Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Toyota Patents Cloaking Device To Make Car Pillars Appear Transparent (thedrive.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the objects-in-mirror-are-closer-than-they-appear dept.

Toyota has patented a cloaking device that aims to make big, chunky car pillars transparent. The "apparatuses and methods for making an object appear transparent" which Toyota just patented uses cleverly placed mirrors to bend light around an object making it visible from the other side. The Drive reports: So you're not really seeing through the pillars, you're seeing around them. This is a much cheaper option than adding more cameras and screens all over the place and much more realistic than Harry Potter's invisibility cloak. The patent was filed with the U.S. patent office by Toyota North America, so if Toyota does go forward with this technology, we can probably expect to see it in cars in the U.S.

69 of 105 comments (clear)

  1. Star Trek by Khyber · · Score: 3, Funny

    So does this make the Americans or the Japanese the Romulans?

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Star Trek by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Per the treaty, we aren't allowed cloaking devices.

      This will surely lead to war.

  2. I'm not surprised its Toyota by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know what it is—maybe a difference between the size of American roads and the size of Japanese roads—but every Toyota I've ever been in is built in such a way as to make it very likely that you'll run over a pedestrian who has just entered the crosswalk.

    Every time I approach a 4-way stop or some other intersection in a Toyota, I've got wiggle my head wildly this way and that to make sure I get a good view behind the "pillars". Surely, Toyota has received complaints, and thus Toyota has come up with a solution.

  3. it's gotten ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    my 2017 car has 12 airbags with 6 in the pillars and all the pillars are as thick as coffee cups and i cant see shit out of any other window but the windshield

    1. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Windshield is the only window you need.

      Remember, if it is not straight in front of you it does not exist.

    2. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's why you're supposed to have a blind spot and rear cross-traffic warning system.

      Seriously, though, my 2015 car also has poorer visibility than older cars I've had, but honestly I don't have much trouble with it. The main problem is the blind spot and also the rear view when backing out, but it's not a problem: my BSM works great when changing lanes, in conjunction with the big side mirrors (these mirrors are larger than any I've ever had, I'm sure), and when backing out I have a rearview camera plus the BSM turns into a RCTA (rear cross-traffic alert), and even warns me if there's pedestrians walking behind me, as well as oncoming cars. It's not foolproof and you still need to be aware of your surroundings of course, but overall with these aids I'm sure I'm safer (esp. when backing up) than in any of the older cars I've driven that had more of a "greenhouse". The thick front pillars are a bit of a problem though, and not currently alleviated by any technology, so I do have to make sure to check extra carefully for pedestrians.

    3. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Do you want to die when you have a small accident? That's why.

      Lots of glass means not so much steel to protect you from side impacts. Airbags in the A-pillars keep you from dying or being maimed in many types of accidents.

      Also, these "workarounds" work a lot better than using your eyes. Rearview cameras have fisheye lenses for a much wider field-of-view than you normally have, and they show you what's directly behind the car. Many children are run over every year by their parents or others when backing out of driveways. It's physically impossible to see a child directly behind a car from the driver's seat, even in older cars. And when I'm backing out of tight parking spaces, the radars in my rear bumper can see oncoming traffic that it's physically impossible for me to see from the driver's seat.

    4. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The reason is that the A-pillar has to be stronger today to cope with crash test requirements. The more sloping windscreens initiated by the hunt for lower aerodynamic drag also contributes to put the A-pillar closer to your eyes.

