction coil loops with my wheels slightly cocked.

Another place where I see this action, and where it is dangerous is right next to my house. There is a intersection (2 way stop) where both directions are somewhat hidden by hills/curves. It isn't too bad, but you might slow someone up, or have to punch it. The recently installed 'Car is coming caution' blinking yellow light. People have started blindly turning onto the road when this is not lit up (there is a single solid, 'sign working' light). But one day the induction loop is going to miss a car, or not pick up a bicycle and the person turning onto the road is going to cause a serious wreck.

Automating some things ends up cutting out necessary critical thinking. And these sorts of automated warnings can easily start to do this. I admit they do help. But they also have serious problems with false security and need to be well thought out.

[vfx]

I'm fine with mirrors too but would love to have cameras on the rear pillars covering the blind spot. Was hoping they'd have this on the Model S.

This may not be necessary. correct lens choice, chip size and placement could give you the entire field with one camera.

[dsm363]

This may not be necessary. correct lens choice, chip size and placement could give you the entire field with one camera.

If they have to stick with side mirrors due to regulations, I think the rear camera could serve as an addition to the mirror to monitor the blind spot better. If they can get rid of the side mirror then that would be great. One camera on each side.

[vfx]

I wish I had taken a picture of the side mirrors on a Chinese van that I saw at an EV event. (ACP was testing an E-drive on it) I was struck the side mirrors had cameras at the outer tip of the mirrors. I posted this info elsewhere here.

[neroden]

Well, cameras instead of mirrors may be easier to legalize than robot cars, but I don't think it'll be legalized in time for model X's aggressive launch date.

In 5-10 years, maybe.

[Kevin Harney]

These are getting closer to the mirrors !!


http://www.youtube.com/user/BMWUSA#p/c/13F29618C170AB99/3/Nwyoqnl8j4w

[Local host]

This graphic is from the Tesla Motors site (https://www.teslamotors.com/own):

5651

The first two are Model S and the third and fourth are Model X. Note the cameras have been replaced with side mirrors. I wonder if that means that they cannot get them approved.

[dsm363]

Good find. I'm wondering if people thought it looked too strange too without side mirrors. I'm not sure if the general public would want that or no so maybe they figured an EV was enough of an adjustment for most people that ditching side mirrors wasn't worth it.

[Local host]

I was getting used to the look of the car without mirrors. I think it would take a lot to get used to looking down at the instrument panel for lane changes etc. instead of out the window to my left and right.

They could also intend it to be an upgrade option if they can get approvals.

I believe they quoted 5% efficiency increase without mirrors.

[AnOutsider]

I noticed that, but thought it was temp (image changed back and forth on my computer during the outages). Prefer the colors they showed off before, but I'm perfectly fine with real mirrors. Could also see it being an upgrade as said, but then, wouldn't sig likely have it by default?

[Robert.Boston]

While I think it would be fairly easy to used to using an on-dash screen for side mirrors, most people don't drive just one car. Flipping back and forth could be a bit of a safety hazard.

[bonnie1194]

Agree. When I turn on the Roadster's backup camera while driving (forward, just to be clear), it's a bit of a change from using my rear view mirror. Helpful information in heavy traffic, but, well, it's different.

[AnOutsider]

While I think it would be fairly easy to used to using an on-dash screen for side mirrors, most people don't drive just one car. Flipping back and forth could be a bit of a safety hazard.


Agree. When I turn on the Roadster's backup camera while driving (forward, just to be clear), it's a bit of a change from using my rear view mirror. Helpful information in heavy traffic, but, well, it's different.

Maybe a good transitional phase (for all cars) is to begin to offer both? I see no reason why the X can't have cameras on the actual mirrors as well. Do this for a generation or two of cars and people may slowly ween off normal sideview mirrors. Personally though, I find comfort in a tangible, non-mechanical viewport to what's behind me.

