Wiperless windshields in your future? Thanks, nanotech.

It's really too bad nanotechnology is so gosh darn morally unacceptable, it could do so much good for humanity! Take this new wiperless windshield, for instance. Designed by Leonardo Fioravanti of Pininfarina, the Hidra features an aerodynamic design, and a bit of a nanotech sandwich (mmm, sandwich) to keep the front glass clear of water and debris. The first layer protects from sun and repels water, the second layer features "nano-dust" to push dirt to the edges of the windshield and is activated by the third layer which senses the dirt, while the whole kit is powered by the fourth layer which conducts electricity to keep it going. The tech could be ready for mass production within 5 years, but there's already a working prototype in the Hidra concept car.

[Via Sparking Tech, thanks Nicole]

[MemphisNET @ Feb 24th 2008 11:19AM]

I would love that out here in oil country... so much dirt and mud... so many bottles of washer-fluid..

[HyperHacker @ Mar 14th 2008 11:05PM]

Obviously the washer fluid companies will make sure this never sees the light of day.

[HyperHacker @ Mar 14th 2008 11:07PM]

OK WTF, where did my tags go? The joke doesn't work without them.

[theory type="conspiracy" style="crazy"]Obviously the washer fluid companies will make sure this never sees the light of day.[/theory]

[Harbo @ Feb 24th 2008 11:21AM]

been waiting for something like this, cant stand the squeak of wipers! always wondered about teflon coating the glass or something, but hey, nanotech works for me

[stitifier @ Feb 24th 2008 11:31AM]

It's called Rain-X.

[Yubastard @ Feb 24th 2008 1:56PM]

you know, you can already do this with onion.

1. clean your glass,
2. slice an onion in half,
3. take one half and chop it's surface so the juices start flowing,
4. then use it like a soap bar and coat the entire glass with the onion juice.
5. drive and watch the water beads get rolled off the glass by the wind.
6. wipe your tears off.

note that it works with water, don't know if it works so much for dirt.

[Twitchy @ Feb 24th 2008 4:57PM]

*Files obscure patent for a 'window or windscreen which, by use of nanotechnology, repels water and soilent', then goes to hide under a bridge in Texas*

[Boris Geyzer @ Feb 24th 2008 11:26AM]

How very Knight Rider.

[peacebyanymeans (AKA: Moorio) @ Feb 24th 2008 11:28AM]

I guess 2/3 of Americans aren't getting this devil car.

(http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/20/two-thirds-of-americans-think-nanotechnology-is-morally-unaccept/)

[peacebyanymeans (AKA: Moorio) @ Feb 24th 2008 11:31AM]

Oh, it was already linked in the article.

:(

Here's my apology: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/deathbyanyname/1198596451080.jpg

[roflercopterer @ Feb 24th 2008 2:54PM]

Is that your photobucket?

[rxse7en @ Feb 24th 2008 4:26PM]

Reminds me of this photo http://www.johndiesattheend.com/jdate2/rapeanchor.jpg

BTW, great book if you haven't read it...John Dies at the End (the name of the book, and not the ending.) :D http://www.johndiesattheend.com

[Killer @ Feb 24th 2008 11:30AM]

Sounds awesome, but what does it do with the other problem, namely bugs? If they can get this to keep my wind shield clean from anything. I'll pay out 1,000 dollars for this feature. Which will probally be the option price anyway or a car.

[stitifier @ Feb 24th 2008 11:31AM]

What happens to the tech when those big ass pebbles fly off the road and hit my car and put a crack in the windshield like they do now?

[fanman @ Feb 24th 2008 11:41AM]

KABOOM!

or BSod?

[bi0hazard @ Feb 24th 2008 1:01PM]

just use Maximum Armor.

[Harbo @ Feb 24th 2008 2:45PM]

transparent aluminium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparent_aluminum

[Jenny @ Feb 24th 2008 6:38PM]

Good question, same thing I was wondering. Imagine the replacement cost increase!