      At the same time many vehicle manufacturers now work on replacing the exterior mirrors with cameras. It's not necessarily a good thing from all perspectives though as it's one more thing that can fail and something that makes the vehicles even more expensive.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Informative

      I disagree about them being more expensive. The cameras they use in cars aren't super-high-res like the ones in modern phones, and are really quite cheap. You can get Chinese backup camera systems on Ebay for under $100 now, and that's including the monitor! The cost to an auto OEM for just a backup camera is going to be a fraction of that. Now go look at how much a replacement rearview mirror (for the sides) costs; they're not that cheap, between the big, complex housing (which also folds in, either manually or powered), plus the glass mirror, plus the heating element (many mirrors now are heated), plus the motors to move it around, etc. Replacing all that with a camera would be a big cost savings, and small LCD screens are pretty cheap these days too. However it hasn't happened yet as the regulatory agencies haven't OKed it, but it's coming. It's also questionable how it'll be done; probably smaller monitors mounted near where today's mirrors are, to ease the transition. But they are really handy; I've driven a family member's minivan that has a camera on the right-side mirror, and when you signal a right turn it shows the image on the dash monitor. It shows a nice view that's a lot better than what I'd see with just the mirror, the main problem is it isn't always-on, and it doesn't integrate that well with the existing mirror (the display is in the middle of the dash, not near the mirror).

      As for sloping windscreens, that's nothing new. My 2015 car's windscreen isn't any more sloped than the one on my old 1994 Integra, in fact it seems a little less so, though I haven't directly measured them to compare. It's the airbags in the pillar, plus the greater strength needed for modern crash (rollover) standards.

    6. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      Your argument about cost is correct, but wrong in the end. They may be cheap, but that doesn't mean they are being sold as such by manufacturers and dealers.

      I can also buy a nice audio/video/touch screen/nav head unit for the radio location on ebay for a couple hundred bucks, but the dealers want to charge you thousands for their version with less features.

      same with lots of extras that are put on cars by dealers vs. aftermarket options. Want nicer rims/wheels, dealer has 1 or 2 options that are all 2x the cost of what you can go to a wheel shop and get them for (and have more options and sizes as well). Want a "spoiler" on the rear, that will cost you $1000 from dealer, when you can buy them on ebay for a $100-$200.

      Hell, even looking at just your average everyday service items are rediculous. Dealers want to charge $30+ for an "genuine" oil filter, where AutoZone will have their higher end ones for $10-15. OEM parts from the dealer are all expensive. I've had a 2002 WRX since it was new, and I've made it a habbit that anytime I need to replace something due to breakage or wear, I go with aftermarket and get something better and higher quality than the "OEM" part, and it typically costs less as well. Last part I got was a radiator that I had fail. The dealership wanted like $400 or more for a new radiator (part only, I was doing the labor). I was able to get a full aluminum, larger core one for about $250.

    7. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      ; I've driven a family member's minivan that has a camera on the right-side mirror, and when you signal a right turn it shows the image on the dash monitor. It shows a nice view that's a lot better than what I'd see with just the mirror, the main problem is it isn't always-on, and it doesn't integrate that well with the existing mirror (the display is in the middle of the dash, not near the mirror).

      Ow, whiplash alert.

      They will put the displays near where you're looking - the worst thing int he world would be to put the mirror display on the center dash, so you have to look at the center dash, then flick your head around to do a shoulder check. It would also allow for always-on mirrors so you can monitor the lane next to you for opportunities to make a lane change.

      But the nice thing would be they can offer a greater field of view and reduce the size of the blind spot. You can also expect computer vision to be integrated to point out potential hazards similar to the current blind spot detection systems today.

    8. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      When are we supposed to "invent" transparent aluminium? Some time in the 80s I thought...

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Bearhouse · · Score: 2

      Yes, but have a high-speed accident that completely wrecks your car (and several others) then just get out and walk away, and you'll thank all those airbags. (Happened to me).

    10. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's been known for quite a while, but affordable production came in 2015.

    11. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by xlsior · · Score: 2

      When are we supposed to "invent" transparent aluminium? Some time in the 80s I thought...

      Aluminum Oxynitride, a.k.a. 'transparent aluminum', with production methods patented in the early 80's: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    12. Re: it's gotten ridiculous by ffreeloader · · Score: 2

      Whoosh yourself. It appears your sarcasm detector has misfired.

