The $25k car is going extinct?

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.

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...

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.

AFAIK some automakers also cut down on the number of sensors by doing stuff like reading the already implemented sensor(s) for the ABS to provide the tire pressure warning function.

That becomes circular logic because ABS is also required by law

Eh, you really don't want a car without ABS, though. For motorcycles, I kinda get it since you can't do some stunts with ABS, but on a car, it has zero benefit nowadays. Mandatory ABS, seatbelts and airbags would be the big things for me, followed by sexy, modern ESP, TC for powerful RWD cars and collision warning beeper (no autobrake at high speed, that shit's deadly and I hate that it can't be permanently disabled separate to the beeper).

My point is that the features are there because a regulatory body has made it a requirement. It doesn’t mean it’s a bad requirement.

Then I think your point is wrong for ABS. Yes it's required but in almost all cases I bet it's not there because it's required.

That’s the circular part.

It’s required because it’s a safety issue. I think that’s the intent behind almost all mandatory sensors. That’s why the post put “useless” in quotes. I’m highlighting just that it may be required because it’s needed for safety.

However, many motorcycles have ABS as optional equipment and many people (non-stunters) don’t opt in for it. Meaning, many people don’t recognize (or don’t care enough to pay) the safety aspect.

Using ABS sensors to justify new regulation is a circular argument if those ABS sensors were installed because of regulation. I was arguing otherwise, that ABS would be installed in a big majority of cars no matter what, and that gives a non-circular argument.

Looking up some data, it was about 75% of cars and rising in 2007, so not as high as I expected but still pretty high. There's some circularity but I'd say it's mostly not circular.

I posted that they are installed for legal reasons. The other commenter posted that less sensors are required because they piggyback on another system. That other system is also legally required. That is a circular rationale because it’s still pointing to a legally mandated sensor. Nearly all new cars have ABS due to safety mandates.

> I posted that they are installed for legal reasons.

Yes you did.

How can I make it clearer that I disagree.

> That is a circular rationale because it’s still pointing to a legally mandated sensor.

It's circular if the legal mandate is why those sensors are installed. If they'd be installed anyway then it's not circular.

You seem to imply that the legal and safety are independent. I am saying they are linked.

Ie there wouldn’t be a legal reason if it weren’t for the safety reason. So pointing to the safety is why it’s a circular argument.

It’s like disagreeing that smoke detectors are because they are legally required in homes because people want them anyway for safety reasons. Both can be true at the same time because they both are related to the same risk mitigation.

In any event, the OP was that some people don’t want those sensors, my point is they aren’t optional.

> So pointing to the safety is why it’s a circular argument.

You're confusing me. How about I explain my understanding of what makes things circular.

Generic hypothetical: Regulation requires a part. Cars put the part in because of regulation. Later, people amending the regulations consider something else that requires that part, and they justify it as having negligible cost because that part is already in cars. Because that part is there from regulation, it's to a strong extent regulation justifying itself, and it's circular.

Does your understanding of circularity differ from that?

Now, consider a variant: Regulation requires a part. But it doesn't matter because cars have that part anyway. Later, people amending the regulations consider something else that requires that part, and they justify it as having negligible cost because that part is already in cars. Because that part is not there from regulation, it's not regulation justifying itself, and it's not circular.

Does that make sense? You could imagine the part is "wheels" for the variant. Regulations that imply wheels are not using circular arguments when they say 'cars have wheels anyway, that's not a cost of this regulation'.