[bonnie1194]

I think that would be a good way to make the transition. I can see MUCH more with the camera than the rear view mirror. But I'd like the projection to be up (similar to the mirror position), rather than looking down. (My eyes aren't off the road.) For the side mirrors, I'd vote on the display being in the upper corners of the windshield, respectively.

[Discoducky]

I'd be fine with both mirrors and cameras for transition as long as the mirrors could be removed without much hassle. It would be nice to try driving with the mirrors off and be able to put them back on easily.

The desire to have 5% efficiency as well as better visibility would really be a motivator to learn to use the cameras as quick as possible.

[ElSupreme]

The new Lamborghini SUV, the URUS, has rearview cameras also.

5654
This from another artcle: World Debut: The Lamborghini SUV - Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/hannahelliott/2012/04/22/world-debut-the-lamborghini-suv/)


The car embodies several design elements that could make their way to other Lamborghini vehicles, including tag-like side mirrors embedded with cameras that display rear-view images on screens inside the car.

[Robert.Boston]

I think that would be a good way to make the transition. I can see MUCH more with the camera than the rear view mirror. But I'd like the projection to be up (similar to the mirror position), rather than looking down. (My eyes aren't off the road.) For the side mirrors, I'd vote on the display being in the upper corners of the windshield, respectively.
A thought on this that I floated before: replace all the mirrors with a HD screen in the same location as the current rear-view mirror. Make it wider so that the screen gives a 180-degree quasi-fisheye view behind. We're already conditioned to look there for rear images; why not consolidate all the images into a single place?

[Kevin Harney]

I think that would be a good way to make the transition. I can see MUCH more with the camera than the rear view mirror. But I'd like the projection to be up (similar to the mirror position), rather than looking down. (My eyes aren't off the road.) For the side mirrors, I'd vote on the display being in the upper corners of the windshield, respectively.

Perhaps even a heads up display of the image in the driver and passenger windows. I guess that would be a problem if the window was down though.

[spatterso911]

I thought integration into the instrument panel was brilliant, and it wouldn't take very long for people to become accustomed to looking there to see their blind spots. I figured that the Feds wouldn't go for it though. They are very finicky about the side mirrors.

[Kipernicus]

I'm so conditioned to look over the shoulder as well as look in the mirror it would take a significant amount of reconditioning to unlearn that habit.

[Kevin Harney]

I'm so conditioned to look over the shoulder as well as look in the mirror it would take a significant amount of reconditioning to unlearn that habit.

After I learned how to properly set my mirrors I have stopped looking over my shoulder. Really no need any more. The habit was actually not that hard to unlearn.

[jerry33]

If you're going to have the cameras rather than the mirrors, then they need to pop out when the cars is on and retract when the car is off. it's only going to take one bicyclist who missed seeing that little camera or one car (probably a van) that gets it's side ripped open to put a really bad taste in people's mouths about it. I can just see the headlines.

[bonnie1194]

They'd have to be awfully close for something like that to happen ... closer than they'd need to be to hit a mirror.

[SByer]

No cyclist is going to ride that close to cars for too long - get doored once, and they'll learn (had that lesson when I was 12).

[bonnie1194]

Posts discussing how to adjust mirrors to eliminate blind spot have been moved here. (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/1217-How-do-you-adjust-your-side-mirrors?highlight=mirrors)

[vfx]

X Side mirror thread

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/7540-Camera-Mirrors?

Chinese Luxgen I saw on the road had BOTH cameras and mirror. (did not photograph it)

Looks like the side "mirrors" are cameras only on some of these concepts.

http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/3643-Luxgen-EV-7-passenger-electric-minivan

[ElSupreme]

If you're going to have the cameras rather than the mirrors, then they need to pop out when the cars is on and retract when the car is off. it's only going to take one bicyclist who missed seeing that little camera or one car (probably a van) that gets it's side ripped open to put a really bad taste in people's mouths about it. I can just see the headlines.


No cyclist is going to ride that close to cars for too long - get doored once, and they'll learn (had that lesson when I was 12).