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
    13. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Transparent tanks are cool, sure, but when can I have my transparent aeroplane?

      --
      No sig today...
    14. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by hankwang · · Score: 1

      You can get Chinese backup camera systems on Ebay for under $100 now, and that's including the monitor! The cost to an auto OEM for just a backup camera is going to be a fraction of that.

      I wouldn't be so sure about that. Car manufacturers have to factor in the serviceability. If a camera system breaks during the warranty period, they are on the hook for the cost of the replacement, which may involve disassembling the dashboard of the car (i.e. lots of labor hours.), not to mention the reputation damage if it turns out that the camera system of car X tends to break within 3 years. Hence, they have a quite different requirement on reliability than a private person who orders a gadget from Ebay. And they need to ensure that spare parts will still be available for the next 10 years.

      --
      Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
    15. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I'm not wrong. You're talking about dealer-added options; those things are *always* massively overpriced. Cameras aren't dealer-added options; in this scenario, we're talking about replacing the mirrors with them. That makes them factory-standard. Cars with airbags don't cost a fortune now, as you can get very cheap little economy cars that have a bunch of them. Standard parts do not add much to a car's price tag, if any. Even many other things that are parts of (factory) option packages now are pretty cheap: it doesn't cost that much to get an option package that has heated leather seats, sunroof, etc. Maybe 1-2 thousand, but imagine how much it'd cost to add that stuff at aftermarket prices (from independent shops). Heck, I looked into aftermarket leather sets for my car not long ago out of curiosity (my car has them, but it's an option package), and it was at least $2k IIRC, and that was just for the parts! (It's on online store, you have to install them yourself or take it to an auto upholsterer.) It was way more cost-effective to just buy the car with the leather package, and then get the sunroof, heated seats and mirrors, and whatever else came in the option package/trim level.

      Anyway, point is, standard features that are installed on every single car of a particular model at the factory do not add much to the cost, if any (since the base model price is set by market forces). When all the cars in that class, or perhaps all cars even made, have that feature, there's no additional cost to it.

      As for OEM replacement part prices, that's nothing new either; they always charge more for that because they can. And dealership prices are even worse. Don't break it. And if you do, don't be stupid enough to go to the dealer for an OEM part; how dumb is that? You can get OEM parts on the internet for typically 30% off dealer prices at numerous parts stores. Cameras, like anything electronic, aren't items that usually fail during the life of the vehicle. And you can always buy salvage parts on Ebay. For comparison, look how much it costs to replace a door mirror (either just the glass, or the whole assembly); those aren't cheap either.

    16. Re: it's gotten ridiculous by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's no car ever made where you can see directly behind the back bumper from the driver's seat. It's physically impossible.

    17. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by swillden · · Score: 1

      It's not necessarily a good thing from all perspectives though as it's one more thing that can fail and something that makes the vehicles even more expensive.

      I'm not so sure about the "more expensive" part. Cameras are more complex than mirrors, but they require a lot less material and all of the complexity in their construction is completely automated, plus small cameras are used in many other things, so auto manufacturers can probably use off-the-shelf parts rather than something custom, and they almost certainly don't need to make and stock different cameras for every car in their lineup, like they do mirrors. It's entirely likely that cameras are less expensive than mirrors plus housings. Or if they aren't now, they will be.

      Yes, it's "another thing to go wrong"... but I've broken more mirrors than cameras, and either way you have to replace it. I think that's a non-factor.

      And then you have to consider all of the things cameras can do that mirrors can't. Route the video signal through some image processing and the system can highlight pedestrians or issue active warnings rather than just passively relaying information. They can be combined with other sorts of sensors, like radar or lidar, to provide more information. They also don't need a big wind-sail of a housing, so they can significantly improve aerodynamics.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    18. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Why would there be much labor? Cameras aren't mounted in the dashboard; why would you need to disassemble the dashboard to get to them? Cameras are mounted on the trunk, and for side-view ones, they're mounted in the mirrors (and will be moved to pods where the mirrors currently are when they're allowed to get rid of mirrors). This is just nuts; replacing a camera doesn't mean you have to replace every bit of wiring that goes to the camera.