[4honor @ Feb 24th 2008 6:50PM]

Pebbles, and ice! Somebody make something so I don't have to get up extra early to scrape the window... And no, I am not going to put some ugly garbage bag on my car...

[HyperHacker @ Mar 14th 2008 11:09PM]

It's called a heater.

[Guglielmo @ Feb 24th 2008 11:32AM]

He is no more "of Pininfarina". He founded his very own concept car company.

[mcheddadi @ Feb 24th 2008 11:34AM]

It's called snow...

[Maestro @ Feb 24th 2008 11:36AM]

Step 1: Collect rain drops
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Profit

[Blaktornado @ Feb 24th 2008 5:11PM]

Wow...

I had an idea inspired by your comment...

what if it could collect the water to help power a hydrogen car?

Now that would innovation.

[Ben @ Feb 24th 2008 12:14PM]

Rain-X is great if you don't mind putting it on once a week, I've been using a product called Aquapel (A PPP product) for years and it works better than Rain-X and only has to be applied once a year.

When I was younger and thought wipers were for old people, I actually had a car without them for almost 3 years. And with Aquapel, I never missed 'em.

[John @ Feb 24th 2008 12:46PM]

Will I get one extra bottle absolutely free if I call now?

[Za @ Feb 24th 2008 3:10PM]

I can vouch that Aquapel is significantly better than Rain-X - it's what they use on jet plane canopies, allegedly. However, it's also not as readily available as Rain-X.

[Ellianth @ Feb 24th 2008 11:37AM]

Yeah that nano technology is evil. Anything that's so useful it'll cost me an arm and a leg is very evil.EVIL EVIL! Those box of cookies at the store that taste better than the boot leg ones that cost like 70 cents more... EFFIN EVIL!!

Also, isn't it illegal to tint your windshield?

[Snipermonky @ Feb 24th 2008 11:47AM]

Depends on your states/provinces laws, or the use of the vehicle; unmarked police, POV, hired security etc.

[Mark L. @ Feb 24th 2008 1:52PM]

That's a stupid law that should not even be there.

[David W. @ Feb 24th 2008 2:30PM]

@ Mark, why is that a stupid law? It's for police officers safety.

If they walk up on a vehicle with no ting, they can see the driver, so if the driver pulls a gun he knows what's going on. Plus he knows how many people are in the vehicle. If the vehicle has fully tinted windows he has no clue what he's walking up to and has a much higher chance of being shot...

[Loko @ Feb 24th 2008 4:15PM]

@ David W.

It begs the question that instead of outlawing tinted windscreens, perhaps guns should be illegal. But I guess that would be against the constitution that your president seems to be using as a handkerchief.

Guns are stupid.

[Iain @ Feb 24th 2008 3:56PM]

It also reduces visibility, which makes the driver more likely to crash or have some sort of accident.

@Ellianth: who's to say that this would necessarily tint your windscreen?

[Mr. Vanker @ Feb 24th 2008 5:13PM]

@Loko

What state/country are you from? I am from Pennsylvania, and seeing as we have many state parks and gamelands, there are a lot of hunters (many in my family though I am not) I am against gun control laws for a few reasons:
1. If guns are outlawed how will civilians protect themselves against armed criminals? Some criminals are smart and would be able to get guns from other countries, other criminals, etc.
2. Not everybody who owns a gun is going to shoot somebody, and most who do own guns keep them in a safe.
3. I know it's cliche, but guns don't kill people, people kill people (and not always with guns).

[masstercheif @ Feb 24th 2008 8:51PM]

@ Loko

Ah yes... that's a good idea. Make all guns illegal.

After all, outlawing automatic weapons stopped gangs from using AK-47s and UZIs in driveby shootings, right?

Right??

[Ellianth @ Feb 24th 2008 10:34PM]

@Iain

Read the article and look at the picture.

[CaliforniaKid @ Feb 24th 2008 10:42PM]

At least in California, you MAY tint the back and rear side windows. You may NOT tint the windshield and the front side windows. Think of a limo as an example. You can't see what the passengers are doing in the back, but you can see the driver.

