Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rise of the disposable car

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 267 posts

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#51

Post by skhunted »

dragontamer wrote: post #4

https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/avera... The opposite. With cars reaching much more advanced ages today, when a collision happens it's a write-off. The modern car isn't 'disposable'. In fact, all statistics point to us holding onto cars longer today than ever before. Today's cars are the most durable that they've ever been.

What do you think about Cubans keeping cars from 1950s running for as long as they did? It seems to me that maybe we live in a society that is overly permissive of replacing items.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#52

Post by nytesky »

sokoloff wrote: post #26
StableAlkyne wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As such, it makes no sense to repair a totaled vehicle. You should instead buy a comparable used vehicle. I sometimes wonder how much the carbon footprint of the auto industry would change if people preferred to fix them instead of throwing the whole thing away just because of a fender bender or an expensive part broke

Our CR-V was rear-ended. It's a great car and it's pretty likely to be totaled because the cost of repairs is going to end up being higher than the insurance company is willing to pay. (And then I expect it's going to be a massive fight for me to get paid enough to replace it like-for-like, but that's a separate issue from the overall footprint.) I don't see any reasonable way around this, though. If I have a car tha…

The total valued does not include the significant time of finding an equivalent vehicle at that price in the rough and tumble used car market.

It also does not price in the significant risk that a used car of this vintage significant undisclosed defects that are hard to detect by inspection at purchase.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#53

Post by vel0city »

beretguy wrote: post #5

Tangential but related: There are full parking lots with brand new cars that go under press or get disassembled for parts because dealership don’t want sell them at a cheaper prices. https://www.costulessdirect.com/blog/where-brand-new-unsold-... From article: > the unsold cars that are older than two years old, will have no alternative but to be either crushed, dismantled and/or their parts recycled. Want to see for…

That lot in Baltimore is a vehicle processing lot for the Port of Baltimore. Cars manufactured overaseas usually come by boat and delivered to places like that. The lot they're referencing is owned/managed by Wallenius Wilhelmsen which specializes in this RoRo style of logistics that are common with overseas car shipping. They'll sit there for a short period of time as all the customs work takes place and then shipped out all over the country after by rail or truck. Seeing a single snapshot in Google Maps of hundreds of new cars tells you nothing, you'd have to actually analyze how long those cars are staying there.

Seeing a lot with a lot of new cars with delivery wrap still on Google Maps isn't indicative of some new car graveyard, its just showcasing the ignorance of how car imports work. What, did they think a car manufacturing plant in Germany just suddenly teleports cars into dealer lots in the US? Did they think they were delivered by plane?

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#54

Post by sokoloff »

nytesky wrote: post #52
sokoloff wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our CR-V was rear-ended. It's a great car and it's pretty likely to be totaled because the cost of repairs is going to end up being higher than the insurance company is willing to pay. (And then I expect it's going to be a massive fight for me to get paid enough to replace it like-for-like, but that's a separate issue from the overall footprint.) I don't see any reasonable way around this, though. If I have a car tha…

The total valued does not include the significant time of finding an equivalent vehicle at that price in the rough and tumble used car market. It also does not price in the significant risk that a used car of this vintage significant undisclosed defects that are hard to detect by inspection at purchase.

Agree on the first.

In theory (and I think in practice), the second is priced into the used car market already.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#55

Post by nytesky »

sokoloff wrote: post #26
StableAlkyne wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As such, it makes no sense to repair a totaled vehicle. You should instead buy a comparable used vehicle. I sometimes wonder how much the carbon footprint of the auto industry would change if people preferred to fix them instead of throwing the whole thing away just because of a fender bender or an expensive part broke

Our CR-V was rear-ended. It's a great car and it's pretty likely to be totaled because the cost of repairs is going to end up being higher than the insurance company is willing to pay. (And then I expect it's going to be a massive fight for me to get paid enough to replace it like-for-like, but that's a separate issue from the overall footprint.) I don't see any reasonable way around this, though. If I have a car tha…

So if someone else is at fault, their insurance can total your car? I thought that was only a factor for your own comprehensive/collision insurance. I would expect if my car is damaged and the repairs are $X, that is the other drivers liability regardless of the value of my car??

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#56

Post by sokoloff »

nytesky wrote: post #55
sokoloff wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our CR-V was rear-ended. It's a great car and it's pretty likely to be totaled because the cost of repairs is going to end up being higher than the insurance company is willing to pay. (And then I expect it's going to be a massive fight for me to get paid enough to replace it like-for-like, but that's a separate issue from the overall footprint.) I don't see any reasonable way around this, though. If I have a car tha…

So if someone else is at fault, their insurance can total your car? I thought that was only a factor for your own comprehensive/collision insurance. I would expect if my car is damaged and the repairs are $X, that is the other drivers liability regardless of the value of my car??

Imagine your 1990 Honda Accord is smashed into a 2’ x 2’ x 2’ cube or caught fire and burned to the ground as a result of the accident that was someone else’s fault.

Do you think that the other insurance should be on the hook to repair the remains of your car into a functioning 1990 Honda Accord?

Or is paying to replace the car with like sufficient? (I hate it, but I have to agree that it’s far more practical to allow the replacement.)

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#57

Post by nytesky »

nickthegreek wrote: post #20
jseliger wrote: post #9

I live in Phoenix and now take Waymo regularly, and it seems like we're close to a world in which most people take self-driving cars most of the time, crash rates plummet, and these kinds of articles come to resemble articles from 1910 about horse-related problems. Humans suck at driving: https://jakeseliger.com/2019/12/16/maybe-cars-are-just-reall...

Phoenix doesn't really have the related weather concerns of the midwest which allow Waymo to flourish in your state.

It’s also a grid roadway as a post-automobile city.

Granted they got SF working too, which is pretty varied terrain but it took a lot of training. I guess we can roll it out city by city but will they ever recoup the cost?

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#58

Post by tonetegeatinst »

I'm conflicted. I know modern vehicles are so complex and if something breaks it actually is cheaper to just go bet a new car.....but I don't really like that.

On the other hand, most of my close family that I know has a vehicle that is fixable. I know how to do basic stuff like change oil, change a tire or break pads, but I also know how much vehicles are digital and I really don't enjoy that.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#59

Post by pfdietz »

yareally wrote: post #40
pfdietz wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CVTs are also much cheaper to manufacture than traditional transmissions.

That doesn't alone make them terrible though. CVTs have less complexity, so they will be cheaper. Dependable cars have CVTs for reasons other than cheapness. For example, a dual clutch transmission is complex and expensive, but at the same time, I wouldn't call it better. There's tradeoffs in all types of transmissions. My car might have one, but if I were driving a truck, I don't think I would want a DSG.

Indeed, that was not a criticism.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#60

Post by a1371 »

skhunted wrote: post #51
dragontamer wrote: post #4

https://www.spglobal.com/mobility/en/research-analysis/avera... The opposite. With cars reaching much more advanced ages today, when a collision happens it's a write-off. The modern car isn't 'disposable'. In fact, all statistics point to us holding onto cars longer today than ever before. Today's cars are the most durable that they've ever been.

What do you think about Cubans keeping cars from 1950s running for as long as they did? It seems to me that maybe we live in a society that is overly permissive of replacing items.

This kind of argument ignores the real cost of having to upkeep a 50s car: the human suffering. Cubans are forced to use this option and their society suffers from it.
Post reply on HN