      Yes, they'll use higher-quality cameras than what you get on Ebay. However, the seller on Ebay is selling you 1 camera. The automaker is buying *millions* of the same camera. You've never heard of price breaks? They get their high-quality cameras for a fraction of the price of cheap Chinese cameras that are sold singularly with "free" shipping and Ebay fees added in.

    19. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      The difference between a Chinese cheap camera/monitor and a manufacturer vehicle integrated one is that the manufacturer has to take responsibility for failures and the consequences of a failure and they have to incorporate that into the price. For the Chinese camera you just scrap and get a new one if it fails and if no accident happens then it's no big deal. If an accident happens you as a driver is responsible.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    20. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Wait, a camera+monitor is under $100 and that's not more expensive than a mirror?

      What the fuck are your car mirrors made out of? Solid diamond?

    21. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Do you want to die when you have a small accident? That's why.

      Lots of glass means not so much steel to protect you from side impacts. Airbags in the A-pillars keep you from dying or being maimed in many types of accidents.

      Also, these "workarounds" work a lot better than using your eyes. Rearview cameras have fisheye lenses for a much wider field-of-view than you normally have, and they show you what's directly behind the car. Many children are run over every year by their parents or others when backing out of driveways. It's physically impossible to see a child directly behind a car from the driver's seat, even in older cars. And when I'm backing out of tight parking spaces, the radars in my rear bumper can see oncoming traffic that it's physically impossible for me to see from the driver's seat.

      Very poorly thought out argument that makes bad assumptions with a bit of "think of the children" thrown in at the end.

      Also you're proving their point. I've driven older cars, pre 2000 designs and their visibility is a lot better than modern cars. My S15 200sx had great visibility, if a child walked behind it I'd know because I'd be able to see it. The problem is that cars have gotten larger and fatter because Safety. This means that they've become harder to see out of and much larger, which is an impediment to safety. Manufacturers recognise this and are working to fix it in a variety of ways, one of the best ways is to restore visibility.

      Secondly, so called safety systems are not replacements for good driving practices. A reversing camera is no replacement for a head check, Fisheye lenses distort a lot and most are 120 degrees or less (which is a lot less than the 180 degrees needed to see what is behind your car... not even considering what is next to it. Radar systems are terrible and prone to false alarms, the reversing radar on my BMW M240i is too sensitive to leaves and other things that are not hindrances. False positives mean that people will ignore the warnings. A blind spot detection system is no replacement for actually turning your head and making sure there is no one next to you.

      In fact, I firmly believe that people who rely on technology to save them need to have their licenses removed and should not be permitted to command a vehicle until the rest of us are satisfied that vehicles are advanced enough that they present no danger (this will take decades at best). Thinking that the blind spot detection will look out for you and means you dont have to do a basic "mirror, signal, blindspot" check means you are a bad driver.

      People who run over their kids are not just bad drivers, but bad parents. If they haven't been keeping an eye on their kid to begin with, what makes you think a beep, warble or flashing light will stop them? Clue-by-four, it wont. You cant fix ignorance with technology.

      Personally I think we could do with a few less airbags. Not just for weight and mass reduction, but also bad driver reduction. Driving cars that can kill you is a great motivator to drive safely. But I doubt the average steering wheel attendant would understand someone who cares about their car and their driving as they're too busy on facebook to pay attention to anything else (like a road).

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    22. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by hankwang · · Score: 1

      Why would there be much labor? Cameras aren't mounted in the dashboard

      The monitors are (I quote you: "and that's including the monitor!"). You want the camera without a monitor to hook into the already-present dashboard monitor syste? Now you need to ensure that the camera and the dashboard hardware talk to each other reliably even though they are made by different companies. I've had a phone where the camera would occasionally stop working until a reboot.

