The side mirrors on my cars are aimed so that I can just see the side of the car. THEY LOOK BACK every bit as much as to the side. To enhance visibility and eliminate blind spots, I always add wedge mirrors to the inside bottom corners.
-
I never have a problem seeing who’s coming and frankly I think a car with the mirrors inboard look retarded and it’s unnecessary if aerodynamic considerations were accounted for in their design.

By the way GTwildfire, that’s exactly what “side” mirrors are for! They give you a view of cars to the 3/4 rear of your car. The inside mirror looks behind you.

Surely he could have made it more aerodynamic without making it look like…. that.

looks like a citroën DS (production 1955-1976, which has a very low cX-value), but much uglier.

Side mounted rear view mirrors cause a large amount of drag.
.
For instance, the 1994 GM B-Bodys are faster top end than the 1995 or 1996′s, due to the fact that the later models have larger rear view mirrors…
.
Seems like there wouldn’t be much of a difference, but there is.
.
.
Take a look at the Aptera website.
.
They have done similar things such as mirror delete and hidden wiper(s) for aerodynamics. They have gone as far as to vent the interior air to the rear of the car to decrease drag…

I don’t think side mirrors would be enough of an aerodynamic penalty as long as there’s a fairing or a lead-in starting at the fenders (such as on the older probes or 4th gen Camaros). If ya got flat mirror frames or those god-forsaken trailer mirrors well that’s another story.
-
Inside mirrors work, but only cover next to the car and not behind it for much of a distance.

I want to know exactly how he measures gas mileage. I’d like to try this with my bug, but i don’t have the proper equpiment. Sure, i can get all the exterior items, but what is that little device on the steering column?

Hey, I just noticed something that really IS cool about the car. This guy has solved the old problem with what-to-do-with-the-side-mirrors delimma. The mirror is still usable mounted inside, and mileage is improved a little by it not being ouside on the door. Detroit ought to give this guy’s solution a second look. It’s a valid solution.

He’s not a ‘red-neck’. That’s an Oregon license plate. He’s a (primative Big)-footer. And yeah, kudos for achieving high mileage. But an aerodynamic front-end would have accomplished the same thing without the torpeado rear-end(!). At least if someone runs into him from behind, it’ll cushion the blow.

While I admire the innovation and creativity, personally I’d rather run out of gas than drive this.
-
When you click the image of this car and follow the link, there are other cars that exhibit a more practical and palletable solution.
-
The aerodynamics used in exotic and sports cars is more than efficient enough. Without placing a big tit on the back of the car BUT making the nose efficient and keeping the profile of the car low, there will be low wind resistance.
-
This is a major reason why I wonder why knuckleheads who engineer the SMART and other oooh so similar tall skinny and short vehicles are doing that, but aside from the Tesla or Lightning GT which are high-end sports cars… nobody seems to be using a much much more efficient low body design.
-
What the hell is up with that? Is it a case of book smarts but no common sense? Is there something in the water, or some common aversion to something aerodynimically slick AND sexy?
-
My spin on efficiency and zero-emissions has always been to preserve or improve performance, but in absence of that the least that could be done is not to make the ultra-efficient ride look stupid.
-
If we’re all gonna have to swallow the pill, the least that could be done it to not make it bitter.