No offense, but I’m keeping my sideview mirrors on the outside of the vehicle
Because seeing what’s next to/behind me is more important than being more aerodynamic
Please don’t call people that don’t share your philosophy flat-earthers
That seems to be implying you’re the only one that knows the truth, and the rest of us are dumb
Contempt prior to investigation = Flat-earthism.
Would you prefer I said “prejudiced?” In the strict Latinate sense, it fits.
I’m not taking issue with “heck, I tried it, and I’ll be deuced if I can bump up aero more than 5%.” I’m taking issue with “I decree it can’t be done, and will use my zero practical experience on the issue as a pulpit to quash any claims to the contrary.”
(It’s a lot like saying, “There’s no way to hot-rod a SBC for an extra 15HP or GM woulda done it already!”)
I believe aerodynamics of production cars are a tradeoff between style, utility, and acceptable drag. A lot of the wind tunnel testing is as much about high speed stability and noise as it is about simple drag reduction.
When all cars start to look something like this, I’ll believe they are taking air drag seriously.
In that case, I am glad to be “in contempt of your court”
Because I’m keeping my rearview mirrors on the outside
I’m not even willing to investigate as to how much more aerodynamic my car will be
You can modify/remove your rearview mirrors and pat yourself on the back
I don 't know that anything you do can come close to mandated truck mpg requirements in the next 15 to 20 years. It will be like comparing a 7 mpg gas guzzler with a Prius today. The average person just can’t put up with that kind of mileage on retirement income.
@meanjoe75fan - You believe everything you read on the internet. If so…I know this guy who’s selling this miracle weight-loss pill.
First off…you are making some very archaic and unsound engineering postulates.
You think that because ONE car MIGHT be able to significant improvement you assume it can be done to all cars. That’s just poor logic.
Second - The cost of those ugly ad-ons with labor will cost you more then any savings you might see over the life of the vehicle.
Third - I seriously doubt simple ad-ons will work. You will have to rework the whole aerodynamics of the vehicle. This basically means a complete redesign. Now with a complete redesign keeping the same overall size (interior and exterior) and performance - can you achieve a 20% increase…That’s a lot more plausible. But simple ad-ons…Nope…Don’t believe it. And yes I did do a google search. You can find cold-fusion on the internet also…Doesn’t mean it’s true.
Joe, if you believe you can improve mileage 20% with bolt on plastic parts and without compromising safety, I wish you the best. Good luck.
By the way, you may want to visit the DOT regulation below regarding rearview mirrors. You might find it educational.
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.aspx?reg=571.111
TSMB, the Feds do NOT inspect registered cars. All they do is tell SELLERS of cars what equipment must be installed to sell in the US. STATES have their own (generally less stringent) laws as to what is street-legal.
I have no desire to enter the business of interstate sale of new autos; I could care less what DOT says. No PA car “needs” TPMS or ABS; AZ cars get to greatly exceed DOT regs on window tinting.
TSMB, the Feds do NOT inspect registered cars. All they do is tell SELLERS of cars what equipment must be installed to sell in the US.
Just because your state doesn’t have a state safety inspection…doesn’t mean you can’t get a ticket for having an unsafe vehicle. Most states I know that don’t have safety inspections can still give you a ticket if a cop visually sees that your vehicle does not comply with the states safety laws…(i.e. side mirrors, bumpers…etc…etc). You can’t drive anything you want on the streets.
What state do you live in that would allow you to drive a vehicle without side mirrors??/
+1 to Mike’s comments.
However, if you want to remove the federally required (for manufacturers) safety equipment, and you don’t care that your state requires same to be maintained intact, all in the interest of gaining an imaginary 20% improvement in mileage, than I can only wish you the best. And hope you don’t drive the same streets I do, or park in the same parking lots. Your inability to see cars coming up from behind you in the adjoining lanes, and your inability to see behind you when backing up, will almost certainly result in accidents and parking lot fender benders.
If you don’t care about safety equipment and/or safety statutes, there’s really nowhere this debate can go from here. May you and your auto insurance company both have a happy and prosperous relationship.
Again PA code, Title75, $$4534 specifies “one or more” mirrors (or equivalent), providing an “unobstructed” view, to be legal.
As a point of law, Mike and TSMB are proveably wrong.
Moreover, even insinuating DOT has any reguatory powers over DRIVERS of STATE registered vehicles shows a lack of understanding of the Commerce clause of the US constitution.
(As a guide, the first two things in most regulatory documents are “definitions” and “applicibility.” This will define who is regulated by the code (HINT: not motorists.))
But, by all means, keep arguing “2+2=5.” It undermines your credibility.
(P.S. I never said I presently run sans mirrors. I drive a pickup, frequently loaded, and do a lot of backing. Just ackolnowledging mirror(s) relocation is proven to work, legal in >=1 state, and safe.)
As a point of law, Mike and TSMB are proveably wrong.
MB and I NEVER made mention of any law. Please point out where we did!! You have a reading comprehension problem.
Moreover, even insinuating DOT has any reguatory powers over DRIVERS of STATE registered vehicles shows a lack of understanding of the Commerce clause of the US constitution.
MB stated - " federally required (for manufacturers) safety equipment". Where in that statement or any other statement MB or I made says that the DOT had any regulatory powers over the state?? How about arguing about something we said. It’s always an easy way to win an argument when you argue about something no-one said.
The point is…just because your state is backward enough to allow you to remove PROVEN safety features…doesn’t mean it’s actually a good idea. Stay in PA…on those long country roads. You won’t do very well in city traffic without any side mirrors.
IMHO recommending the removal of outside mirrors violates common sense. And while you’ve excerpted out of context a clause in the PA statutes, I’d bet that a more comprehensive review would disclose a statement essentially requiring that OEM safety equipment remain intact.