      The automaker is buying *millions* of the same camera. You've never heard of price breaks?

      The company I work for sells expensive industrial equipment that costs our customer tons of money if it's malfunctioning due to a faulty component (and we are on the hook, too, if the yearly downtime hours exceed a certain threshold). The components that we buy from our suppliers need to comply with many pages of requirements and the suppliers need to provide a paper trail of all the quality checks and test results. Believe me, that does not make things cheaper. I suppose that the car industry is more price-conscious than we are, though.

      You say: "it's cheaper because they buy them by the million". I say: "it's probably not cheaper because of (1) quality differences, (2) labor/logistics costs, and (3) need to have the same camera model on stock for 10 years." But neither of us really knows the numbers.

      --
      Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
    23. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      if a child walked behind it I'd know because I'd be able to see it.

      That's total bullshit and a lie. You cannot see through steel. I'm sorry, it's impossible. Stop lying. Besides, your 200SX was not representative of older cars, and certainly not pickup trucks which haven't changed much in ages. Pre-2000 (and esp. pre-1990) cars had higher trunk lids because they didn't care as much about aerodynamics.

      A reversing camera is no replacement for a head check, Fisheye lenses distort a lot

      Reversing cameras don't show the very far sides; that's what RCTA is for, plus a head check in both directions. But they do show what's directly behind you much better than you can see out any back window. Distortion is irrelevant; you're looking for objects in the way so you can stop. Your passenger-side mirror distorts too, but no one cares about that; the point isn't to see accurately, it's to see if something is there or not before you attempt a lane-change.

      Radar systems are terrible and prone to false alarms, the reversing radar on my BMW M240i is too sensitive to leaves and other things that are not hindrances.

      Maybe you need a better car or something; I've been driving my Mazda for over 2 years now and never had a single false positive on the BSM or RCTA (which is what I assume you mean by "reversing radar"). Leaves??? Are you talking about ultrasonic parking sensors perhaps? Personally I don't even see the point of ultrasonics in the rear if you have a camera; I guess it can be helpful to alarm if you're having a mental lapse or not paying attention, but you should be able to see whatever the ultrasonics see in the monitor.

      A blind spot detection system is no replacement for actually turning your head and making sure there is no one next to you.

      Sure it is; again, I've never had a false positive or negative. Turning your head still leaves a blind spot with the huge C-pillar in many cars. BSMs eliminate that problem entirely. I still check my mirrors, which are adjusted to eliminate the blind spot as much as possible (something many drivers fail at, they adjust them to see the side of their car really well), just in case.

      In fact, I firmly believe that people who rely on technology to save them need to have their licenses removed and should not be permitted to command a vehicle

      Personally, I think anyone idiotic enough to think they can see a small child on the ground directly behind their back bumper should have their licenses removed and be forced to spend the rest of their life in a senior center, and also have their voting rights revoked. Their backwards thinking and mis-remembering the past is a symptom of dementia and they're a danger to society.

      People who run over their kids are not just bad drivers, but bad parents.

      What about when the stupid kid runs over to the neighbor's property (which is about 20 feet away in a modern subdivision) and crawls behind their car? That's why we have rearview cameras. They can't be seen there.

      Personally I think we could do with a few less airbags. Not just for weight and mass reduction, but also bad driver reduction

      Personally, I think people who espouse these ideas should be rounded up and forced to drive cars with no seat belts or airbags since they think it's such a great idea. Throw in a big spike on the steering wheel too, and remove liability from anyone who's involved in a crash with them.

    24. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Go look up the new price for an entire OEM mirror assembly for any decent new car. It's going to be well over $100, probably at least $150, even for an economy car.

