Maybe I'm overshooting on how much of a hazard it would be, but I have a hard to seeing how making a car any amount harder to see is a good thing.
You would obviously see all the specular reflections, but would the shadows look any different than a normal black at that point?
I’m guessing it would be kind of like LCD vs OLED—deeper blacks you mostly notice only in very dark scenes?
Might be possible to make an 'ultra gloss black' in that way. Highlights would reflect, but anywhere that isn't a highlight would be the depths of space. The glossier, the more extreme the effect.
This car still has lights; and in the dark, even cars with normal paint tend to be invisible except for their lights. In other words, I don't think the paint will change its visibility in the dark if it has lights on.
>British artist Anish Kapoor acquired exclusive rights for the Vantablack pigment in 2016, making him the only person in the world who can paint using this colour.
>It led to a long-running feud with Stuart Semple who created his own version of blackest-black, available to anyone but Kapoor.
That was an odd read. I didn't know exclusively licensing a colour was even possible.
Also note that vantablack is not "a color", it is a manufactured material, and that is entirely ownable (although Pantone will tell you that colours can, indeed, be copyrighted. At least by name, which is why they have identifiers for basically every colour that can be made at the moment...)
either way, it is a bit confusing of a way to render it
Sometimes people care about other things than revenue.
> not all publicity is good publicity.
...rather than that being part of his own commentary on the saying.
It was really just a parsing error on my part rather then a disagreement with the point he is making.
I don't even paint, and I almost bought some Stuart's blackest-black just because of how much I liked what he was doing, and how fun the whole feud felt. The paint isn't that expensive, I just don't know what I would do with it.
Yahoo! did the same with a specific Pantone shade of purple.
Driving a car painted in Vantablack at night sounds pretty dangerous.
> When light strikes the surface, it is almost completely absorbed rather than reflected
Sounds hot like it would end up getting quite hot.
Later that day, this was first published. What struck me was that the end result didn't look as bizarre as I had expected.
no subject knowledge, but
lists US detectors as operating outside of the visible spectrum - does this actually block those frequencies?
Cops tend to shoot at the front license plate or the head lights so i doubt it would actually help.
That sounds pretty ambitious. It's difficult enough to hold a laser pointer on a stationary license plate size target 20m away.
Where I am, the reflective coating peels off within a few years...
Dunno why the government only gives/negotiated a 5 year warranty on something that people keep much longer than that.
It's illegal in this country—the UK—to drive at night without lights. Doesn't stop it happening, though. Either someone forgets to turn the lights on, if they're manually controlled, or they actively turn them off because the UI is ambiguous (this happened to me, once), or the filament bulb burns out (again: filament bulbs are/were mandatory in the UK, originally to rule out carbide lamps without actually banning them), or there's a wiring/software fault.
The point is, vehicle safety measures should be fail-safe, and driving an invisible vehicle at night and relying on lights to make yourself seen is kind of the opposite of that.
This sort of thing wouldn’t happen much when headlights sprayed widely, but newer focused headlights are harder to see from the side.
My family talks about black cows that your headlamps just don't see and how dangerous they are, this would be even more intense.
I also have front and back lights (which I only use when dark as I'm not convinced that they help during the day), hi-viz tape covering parts of my bike, and a large hi-viz sign mounted to the back of my bike as a reflector.
A lot of this I think has to do with distracted driving. I've also read that there's a psychological phenomena where someone might be looking directly at something but still not see it because they didn't expect it. So drivers expect cars on the road, not bikes, so making myself brighter might not help. I would need to make myself look more like a car in this theory. I recall reading someone suggest that looking like a person could help, or having motion (i.e., reflectors on your pedals).
Of course, I don't believe that some sort of perceptual blindness is any excuse. Many people would talk about banning self-driving cars that completely missed certain road users, but I'm not sure most drivers would be as enthusiastic about banning drivers who fail the same test.
After writing my post I've found there's a lot of research in this area: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
1) Their own lights
2) Your own lights bouncing off various corner reflectors  on the target car
A law was passed last year requiring pedestrians walking at night to be more visible to cars by wearimg reflective material. I don't think anyone has been charged for not doing it, however when it came into force the police started giving away reflective armbands and then companies started doing the same for promotion. Basically anyone you see with a bag or rucksack has one of these attached.
I don't think there has been a history of racism against dark colored automobiles, so probably slightly less controversial..
Essentially I'm wondering at what point that isn't fast enough to avoid combustion.
Since it consists of densely packed nanotubes, I'm guessing that oxygen will be in short supply deep down where the light is converted, so it might need to be close to the point where the heat is high enough to disintegrate a nanotube.
I'd imagine that's be a rather high temperature.
I totally understand that this is an artistic concept and nobody is planning to mass-produce or sell those, but still.
What I really wanna see in vantablack is clothing. I think it'd look really interesting and eye-catching.
That was a good burn though.
that out of the way, even the pictures of this BMW don't look real. It would be something I would want to see in full sun as well as in the shade. i can see all sorts of non automotive uses for it. probably would be played out too much
For anyone unfamiliar, its from "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" part of the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" series which I would highly recommend.
I'm with you on this. Say whatever you want about SUVs, crossovers, and the like. The X6 is just ugly as sin. It's as if the designers took a car body, slid the scale parameter in their CAD to 125%, and knocked off early for the day.
It could be argued the BMW X6 is gluttonous. It gets horrible fuel economy, and it's characteristics of size + performance lend credibility to the idea of it being a burden on the road for others.
Finally, I disagree with your general sentiment against criticism. Criticism makes us better.
One thing to think about is that the effect of a vehicle on the environment depends not just on the mpg, but on how far you drive it, and how many people you transport on average.
Crossover SUVs are essentially antisocial - they confer no practical benefit to the driver over a sedan or a wagon, but create considerable additional externalities.
To me, it seems reasonable to question whether an inch more or less does in fact make a "considerable" difference or whether this is another moral condemnation of something trivial.
It's gotten really irritating to me the way people, not just you, continually make remarks that assume quantitative evidence for something, and throw in the word "externalities" as though that proves a point.
Externalities are everywhere, but it's not reasonable to use them as an all purpose short circuit for everything. And they are finite. People treat "externalities" as arbitrarily large, as though that was inherent in what they are. That is, conversationally, the purpose the term now serves.
But they really missed electric train, and this the main problem for BMW nowadays.
Isn’t that the point?
It’s a bit like saying an Escher drawing “doesn’t work” because the viewer can’t tell where the stairs start or end.
The distance at which you can hear the sound (in first order approximation) _does_ scale by a factor of √N if you increase power by a factor N, but that’s not normally how one defines loudness.
But practically it's a non-starter. You want your car to be visible in dusk conditions
Have you ever owned a white shirt in your life?
Also, every white car here looks like this during the winter: https://www.germanboost.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6058...
I disagree with that. I think dirt is least visible on metallic grey.
hotblack desiato would be proud
Some guys painted a car with a low-reflective black paint?
It's not like it's going into production or has any innovation behind it.