But it doesn’t matter. You’ve suggested to the OP that he/she remove the mirrors, and suggested a significant mileage improvement. I’ve never seen any evidence whatsoever that removing rearview mirrors would significantly improve mileage, and I said that in addition to it being a bad idea from a safety standpoint, it may very well violate the OP’s home state statutes. And I’d bet that it violates PA’s too.
So, can you provide any data to support that 20% mileage improvement statement?
Do you have any evidence that removal of the mirrors would not violate he statutes of the OP’s home state?
If so, I’d consider it educational to see it.
If you have neither, I stand by my recommendations and my statements.
“Not discussing law?!?” Uh, what have the last several posts been about? Please tell me you haven’t stooped to linguistic hair splitting re: civil and criminal code!
BOTH you and TSMB made recent posts to the effect of “John law’s gonna getcha!” due to non-conformity with DOT regs. (Never mind that I NEVER SAID I exploit this option personally.) This means that either: 1) you falsely believe DOT regs are operative, or 2) you made some faulty assumptions re: PA motor vehicle law, without ever cracking a book. Either way, yinz got schooled.
Remember that you brought this on by making a dismissive judgment in aero mods that you have zero personal experience in. You then made some faulty assumptions in re: PA law that, again, you have zero personal experience in.
Opinionated ignorance is not generally regarded as a desired charcter trait; neither is contempt prior to investigation.
I PROPOSE: I can, if given sufficient lead time, reduce the EFPA of my daily driver by 20%, utilizing easily reversible mods. I can also comply with all PA title 75 equipment regs while doing so.
To make this interesting, a wager could be placed at a locality where it is lawful to do so. I can commit roughly $10k max to this.
PM if interested; perhaps I can provide you with a “teachable moment.”
" mean joe", I would think in you acknowledging that you like all good drivers, depend on your rear vew mirrors, especially as a truck driver…the mere suggestion that mirrors be place " inside" should be disregarded as a mileage saving strategy. Unless someone covers their vehicle with backup cameras, I have yet to see a practical mirror with an unostructed view that didn’t become an aerodynamic factor. I think you are with me @meanjoe75fan in saying, the better the rearward and side visibility for trucks and SUVs for backing up, the better. Let them cost us a little mileage. They ( outside mirrors) in practicality are unmatched . Guess we can look elsewhere for gas savings.
I did pass a couple of semis with aerodynamic skirts under thier trailers. How that could help a 4 Runner whose ground clearance is important to extracting it’s benefits, I don’t know. But, the drag under SUVs at higher speeds is a whole lot and is much more important then talking about mirrors. Just lowering you truck helps.
1. "Not discussing law?!?" Uh, what have the last several posts been about? Please tell me you haven't stooped to linguistic hair splitting re: civil and criminal code!
Go back and read the threads…,…As I stated…you misinterpreted what MB was stating. He specifically said that the DOT have laws that manufacturers MUST build a car with side-view mirrors. That’s the LAW. You then state that because some obscure reg about mirrors in PA is the same thing. And one point that MB mentioned which I noticed you choose to ignore…is that many states (and I’ll bet PA is one) has laws that you are NOT allowed to remove any manufacturer installed safety equipment. We have a law in NH saying that you can NOT install window tint in the front drivers or passenger windows…(UNLESS it’s installed by the manufacturer). You need to do more research.
I PROPOSE: I can, if given sufficient lead time, reduce the EFPA of my daily driver by 20%, utilizing easily reversible mods.
And as I said…please notify GM, Ford, Chryco, Toyota, Nissan…etc…etc… Because you will save them MILLIONS each year in R&D trying to meet the new Cafe’ laws.
To make this interesting, a wager could be placed at a locality where it is lawful to do so. I can commit roughly $10k max to this.
Oh Please…Try to learn something and stop whining.
@thesamemountainbike
I cut this out of that link that you posted
" . . . based on an average occupant weight of 68 kg . . . "
Whoever wrote that never gets out of the
LOL
And as I said…please notify GM, Ford, Chryco, Toyota, Nissan…etc…etc… Because you will save them MILLIONS each year in R&D trying to meet the new Cafe’ laws.
Here’s a few suggestions, lose the non-functional roof racks that every SUV seems to wear, and not use. Bring closed wheel wells back into style. Lose the just-for-style spoilers and wings.
Style has trumped aerodynamics in automobile design ever since the 1934 Chrysler Airflow was a sales flop. The basics of aerodynamics was already well understood in the 1940’s. Airplanes made great gains in performance once it was understood that a streamlined object can be quite thick and still have low drag. It used to be assumed that wings had to be thin in order for a plane to be able to go fast, but thin wings needed external bracing wires to carry the load of the plane’s weight. Once it was understood how low drag a thick wing could have, the need for external bracing dissapeard and performance and range soared.
The EV-1’s .19 Cd has a lot to do with the fact that an electric car does not need a huge air opening in the grill to cool the radiator.
Gas powered cars with a Cd of less than .19 were built, back in the 1930’s, but nobody seems to want to drive a car that looks like a torpedo on wheels.
Style has trumped aerodynamics in automobile design ever since the 1934 Chrysler Airflow was a sales flop.
Just the opposite. Aerodynamics easily trumps style. If it didn’t you wouldn’t see all the cookie-cutter vehicles on the road. Up to the early 70’s you could easily distinguish one company from another by it’s style. Almost any mid–size vehicle today has better air-flow then Chryslers Airflow. Companies are trying to meet their Cafe’ numbers. And Aerodynamics is a major part of that.
I does now because of the constantly tightening CAFE requirements, but for some decades style trumped aerodynamics. Harley Earl’s Cadillac fins were IMHO gorgeous, but they did nothing for the Cd. Nobody cared back then. I miss the old days.