    25. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The Chinese system has to be shipped to you, which isn't free. It's sold as a single unit, to you, an individual customer, so there's no quantity discount at all. It's sold on Ebay or similar, which has a hefty fee for the seller (12-15%), and it's paid for through Paypal or a credit card, which adds another fee (~3%). Selling stuff individually to people isn't cheap, which is why typical retailers mark up their wares a minimum of 100%, usually more (from the wholesale price). Do you seriously not understand this???

      Factories don't buy stuff at retail, or from a wholesaler, they buy it direct from the manufacturer with an exclusive contract at quantities in the millions (a camera is something they can use on every single model they produce, unlike something that's vehicle-specific like a fender or something trim-level-specific like a factory option). Their prices are hence absurdly cheap. Yes, the camera maker has to build in liability to their price, but cameras are not known to fail much, and given the above I can't imagine the factory's price being more than $50. It won't be more than a full mirror assembly. Now the screens are another matter, and probably come from a different manufacturer. But still, the price for electronics in general is cheap these days; if Huawei or whoever can make a low-end Android phone (with high-res camera and screen) and sell it at Walmart for $75, I'm sorry, it's not going to cost an automaker that much for these parts at factory quantities.

    26. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Ouch. That's just batty. Although heated electronically adjustable mirrors do have a few different bits to them.

    27. Re: it's gotten ridiculous by zugmeister · · Score: 1

      Once you reach a certain speed moving forward, you probably only do need to worry about what you can see through the windshield. How many multiples of "safe" that speed is would be a matter of debate.
      Regardless, "whoosh" seems an entirely appropriate comment under those circumstances.

    28. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Screens don't change the view image when you move your head left or right, or even up or down, to get a new view through the mirror. You may be able to compensate with a more fish-eye type of lens though. Distance to the object will get harder with a more fish-eye effect, and even without it, you only have one image for both eyes, not two like you get in a mirror. So the depth information is lost.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    29. Re:it's gotten ridiculous by swillden · · Score: 1

      , you only have one image for both eyes, not two like you get in a mirror

      Depth perception is not based on stereoscopy beyond a couple of dozen feet anyway. And for close up you can just add distance marks, like most backup cameras have.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  4. Car pillars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh the thing that attaches the roof to the car. At first I thought they meant the concrete pillars put up to stop cars from driving into businesses. It would be really dumb for those to be transparent. People on foot run into them enough as is LOL.

    1. Re:Car pillars? by turkeydance · · Score: 2

      yes. the A pillar, B and C. A is front windshield B is middle and C is the rear. Left and Right

    2. Re:Car pillars? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Or just A pillars when the top is down...;)

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    3. Re:Car pillars? by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 2

      Not common. Probably easy to deduce from the summary, but out of context and prior to reading this, I would honestly be confused about the term "car pillar."

    4. Re:Car pillars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Probably country dependent. I know what tfa means, but only because last time this news got reported I looked up what a car pillar was.

    5. Re:Car pillars? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      yes. the A pillar, B and C. A is front windshield B is middle and C is the rear. Left and Right

      Mostly right, but different cars have different pillar configurations.

      A pillars are the forward most pillar, each consecutive letter is the next pillar back.

      In a Coupe, the A pillar is at the front and the B pillar is often at the back as many coupes have no centre pillar. Estates and wagons often have a D pillar because B and C are both centre. Convertibles only have an A pillar.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  5. patents will not likely hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The methods they describe are materially the same as prior magicians tricks as well as described in numerous fictional accounts... prior art

    1. Re: patents will not likely hold by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Well that's disappointing. I was planning to take whatever they had and just tack an "on the internet" to the end. I could have cornered the market.

    2. Re:patents will not likely hold by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Well, hang on.. are the magicians' tricks published?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:patents will not likely hold by skids · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but getting the mirrors to behave safely during an air bag deployment could deserve a patent.

