Model X Side Mirrors

[robby]

WSJ makes a vague off-hand claim that replacing mirrors with cameras has been held up by regulators:

Meanwhile, the agency has delayed a plan by Tesla to replace traditional side mirrors with more effective cameras.

Gordon Crovitz: The Feds Stall Self-Driving Cars - WSJ

 

[mostapasta]

ISO 16505 just moved from stage 50.00 to 50.20 on 9/29/14.

Does that mean there is 2 months now to decide if they are going to approve it??

ISO/FDIS 16505 - Road vehicles -- Ergonomic and performance aspects of Camera Monitor Systems -- Requirements and test procedures

 

[Gwgan]

Two months to vote would be right on target with expectations in the original petition, just not the premature approval Tesla was requesting: “ISO 16505, which is in the final stages of adoption, will provide minimum safety, ergonomic, and performance requirements as well as test methods for Camera-Monitor-Systems (CMS) as an acceptable optional replacement for currently mandated rear and side view mirrors for road vehicles. While final release is currently targeted for the November 2014 timeframe, the draft performance requirements contained in it appear to be sufficiently developed for the Petitioners to recommend it as the performance requirements appropriate for revisions to FMVSS No. 111 to incorporate such systems."

 

[gelden]

The VW XL1 has been granted a Dutch approval/license plate. It also uses camera's instead of side mirrors. So it seems allowed...
(article in Dutch: Eerste Volkswagen XL1 heeft Nederlands kenteken - Groen7)

 

[Robert.Boston]

The VW XL1 has been granted a Dutch approval/license plate. It also uses camera's instead of side mirrors. So it seems allowed...
(article in Dutch: Eerste Volkswagen XL1 heeft Nederlands kenteken - Groen7)

...in the Netherlands. Countries have different standards.

 

[Nubo]

We'll wonder how we ever made do with mirrors.

 

[Gwgan]

Just saw that ISO 16505 is now listed as approved in the UK.
Standard in development: BS ISO 16505 Road vehicles - Ergonomic and performance aspects of Camera-Monitor- Systems - Requirements and test procedures.

 

[robby]

Model X proto - Imgur

 

[timf]

That's the one in the Hawthorne lobby right? I had never seen the side cameras as up close as that. The design is more substantial than I thought.

 

[Gwgan]

ISO has updated their site to reflect the end of the voting stage. Options will be refer back to working group, delete, or approve for publication. I do not know the results of the voting period but have submitted a query to the technical committee.

Stage 50.60 = Close of voting. Proof returned by secretariat.

ISO/FDIS 16505 - Road vehicles -- Ergonomic and performance aspects of Camera Monitor Systems -- Requirements and test procedures


——Update——
Response was “It was approved with comments. Following editorial clean-up, this document should be published fairly soon.”

 

[Tedkidd]

So what comes first, cameras on the S or release of the elusive X?...

 

[Madartist]

I'm beginning to think that part of the delay in the Model X release has to to with the approval of the side cameras. After all, as a bigger, heavier car with less efficient drag, it needs all the help it can get to improve/maintain the range without a new battery pack.

 

[JRP3]

I don't think so. Delaying a product because of legislation that may or may not pass does not sound like a good business plan.

 

[Madartist]

Yes. However, they may have been fairly confident on the passage because most, if not all, of the major car manufacturers are lobbying for it. Besides, I think introducing MX with less range than MS would be a huge market disappointment. Tesla must find a way to deliver on range if the car is going to have any appeal.

 

[markb1]

I don't believe Tesla would wait for side camera approval. They will just ship the first cars with side mirrors, if they aren't allowed to ship them without. I'd bet they've been preparing for that contingency.

 

[JRP3]

Agree. Plus I've always expected the heavier, taller, X will have less range the the S, with or without mirrors, unless they surprise with a larger battery pack.

 

[robby]

I don't think Tesla would delay shipment over the cameras, but if shipments were delayed for other reasons, it makes sense that they'd delay the unveiling until a decision was made.

 

[aronth5]

I don't think so. Delaying a product because of legislation that may or may not pass does not sound like a good business plan.

I don't believe Tesla would wait for side camera approval. They will just ship the first cars with side mirrors, if they aren't allowed to ship them without. I'd bet they've been preparing for that contingency.

I don't think Tesla would delay shipment over the cameras, but if shipments were delayed for other reasons, it makes sense that they'd delay the unveiling until a decision was made.

Lets make it 4 who are in agreement. No delay

 

[Madartist]

OK. OK. Looks like I'm outnumbered. For the record, I'm simply suggesting one of many potential reasons for the MX delay, not THE reason. Ultimately, I'm most concerned about how the MX will be able to achieve at least the same range as MS given its larger size and heavier weight. Without the gigafactory coming online prior to production, a bigger battery pack seems unlikely. Therefore, there needs to be some other factors to improve its range. Side cameras may be an important part of that equation.

 

[JRP3]

We've seen how the dual motor S gets more range than the single motor S so the dual motor X may get similar range as the single motor S for the same reasons of efficiency.