Apart from the benefits of seeing small objects that may appear after you've started to move, and being able to reverse right up to a solid object, they offer nothing apart from image (pun intended) to the driver.
These benefits come with good front and rear sensors anyway, i watched a small child pass in front of the pick up the other day on the small display on the dash, child too small to see from the driver's seat.
Though i do admit the ability to see behind for safety purposes is a good thing if you have a larger vehicle.
The thing i dislike about the door mirrors fitted to some cars is the idiotic and useless shape they've become in the interests of a smooth outline.
|
You'd also have to learn it's a 'true' image and not a mirror image. Could be a problem with a combination of mirrors and cameras, unless the camera image is converted.
I found this problem when I fitted my web-cam upside-down. I had to invert the image and it looked fine to me, but I'm only used to seeing myself in a mirror. It wasn't until I held some printed matter in front of it for someone else to read that I realised my error.
How do others with rear cameras manage?
|
You'd also have to learn it's a 'true' image and not a mirror image.
...or presumably they'd do it digitally, so it could easily be reversed to present a mirror image.
|
|
Bit like electronic hanbrakes and he such, complicated solution to a non-problem.
|
|
Why replace something simple, cheap and reliable with something that is complex, expensive and could malfunction? A bit like buying one of those electric nose hair clippers.
|
|
Doesnt everyone use their mirrors to see the sides of their car when reversing in tight spaces?
|
No!
It surprises me that people seem to prefer driving forwards into a tight spot when they can't see the front corners.
I've given up trying to convince SWMBO that it's easier to reverse into such a spot. Perhaps it's because of my years of driving vans, some without rear windows, that I persevere.
I've also got a (cheap) Fresnel lens mounted high up on my rear window, SWMBO can't understand what it's showing.
|
It surprises me that people seem to prefer driving forwards into a tight spot when they can't see the front corners.
Thats how the side of my car got damaged. I suppose that if people dont know where the front of their car is, mirrors would be lost on them.
Edited by Old Navy on 23/08/2009 at 17:09
|
|
|
|
>>complicated solution to a non-problem.
Yes, if a digital camera and display are only replacing existing mirrors, but, if the system is made to provide more visibility than would be available conventionally, surely that's a good thing?
Especially if the signals from the cameras are processed and objects detected and the driver warned - this could go some way to preventing motrcyclists being sideswiped when a sadly all too typical motorist has no idea what's going on around him.
|
Exactly, NC.
The system wouldn't just replace for the sake of it, but could be made to offer a real improvement.
|
|
In time it would break and be more dangerous.
|
>>In time it would break and be more dangerous.
Oh, not you too PU!
Luddism is becoming all pervasive.
|
Luddism is becoming all pervasive.
SNIPQUOTE!
Luddism was about deliberately breaking things you didn't like, not about them breaking by themselves.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 24/08/2009 at 01:19
|
|
I can see the point in the infra-red thingy pointing forward in cars to give warning via a conveniently placed screen of hazardous objects out of range of the headlights. I've also seen a rear video in a C4, useful for close parking.
But why would anyone want to replace the crystalline image to be seen in one's three perfectly-adjusted mirrors with a blurry video image on a screen, which might go out or dissolve into little squares at any moment? Mirrors don't do that, and they show a reflection of what's there, not a dubious electronic reconstruction of it.
What a geeky idea.
Addendum: Geekiness is becoming all too pervasive.
:o}
Edited by Lud on 23/08/2009 at 16:46
|
I agree with Lud and the Pug.................on reflection.
Ted
|
You're just mirroring each others posts now.
|
I know !
lets put the CCTV screens in the now defunkt mirror cases?
|
|
Terrifc idea, along with the indicator repeaters they will cost even more to replace.
|
|
and on posh cars , there will be a mechenism , to wind them it , so that you can comb your hair!
|
Terrifc idea along with the indicator repeaters they will cost even more to replace.
>>
They COULD cost more to replace, but I don't see why they should. CCTV systems can be had for pocket money prices today, unlike electrically adjusted door mirrors with built in blinkers.
I would bet that such a system will replace mirrors in the not too distant, and like air-con, ABS, ESP, and all the other wallet-busting-to-repair gizmos that are common now people will quickly accept them and wouldn't go back.
|
I can see how removing the mirror housing could improve aerodynamics and therefore MPG etc. But things that occur to me immediately:
- I adjust the mirrors occasionally when reversing (some cars do it on the nearside automatically)... how would a fixed camera do this?