      It's about time. The visibility behind the A pillars has always bothered me. Not just the pillars but that crossbar along the back window. Somehow people always drive the exact distance behind me so their headlights jiggle behind that over bumps, which is irritating because it looks like they are flashing them frantically.

      --
      Someone had to do it.
    4. Re: patents will not likely hold by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The novel part is using light polarization in order to let parts lf the image pass straight through the same mirrors that also reflect other parts of the image around the pillar. This means only half the light is coming through, but thanks to the logarithmic nature of vision it will only seem a little darker. It might not work well in combination with polarizing sunglasses though.

  6. Re:Why? by jtara · · Score: 2

    Who said that "the goal is driverless"?

    But if you assume that it is, then for the same reason as the Scenicruiser and railway-car observation domes - rider experience. Allow the rider to enjoy the scenery unimpeded.

    But, anyhoo, the cynic in me says that perhaps they would only implement this on driverless cars - because to put it in a car with a driver might prove a liability. What happens if the it fails? Will drivers sue Toyota because they didn't see something that was blocked by the pillar, or if they misperceived the location of something due to some malfunction? (I realize it is mirrors, not cameras and displays - but "malfunction" is still possible - e.g. broken or misaligned mirrors.)

  7. Wrong direction by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    I need a cloaking device that keeps other cars, namely police, from seeing my car.

    An EMP gun to disable other drivers would be good too.

    1. Re:Wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      An SEP field would solve your problems ten times as easily.

    2. Re:Wrong direction by ffreeloader · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because driving a tank down the street wouldn't attract police attention at all...,

      --
      "while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." de Tocqueville
  8. I already had transparent pillars on a Subaru by Shompol · · Score: 1

    The key is to have pillar cross-section shorter than the distance between eyes -- voila, can see right through it, without realizing it! I only noticed this effect after I got a new car -- suddenly pillars were an obstacle.

  9. If you can make pillars disappear by kilodelta · · Score: 1

    Why not the whole car? Be fun watching the police try to chase a ghost.

  10. I just bought a toyota for my kid by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and the pillars were ridiculous. It felt like I was boxed in driving the damn thing. The itty bitty windows didn't help either.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I just bought a toyota for my kid by freeze128 · · Score: 2

      My uncle's 1943 pickup had a small oval window in the back. You don't know what ridiculous is.

  11. I want mirrors on trucks that show what's in front by blibbo · · Score: 1

    If we only had mirrors / prism / periscopes that wrap the light around the big trucks that I'm driving behind. I'm running through a red light? Oh, now I see, now that I'm in the middle of the intersection. I'm just following this semi-truck at a safe distance. The way the traffic lights are positioned on poles that reach above and into the middle of the lane where I am (Japan) means you have no idea unless you're following way behind.

    I'll take credit for the patent, can someone please do this? The cynic in me says it won't happen on the free market because the vehicle in front invests the money but the vehicle behind gets the advantage. But it's certainly technically possible.

  12. Thank God by mentil · · Score: 1

    The left blind spot on my Prius is so bad that doing a shoulder check is almost pointless, I do anyway due to habit, use the mirrors and pray nothing is small enough to hide in that blind spot. The right blind spot isn't as bad, though still anxiety-inducing. I swear I read something recently about similar tech being used to make the car's hood 'transparent'.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Thank God by nasch · · Score: 1

      Look into the mirror, and keep looking as you lean forward and somewhat towards the mirror. You get a different view in the mirror when you lean forward so it helps alleviate the blind spot. It's probably not much more inconvenient than looking over your shoulder.

  13. Great but!!! by iaqibahmed · · Score: 1

    well this seems innovative but funny at the same times.

  14. Re:Why? by nospam007 · · Score: 2

    *"If the goal is driverless then why worry about field of vision?"

    It's done to enable people on the outside to see your new haircut.

