←back to thread

The $25k car is going extinct?

(media.hubspot.com)
319 points pseudolus | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
BanterTrouble ◴[] No.44421284[source]
I work on my own cars now (as a hobby really) and one of the reasons the new cars are so expensive is they are much more complicated. A lot of this seems to be over-engineering IMO. This is alluded to in the article, but not explicitly stated.

The cars I work on are from the early 90s and everything is very simple to understand.

e.g. Electronics are normally simple circuits that aren't much more complicated than what you would find in a door bell and finding faults is normally just tracing wires and using a multi-meter. I had issues with the brake lights / reverse lights not working, the issue turned out that the spade like connector in the fuse box was pushed through and was making partial contact. Price to fix this was £0.

EDIT: Just remembered this isn't accurate. I had to buy a new reverse light. The entire reverse light assembly was ~£20. So the price to fix was about £20. The light assembly itself was like a big bicycle light.

My newer car needs a OB-II scanner to diagnose anything with a phone app. While this is arguably quicker it can be misleading. Sometimes it will be telling you that something is malfunctioning but it is really the sensor itself. These sensors are £200-£300 a piece. Replacing 4 glow plug sensors cost me £800. I was paying essentially to make the "you must service your engine" light to go away. There was nothing wrong with engine itself.

replies(11): >>44421439 #>>44421637 #>>44421640 #>>44421647 #>>44421809 #>>44421901 #>>44422219 #>>44422987 #>>44423114 #>>44423901 #>>44426320 #
alerighi ◴[] No.44421647[source]
Yes, if they would make a basic car like in the past I would buy it. Everyone has to sell you too much, I want a simple car, I don't want either the stereo, I will add my own later (I can put it one that is better than the factory one for a cheaper price, but in a modern car replacing the stereo is almost impossible). There are a ton of useless sensors, the sensor that tells you if you have a flat tire (I think I can notice myself), the emergency call button (while everyone has a mobile phone these days), automatic regulating seats (pulling a lever is too much difficult), dual zone clima control (it's the same space in the same car, why I would want to set 2 different temperatures?), etc.

And in all this useless things that they put in a car, they no longer provide you with a spare tire, just an useless repair kit...

replies(6): >>44422137 #>>44422150 #>>44422763 #>>44424544 #>>44424697 #>>44430340 #
bumby ◴[] No.44422150[source]
Some of those “useless” sensors like tire pressure or backup camera are required by law. Even if you get a bare bones hatchback (manual transmission, manual locks, manual windows etc.) they’ll be forced to include those.
replies(6): >>44422212 #>>44422310 #>>44422464 #>>44422720 #>>44424022 #>>44428621 #
BanterTrouble ◴[] No.44422720[source]
The tyre pressure sensor you can make an argument to be required by law as uneven tyre pressures can negatively effect handling.

However the backup camera being required by law is absolutely ridiculous. You can just either use the mirrors or turn your head.

replies(8): >>44422940 #>>44423017 #>>44423111 #>>44423157 #>>44423158 #>>44423830 #>>44424619 #>>44436307 #
idiotsecant ◴[] No.44423158[source]
You must have quite the impressive neck if you can reproduce the same view a backup camera does.
replies(1): >>44423171 #
BanterTrouble ◴[] No.44423171[source]
You can also turn your body a bit as well.
replies(1): >>44423242 #
kube-system ◴[] No.44423242[source]
I have tried this before but I have never been able to make the bumper transparent.

The reason this law exists is because small children (e.g 3ft tall) were getting run over.

Seriously, go put a large suitcase immediately behind your rear bumper and try to see it without a camera. You can't.

replies(2): >>44423557 #>>44428082 #
BanterTrouble ◴[] No.44423557[source]
Do you believe, that I believed that I could see through the bumper?
replies(1): >>44423811 #
kube-system ◴[] No.44423811[source]
No, I believe your flippant answer was made with disregard for the need to do so.
replies(1): >>44423891 #
BanterTrouble ◴[] No.44423891[source]
I had a flippant stupid reply. So they got a stupid flippant response.

Typically when you are reversing and there is likely to be something sat behind your vehicle (like a child or a pet). You are parked. You can you know look before you get in the car.

If you have parking sensors it will alert you to something walking behind you anyway.

The point being made is there are way to deal with this without the need for a rear camera.

replies(2): >>44424187 #>>44424209 #
1. ceejayoz ◴[] No.44424209[source]
> Typically when you are reversing and there is likely to be something sat behind your vehicle (like a child or a pet). You are parked. You can you know look before you get in the car.

You can.

And then the kid/pet moves. They do that.

replies(1): >>44424264 #
2. BanterTrouble ◴[] No.44424264[source]
The point being made is that there are ways of mitigating the risk. That for some reason you are other people don't believe can be done at all. This is patently false.

Also just because there is a camera and a screen doesn't mean people will look!

replies(1): >>44424337 #
3. ceejayoz ◴[] No.44424337[source]
> The point being made is that there are ways of mitigating the risk.

Yes, like a backup camera.

> Also just because there is a camera and a screen doesn't mean people will look!

The number who will is well above zero.

(This critique also applies to your proposed mitigations, yes?)

replies(1): >>44424490 #
4. BanterTrouble ◴[] No.44424490{3}[source]
> Yes, like a backup camera.

Well you've just twisted what I said because you are getting angry. So we will leave it there.

replies(1): >>44424596 #
5. ceejayoz ◴[] No.44424596{4}[source]
Is a backup camera not a way "of mitigating the risk" when reversing?

Which is easier, installing them in new vehicles, or making a billion drivers undertake remedial training in basic safety?

> you are getting angry

If you say so. I've gotten angry on here, but it takes a lot more than someone who thinks they can see through their bumper.

replies(1): >>44424741 #
6. BanterTrouble ◴[] No.44424741{5}[source]
> Is a backup camera not a way "of mitigating the risk" when reversing?

You knew I was referring to other methods mitigation the risk and decided to get a quick jab in at me. That was disingenuous. I don't appreciate it.

> Which is easier, installing them in new vehicles, or making a billion drivers undertake remedial training in basic safety?

Driver awareness can be done through other means than re-training.

> If you say so. I've gotten angry on here, but it takes a lot more than someone who thinks they can see through their bumper.

I never said that and obviously don't believe that. Funny how at the start of this reply you were pretending you weren't engaging in that behaviour. I wouldn't bother replying, you won't get another one.

replies(2): >>44424760 #>>44430359 #
7. ceejayoz ◴[] No.44424760{6}[source]
> You knew I was referring to other methods mitigation the risk…

Yes, I do. And I'm wondering why this one doesn't count.

> Driver awareness can be done through other means that re-training.

Such as?

(Ironically, the serious answer to this is "stuff like backup cameras". Which improve driver awareness when backing.)

> I never said that and obviously don't believe that.

You: "However the backup camera being required by law is absolutely ridiculous. You can just either use the mirrors or turn your head."

How do you use those two techniques to see things in the blind spot behind the bumper without its being transparent?

replies(2): >>44424892 #>>44424991 #
8. ◴[] No.44424892{7}[source]
9. idiotsecant ◴[] No.44430359{6}[source]
You are coming across as weirdly unhinged about this.