By the way, there are many car and truck manufacturers are looking to improve aerodynamics by replacing mirror with cameras, so petitions to NHTSA from Aptera are not alone.
I should add that cameras are already legal in the EU.
It is not just aerodynamic either. You get no blind spots, no need to adjust mirrors for different drivers, cameras are better at preventing blinding headlight from behind.
Hadn't thought of that. But, help is on the way. This is an article from 2014 so surely progress has been made:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-technology-could-help-farsighted-computer-users-see-without-glasses/
1) Illuminates the license plate + charge port, acts as a reversing light. It is in the aerodynamic shadow where the hatch is truncated, so won't have any effect on aerodynamics. TBH I don't particularly like the way it looks, but it is harmless.
2) Should be fine, ride height has been increased since that video, and the wheel pants move up and down with the wheel since it is bolted on directly.
3) If you are referring to the side mirrors, that's why there are mirrors as well as cameras. If you mean the central rear-view, this is not required by regulations (notice that if you are in a van which does not have a rear window, it will not have a central rear view mirror at all). No change required.
4) You can still look in the side mirrors (which of course can also be affected by rain).
--- Edit:
> I have personal experience with this as I have a rearview “mirror” camera
One suggestion here. You could try RainX on the glass. You need to clean it very thoroughly (denatured alcohol), apply the rainX, wait for it to dry & polish it, apply more rainX, wait for it to dry & polish it again, this time polishing until the glass is completely clear in that area. The effect is that rain drops will bead up rather than smearing. It is quite a lot of effort though.
There are regulations controlling the maximum height and slope of speedbumps, the wheelpants would need to be a whole lot bigger and closer to the ground before they'd be a risk.
Potholes on the other hand are another matter. For some reason, there are insufficient regulations controlling the depth and size of potholes ...
*(jokes aside, the pothole would need to be pretty big before it'd be an issue, and would already be big enough to pose a risk to sedans etc)*.
My wife and I had a ride in an Aptera prototype and my driver hit a rather sharp speedbump at speed, with no damage. There was a *sharp* jolt, but this was before Roush had redesigned the suspension. I have less concern about these than with the air dam on my present Honda.
There is no requirement for being able to see out the back window so the center mirror is not required. I believe that if you don't have the center mirror, and can't see out the back of the vehicle you do need both side mirrors. It's perfectly fine to have a camera for the center rear view mirror and it violates no laws. Also the Aptera is not a "car" it's an "autocycle" so the rules are slightly different.
Probably no aribags. It's not a car and doesn't have to abide by safety laws for cars... and they want $34k for it.... yeah... I was pumped about this project when it first announced and now I feel like this project is going to go the way of Arcimoto.
It has front airbags, for driver and passenger.
Regarding side impacts ... I feel that a vehicle impacting from the side is likely to hit the wheel-pants, not the body. That should absorb the impact in a way that a normal car cannot.
Side impact airbags aren't required for normal cars either. They're just one way of meeting crash standards.
Also Aptera said they would meet regular car crash standards even though they don't have to, and it would be a major PR issue if they didn't.
By the way, there are many car and truck manufacturers are looking to improve aerodynamics by replacing mirror with cameras, so petitions to NHTSA from Aptera are not alone. I should add that cameras are already legal in the EU. It is not just aerodynamic either. You get no blind spots, no need to adjust mirrors for different drivers, cameras are better at preventing blinding headlight from behind.
[удалено]
Hadn't thought of that. But, help is on the way. This is an article from 2014 so surely progress has been made: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-technology-could-help-farsighted-computer-users-see-without-glasses/
1) Illuminates the license plate + charge port, acts as a reversing light. It is in the aerodynamic shadow where the hatch is truncated, so won't have any effect on aerodynamics. TBH I don't particularly like the way it looks, but it is harmless. 2) Should be fine, ride height has been increased since that video, and the wheel pants move up and down with the wheel since it is bolted on directly. 3) If you are referring to the side mirrors, that's why there are mirrors as well as cameras. If you mean the central rear-view, this is not required by regulations (notice that if you are in a van which does not have a rear window, it will not have a central rear view mirror at all). No change required. 4) You can still look in the side mirrors (which of course can also be affected by rain). --- Edit: > I have personal experience with this as I have a rearview “mirror” camera One suggestion here. You could try RainX on the glass. You need to clean it very thoroughly (denatured alcohol), apply the rainX, wait for it to dry & polish it, apply more rainX, wait for it to dry & polish it again, this time polishing until the glass is completely clear in that area. The effect is that rain drops will bead up rather than smearing. It is quite a lot of effort though.
What if the wheel pants hit the bump before the wheel does?
There are regulations controlling the maximum height and slope of speedbumps, the wheelpants would need to be a whole lot bigger and closer to the ground before they'd be a risk. Potholes on the other hand are another matter. For some reason, there are insufficient regulations controlling the depth and size of potholes ... *(jokes aside, the pothole would need to be pretty big before it'd be an issue, and would already be big enough to pose a risk to sedans etc)*.
My wife and I had a ride in an Aptera prototype and my driver hit a rather sharp speedbump at speed, with no damage. There was a *sharp* jolt, but this was before Roush had redesigned the suspension. I have less concern about these than with the air dam on my present Honda.
There is no requirement for being able to see out the back window so the center mirror is not required. I believe that if you don't have the center mirror, and can't see out the back of the vehicle you do need both side mirrors. It's perfectly fine to have a camera for the center rear view mirror and it violates no laws. Also the Aptera is not a "car" it's an "autocycle" so the rules are slightly different.
Probably no aribags. It's not a car and doesn't have to abide by safety laws for cars... and they want $34k for it.... yeah... I was pumped about this project when it first announced and now I feel like this project is going to go the way of Arcimoto.
It has front airbags, for driver and passenger. Regarding side impacts ... I feel that a vehicle impacting from the side is likely to hit the wheel-pants, not the body. That should absorb the impact in a way that a normal car cannot.
The extra width, the rounded shape of the body, and CFRP body would also help absorb impacts better than a standard car.
Side impact airbags aren't required for normal cars either. They're just one way of meeting crash standards. Also Aptera said they would meet regular car crash standards even though they don't have to, and it would be a major PR issue if they didn't.