  15. Flaws in the invention by hankwang · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you look at the front-page figure and Fig. 1 in the patent application, it will become apparent that the device only works for light rays entering at one particular angle. Essentially, it's like looking through louvers with an aspect ratio of 1:4 (fig. 1) or 1:6 (front page), which means that you won't be able to see through at all if your eyes are off by 25 cm horizontal at 1 m distance (i.e., passenger-side pillars) and whatever you see is substantially obscured for smaller angles. This is roughly how those 3M privacy screens for laptops work. That might be barely acceptable for the passenger-side pillars, but would be completely unworkable for the driver-side pillars.

    Moreover, the surfaces 126 and 146 in Fig. 2 will need to be polarizing filters or opaque black surfaces so that you don't get to see spurious overlaid images. If you make them black, you will have replaced the obscuration of the pillar by two big black sheets that are only invisible if you look at them from one particular angle. If you make them polarizing absorbers, good luck in manufacturing those such that they don't reflect at grazing-incidence angles. (Those surfaces are mentioned in paragraph 37, without further reasoning about the benefits or tradeoffs, suggesting that the inventors don't know yet how to deal with these issues.)

    By the way, the inventors have the polarizations the wrong way around in the figures. Although the correctly mention that p-polarization is transmitted and s-polarization is reflected, they have the arrows indicating the light polarization the wrong way around...

    --
    Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
  16. They weren't the first ones by phaelax7568 · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure I read about this technology years ago.... from Jaguar. https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...

  17. Re:Why? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    If the goal is driverless then why worry about field of vision?

    Ummmmm, maybe because 'drivers' will have more time to look out of the window...?

    --
    No sig today...
  18. "Expect to see it in cars in the US" by ehaggis · · Score: 1

    No. That's the point. We won't see it.

    --
    One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
  19. Re:Why? by beanpoppa · · Score: 2

    I think that was parent's point. If the mirrors are misaligned, a driver might think that an obstacle was at 10 o'clock, when it was actually at 11 o'clock causing a collision.

    However, I don't think that this would be an impediment to put this into cars. In the past 10 years, there's been a proliferation of driver assist capabilities like backup cameras, radar collision detection, etc. All of which, should a 'misalignment' occur, could result in the driver having an accident and we haven't seen a barrage of lawsuits.

  20. Re:Why? by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Because driverless cars are in the mythical 5 years of development research cycle, which means there are technical hurtles that haven't been solved yet. Then finally after they have been solved it will take a decade to implement.
    So this feature will probably be implemented by 2027, if it currently proves to work well now.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  21. Stating the obvious by jlv · · Score: 1

    The patent was filed with the U.S. patent office by Toyota North America, so if Toyota does go forward with this technology, we can probably expect to see it in cars in the U.S.

    And if Toyota does not go forward with this technology, they won't put it in cars in the U.S.

  22. When is a Mirror a cloaking device by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

    Basically, their cloaking device consists of two or more mirrors, strategically placed so that when you sit in the driver 's seat, and ONLY the driver's seat, you can see what is behind the pillar.

    What exactly is patent worthy in this idea, that wasn't discovered 100's of years ago.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:When is a Mirror a cloaking device by cstacy · · Score: 1

      Basically, their cloaking device consists of two or more mirrors, strategically placed so that when you sit in the driver 's seat, and ONLY the driver's seat, you can see what is behind the pillar.

      What exactly is patent worthy in this idea, that wasn't discovered 100's of years ago.

      Well, there are lots of computers in the car, and the mirrors are part of the car, so ...

  23. iswydt by cstacy · · Score: 1

    if Toyota does go forward with this technology, we can probably expect to see it in cars in the U.S.

    I don't think you're supposed to see it...

  24. Obvious by joemck · · Score: 1

    If I knew putting mirrors facing each other and looking between them at a 45 degree angle was patentable, I would have patented it when I was 7. The only reason Toyota were the first to file this patent was that everyone else thought it was entirely obvious.

  25. Sounds kind of like... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 1

    Gravitational lensing. But without a foreground galaxy!