←back to thread

The $25k car is going extinct?

(media.hubspot.com)
319 points pseudolus | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.834s | source
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 #
1. kazinator ◴[] No.44428082[source]
If you put a child size doll right under the rear wheel, can you see that in the camera? Or under a front wheel, for that matter?

Solve the problem completely or else admit that it's just for twits who can't parallel park.

replies(1): >>44457227 #
2. kube-system ◴[] No.44457227[source]
> Solve the problem completely

That's just simply not how safety engineering works. Safety features mitigate risk, none of them solve it.

replies(1): >>44460163 #
3. kazinator ◴[] No.44460163[source]
That is false. Safety engineering sometimes only mitigates risk, but often reduces it to practically zero, such that people have to be deliberately negligent to prevail in bringing about a safety incident. E.g. elevator holds 15 people, yet 45 somehow jam themselves in as a stunt.

Partial safety mitigation isn't so much how safety engineering works; it's how it ducks out of working due to non-engineering reasons. If any safety issue remains, that means engineering was not done in that regard: the safety engineers were excused from the requirement to design anything for that risk.