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

161–170 of 267 posts

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#161

Post by bluGill »

sokoloff wrote: post #56
nytesky wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 allo…

That depends. In the general case I'd call a 2000 Toyota close enough because I don't consider the 1990 Honda collectable. However if you are a collector that 1990 is a 30 year old classic and you can demand more. To demand more than means you need to show you will - get a special insurance policy that will demand a 1990 Honda if anything happens. You also won't be driving this 1990 Honda on the roads except in context of a parade (you put it on a trailer to get to the parade).

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#162

Post by wing-_-nuts »

_yb2s wrote: post #148
rozap wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> will make you look poor I have an oldish (1997) exotic car as a toy. It cost less upfront than a new Toyota Camry. At a car meet, I overheard someone say to their friend "Man, if I had infinite money, this is what I'd get". I definitely do not own a money printing machine. Maintenance is something else but I do the work myself so it's not bad. And the fun thing about old low volume exotics is that they are mostly p…

Same, I'm the "rich guy" picking up my son at school in an old Porsche I got cheap on Craigslist and maintain myself, despite the fact that its a school my kid was transferred to in a wealthy neighborhood we can't afford to live in. It cost me way way less than a newer economy car would. It's funny the general reactions I get- young men try to race me at stoplights, and strangers on the street will often give me a de…

I got a lovely note left on my car for parking in a handicap spot (with a tag!). The person assumed I was a rich guy flaunting the rules. My little miata was so proud of being called a "rich man's" car it practically pranced out of the parking lot.

People just assume that anything sporty looking is ruinously expensive.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#163

Post by throwaway173738 »

kd5bjo wrote: post #49
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…

> I don't see any reasonable way around this, though. If I have a car that I could replace for $8K and would salvage for $1K, I can't reasonably expect someone else's insurance company to pay $12.5K in costs (for repairs plus rentals/loss of use plus diminished value plus incidentals) to put me back in a place where I then have a crash-repaired car worth $7K plus $1K in cash in my pocket for diminished value. The pro…

I literally can’t get another light truck that’s as compact and as useful as the one I have. My choice is to buy a giant semi truck or an suv with a 4-foot box bed. There’s more to vehicles then sentimental or book value.

As it stands I’ll probably try to get a mini van and put vinyl floors in.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#164

Post by bluGill »

skhunted wrote: post #125
constantcrying wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars from the 50s are less energy efficient and require more overall resources to maintain than a new car. They are also significantly less safe.

I imagine the mining of materials, waste from discarded car, etc. makes up for these things but I don’t know. I do think overall we are a very wasteful society and we cause way too much pollution.

A scrapped car is recycled for the metals in it. So if you recycle the old car you can count much less costs against the new car.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#165

Post by bluGill »

lucianbr wrote: post #87
bluGill wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is silly to think self driving cars gets rid of parking. If you don't use a car much it is cheaper to use a taxi service. However people who use a car often will be money ahead owning their own. Plus if you own the car you can keep your "junk" in it while doing something else. Most cars are needed during rush hour, so there isn't much need for cars the rest of the day. All of which means we need nearly as…

On a tangent, I wonder how many car manufacturers would actually sell a self-driving car if they were able to build one. Creating a taxi fleet and charging for usage seems much more profitable. Or at the very least, the price would go up a lot. Who cares about the cost, when the value of the sold good is so high? Why sell it cheap? I note that Waymo has no intention of selling the things.

The economics don't work. Some people are willing to pay extra for a car in perfect condition. Some people will happily save money by using a beat up car. By selling a car they get their money now from a high priced car. If they try to be the taxi they need to figure out who will demand (and pay for) the perfect car, vs who will demand the cheapest car. This is one more way that cars are not interchangeable.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#166

Post by _yb2s »

rozap wrote: post #160
_yb2s wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same, I'm the "rich guy" picking up my son at school in an old Porsche I got cheap on Craigslist and maintain myself, despite the fact that its a school my kid was transferred to in a wealthy neighborhood we can't afford to live in. It cost me way way less than a newer economy car would. It's funny the general reactions I get- young men try to race me at stoplights, and strangers on the street will often give me a de…

The street race invitations are funny. I get that a lot in my Esprit and, apart from it being incredibly stupid and dangerous, new cars are so absurdly fast in a straight line that everyone knows who would win. It was uncomfortable at first having people oogle over the car and make assumptions, but the number of conversations it has started with people genuinely interested in it definitely outweighs the awkwardness.

I've always loved the Lotus Esprit- sounds like a really fun car!

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#167

Post by ajsnigrutin »

Car part prices are a scam... on most cheap cars, a small crash, broken bumper, lights and the radiator (+ all the sensors) means the car is totalled, because just the parts cost more than a new car. How the hell can a single headlight for a cheap car... so just some plastic, not even LEDs yet, cost 800euros?

Sadly, until something (culture, new player on the market, regulation....) changes, that car will be totalled and scrapped.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#168

Post by Clubber »

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...).

>Cars more than about 10-15 years old just aren't as safe as newer ones.

Can you give some examples? The only safety innovation I can think of recently the side airbags. The backup camera, which is a huge improvement to backing up accidents was probably over 15 years ago.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#169

Post by _yb2s »

balderdash wrote: post #111
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 think you’re right but I think (at least in my own experience) that what gets people to buy a new(er) car is that that people don’t like driving cars that have broken things (windows, switches, lights etc.) that make no sense to fix (say $1500, to fix something non-essential on a car that’s only worth $10k)

That's definitely a case where being a little handy pays off- most of the little things that break on an older car can be fixed for free in a few minutes if you follow a youtube video or forum instructions, but a shop has to charge a lot. Usually it is a common problem, and there will be a known "trick" that fixes it simply. A shop is not going to re-solder a cracked relay or get a used plastic trim for $1 at a junkyard, they're going to replace the entire system with new parts from the manufacturer, at massive expense.

It's really important to have some "pride of ownership" in an older car, and fix anything that isn't perfect immediately- so they don't build up over time and make you feel like the whole vehicle isn't nice to use or own anymore.

Re: The rise of the disposable car

#170

Post by ianbicking »

It feels like risk mitigation to me. With all the interconnected aspects of a car the repair might be reasonably priced or might not. If the insurance company just "pays for the repair" then they've committed to either price, or even if they have a limit then they might reach the limit and still need to replace the car on top of it. Or the car might get repaired but have some issues, and there's no good way to just say "this car isn't as good as before the accident, but here's $1000 to make you whole".

Instead they declare the car totaled and recoup what they can on the other end. If you want to actually _keep_ your totaled car you'll have to pay for it, because it _does_ have value. I had a car "totaled" when it was rear-ended, but it was still drivable and I would have liked to keep it, do some minimal repairs, and just accepted the wonky back end. But to keep it I would have received something $3,000 less on a $10,000 car and it didn't seem worth it.

I don't know if the car was chopped up and helped make other cars whole, or vice versa. Some part of it ended up on a discount used car lot. And that's probably fine. Cars are kind of fungible and declaring a car "totaled" is just a way to take advantage of that and seems like a legitimate efficient-market approach.

Post reply on HN