[Faar @ Feb 25th 2008 1:47AM]

@ Mr. Vanker:

Yes, how indeed will people protect themselves against armed criminals without guns!

You know... If I was an armed criminal and I wanted to do you harm and knew you most likely had a gun, I would shoot you immediately upon sight. Preferably before you even knew I was there. I wouldn't wait for you to first reach for your weapon, I'd just blow you away first chance I got, with many many rounds so I was sure you're toast. So your gun wouldn't do you any fscking good ANYWAY.

Then I'd TAKE your gun, and using your ammo I'd shoot my next victim. Perhaps your wife, or your daughter, in case they saw me or otherwise got in my way.

Outlawing automatic weapons may not have stopped drive-bys in your gun-crazed nation, but do you seriously believe it would do the least bit of difference letting everybody + dog ALSO own automatic weapons? You must be crazy to think that. All it would do is making it even easier for people to go postal in public places and wasting an entire cadre of co-workers/shoppers/students/kids. Or perforating their own families, in case they're more of the introvert type.

The US has amongst the highest levels of gun-related crimes and murders in the world. Hardly a surprise to anyone considering the general attitude towards firearms (except for gun-nut proponents, that is.)

As for the main topic of this blog post: surely the convenience of not having to deal with windshield wipers and fluid is worth the hassle of contracting lung cancer from nanoparticle dust... Surely this is an overengineeered solution to a not very big problem.

[Shally A. @ Feb 24th 2008 11:44AM]

Hopefully it won't cost as much as a brand new car.

[GMDN @ Feb 24th 2008 11:46AM]

I usually apply two or three coats of rain-x and give the windshield a good buffing. That seems to keep the rain off the windshield even in a heavy downpour.

Sometimes I get strange looks from other drivers when they're struggling to see even with their wipers set to high, while I cruise at 60 with the wipers turned off with no visible rain on the windshield.

Note: One application is good for a month or so.

[Za @ Feb 24th 2008 1:26PM]

Or you could just get the additive for your windshield washer fluid. It's a concentrate that you just pour into a gallon of washer fluid, mix it up, and drop it in. I usually apply Rain-X normally initially and then just "touch up" by spraying my windshield washer fluid.

[GMDN @ Feb 24th 2008 1:36PM]

ZA, I find that the additive doesn't work as well as applying rain-x to the windshield and buffing. The buffing takes care of road grime and dirt and makes the glass smoother so that water can bead off of it faster and more efficiently.

[Kizorblade @ Feb 24th 2008 11:53AM]

Nano technology? Pfft.

I can't wait till we have that car in Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy. Nothing can touch it.
Friction free, yeah baby!

[why not the LS2/LS7? @ Feb 24th 2008 11:58AM]

As GMDN says, put Rain-x on your windshield and water will bead up and run right off. And it's just napatha, no need for devil nanotech.

[N30 G30 @ Feb 24th 2008 12:05PM]

can someone please explain to me what the tiny buggers do to be able to do this? Are there millions of tiny machines that carry anything off to the side like a bunch of villagers making a chain to carry water to a burning house in a neighborhood?

[Sauerkraut @ Feb 24th 2008 12:21PM]

I guess 2/3s of Americans are stupid if they think this is morally unacceptable

[Cal @ Feb 24th 2008 1:11PM]

Only 2/3s?

[Laura @ Feb 24th 2008 2:42PM]

why do people feel the need to pluralise '2/3'?

agree with your point though.

[Bloobie @ Feb 24th 2008 3:31PM]

Laura:
Because 2/3s is correct English. You wouldn't write "two-third" of something, would you?

[Iain @ Feb 24th 2008 4:02PM]

It's true that you would say it as 'two-thirds' but when expressed as a fraction like that, the 's' is superfluous.
What 2/3 represents is 'two out of three' and, as you so succinctly put it, you wouldn't say 'two out of threes'.