- I set my mirrors up so I see alongside my car how I like it - we have learned to do this. A camera would not work quite the same would it? And where would one mount the 6x4 screen to replace the mirror? On the outside or inside? Is it not natural to look in the mirror for what may be alongside the car?
- If on a stakeout operation, security forces can move the mirror to look somewhere other than where I would for driving... oh sorry that's not for the average driver.
|
oh sorry that's not for the average driver.
Why so cloak and dagger rtj? I haven't tried the extreme eyeballing range of my electric mirrors - heated I believe in case I ever go to Finland - but I suppose it goes well beyond what you would normally need in most directions to allow for dwarves, giants and people with their heads under their armpits. They even go completely cross-eyed if you close them with the button provided.
Yeah, it's a furtive dogger's world, what?
:o}
I like a bit of really bad taste sometimes.
|
|
|
|
Bit like electronic hanbrakes and he such complicated solution to a non-problem.
Sums it up perfectly.
Like many HGV drivers I tend to use wing mirrors to reverse my car rather than turning my head and body and peering through the gap between the rear headrests. I am constantly amazed by the number of drivers who still use the latter method, which is patently unsuitable for most modern cars anyway. It is no wonder many of them rely on parking sensors.
|
|
Me too Harleyman. Mainly because I generally can't see out of my back window due to the amount of stuff in the loadspace. Who needs parking sensors anyway ? All you have to do is wind the window down a bit, take it easy and listen for a "clunk" or an "ouch" If you hear either of those you know you're a bit close........
|
I agree with the above posts that mirrors are a legal requirment and would presumably still need to be fitted even if the car has the electronic alternatives fitted.
It's a bit like drive-by-wire steering - it's been technically possible for years but the law requires a physical, mechanical steering system that can be power-assisted, but not a fully powered electric or hydraulic system, not for normal road vehicles, anyway.
|
It's a bit like drive-by-wire steering - it's been technically possible for years but the law requires a physical mechanical steering system that can be power-assisted but not a fully powered electric or hydraulic system not for normal road vehicles anyway.
And long may mechanical steering remain...
|
Back to a previous thread, CCTV would be a useful addition for us caravan users. I would imagine some of the more upmarket units may already have it......I'd go for that..but I'd keep the mirrors.
Ted
|
|
Mirrors are far superior, even the best camera/LCD screen can only show about 1/1000th of the range of luminescence of a mirror and 60% of the range of colours, so there is far less information, this would be especially true at night. What's more, the focal length on a mirror is much longer than an LCD which would be the distance from the eye, not the object, this would mean a lot more focusing back and forth of the eye.
Edited by Hamsafar on 24/08/2009 at 01:27
|
Mirrors are far superior ..................................... What's more the focal length on a mirror is much longer than an LCD which would be the distance from the eye not the object this would mean a lot more focusing back and forth of the eye.
So we can expect to see these cameras to supersede mirrors soon then.
the law is probably being changed as we speak....
|
Just out of interest, reversing cameras have been obligatory on lorries loading or unloading at quarries and mines for a while. If you haven't got one fitted you don't enter the premises, simple.
Some of our bulk tippers and curtain-siders have them too and they are very useful, as you'd expect on lorries where having an interior mirror to see directly behind is not an option. Especially useful on the farms I deliver to.
My current Volvo has one with a very neat pop-up screen, which is activated when you select reverse . It can also be activated manually, which is actually a big help when you get some peck-head tailgating you in a car; at least you can be sure they're there.
I cannot ever see them replacing mirrors though. For one thing they do not work when the ignition is switched off, which if you think about it makes getting out of a car a dangerous business. It's bad enough that drivers don't look before they open a door (think hazard to cyclists and bikers) without them being unable to do so.
|
Harleyman
Do they provide a true image, or a mirror image?
|
Do they provide a true image or a mirror image?
You got me thinking now!
Since they're mounted centrally, I don't suppose it really matters; I've yet to reverse up to something close enough to be able to check this out, but my guess would be a true image.
|
|
I would hope it was mirror image. If I looked at the rear view mirror and glanced at the output from a rear camera I'd expect the scene to be the same way around. I wonder what the VW camera does? This is mounted in the rear boot handle on some cars I believe and pop up/out.
|
I would hope it was mirror image.
