Information about video cameras in place of outside mirrors

[Eddles]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

Hi Chris,

Sure -- it starts on post #167: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...s-2969-17.html.

Wow impressive! How much difference did the mod make to your FE? I assume the difference would be less for cars that's already fairly aerodynamic such as my car, though Astra mirrors seems to stick out a lot?

I quite like the idea of having cameras mounted in the rear fender/bumper but I have no room on my dash to mount any LCD screens, and the cost of cameras/LCD screens are putting me off.

Again, good job!

[Christ]

Eddles - Check those links I posted above, you can get a camera/LCD combo for less than $100.

Matter of factly, if you could find a decent place to mount an overhead camera (flip down LCD), you'd probably still come in less than $100 after mounting the camera and have a fully functional rear view system.

[tjts1]

I would love to use camaras and LCD screens instead of outside mirrors but local state troopers won't allow it.

[NeilBlanchard]

Hi,

I made three changes between the previous summer and this last summer: the video mirrors, the smooth wheel covers and the partial front wheel skirts. My average mileage went from ~46.5mpg up to ~50.5mpg. The single best tank went from ~48.5mpg up to 53.6mpg.

So, probably what I could attribute ~1/3 - 1/2 of that to the video mirrors -- they were the most significant of the three. The smooth wheel covers were also key, with the partial wheel skirts being the least significant.

I'm trying to remember if the Kamm back panels were also in this time period -- I should look back through my own thread...

[Edit: the Kamm panels were added during the same period. I think that for my car the video mirrors added about 3% or ~1.5mpg. Which is in line with what Darin wrote at the beginning of this thread.

And believe it or not, the xA (in it's stock form) has a Cd of 0.31 -- I think the RS 2.0 version that I have is higher than that, because the grill is a lot more open. In my coastdown test (the previous summer) put my car at ~0.27, and my guess is that the current mods are maybe as low as 0.26. I was not able to do a coastdown this year, because I had a dragging rear drum brake, and now those tires are gone...]

[Christ]

tjts1 -

From CA vehicle code:

Mirrors

26709. (a) Every motor vehicle registered in a foreign jurisdiction and every motorcycle subject to registration in this state shall be equipped with a mirror so located as to reflect to the driver a view of the highway for a distance of at least 200 feet to the rear of such vehicle.

Every motor vehicle subject to registration in this state, except a motorcycle, shall be equipped with not less than two such mirrors, including one affixed to the left-hand side.

(b) The following described types of motor vehicles, of a type subject to registration, shall be equipped with mirrors on both the left-and right-hand sides of the vehicle so located as to reflect to the driver a view of the highway through each mirror for a distance of at least 200 feet to the rear of such vehicle:

(1) A motor vehicle so constructed or loaded as to obstruct the driver's view to the rear.

(2) A motor vehicle towing a vehicle and the towed vehicle or load thereon obstructs the driver's view to the rear.

(3) A bus or trolley coach.

(c) The provisions of subdivision (b) shall not apply to a passenger vehicle when the load obstructing the driver's view consists of passengers.
Amended Ch. 74, Stats. 1970. Effective November 23, 1970.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure if you could get away with cameras or not, but you'd need at least two. One to the immediate rear or right side, and one on the left as well.

Funny, they don't specify a driver's side mirror, so there must be exception for RHD vehicles.

[Eddles]

Originally Posted by Christ

Eddles - Check those links I posted above, you can get a camera/LCD combo for less than $100.

Matter of factly, if you could find a decent place to mount an overhead camera (flip down LCD), you'd probably still come in less than $100 after mounting the camera and have a fully functional rear view system.

My main problem with the flip-down LCD screen is that it would block the rear view mirror wouldn't it... And I'm worried about having a 7" LCD screen "in my face" as it'd only be half a metre away. British cars are small by US standards as you know... 3.5" LCD screens are too small I believe. There's also the cost - more below.

I've been doing a lot of thinking about this subject on my commute today (140 miles round trip!) and I think the best solution for me is to mount 2 cameras in the rear bumper on the corners, linked to two LCD screens. My problem was placement, so I had the chance to have a good look on the inside of my car. The most obvious and best placement for the screens would be next to the door mirrors on the inside, but I'm worried about theft. (Oooh he has 2 GPSes, let nick them!) I then remembered several years ago someone mounted a dot matrix character based LCD screen in the sun visor, which made me think "Why not mount both LCD screens in the sun visor itself?". I quite like the idea, I can flip up the sun visor once I park the car, hiding the screens. The only problem being that if I need to use the sun visor to block the sun coming in the drivers side window, and I unmount it and flip it to the side, the LCD screens would be facing outside, on my side. My second problem is camera placement - I only have one shot on getting it right. Get it wrong, such as both cameras pointing up in the sky, and I'll need a new bumper. Still, I'm pretty tempted by this idea.

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

[Edit: the Kamm panels were added during the same period. I think that for my car the video mirrors added about 3% or ~1.5mpg. Which is in line with what Darin wrote at the beginning of this thread.

