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

The Global Cost of Corrosion

impact.nace.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 251 posts

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#81

Post by wbsss4412 »

Gracana wrote: post #53
jacquesm wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Volvo is not owned by a Chinese parent company, but their operations are still based in the same places as before. You are welcome to use your own definition of the word 'owned' but I'll just stick to the dictionary one. > Using the definition implied by your comment, they were previously and “American” car manufacturer as they were sold to geeley by ford. https://www.industryweek.com/finance/software-systems/artic…

I highly suspect, based on facts about Volvo and the structure of that sentence, that they didn't mean to write "not owned", but rather "now owned."

Yes, that is indeed correct. Thank you for clarifying for me.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#82

Post by gandalfian »

jacquesm wrote: post #39
bradfa wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are modern Volvos still better than average for corrosion resistance?

Somewhere in the late 90's early 2000's car manufacturers switched paint processes, typically to a water based paint. That's the point in time where you could see the most clearly which manufacturers had their house in order in terms of weld cleaning, seam coating, basic material procurement and surface protection. Some of them failed horribly, which led to some brands (for instance: Mercedes) having an undisclosed h…

Hmm, we have one of the rusty c classes, made in South Africa. The doors, bonnet etc have been just fine. Underneath is the disaster. Particularly the rear end which has collapsed several times as it just rusted through in the first ten years. Bizarre. Bodged up by a backstreet garage it still goes, engine just fine, never a problem, just that faint disconcerting worry the wheels will fall off again...

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#83

Post by MonkeyMalarky »

Aloha wrote: post #33
LatteLazy wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or just mine the zinc elsewhere?!

Eventually we'll run out of elsewhere. Like pushing our pollution into the developing world is both immoral and harmful to our economy.

How much is pushed vs pulled?Many resource extraction projects are cancelled because they wouldn't be economical with all the added costs to ameliorate pollution. Perhaps if the developing world had higher standards and better enforcement, it would cost more and thus not undercut local production.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#84

Post by bradfa »

jacquesm wrote: post #59
bradfa wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So everybody smartened up and now things are much better, to the point that there hardly are cars made that have serious rust issues. I find this entertaining. Come to upstate NY, USA where we liberally salt our roads in the winter. Definitely not "everybody" smartened up as it's still very common to find vehicles here that after 10 years should be declared unsafe to operate due to rust-through of critical structural…

Interesting, any particular brands or is that across the board? Here we liberally salt our roads as well in winter and in the past cars would not last a decade before falling apart. Now you really have to look to figure out which cars are new, 10 or 20 years old. Rust is - as far as I can see - a solved problem. Not many US cars on the road here though.

Chevrolet and GMC full size pickup trucks and SUVs are probably the worst offenders. Which seems counter intuitive since many of GM's engineering and design happens in northern climates with salted roads. It's not all of GM's vehicles which are subject to this, many do have good corrosion resistance, they just choose to only use such techniques on a subset of the vehicles they produce.

For example: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/tsbs/2020/MC-10178959-9999.pdf

A few years back now Toyota had a big recall on Tundra pickups for improperly applied corrosion prevention. I'm to believe they corrected this as it was quite expensive for them to repair so many customer vehicles.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#85

Post by jacquesm »

tome wrote: post #60
jacquesm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, that could be, thank you for pointing that out. That would make a lot more sense. But then I still don't understand the comment. Volvo is now Chinese, whether you like it or not is another matter.

Would you say that Arm is a Japanese company?

Yes, absolutely. As soon as majority ownership of a company changes from one nationality to another you're kidding yourself if you want to continue to see it as belonging to the country where it originated.

The shareholders control who runs the company, what it does, how it does it and ultimately where the profits are. It's just like outsourcing. But we don't like it when we look at Asian companies owning famous Western brands. But when McDonalds operates in China we're quick to call it an American company. That works both ways.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#86

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

nradov wrote: post #56
hristov wrote: post #8

This is an important issue. People keep talking about recycling, but much more important than recycling is just being able to use a thing for longer before you are even thinking about recycling it. Japanese automakers did the world a great favor when in the 80s and 90s they made much longer lasting cars and made longevity and resale value an important consideration in the purchasing decision. They did this mostly by…

Toyota has had a serious problem with truck frames rusting. https://www.autoblog.com/2016/11/14/toyota-3-billion-settlem...

Their SUV/truck lower body panels also rust prematurely in the snow belt compared to contemporary American vehicles. This is particularly prominent on tailgates/hatches above the rear bumper when people don't diligently brush off the snow.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#87

Post by kolbe »

I imagine a substantial part of this is the rusting of rebar in concrete structures. The problem of rebar has fascinated me, and one German company has begin making carbon fiber reinforced concrete instead of steel, with amazing results. You can reduce environmental waste by having structures last longer and you use less concrete. I'm looking forward to this becoming more ubiquitous.

https://www.aboutcivil.org/carbon-reinforced-concrete-buildi...

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#88

Post by usmannk »

mattkrause wrote: post #50
jwilk wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FYI, you used an incorrect character for the degree sign. Should be ° U+00B0 DEGREE SIGN, not ˚ U+02DA RING ABOVE.

Hmmmm...it's whatever Option+k does on macOS. I thought it was the degree sign because it doesn't actually combine, but apparently degree is option+shift+8 instead.

or just option+0, because degree is like a little 0 I guess?

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#89

Post by jacquesm »

wbsss4412 wrote: post #77
jacquesm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, that could be, thank you for pointing that out. That would make a lot more sense. But then I still don't understand the comment. Volvo is now Chinese, whether you like it or not is another matter.

I never meant to say that Volvo isn’t Chinese. It’s just odd that people really feel the need to bring it up, despite the fact that operationally little is different. It’s Chinese in the same way that Jeep/ram/dodge/Chrysler are Dutch now. No one ever seems to bring that up when they are mentioned, though.

> I never meant to say that Volvo isn’t Chinese.

Accepted.

> It’s just odd that people really feel the need to bring it up, despite the fact that operationally little is different.

It was merely for completeness' sake, and to indicate that since the days that Volvo pioneered this sort of thing the company had changed ownership.

> It’s Chinese in the same way that Jeep/ram/dodge/Chrysler are Dutch now.

That's a tax dodge and has very little to do with the actual ownership.

And no, Geely is really a Chinese company and really controls Volvo.

> No one ever seems to bring that up when they are mentioned, though.

Because most people are aware of the difference between a tax dodge and a controlling interest by a foreign company.

If you want to make a parallel with Stellantis I think it should stop with the shareholders of Stellantis which you'll find in Italy and France, not in NL.

Re: The Global Cost of Corrosion

#90

Post by jacquesm »

petre wrote: post #78
Forgeties79 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the Mazda 3 a really, really popular and pretty well-regarded car?

Yeah, it's a good car. Until it rusts. Supposedly they've fixed the rust problems in the new Skyactiv models, but I'd be weary of any Mazda before 2018.

Interesting! Any information on what they did wrong?
Post reply on HN