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

191–200 of 267 posts

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#191

Post by babypuncher »

AnarchismIsCool wrote: post #72
salad-tycoon wrote: post #48

I just want a cheap, safe dependable car. Anti lock brakes, a couple of air bags, crumple zones, maybe Bluetooth, real dials, two base versions: AWD and non AWD. That’s it. No telephony, no on star, no breathalyzers. I don’t need to play Witcher in it. Just need it to turn on and then off after running around. I’m holding onto my ancient POS because it’s impossible apparently to find the above. Everything is new and…

I wish there was an actual community of people building open source cars. It exists for fucking airplanes but there's __nothing__ on the vehicle market. Pool some money, crash test a couple, get some shop in asia to make frames. Make it fairly modular, something like an EV version of the 1995 ford ranger, something where people can throw whatever they want on the back and turn it into anything. Super bare minimum, no…

Kit cars have been around for decades, though I have no idea if any are available under an open source license.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#192

Post by kube-system »

bluGill wrote: post #85
kube-system wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1897, you could hop in a commercial electric taxi in London. Alas, Londoners still have many gasoline cars on the road. Availability and mass adoption are two very entirely different things. The time in which people take most commutes by any kind of car is: today... 51% of people commute by car currently. That took 136 years. 'most of the time' for 'most people' is quite a high bar. That's a lot of travel, for abo…

IF, and this is a big if - self driving cars prove safer than human drivers in all conditions - governments will mandate it in all new cars and in 12 more years they will be the majority, and a few more years and governments will ban everything else (if not directly insurance via high rates). However right now they are not ready for that. They don't work in all conditions and we don't have unbiased safety studies.

For varying definitions of “governments” and “will”. You’re looking at this from a very western perspective.

For example, airbags have proven to drastically increase safety, yet almost a half-century later they’re still not required by many countries across 2 and a half continents. Governments only require safety equipment as far as their population can afford it.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#193

Post by bityard »

neuralRiot wrote: post #138
snakeyjake wrote: post #127

The increase in total loss designations by insurance companies is due to the extremely high costs charged by the shops contracted by them to do repairs. The designation of a car as "totaled" is often an illusion and there is a thriving parallel market of auction houses, repair shops, salvage titling companies, and resellers who take the "ruined" cars, fix them, and sell them on the used market. Insurance companies co…

The catch is that most banks won’t finance “rebuilt-titled” cars, you don’t have a dealer warranty (and most plainly refuse to work on rebuilt cars) and the vehicle has a 50-60% (or less) resale value than a “clean-title”.

Huh. Well I happen to be shopping for a used care right now and in my area at least, Craigslist and Facebook are completely swamped with rebuilt title cars. And the vast majority of them are priced the same as clear title cars.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#194

Post by rconti »

snakeyjake wrote: post #127

The increase in total loss designations by insurance companies is due to the extremely high costs charged by the shops contracted by them to do repairs. The designation of a car as "totaled" is often an illusion and there is a thriving parallel market of auction houses, repair shops, salvage titling companies, and resellers who take the "ruined" cars, fix them, and sell them on the used market. Insurance companies co…

Actually, insurance companies are already _very_ aggressively steering their customers into "lower-cost" shops, leading them to believe they should accept subpar repairs in order to keep costs down and profits up. In many cases they use non-OEM parts to keep repair costs down.

I think the real reason they total a car at 60-70% is because the cost is just an estimate. They don't want to keep sending an estimator out to approve more $$ in repairs, costing everyone time and money, and ultimately spending more than it would cost to just buy out the customer -- who, in many cases, might just like a big check to buy what they want, rather than weeks fixing their 'old' car.

Insurance companies also like to drag their heels to punish you for standing up for yourself and selecting a high-quality bodyshop. In the case of a minor front-end accident for a car in my household, they trickled the money out in bits and pieces. Every time the shop countered the insurance company's estimate, the insurance company would take 2 days to send an adjustor out, trickle out a few more dollars, wash, rinse, repeat. It's why I keep rental car coverage for our vehicles even when we don't need it -- to hold the insurance company's feet to the fire, so they feel the financial pain, too, when they hold your car hostage for a month.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#195

