[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I’m guessing it has some positive aero benefit.

And/or maybe wind noise?

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by Martinjlm

I’m guessing it has some positive aero benefit.

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Pretty sure that's what it is.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

And/or maybe wind noise?

Please explain - the "arm" is larger than the previous mirror mount.

Wind noise is the same in both trucks...

[Ryanbabz71]

Mirrors don’t bother me. Really liking the 19. Just rolled 1200 miles




Ryan B.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

Please explain - the "arm" is larger than the previous mirror mount.

Wind noise is the same in both trucks...

Size is only 1 factor for aero, shape is too. But beyond that, you have the speed and direction of the air as it gets directed around the body of the truck or spills off the windshield. All of it interacts and what may be bad in one aspect could be of greater benefit to another.

As for wind noise, I have no doubt that it sounds pretty much the same to your ears. But that won't stop the noise/vibration/harshness engineers from doing every little thing they can to hit their targets. A 0.1 dB decrease means nothing to you, but its important to them (or more accurately, its important to someone higher up in the company).

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Size is only 1 factor for aero, shape is too. But beyond that, you have the speed and direction of the air as it gets directed around the body of the truck or spills off the windshield. All of it interacts and what may be bad in one aspect could be of greater benefit to another.

As for wind noise, I have no doubt that it sounds pretty much the same to your ears. But that won't stop the noise/vibration/harshness engineers from doing every little thing they can to hit their targets. A 0.1 dB decrease means nothing to you, but its important to them (or more accurately, its important to someone higher up in the company).

I understand aerodynamics - the arm is larger, and at an angle, carries more surface area. Speaking in only theoretical terms of aerodynamics, a smaller arm, closer to the body would have a lower coefficient of drag.

The only way the ugly new mirrors are better is if the air coming off the base of the windshield (high pressure area) is interfering with the previous design's air flow more than this ugly new body mount design.

I have 2500 miles on the 2019 I drive daily - I would trade it for the previous gen in a heartbeat, but work leases their units and I have no chance of that.

[CamaroSkooter]

Without seeing the actual 3D modeling of the two side mirrors in wind-test simulations, literally everything you're talking about is complete speculation.

Could be this, could be that, could be anything.

There's plenty of design choices on the new Silverado that have me scratching my head too, but sales will be the primary indicator for GM/Chevy of the acceptance of the new looks. Time will tell...

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by NW-99SS

I understand aerodynamics - the arm is larger, and at an angle, carries more surface area. Speaking in only theoretical terms of aerodynamics, a smaller arm, closer to the body would have a lower coefficient of drag.

The only way the ugly new mirrors are better is if the air coming off the base of the windshield (high pressure area) is interfering with the previous design's air flow more than this ugly new body mount design.

I have 2500 miles on the 2019 I drive daily - I would trade it for the previous gen in a heartbeat, but work leases their units and I have no chance of that.

A shorter arm could also have a stronger interaction between the air moving around the mirror, body, and arm together. Complex interactions like that tend to cause drag. Although how much of a difference a relatively short angled arm makes vs a straight one (with the mirror still at the same perpendicular distance) would require actual data.



There's umpteen other possible reasons for doing it this way too. Maybe the designer felt it looks better. Maybe it makes for a sturdier mount. Maybe it uses less wiring & extra plastic is cheaper than more wire. Maybe they're using a supplier who only does mirrors that way. Maybe focus groups said they like it more. If I was an automotive engineer, I'm sure I could come up with a dozen others. But without hearing from GM's design & engineering team, all we're doing is guessing.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

Without seeing the actual 3D modeling of the two side mirrors in wind-test simulations, literally everything you're talking about is complete speculation.

Could be this, could be that, could be anything.

There's plenty of design choices on the new Silverado that have me scratching my head too, but sales will be the primary indicator for GM/Chevy of the acceptance of the new looks. Time will tell...

Sales have dropped below RAM for the first time ever...

https://www.carscoops.com/2019/04/ra...ze-truck-race/

I agree on windtunnel testing being the only acceptable method of proving the point.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

A shorter arm could also have a stronger interaction between the air moving around the mirror, body, and arm together. Complex interactions like that tend to cause drag. Although how much of a difference a relatively short angled arm makes vs a straight one (with the mirror still at the same perpendicular distance) would require actual data.



There's umpteen other possible reasons for doing it this way too. Maybe the designer felt it looks better. Maybe it makes for a sturdier mount. Maybe it uses less wiring & extra plastic is cheaper than more wire. Maybe they're using a supplier who only does mirrors that way. Maybe focus groups said they like it more. If I was an automotive engineer, I'm sure I could come up with a dozen others. But without hearing from GM's design & engineering team, all we're doing is guessing.

I used basic aerodynamic theory for my argument. No way adding wiring holes into the exterior body panel of the door is better than the still existent corner mount that is now unused.

I live with both of these trucks everyday...

[JerTM]

It's like GM is trying to downsize, their chosen method to achieve it is ugly vehicles. The new HDs are even worse than the half tons.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by JerTM

It's like GM is trying to downsize, their chosen method to achieve it is ugly vehicles. The new HDs are even worse than the half tons.

I warmed up to the LDs despite my initial reaction. The HD, I don't think it's possible.

[KMPrenger]

I've always felt the 1500 High Country models looked fine, if not good. The RST models have grown on me. The regular LT and especially work models (and that first level trail boss) have not grown on me.

The HDs....all except the high county are ugly.

[NW-99SS]

Originally Posted by snizzle

I warmed up to the LDs despite my initial reaction. The HD, I don't think it's possible.

Agreed, the LTs are "slightly" better than my initial reaction, but these Chevy HDs are fugly. The GMC is a bit better, but the "updated" interior is a step backwards.

[DenverTaco07]

I think it looks great!

- Clark G

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by snizzle

I warmed up to the LDs despite my initial reaction. The HD, I don't think it's possible.

Every time I see that picture, I have the same reaction:
GAH!





I would love to hear how the meeting went where that front end got approved. Personally, I think its fun to imagine that everyone present thought it was great -except for 1 person who was desperate to convince them all that they're insane (and obviously failed miserably).