boot or trunk?

[Erdrick]

Regardless of what you call it, it is an area of the car that definitely doesn't get used in my case. Even so, I have the option of opening it. With my car being a hatchback, I have access to the rear of my car w/o the need for a way to open it from outside. If the car were designed so that the rear of the car did not open, this would at least save some weight from hinges and pneumatics. Go a step further by just using metal and you would probably save weight from the glass. I would imagine the quarter panels could wrap around to form a single piece. While this may not be attractive, it would in the end probably save money in production costs, and save weight.

A downside? For one you lose rear-view mirror capability, unless you install a rear-view camera. Another potential problem would be if you were to get rear-ended. What would have been one trunk door now becomes a reallllly long and wrapping piece of metal.

Does anyone see the utility (or lack thereof for most people) of doing something like this? For those of us that never open our trunks, it may be something to hope automakers eventually adopt.

[JerkOfAllTrades]

I think before you try this you should check on the laws in your state.

The sheetmetal replacing the glass would not necessarily be a bad thing in a crash because the metal will absorb energy from the crash in its deformation process.

However, I think you will run afoul of the same laws that govern the density of tint on the backlight (that's the rear glass). I think you might circumvent this by installing a full time rear camera and monitor.

[WaxyChicken]

There's always the thought of saving glass weight by using Plexiglas - but it's prone to easy scratch. but i wouldn't trust that with a golf ball, much less a crash.

[Erdrick]

I personally have no plans of going through with something like this. It would be prohibitively difficult to achieve. I would have to design and manufacture a curved piece of metal that would take the place of a car's two rear quarter panels and the trunk. Totally not feasible for the average person. A forward thinking car company? Maybe...

As to the law part, I doubt it would be a problem. There are work vans that have no rear window that are driven all the time. I assume this is to prevent busted rear windows when you get your materials shifting around in the back of the van. As long as the van has side view mirrors, it isn't breaking any laws. I think that the law is, you need either side view mirrors, or a rear view mirror. People just feel more comfortable having both.

This is just a thought experiment though. It might be nice to see some companies toy around with the idea though.

[Erdrick]

WaxyChicken: My 3 odd years of playing hockey has taught me one thing -- plexiglass can take a LOT of abuse! It takes a lot of effort to shatter a piece of that stuff.

[WaxyChicken]

I was referring to how easy it pops out. but i'll admit - you do have more experience with it than i do.

[s2man]

Originally Posted by Erdrick

As to the law part, I doubt it would be a problem. There are work vans that have no rear window that are driven all the time.

Erdrick, The federal reg's are different for cars, passenger-vehicles trucks & buses, and school buses. I looked them up before I deleted my passenger-side mirror. Here's a link:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...cfr571.111.htm

Basically it says cars will have an inside rear view mirror and a drivers side mirror. Trucks, buses, etc. must meet that spec, or have two outside mirrors. School buses are even more strict. The only mention of cameras is for school buses. But there is no regulation against adding a rear camera; RV's do it all the time, but they still have the requisite two outside mirrors.

Good idea and logic, but you'll have to get the reg's changed first :-S