Post by floxy »

snakeyjake wrote: post #127

The increase in total loss designations by insurance companies is due to the extremely high costs charged by the shops contracted by them to do repairs. The designation of a car as "totaled" is often an illusion and there is a thriving parallel market of auction houses, repair shops, salvage titling companies, and resellers who take the "ruined" cars, fix them, and sell them on the used market. Insurance companies co…

>Concur Travel cancer

Tell us more about this.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#196

Post by bityard »

nimbius wrote: post #75

The rich have been flogging this idea since cash for clunkers. That, because they run through cars like shit through a goose, you will too. Speaking as a master diesel mechanic, this is a deleterious line of thinking for anyone with less than a few million dollars. Every car has 20 years of parts, and most Japanese cars have closer into 50 years of parts. Any engine built after 2010 will likely last half a million mi…

I live in the rust belt, where the average life expectancy of a car is about 10 years. 12-15 if you _really_ baby it. Except for one car that was totaled (got rear-ended by a texter), all of the cars I no longer own succumbed to a rotted out frame. Engines were fine, bodies were fine, interiors were fine.

But a frame. Can't really replace a frame. You can _sometimes_ repair it. You can buy some time by paying for an oil-based undercoating every year, but finding someone who will do it affordably _and_ do a good job is hard. (It's a messy, annoying job.)

I sort of want congress to mandate stainless steel or aluminum frames in all cars sold in the US, and I don't even care if it makes the cars cost more. It won't happen via state laws because the auto manufacturers are big campaign donors around here.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#197

Post by rconti »

AdamN wrote: post #112
nimbius wrote: post #75

The rich have been flogging this idea since cash for clunkers. That, because they run through cars like shit through a goose, you will too. Speaking as a master diesel mechanic, this is a deleterious line of thinking for anyone with less than a few million dollars. Every car has 20 years of parts, and most Japanese cars have closer into 50 years of parts. Any engine built after 2010 will likely last half a million mi…

Cars more than about 10-15 years old just aren't as safe as newer ones. That's the fundamental issue. With that said there are ways to mitigate the risk (drive more cautiously/slower, etc...).

For the occupants, at least. They might be safer for pedestrians, cyclists, other drivers, etc.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#198

Post by rconti »

tonetegeatinst wrote: post #58

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.

> modern vehicles are so complex and if something breaks it actually is cheaper to just go bet a new car

it's not.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#199

Post by bluGill »

kube-system wrote: post #192
bluGill wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IF, and this is a big if - self driving cars prove safer than human drivers in all conditions - governments will mandate it in all new cars and in 12 more years they will be the majority, and a few more years and governments will ban everything else (if not directly insurance via high rates). However right now they are not ready for that. They don't work in all conditions and we don't have unbiased safety studies.

For varying definitions of “governments” and “will”. You’re looking at this from a very western perspective. For example, airbags have proven to drastically increase safety, yet almost a half-century later they’re still not required by many countries across 2 and a half continents. Governments only require safety equipment as far as their population can afford it.

Most governments don't need to as they can leach off of it not being worth making a model without airbags.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#200

Post by bityard »

_yb2s wrote: post #126
nimbius wrote: post #75

The rich have been flogging this idea since cash for clunkers. That, because they run through cars like shit through a goose, you will too. Speaking as a master diesel mechanic, this is a deleterious line of thinking for anyone with less than a few million dollars. Every car has 20 years of parts, and most Japanese cars have closer into 50 years of parts. Any engine built after 2010 will likely last half a million mi…

Older cars are massively undervalued in the USA because of social norms, which is a massive opportunity to anyone willing to exploit it to get reliable transportation for nearly free. People are afraid that older cars are dangerous, unreliable, or (worst of all) will make you look poor, but all 3 are just misinformation. Boats and airplanes are just as reliable when old as new because they're maintained well- and car…

There is no such thing as owning an "older car" here in the midwest rust belt states. The frames corrode to orange dust on _every_ car when they get to be between 10-12 years old. You _do_ see cars older than that on the road, but that's only because we don't have mandatory inspections in my state. The only exceptions here are the "toys" that people buy for summer use only. (Sports cars, vintage cars, etc.)

Once in a while I see repair videos on cars from mechanics in Florida, Texas, Arizona, or Southern California. The car will be 15 years old and everything underneath will look entirely brand-new (minus some dust and scratches) compared to a brand-new car here that has seen only a winter or two.

Post reply on HN