Interesting. Taking the current fuel cost of my car, which is 6.30p per mile. I estimate I'll be driving 15,000 miles a year - which is optimistic - I usually drive 12,000 miles a year - it's hard to figure out this number at the moment as the current rate I'm driving, I'm driving 50,000 miles a year, but that'll no longer be the case next month. So, 15,000 * 6.30p = £945 a year. I feel a 3% reduction in fuel consumption is slightly optimistic for my car, but let's go for that... 3% of £945 is £28.35 a year. And that's optimistic. Taking the 2 LCD screens suggested by Christ, that's $110, and converting that to British money and excluding postage, that's £68. So the tech will take 2.4 years to pay off, more likely 3 years. However, I plan to keep my car until 2015 at least, and the system is sort of transferable between cars, this is fairly tempting. Of course, there is the possibility that I might sell the car way before 2015, or I crash it, or it breaks down beyond economical repair, but that's unlikely. I hope.

Additionally with the camera system, I get the benefit of better rear view in the dark, and a far better view out back especially considering the rear vision out of the back of my car is abysmal thanks to the really high boot design, spoiler and the massive C pillar blocking the view out the back. With the rear view camera system, it'd be a much easier to park the car, as I only am able to see the upper half of the windscreen or rear window of other cars out of the rear window of my car when I reverse.

[Christ]

No, sir. The LCD would become your rear view mirror, not block it. Check applicable laws.

[thatguitarguy]

A couple of things to think about:

I would suggest placing the cameras higher than the bumper. For one thing, I've heard that it rains sometimes in England You might end up never being able to see anything if there is a constant stream of water trailing across your lens. And down low, like a bumper, there will be road grime kicked up by your wheels and passing vehicles. In short I think keeping the lens clean will be a problem.

My experience, and Neil's as well from what I've read, is that the angle of view on these cameras is quite wide. If you were to mount a camera on the A pillar, you would be able to see what is beside you, as well as what is behind you. This is the purpose of having a convex mirror on the side of the vehicle. And the angle of view is wide enough, that if you placed 2 cameras at the rear of your vehicle, there would be enough overlap in the images as to just being virtually the same image in both monitors. If you place a camera at the rear of your car, I would just use a single one, and I would place it up high.

Another thing is that a lot of these monitors have 2 A/V inputs. In this case, I think you could input both cameras into one monitor and switch back and forth between them with the touch of a button. This takes a little getting used to, but not much.

My experience comes from driving camera equipped buses, and I have found that cameras are much more useful when having to back a bus, than are mirrors. And the image is much clearer in the night than what you would see in a mirror.

[Christ]

Regarding the placement of the camera, I suggested earlier that a camera for rearward view should be placed just a few inches forward of the rear window, or directly above it.

You can find the optimal place to mount it with masking tape, then mount it once you're satisfied.

A rearward point on the roof is probably the best place you'll find, though, since it will allow you to see to either side of the vehicle in the other traffic lanes, as well.

A big advantage to cameras is the ability to record. If you have a hit and run, you've got evidence now.

[Eddles]

Originally Posted by thatguitarguy

I would suggest placing the cameras higher than the bumper. For one thing, I've heard that it rains sometimes in England You might end up never being able to see anything if there is a constant stream of water trailing across your lens. And down low, like a bumper, there will be road grime kicked up by your wheels and passing vehicles. In short I think keeping the lens clean will be a problem.

Eh? I've never heard of "rain"? Seriously, I don't think water would be a big problem - most of the time. I've removed the rear wiper and found I never have needed it. The rear window is almost always dry, apart from when in the city. However, you've got a good point re: dirt and water kicked up by passing vehicles. Also sitting idling in traffic/city driving would mean the cameras might get wet anyway.

My experience, and Neil's as well from what I've read, is that the angle of view on these cameras is quite wide.

Is the view wide enough so that if I mounted the camera up high pointing back, would it be able to have a similar field of vision as the 2 door mirrors? I forgot to mention, that I probably will place 2 small mirrors inside the car on the dash to cover the field that the camera(s) don't cover.

Originally Posted by thatguitarguy

If you place a camera at the rear of your car, I would just use a single one, and I would place it up high.

Originally Posted by Christ

Regarding the placement of the camera, I suggested earlier that a camera for rearward view should be placed just a few inches forward of the rear window, or directly above it. A rearward point on the roof is probably the best place you'll find, though, since it will allow you to see to either side of the vehicle in the other traffic lanes, as well.

OK I'll drop the bumper camera idea. I'm not 100% sure what placement you both are trying to put across - so I've got a stupid question - are you saying that I should place the camera outside or inside the car? If it's inside, there's the problem with dirty/wet rear window? If it's outside there's the problem of wiring and ruining the aerodynamics? A good placement location isn't immediately obvious on my car due to the shape - have a look at a few pics and see what you think please...

Side view of rear
Rear view of rear (ahem)
Inside view of rear

Do ignore the spider web. The thing sticking down at the top of the rear window in the interior picture is the high level brake light. I guess the best place is to stick the camera next to the high level brake light but there's the question of wet and dirty rear window...? Or do I have the wrong end of the stick?

A big advantage to cameras is the ability to record. If you have a hit and run, you've got evidence now.

Hah! Only if you have a video recorder running at that time

Thanks for advice!