Yeah I got doored once in College. I won't ride within 3 feet of a parked car at speed. In fact I have been clipped by bus mirrors on 3 occasions (twice on bike, once walking). I would be all for lower profile rearview systems.

[tdelta1000]

I like the updated colors and rear mirrors and I also think it give the "X" a finished look that ready to take on the competition.

[doug]

X Side mirror thread

Camera Mirrors (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/7540-Camera-Mirrors?)

Yes, as far as I can tell this has become an identical discussion, so I'm doing a merge.

[tdelta1000]

This graphic is from the Tesla Motors site (https://www.teslamotors.com/own):

5651

The first two are Model S and the third and fourth are Model X. Note the cameras have been replaced with side mirrors. I wonder if that means that they cannot get them approved.

Possible but I do like the look despite it being so 20th Century.

[sp4rk]

A lot of UK cars, where parking lot spaces are SO narrow, have mirrors that, using a switch fold inwards.

And I have done that with a UK car while driving (by mistake!) ... it felt weird.

[sp4rk]

The photo of the mirror that starts this thread ... why does the lens and housing need to be SO big?

The camera on top of licence plates is tiny.

I'd love to see the image in the dash or in the windshield if possible.

[jerry33]

Presumably there is a motor in there so that you can adjust the angle.

[N0pa]

Take a look at their latest twitter pic.

http://twitter.com/#!/TeslaMotors/status/198460667584446466/photo/1

Looks like they have added the mirrors to the actual beta. Guess they believe it is a bigger challenge then they can handle right now. Hopefully someone can get to Newport Beach to get some photos.

[spatterso911]

The beta at Fashion Island was converted with Model S mirrors. They looked pretty natural on the X.


5887

5891

[Discoducky]

It's been known for some time that the side mounted cameras would never pass regulatory approval. They're a neat idea, and better than mirrors, but unless you have $500,000 minimum to pay the lawmakers to get the law changed, it won't happen.

Subjective looks aside...yes, I know the car looks better with ears...

To push this through...It will take lobbying for sure, but I'm amazed their isn't a "safety commission" or the like that wouldn't be pushing this.

I'll make the argument that side/rear view always on cameras *should* be *better* than physical mirrors. And it's the *should* which requires trial and error, design iteration, innovation and market demand analysis.

Consider this...Hypothetically, what if the cost to put in all cameras and no mirrors was substantially in favor of cameras? Say somehow safety mirrors were way more expensive. There would be a push to implement cameras or something other than mirrors to offset the cost while keeping safety as high or higher than mirrors. Since this is not the case, we keep the mirrors.

I'll say it another way...What if airbags become so cheap, efficient and reliable that we don't need to install seatbelts anymore? That day may never come but it's really the same issue. Which is "we have this great safety thing, being seatbelts, but we think *now* there's a better solution. This is going to happen more and more as we push technology into our cars. We should have a better way to bring this tech to cars quicker and with greater certainty of it's intrinsic value.

And you'll need to convince people like this: Why Mandatory Rearview Cameras Won't Stop Backover Deaths - MSN Autos (http://editorial.autos.msn.com/blogs/autosblogpost.aspx?post=c600ed8f-884d-4251-abb4-2f70287c483c)

I for one, am convinced, because having cameras, instead of mirrors *seems* like it would be much safer.

Here's my wacky notion. I would pay up to $2000 for having both mirrors and cameras installed on my Model X **IF** the ability of those cameras is substantial and included features like this:
1. Traffic mapping - each camera can detect and track vehicles in several lanes of traffic up to 300 feet behind so at a glance the driver can be aware of what is behind their vehicle.
2. Auto-headlight sensitivity - Drivers visibility won't be impaired or diminished by bright headlights from glare.
3. Auto-cleaning - A rotating lens ensures that environmental factors won't interfere with the capabilities of the camera
4. Natural-view - The viewing angle is much wider than conventional mirrors allowing the driver to see more of the road behind and does NOT need to be magnified to objects are NOT closer than they appear. They will actually appear to be how close they actually are. :biggrin:

[Doug_G]

"Personal responsibility"??? The guy's assumption that deaths are simply due to irresponsible and inattentive people is ludicrous. If you can't SEE, how can you possibly know if a small child just walked behind your car? It might have been clear before you got in the machine, but things can change quickly.

