F1technical.net

Well, I'm sure I'm not the first one to think of this. So I believe it's illegal.

In case it is, why would it be? It's not less-safe to have cameras, you could even have more angle of view.

I thought of this because if mirrors were deleted there would probably be an increase in car aerodynamics.

I still have to think where would you place the screen anyway.


All kind of comments accpeted.

Bye bye!

Caito.-

I can think of a few concept cars that had such devices, like the Audi Rosemeyer, or the 2007 Nissan skyline coupe... here a pic of the Rosemeyer sportwagon:


You can see the rearward looking cameras are in the two bulges on the roof. Don't now where's the screen though.
I'd say the only reason why it hasn't been implemented is because of current homologations in EU, USA and Asia making mirrors mandatory.

I'd say the better place to put the screen(s) would be at the same place the Peugeot 905 did put it's regular mirrors (ie in board, on both sides)

As for racing, I'm pretty sure a few GT car like the saleens were using camera too (along regular mirrors) to deal with the prototype's random overtakes.

EDIT: oups, reading your initial post again, I realise you were speaking exclusively about that for a formula 1 car. Sorry. Placing the screen would be tough indeed!

Good luck seeing an LCD, OLED, LED, or plasma in the sun. it would have to be brighter than sunlight (!) to see in the sun clearly, and if that was possible, it would be too bright.

Also, these screens run at a certain speed, and the faster you go, and the more jitteriness you have, the worse the image will look.

I know they can do redundant systems to minimize the damage if the system poops, but right now screen tech is not at a place that is good enough in my opinion.

And what about displaying the images in the drivers helmet visor, in the peripheric view?
With a correct level of opacity / transparency so that he still can see on the sides, but detect movements behind in his peripheric view. Sort of like the HUD in aircrafts.

we did this in solar car racing the energy to run a camera is less than the energy to push 2 mirrors through the air

I think any aerodynamic gains will be canceled out when a soccer mom crashes her SUV because her screens crapped out on her. Cameras are nice if you have a trailer and want to see behind you. Otherwise, it is waste of money when a $5 mirror does the job just fine.

I drove a large cube van for a while for a trade, and was not a truck driver at heart. I had never been used to using only outboard mirrors, so I installed a rear facing camera, and a small screen in the cab. I stopped backing over people for the most part at that point.

It also picked up the occasional signal from a security camera I drove past. Erie.

The drivers have been used to using mirrors for a long time and are used to them. they require no thought to use. Change can be good, but I like watching the teams doing something different just about every year involving mirror location or mounts.

I think replacing mirrors with screens as opposed amending them with screens is like replacing the wheel for an Xbox controller.

For Formula One applications, a rear-view mirror is used to check for any cars in close proximity. For anything more than one second behind, the team in the pits is going to do the alerting.

Drawbacks to a mirror: .. has mass, and that mass is forced to be located high up. Also, there's aero drag, and the location of the mirror can compromise optimal aero.

Advantages to a mirror. Very simple and reliable. it always works, regardless of conditions.

Drawbacks to a camera: ... requires electrical power, and is complicated. The location of the viewing screen is very important, and the driver would have to shift his focus from the road to the screen, unless the screen was implanted inside the visor. But that would probaly complicate things a lot for the driver. Could break down.

Advantages to a camera. Aero is not compromised.

OK, but since a mirror is only really useful when checking to determine if anyone is close by, as in a passing attempt, why not an alternate technology? Why not proximity sensors, that give off an audible alarm when something is within a set distance?

I'm no genius, but I could easily design a system where sensors would generate an audible tone or buzz based on the proximity of the nearby object. It could also alter it's tone or volume based in distance, and be done in stereo.

That way, a driver could always be aware of anything close by, it's distance and approximate location based on the tone being fed to his ears.

Some cars, such as certain new Jags, have blind spot warning lights in the mirrors. Similar system could be used. If the light is illuminated, leave enough room on that side for another car.

Im wondering if this can be used in F1???

Could the rear view cam on the T-Cam on the roll hoop be used in the car to put a immage on whats coming behind the driver on small LCD screens embedded in the wing mirrors???

From my research, the T-Cam has 2 cameras embedded in it, one forward one reverse. And with my recent research with the SECU, i will say this could be pretty easy. Then drivers would have no excuse to say "i never saw him coming". I will say, that incedents like the Trulli/Sutil one in Brazil 09 will still happen in the fog of racing, but it means that the drivers will have a better view of whats coming and not such an obscure view from the current view.

You are missing the rain. When it rains, the TV On board cameras show... almost nothing.

I have installed camera and screen in a sport-proto and the whole system weights more than both mirrors.

F1 mirrors must be incredibly light.

By having sensors etc i think its taking away the art of driver skill to a certain degree. From a safety perspective why change it when the mirror works absolutly fine.

Cameras are ok in road cars to a certain length but racing not so much in my opinion....

A couple of things: that audi is damn-ugly for a kickoff, mirrors or not.
Agree that the mirrors are extremely uncomplicated and would only break down if someone tried to take the side of the car off.
Soccer-mums don't use their mirrors anyway and the weight of a camera system makes sod all difference to the gross weight of a BMW X5.
No Definition issue or backlight vs daylight issues.
The mirror stalks have been a nice area of variety in development and can be used in part to condition the airflow towards the rear of the car.

Sambo wrote: From a safety perspective why change it when the mirror works absolutly fine.

I dont think mirrors work fine at all. I think with these tiny mirrors and high cockpit sides and the rear wing its almost impossible to get a good idea of the proximity of other vehicles.

How many times have we seen tangles in corners when someone didnt see someone else?

I think a 40mm high strip of screen across the top of the steering wheel (or in that proximity) with a shot from a roll hoop mounted camera would give the driver a lot more confidence turning into a corner and knowing noone is there to hit.

Tim

Difficult getting a good position on the roll-hoop - lovely screen full of wing. Maybe on the gearbox tailpiece, but the issue of not seeing a competitor coming up the side is an age old excuse for talent-leak, or nobbling the competition...
I thought reducing the drivers confidence on turn-in would add to their efforts of reducing cornering speeds.