I'll check it out when i get back to work, but I'm off for the next two weeks.
I wouldn't think it made any difference; these things are made to help the driver see what's directly behind him in his blind spot when reversing at low speed, not as an aid to overtaking. If it saves some idiot from being run over it doesn't really matter which way round they appear to be!
In any case, if you look over your shoulder (as a biker does) you don't see a mirror image then, why should you be confused?
Edited by Harleyman on 24/08/2009 at 23:48
|
Camping club mag arrived this morning and there, in the euipment test bit, is a review of rear view CCTV systems. Recommended one is about £200 and some vans, Bessacar being one make, are fitted as standard.
Ted
|
Fly by wire steering and braking is advanced enough to be ready for production as soon as c&u regs allow it.
(It's been good enough for aircraft for decades)
VOSA recognise that it is imminent and are already considering how to make the MOT system fit it!
|
ready for production as soon as c&u regs allow it.
VOSA recognise that it is imminent
If true, that would be almost unbelievably ghastly and moronic. But I very much doubt that it is true.
I have tried before to explain that aircraft have plenty of room around them and can operate in the stately fashion dictated by fly-by-wire arrangements. We all know that airline pilots take off, set the thingy and have a nice kip until it's time to change direction. They earn their money taking off and landing, and the plane does most of the rest.
Cars don't have that space and that leisure. It's a completely different, problem-filled environment involving an infinite variety of trajectories on mainly rough old roads.
Whatever techies and geeks may fantasize, it won't happen. If by some accident of human idiocy it does, it will be horrible.
Oh, and very slow and boring.
Edited by Lud on 24/08/2009 at 23:41
|
|
Rubbish Lud, you will still have to drive the car, just as you do now. The car will not become an aircraft. What will change is the connection between the controls and the brakes and steering, we have had fly by wire accelerator pedals for years.
Edited by Old Navy on 25/08/2009 at 00:18
|
That's true. Point taken on that level.
I wonder though if we will ever have cars with no mechanical connection between steering wheel and front wheels. Wouldn't trust it myself. What would the failsafe-on-the-move mode be, is the obvious question. I was going to add brake pedal and brakes, but remembered just in time the DS's little switch thingy like a dipper button...
|
|
Lud, Im off to the states next month, the aircraft that takes me at many miles up has no mecanical connection between the controls and control surfaces, as long as the food and movie are reasonable all will be fine. Cars are a simple control exercise in comparison.
|
|
Heh heh ON. You've got it rump rearwards old fruit.
|
the aircraft that takes me at many miles up has no mecanical connection between the controls and control surfaces
But don't they have triple redundancy in the software? How much does it cost to write it, validate it and get flight worthiness (or whatever it is they have to get)?
If they apply the same standards to car control software, I'm guessing it would make it pretty expensive, and if they don't, then I'm with Lud :-)
|
|
I'm a LUDdite as well apparently.
|
triple redundancy in the software
as well as double in the hardware... and it can still go wrong with unfortunate results.
|
They earn their money taking off and landing and the plane does most of the rest.
(All/most/many/some) planes have automatic take off and landing as well now. The pilot now kips all the way there and back.
|
|
OK Ill bite, (as its Lud), Who cant tell the difference between automatic control and fly by wire control?
|
|
I have a reversing camera system as factory-fitted option. Very useful. The camera is quite wide-angle, and I can get a view along the road as I inch backward out of an angle-park when hemmed in by SUVs etc. Also, Messrs Toyota have set it up with lines representing the width of the car so that I can see when I am about to sideswipe a wall, and another line representing about a foot behind the rear bumper. Makes it easy to reverse into tight spaces. My approach is a general line-up on door mirrors, and fine adjustment by camera as I slide into the space and stop a foot or so from the wall.
|
Yes, all well and good, but:
Is it a true image, or a mirror image?
|
Who cant tell the difference between automatic control and fly by wire control?
Harrumph... a mere momentary confusion... cough...
|
Harrumph... a mere momentary confusion... cough...
>>
Happens to us all, especially me.
|
Steer by wire is ok when Boeing make it, I would have my reservations on a Renault.
|
Note made and added to the 'list of not on your life', in fact it's at no 1.
1. No steering by wire.
2. No electric handbrake.
3. No automated manual gearbox.
2 and 3 are interchangeable..;)
|
1. No steering by wire.
That's you out of next year's "Soapbox Derby" then! ;-)
|
That's you out of next year's "Soapbox Derby" then! ;-)
It was always cord as i remember and a huge bolt with umpteen washers as a centre king pin, i suppose some might have purloined Mums washing line in a desperate moment, having said that we usually used feet and line for steering...belt and braces, steering by line only was for lying down on tummy for streamlining with most weight on the rear which caused severe understeer.
I wonder how many of us learned how to provoke oversteer and hold it on those humble karts (trolley's in my part, not off me trolley that different).
.;)
|
I wonder how many of us learned how to provoke oversteer and hold it on those humble karts (trolley's in my part not off me trolley that different).
They were called "Guiders" where we grew up. I made a real wheel friction brake for mine once. Primitive handbrake turns could be achieved with sufficient effort.
;-)
Edited by Humph Backbridge on 25/08/2009 at 20:04
|
|
I wonder how many of the technophobes who are horrified at the thought of "no mechanical connection", or backup, are of a certain age, or generation? Karts, trolleys, guiders, havent seen them for years, ball bearings for wheels anyone?
Edited by Old Navy on 25/08/2009 at 20:21
|
You don't have to be a technophobe to be suspicious of a vehicle that may stop being able to be steered without warning. You just have to be sane.
Despite my handle, which has nothing to do with Ned Ludd of wherever-it-was, if he actually existed which is in dispute, I am not a technophobe at all. Nor am I a pathetic theory-driven geek though. There's a medium, not happy perhaps, but sane at least.
|
There's a medium not happy perhaps but sane at least.
Agreed, Any system will have to be failsafe. Maybe I have been conditioned by spending a lot of my working life using control systems that my life depended on.
Edited by Old Navy on 25/08/2009 at 20:41
|
In the name of sanity, can someone please explain what's wrong with our current criminally old fashioned and reliable steering please.
What will this new disconnected steering do that all our present one's don't, apart from lighten our wallets over time of course.
|
|
I cant see the problem with current steering systems, however brakes can be failsafe, lighter, and less mechanically complicated.
|
lighten our wallets over time of course.
... and send us involuntarily up trees from time to time...
|
>>Nor am I a pathetic theory-driven geek though.
Miaow!!
|
>>Nor am I a pathetic theory-driven geek though. Miaow!!
I had given that a good ignoring, and I am not going to have a go at the old boy on his birthday. :)
|
Miaow!!
I don't think you are a theory-driven geek NC, let alone a pathetic one. It was more a general comment than aimed at anyone here.
However I reserve the right to go over the top with a bit of polemic from time to time.
Woof!
|
>>I don't think you are a theory-driven geek NC
I had found it difficult to imagine who else the jibe was aimed at.
Getting back towqards topic - we have had drive by wire throttles now for about 15 years - has anyone had one of these devices fail completely while the car is driving along? (They are usually electrically duplex, but, I don't think there's any redundancy in the actuation)
|
Getting back towqards topic - we have had drive by wire throttles now for about 15 years - has anyone had one of these devices fail completely while the car is driving along?
I had the other end of the system, the throttle actuator, partially fail. It gave the effect of hesitation in the production of power, like a missfire, but always at the same engine revs. I was told it was a damaged segment on a variable resistor in the throttle body.
Edited by Old Navy on 29/08/2009 at 21:20
|
has anyone had one of these devices fail completely while the caris driving along?
Not in a car, but my car mileage is quite low.
However i had a total throttle failure on a Swedish truck some 10 years ago, complete loss of control.
The safety implications of total failure of a throttle is nothing compared to steering, mind boggling the needless 'advance' this will be to a system that is very good with it's direct failsafe back up, and for what possible advantage.
|
Well, before we get too carried away with old=good and new=bad, the mechanical systems themselves aren't completely without sudden and dangerous faults.
I've seen both sudden brake failures with fluid peeing out oif the bottom of backplates or filling the brake servo, steering parts which had sheared, and perhaps winning the award for the luckiest customer an iminent steering failure - where during a check of a Cortina's suspension after a reported noise, I pulled a track rod apart, leaving the ball naked on the steering arm.
Throttle cables also aren't immune from failure.
To gain any kind of acceptance, either legal or in the marketplace, motor manufacturers would have to demonstrate that the new systems were statistically safer than the old ones. This type of analysis is fairly routine in defining aircraft systems, and I would be surprised if similar anlyses aren't routine in what might be termed the architectural design stages for safety critical systems on cars.
|
>>What will this new disconnected steering do that all our present one's don't,
Aside from linking in to a vehicle wide collision detection and avoidance system, and aside from removing the steering column entirely (giving benefits in a wide range of areas including occupant safety in collisions, reduced noise and vibration transmission to the cabin, reduced cost between LHD / RHD formats, and easier optimisation of steering wheel position) one more mundane application would be to allow the left and right wheels to steer independantly, to reduce the scrub during lower speed cornering thus reducing tyre wear and drag.
It would also open the possibility of developing four wheel steering solutions where the rear wheels could use significant rather than limited steer angles, which would radically expand the envelope of vehicle manoeuvres - allowing the vehicle to pivot on the spot, for example, would enable better use of available parking spaces.
Most revolutionary while still involving a huiman driver, a fully active four wheel steering would also allow a new generation of vehicle dunamics and stability enhancement control, where, instead of crudely braking wheels to alter the yaw & sideslip behaviour of a car, the individual steer angle of each of the four corners could be adjusted far quicker than a mere human could manage. (or, as per ABS, most mere humans!)
|
type of analysis is fairly routine in defining aircraft systems
Huge difference in routine full life maintenance of aircraft and the average car.
The examples you illustrate of neglect of usually older cars and their subsequent horror stories gives all the evidence needed that a direct mechanical steering link needs to be kept.
Even the most appalling driver should feel when something critical like for example a ball joint is about to collapse, and certainly that type of fault would be picked up at annual testing time.
A electrical failure is likely to be out of the blue and arrive with possibly only erratic warning.
I have had total car brake failure many moons ago...luckily the mechanical handbrake was a very effective device, probably the best handbrake i've ever used in anger and saved the day.
Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
It's not old versus new, it's common sense or the lack of it.
|
>>Huge difference in routine full life maintenance of aircraft and the average car.
I was concentrating on the design phase, but, yes, the rubbish maintenace available for road vehicles means the systems when fitted to cars will have to be more foolprooof than the equivalent systems on planes - this is not impossible.
>>The examples you illustrate of neglect of usually older cars and their subsequent horror stories gives all the evidence needed that a direct mechanical steering link needs to be kept.
At the time, the Cortina wasn't old, and had a current MOT.
>>A electrical failure is likely to be out of the blue and arrive with possibly only erratic warning.
These parts of the system will have to be carefully designed to avoid single point failures - not impossible. Most modern electric throttles are now doubled up electrically.
>>I have had total car brake failure many moons ago...luckily the mechanical handbrake was a very effective device, probably the best handbrake i've ever used in anger and saved the day.
Yes, some form of redundancy will still be required, I can't envisage a situation where that will change.
>>Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
No, perish the thought.
>>It's not old versus new, it's common sense or the lack of it.
I'm not so sure GB. If these systems were introduced with the integrity of mid 1990s Mercedes wiring harnesses, then, I would agree with you, but, any engineer involved with systems like this is going to be extremely twitchy about safety and the design and development will by force be extremely robust. I predict these systems will be more reliable and safer than what we have now - I can't see any legislative body tolerating a backwards step in this area.
>>common sense or the lack of it.
This argument taken to its conclusion would see us back to horse and cart (OK!, perhaps when the fuel runs out!)
|
This argument taken to its conclusion would see us back to horse and cart (OK!
>>
Fair points except the last sentence which i don't agree with, i don't really want us to go back that far tempting though some of the better parts of that era were.
Technology is moving ever faster in everything to do with traffic, what i don't want is complication for the sake of it with dubious benefit...prime example the electric handbrake.
If the present system is broken then by all means replace it, and they can play around till the cows come home with everything except steering and brakes, which to my mind should keep some form of direct contact of some description.
|
>>prime example the electric handbrake.
Yes, as a stand alone piece of engineering, I'm not a fan - the only thing I can come up with in favour of the electronic handbrake is that it's a vital part of a driverless car.
|
A electrical failure is likely to be out of the blue and arrive with possibly only erratic warning.
Hear Hear Gordon!
Im my experience electrical faults are normally sudden, and total.
for the best 'feel' you cannot beat mechanical linkages.
In the early days of fly-by-wire throttles, we had a customer complaining of a throttle control problem, he said that the engine would sometimes vary its rev's by itself, no fault was found.
I drove the car (405 MI16 2.0) back to the customer.
entering a roundabout, feathering the brake, foot off the throttle, it suddenly revved to 4k rpm, the only way I could keep the thing under control was by dipping the clutch.
I hate to think what would have happened had it been an auto, or I hadnt had the presence of mind to dip the clutch.
And yes NC, I know a frayed bowden cable could give the same result, BUT any decent mechanic would see that, as it would be a physical fault, rather than an intermittent 'virtual' fault.....
|
>>for the best 'feel' you cannot beat mechanical linkages.
Once you remove the most unreliable component, i.e., the driver!, any concept of feel becomes unimportant - this would free up the design process considerably, because then systems which would work and work reliably would be sufficient rather than needing systems which must also "feel" to work for the driver.
As an example, the design of synchromesh is massively hindered by the human factors problem that to get good "feel"you want to make the force at the gear lever continuously drop after the peak force as the gear lever moves towards engagement. Remove the human element, and you can simply get on with designing a powerful long lasting synchro - the electrics or hydraulics that drive it don't care how it feels.
|
the most unreliable component, i.e., the driver!, any concept of feel becomes unimportant
Obviously, when there's no one to feel it. Perhaps when vehicles have been perfected we can do away with passengers and goods too, and have virtual transport activities rather than real ones. Cheaper in the long run I am sure.
As for this fully-automated failsafe - oh yes, and affordable - four-wheel steering with no mechanical connection between steering wheel (or tiller or handlebars or twist grip) and wheels, presumably it will make cars measurably faster and safer rather than stately, phenomenally expensive and humiliatingly unreliable?
I can't say I look forward to it NC, or expect to see it come to that. I am wondering slightly too whether I might have been a bit hasty above... but let it stand for the time being.
|
>>presumably it will make cars measurably faster and safer
Yes, I imagine it will, because the current steering system places larger loads on the tyres than are strictly necessary to acheive a given manoeuvre. A computer optimised four wheel steering sytem could do for steering what ABS has done for brakes, and could either allow faster motoring, or motoring with an enhanced margin of safety.
|
|
I'm putting my money on slow, very expensive and too unreliabl to be allowed on the road. Let's say a fiver NC that we won't see it inside a decade. Of course I may not live that long.
Edited by Lud on 31/08/2009 at 15:09
|
>>we won't see it inside a decade.
On that point Lud, I'm in agreement.
Some experimental low speed systems have recently been produced and tested, and so, I would consider something more like 20 years as being realistic.
>>slow, very expensive and too unreliabl
I don't think there's any need for this to be the case though. Fast computers and fast acting actuators are already available, and have been mass produced for some time, so, there's no need for these to be either slow, expensive, or unreliable. For me, the big area of difficulty is in developing the software to be sufficiently reliable, and to reach a settlement over who (or what!) is actually controlling the vehicle.
At the moment, the manufacturers have a very wide ranging get out of jail free card - they can claim the cause of most accidents to be "driver error", and thus pass the buck. If, however, their system was controlling the car, this dodge is no longer open to them.
|
|
N_C, Do you think that electrically activated fly by wire brakes (as opposed to hydraulic) will appear before similar steering systems?
Edited by Old Navy on 31/08/2009 at 15:47
|
I think you raise an interesting point ON.
We have, with the important proviso of the mechanical handbrake, already accepted the loss of the direct mechanical link for brakes with the introduction of the hydraulic (or air in commercial vehicles) systems.
The step from hydraulic brakes to electrical is therefore less of a conceptual leap than considering anything other than a purely mechanical steering system.
One way that the suggested rear wheel steering steering could be modified to allay people's fears would be to fit a strong spring such that in the event of electrical failure, the steering would spring back to the straight ahead.
A similar approach with springing back to the position of a mechanical steering arm could also provide the fail-safe for the front axle.
However, back to your question - I don't know! However, I expect regenerative brakes as part of an electric or hybrid vehicle package will represent the most likely future development path.
|
|
|
|
|