[vfx]

3. Auto-cleaning - A rotating lens ensures that environmental factors won't interfere with the capabilities of the camera...

I don't think this is reasonable. It's not on current rear view mirrors, even though there are small wipers for headlights \ /

The problem is safety measures never go away. No legislator wants to be the one who "got Jonny killed" when the inevitable freak accident occurs. TSA anyone?

That says to me we will provably see the (shudder) hybrid model first (like the Chinese van I saw) that has both the rear view mirror and a small camera looking back. Only after years of both would the mirror get smaller an smaller and eventually be OK'd to eliminate. If it happen at all.

[Local host]

According to Elon, the side mirrors may still make it to production on the Model X.

http://jalopnik.com/5939228/ask-elon-musk-anything-you-want-about-nikola-tesla-tesla-motors-and-spacex


SLR999 16 hours ago
Hi Elon, big fan!

What's the status on the beautiful/futuristic rear view camera system on the Model X? Is this something we might actually see on the road come 2014?

Elon @SLR999 15 hours ago
yep

[ElSupreme]

According to Elon, the side mirrors may still make it to production on the Model X.

http://jalopnik.com/5939228/ask-elon-musk-anything-you-want-about-nikola-tesla-tesla-motors-and-spacex

Well I bet the cameras make it. But I would think they might come WITH some standard mirrors. Although with the new Obama/EPA efficiency standards they may be forced to relax the mirror laws and allow cameras, to help out the manufacturers.

Autos must average 54.5 mpg by 2025, new EPA standards say - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/autos-must-average-545-mpg-by-2025-new-epa-standards-are-expected-to-say/2012/08/28/2c47924a-f117-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_story.html)

[heems]

Pop out side mirrors? When folded-in the camera's operate, when moved out the optics do the work?

[JRP3]

Side-view Camera Mirrors (http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/7540-Side-view-Camera-Mirrors?p=111434&viewfull=1#post111434) :wink:

[borlock]

Actually it is - the figure that the transportation department uses is $6 million per life saved. (EPA is $7 million, FDA is $8 million).

So using 2006 gas consumption figures (I'm too lazy to look up new ones...), saving fuel by 5% would be worth 1'875 lives. In other words, saving fuel by 5% would free up enough money to save 1'875 lives. (Via projects such as providing lights on dark highways, installing traffic lights, widening roads etc.). So if you cause less than 1'875 fatalities by changing the mirror system it's worth it, otherwise it's not.

I know this is a simplification - spending less on fuel would cut transportation tax revenues which have to be made up. But I'd rather spend 5% extra on transportation taxes that go into road improvements than 5% extra on oil.

[rogbmw]

Just watched the Video of the Model X at Garden State Plaza, and noticed that the mirrors appear to be the same as those in the S. Since - from what I understand - the "camera mirrors" are not DOT legal, this may be the first look at the X with regular mirrors.

[AnOutsider]

Just watched the Video of the Model X at Garden State Plaza, and noticed that the mirrors appear to be the same as those in the S. Since - from what I understand - the "camera mirrors" are not DOT legal, this may be the first look at the X with regular mirrors.

The Model X has had normal mirrors on the site for a while:

10695

It was also at the Supercharger unveil with normal mirrors:

10696

and in a pic vfx posted a while back of it in the design studio (in white)

*edit* my bad, the VFX pic still had camera mirrors, but here's another of it with the mirrors from back in LA

10697

[vfx]

This is the X mirror thread: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/7540-Side-view-Camera-Mirrors

(search for "mirror")

[rogbmw]

Thanks - saw that after I posted. I hope they are able to fold in the x.

[Herbys]

Lamborghini put side cameras on its prototype SUV, so if Tesla goes with this they won't be alone in the regulatory fight. My bet is that they will be offered as an option in the tech package.