tuxnharley

I don't think they'd mind being "trools" I think it's the trolls they dislike.................

LS1LT1

Hmm, is a trool simply a troll that happens to drool a lot?

CRABBYJ

At 68 I guess I'm firmly in the apply described "old Fart" group. I do wear an "Old Guys Rule" Tee shirt that does annoy the "Young Turks", but that's another story.

I don't know about the Envoy's Camera System, but I can tell you the resolution of the one in my '11 Taurus is very good at the 23" distance viewed. It is 1 3/8" x 1 7/8" on a rear view mirror that is 2" x 9 1/2". It is though no where near the latest in tech and is probably TFT.

The newest tech that I know of is OLED and even newer Super AMOLED which is substantially better with a cost to show it. Take a look at the Sony HMZ-T1 3D Personal TV viewer which use OLED monitors (2) only 0.7" square just 2" from your eyes with 1280 x 720 resolution. Wow!

As to the sun, this is even a problem with mirrors, but is only significant when the sun is low near the horizon. Even if I am wrong, I would think there is a solution to be found.

Until this camera tech is firmly in place, bugs worked out, and safety issues resolved, I would think there would still be a need to keep current mirrors in use, both inside and out. But eventually eliminating the outside mirrors would reduce weight, offset the cost of the camera system, and help with the cod.

Endeka

For the same reason that a certain subset of facebook users who have gained craploads of weight, gone bald, etc. keep using profile pictures from before it happened. Anyone who has ever seen a C6 is not going to be impressed with the true design of the C7.

BluegrassMotorsport

Shouldn't the article read, "...outgoing 6.2 engine" ?

jazzlove

I just hope the comments about the interior upgades actually happen. That's always been a painful sorespot for vettes. As much as I love my C6, I wish it had a better appointed interior. Question is, how much will it raise the price, and will GM do it if the cost is significant?

SanDiegoBert

Mirrors ALWAYS reflect. TV monitors do not always transmit. It would not surprise me if GM subbed the camera system to the lowest bidder, and we will soon be having conversations very similar to the Bose stereo system.

My position has nothing to do with age, just common sense.

CRABBYJ

SDBert, I guess I wasn't clear when saying to keep current mirror in use. They must remain until both the reliability of cameras and monitors allows mirrors to be ultimately replaced with resulting benefits. But that may never happen soon but should be a potential goal in utilizing new technologies.

Remember the issue is whether a split window Corvette rear vision problem could be addressed. A possible solution is to have a glass mirror rear view mirror/camera system where you would see the split window portion removed from the mirror view and supplemented with what a camera sees. Let's just not reject outright but look for solutions that open design avenues.

Age is never an issue with me and what appears to be common sense can be an excuse not to try. And if you reread my post I mention safety issues must be addressed satisfying the Feds, unlike what is required for a low bid Bose or another sound system.

SanDiegoBert

Actually, I was trying to agree with you. Perhaps you misunderstood me! But then again, you ARE "Crabby"

2K3Z06

Camera system is useless on a vette. On a Pick up with a four ft. tall tailgate it is useful. I priced the camera optioin on a Silverado, which on a huge pick up it is almost mandatory. It was close to $1000.00

Spend that money on better seats and paddle shift manual. A piece of glass works just fine in a vette.

SanDiegoBert

A piece of what? !?!

A mirror will ALWAYS reflect, and have nominal cost. A television system will NOT always televise, and might let you down when you need it most . . . In addition to taking a chunk of change to install and most likely, later to fix.

I'm on board when the TV camera reliability and durability goes way up, and the cost comes way down.

JockItch

The backup camera is newly standard on the 2LT, 2SS, and ZL1 Camaros for the 2012 model year. That addition didn't come close to an additional $1000.

Useless or not, it'll be available, if not standard on the C7.

jackhall99

The backup camera shows what is directly behind you, I presume?

That is the least of my worries. What is coming down the street, or worse yet the parking lot lane, from the right (or left) that I can't see because of the van or pickup truck parked next to me, and blocking my vision?

vant

I hate that - when I'm trying to pull out of a parking lot driveway and can't see street traffic because an SUV is blocking my vision. You have no choice but to inch your way forward or wait for the SUV to drive away.

I like the idea of two cameras on the nose - one pointing to the left and the other to the right (hidden, of course). It could be displayed as a split-screen image on the NAV or something.

jackhall99

Heck Vant, I'll take my chances when pulling out forward. Backing up is the problem. Our safety is in the hands of the other driver's attention to what is going on in front of them.

CRABBYJ

That I can be, with my forum name a self identified indication. But I too can admit when I misunderstand and can even be wrong, but rarely. Peace friend.

Truth be told, there has been a shift lately to sarcasm and nastiness in the C7 section. I suspect a lack of leaks from GM is the reason. We are all frustrated with 7 months to go! I bet even that statement will cause havoc.

CRABBYJ

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- "The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposed a new auto safety regulation Friday that would, essentially, require rearview back-up cameras in all new cars, pickups and SUVs by 2014."

It is coming our way. So if it is destined for the Corvette what better way to use it that to solve the "Split Rear Widow Issue" which is what started this sub topic discussion (disagreements)

"Based on the proposal, drivers must be able to see directly behind the vehicle whenever the vehicle is shifted into reverse. The rule would be phased in over the next four years, starting with 10% of new cars sold expected to comply with the mandate by Sept. 2012; 40% by Sept. 2013 and 100% by Sept. 2014.

The rule was demanded by legislation passed in 2007, called Cameron Gulbransen Kids Transportation Safety Act. The act was named after a 2-year-old boy who was killed, when his father accidentally backed over him in the family's driveway.

Rear-view cameras are a common feature on new luxury vehicles, especially SUVs. They are available as options on many other vehicles as well, usually as part of an option package including other features -- such as navigation.

Benefits vs. Costs: According to NHTSA, this "blind spot" regulation could save 95 to 112 lives per year, and prevent 7,000 to 8,000 or more injuries.

The agency estimates that the addition of rear-view camera equipment would cost between $159 to $203 per car, or $88 to $158 on vehicles already equipped with some sort of display screen -- like one used for navigation.

NHTSA says the total approximate cost to equip their estimate of 16.6 million vehicles sold in 2014, would be between $1.9 billion and $2.7 billion.

As a cost-friendly alternative, the agency could require that some vehicles be equipped with an audible warning device that would sound if it detected an object approaching. However, the agency said tests have shown devices like this to be less effective.

NHTSA is allowing a 60-day period for public and industry comment on the proposed regulation."

jackhall99

Havoc? In the C7 forum?

Racer X

How about a periscope. A camera that would extend 6 feet above the car and rotate 360 degrees. OK that may not be enough to solve the problem when an 18 wheeler is next to you but it would help.

Or the Mach 5 had an alternative in the 60's, a camera wielding drone. Of course it also had a periscope. Surely if they could do it in the 60's they could do it now!

Jinx

We could go to the moon in the 60's.

Funny that the same agency wants to mandate a rear-view camera display and effectively ban navigation. I don't think they understand that the latter technology, for which people pay a premium, is what makes the former technology an easy addition. Or maybe they do but they don't give a damn because they're bureaucrats.

As a solution for a split rear window, it sucks. No thank you.

We haven't even touched on the parallax problems.

.Jinx