785
Anyone miss all the colors? (lemmy.world)
submitted 10 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.world
131 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 98 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (22 children)

Not just the color. Each make and model used to look distinct and unique. Now they all have the same vague SUV shape. It makes sense aerodynamics and safety standards are a thing but it still feels so corporate and almost dystopian.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 59 points 10 months ago* (3 children)

    But SUVs are neither aerodynamic nor safe (for others)...*

    *In comparison with normal cars.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    There are also things like safety standards and whatnot, there’s more nuance here beyond some shape conspiracy lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 10 months ago

    It's largely roll over protection safety requirements have increased dramatically. So you get massive pillars that have to distribute force into the rest of the body.

    Which also has to handle that load, or prevent intrusion laterally from side impacts.

    It's largely driven by safety designs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    There are far more sedan shapes over SUV ones on the road, but with that said I agree with your reasoning. It’s natural that the most efficient shapes are adopted en masse so everyone can benefit. Same with other things like safety standards/regulations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    It's carsinisation but for cars. Everything evolves into a type of SUV. It makes sense since physics kind of dictates how aerodynamics works and engineers just have to work around that.

    I'm looking forward to the day when we don't have rear-view mirrors and just use cameras. Kind of surprised we haven't just gone that direction already. Screens and camera tech has gotten good enough that we can do that pretty efficiently.

    The issue I have with some of the more "modern" cars is getting rid of the door handles on the outside. These pop-out things are just a hazard for people in colder climates or places where dust and other ingress can cause problems opening the door. Although, it would be nice to have my kids walk up to the door and not jerk on the handle 2-3 times before I can get the keys out to unlock it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 35 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    Mirrors just work. No electricity, no lenses to get covered and blocked.

    Cameras are good for the places mirrors can't see, but otherwise it's more shoving electronics in places were it's not needed driving up cost, complexity, and decreasing repairability.

    I like function over form for safety items. Simple, reliable, and imo there is beauty in something clearly being designed for a purpose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    Another factor that seems to get ignored with mirrors vs cameras is depth. A mirror is still a 3D reflection and there’s usually enough depth information to judge distances pretty well. You lose all sense of scale and distance with a lens and screen.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (1 child)

    objects in mirror are closer than they appear

    (i still have zero idea what this means...is the object closer in the mirror or is closer irl?)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago

    That label is used for convex mirrors that show a wider area at the tradeoff of shrinking things. You get some depth perception in a mirror (unlike a camera, as otacon pointed out), but the shrinkage in a convex mirror throws that off. The object itself (not the reflection) is physically closer to you than what your depth perception on the reflection would indicate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (5 children)

    I suppose cameras can give you a better field of view than a mirror can though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Sure but if they break, it's a more expensive repair, one that I may be able to do myself whereas replacing a mirror or mirror housing isn't that hard.

    I want less computerization of cars, personally. Or at least a repairable, customizable, and FOSS system, if I have to have computers in my car.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    "If they break", oh yes, let's fund a strawman.

    Go see what a broken mirror costs today.

    Glass alone, if heated (many are) $100+. Actual motorized mirror: $300+. Then there's painting to match.

    Cameras would be smaller, less likely to get damaged, and are pretty commodity tech these days.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    It ain't the glass that costs. It's the sleek custom designed shape of the housing that costs all that money. Not the mirror.

    A plain round simple mirror that is externally mounted is cheap and easy to replace. But it won't make your car look as fast or as cool.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    "If they break", oh yes, let's fund a strawman.

    ...you don't think car parts break? Or are you the type to just get a new one every few years so you've never experienced it?

    Glass alone, if heated (many are) $100+. Actual motorized mirror: $300+. Then there's painting to match.

    Who exactly is the one building a strawman, here? 🤔 sources, please

    Cameras would be smaller, less likely to get damaged, and are pretty commodity tech these days.

    Fair, debatable, and fair. Definitely not cheaper than a mirror, though. Maybe on a luxury car, absolutely not on anything more common.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    They do, but know what works better? A single panel in front of you with all the views - you don't even have to turn your head.

    As someone who's raced, "Wink" mirrors demonstrated this fantastically: multi-panel rear-view mirrors where you could see everything behind and beside you in a single mirror.

    I used one in my daily driver when I had a neck injury (whiplash) and could barely turn my head for 2 years. Way easier to see all around you, and better too.

    The tech for a camera system has been available and trivial since the 90's. A single 4" tall wide screen on the dash, or built into the center rear view would work.

    Clearly you've never driven in rain, snow, fog. Side mirrors are very problematic. Cameras can be better protected, and done right even deal with rain and ajow a lot better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago

    I know of those mirrors and surprise, I have driven in adverse conditions.

    I'm not saying there aren't better ways. But cameras in their current implementation isn't the answer.

    There becomes a point where there is too much in front of a driver. I also believe the frequent "feedback" from driving assists causes me, at least, to take my eyes off the road to figure out what it's beeping at me for and it's usually because the system doesn't recognize a bend in the road or the car in front of me is turning.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    One of my cars is a Chevy Bolt EUV. The rear view mirror, in place of the classic switch to change between day and night mode, has a switch that alternates the view between reflection and camera.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago

    I can't remember which car magazine did it, but about 6-8 years ago, the cover was a profile of every crossover in the US market. I was able to pick out the Honda but couldn't tell any of the others apart.

    Aerodynamics and safety get everyone to a generally uniform shape, but then they focus group it to death.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent