GM Ignition Recall Snowballing

[Byteme]

And then of course, there's plenty of other examples where government oversight doesn't work... USDA, FDA anymore?  It didn't prevent food contamination events even though the processors met the government standards.  Some industry even had to form their own groups so these type of events drives down sales for the entire industry and doesn't serve their interest.  So in the end, market forces would shape everything, do things quicker than government will.

Given your argument one could conclude that all civil engineering is useless because the Tacoma-Narrows Bridge and the Hyatt walkway in Kansas City failed.  Surgery is useless because of the occasional bungled operation. 

[Soup DeVille]

Given your argument one could conclude that all civil engineering is useless because the Tacoma-Narrows Bridge and the Hyatt walkway in Kansas City failed.  Surgery is useless because of the occasional bungled operation. 

The Hyatt walkway was the result of a botched assembly. The bridge, as drawn and designed originally, would not have failed.

But, point taken...

[Byteme]

What we're likely looking at are more and more radical engineering solutions to achieve improvements in smaller increments.

Probably true.

And yes, that's going to work directly against the affordability factor. The obvious solution is that people will start keeping cars longer, but that doesn't mean they will be built to last any longer; it simply means that the cost/ benefit scale is going to favor spending money to keep the old car running instead of mortgaging your firstborn to replace it with the new model that gets 1% better mileage.

But cars today do last longer, whether by design or just happenstance. 

Compare the car of today to that of the 60's.  Tires, brake linings, ignition components (modern equal to points, condensor and rotor and dist cap), spark plugs, shock absorbers, ball joints, engines, and the body and interior components all have much longer lifespns than cars of the past.  Maintenance intervals have also increased dramatically, to the point that one can virtually ignore all service except for oil changes and easily go 100,000 miles without coimpromising safety or comfort.

I'm pretty much an optomist when it comes to technological advance.  Just look at how much more efficient the average car is today than one from say, 10 years ago.  And the average car today is faster and more powerful as well. 

[Soup DeVille]

That they last longer than they did in the past does not mean that future cars will last longer than current ones.

Again, were back to that law of diminishing returns. MPFI was a big step up from electronic carburetors, but direct injection is a smaller step up in relative terms (think percent increase in gas mileage as the easiest quantifiable factor), but with a larger increase in cost comparatively. And now were at the point where to get any further significant increase probably means ditching the ICE altogether, or at least assisting it in a hybrid setup.

Will we improve? Of course. Will we improve without eventually pricing the majority of the driving public out of the new car market permanently? I'm not entirely sure.

[NomisR]

The Hyatt walkway was the result of a botched assembly. The bridge, as drawn and designed originally, would not have failed.

But, point taken...

Well, it looks like government didn't really prevent any of it from happening though.  But, government policies are more reactionary, and from what I can find on Wiki with the Hyatt, it seems like the walkway didn't even meet the building code, so if that's the case, someone didn't actually do their inspections though, so it's still the failure of government is it not? 

[FoMoJo]

And heavier and heavier as a result.  But when you have a huge jump in the CAFE requirements that we have, there has to be sacrifices somewhere.  Unless buyers are willing to pay up the nose, we'll be either stuck with underpowered vehicles or something else will have to give. 

How much heavier are cars because of CAFE requirements?

[Soup DeVille]

Well, it looks like government didn't really prevent any of it from happening though.  But, government policies are more reactionary, and from what I can find on Wiki with the Hyatt, it seems like the walkway didn't even meet the building code, so if that's the case, someone didn't actually do their inspections though, so it's still the failure of government is it not? 

No, I don't think so. Regardless of government regulations, it is the builder who ultimately has the responsibility of making sure the building is safe.

[280Z Turbo]

Part of what's been giving is irrational spending on cars that are simply unaffordable for most of the market.

This is true.

I make better than average money, yet I didn't even feel comfortable buying the relatively cheap BRZ last year.

The US government is more than happy to drive down the interest rate to unreasonable levels to promote this behavior.

[280Z Turbo]

Utter BS

STRRREEEEETTTTCH

[GoCougs]

This is true.

I make better than average money, yet I didn't even feel comfortable buying the relatively cheap BRZ last year.

The US government is more than happy to drive down the interest rate to unreasonable levels to promote this behavior.

Just imagine what would happen to the auto market if lending were rational - 50% down, 10%+ APR, at most 3 year term, no leasing. Jesus, it'd collapse in a day.

[Byteme]

The Hyatt walkway was the result of a botched assembly. The bridge, as drawn and designed originally, would not have failed.

But, point taken...

From what I've seen.....

The Hyatt walkway design underwent a proposed change by the contractor.  The designing engineer approved the changes without fully reviewing the changes, which a full review would have shown were insufficient.  No engineer's stamp on the plans, no permit to build; at least that's how it was done when I was in commercial construction.  The engineers employed by Jack D. Gillum and Associates who had approved the final drawings were convicted by the Missouri Board of Architects, Professional Engineers, and Land Surveyors of gross negligence, misconduct and unprofessional conduct in the practice of engineering; they all lost their engineering licenses in the states of Missouri and Texas and their membership with ASCE.[21] Although the company of Jack D. Gillum and Associates was discharged of criminal negligence, it lost its license to be an engineering firm

Two bridge designs were considered.  The owners selected the cheaper design, a bridge designed by a noted New York Bridge Engineer.  I guess it was a case of you get what you pay for.

[Byteme]

That they last longer than they did in the past does not mean that future cars will last longer than current ones.

And, there is zero indication the trend will reverse. 

[Soup DeVille]

And, there is zero indication the trend will reverse. 

Who said anything about it reversing?

[Byteme]

Who said anything about it reversing?

Even if future cars lasted just as long as those today I'd consider that a step backward if technology is increasing.  That would be a reverse in the trend of the car's life span increasing as technology improved.

[Mustangfan2003]

I saw a Cobalt on the side of the road today with a for sale sign and wondered if this recall would do anything to the resale value, not that it was that great to start with. 

[Soup DeVille]

Even if future cars lasted just as long as those today I'd consider that a step backward if technology is increasing.  That would be a reverse in the trend of the car's life span increasing as technology improved.

Does it really benefit the car companies to make a product with an ever longer lifespan?

[giant_mtb]

Does it really benefit the car companies to make a product with an ever longer lifespan?

People, as a whole, buy more and more new cars every year.  There are down years and up years (the economy impacts year-to-year sales), but when you compare, say, a decade to a previous decade, it's nothing but overall increase in sales. Population continues to increase. I don't think it'll ever become a problem.

[Soup DeVille]

People, as a whole, buy more and more new cars every year.  There are down years and up years (the economy impacts year-to-year sales), but when you compare, say, a decade to a previous decade, it's nothing but overall increase in sales. Population continues to increase. I don't think it'll ever become a problem.

Not really what I meant.

[giant_mtb]

Not really what I meant.

Oh. I see that now.  Clearly I need to go to bed and stop trying to do this "reading" bullshit.

[FoMoJo]

Does it really benefit the car companies to make a product with an ever longer lifespan?

The only reason that I can think of is, it depends on what the market wants.  I believe the manufacturers depend more on their customers wanting the newest and the latest rather than how long the vehicle can last hence, the ongoing styling changes and inclusion of more and more features.

[NomisR]

How much heavier are cars because of CAFE requirements?

safety requirement, and CAFE requirements pretty much runs counter to the safety trends.

[NomisR]

No, I don't think so. Regardless of government regulations, it is the builder who ultimately has the responsibility of making sure the building is safe.

Yup, and basically up to the companies as they have everything to lose if something goes wrong.  So what does adding more regulation do?  Nothing!

[FoMoJo]

safety requirement, and CAFE requirements pretty much runs counter to the safety trends.

Explain.

[NomisR]

Explain.

Didn't we go through this the last page and you brought up Titanium? 

Air bags, bumpers, roll over standards, crash standards, you have compact cars that are weighing 3000+ lbs and luxury barges that are 5-6000lbs.  All this kills fuel economy. 

[Soup DeVille]

Yup, and basically up to the companies as they have everything to lose if something goes wrong.  So what does adding more regulation do?  Nothing!

Gives the lawyers something to argue about, I suppose.

[FoMoJo]

Didn't we go through this the last page and you brought up Titanium? 

Air bags, bumpers, roll over standards, crash standards, you have compact cars that are weighing 3000+ lbs and luxury barges that are 5-6000lbs.  All this kills fuel economy. 

I just asked how much weight CAFE regulations, and now I will include safety regulations, have added to vehicles.  Not as much as you'd expect.

[Morris Minor]

The question of how many injuries/fatalities we can accept is interesting. My perception is that we are putting an ever-higher dollar value on human safety, and so are prepared to pay whatever is the price: recalls, rear-view camera mandates etc.

[NomisR]

The question of how many injuries/fatalities we can accept is interesting. My perception is that we are putting an ever-higher dollar value on human safety, and so are prepared to pay whatever is the price: recalls, rear-view camera mandates etc.

Population is still increasing....

[hotrodalex]

I just asked how much weight CAFE regulations, and now I will include safety regulations, have added to vehicles.  Not as much as you'd expect.

CAFE hasn't been adding weight. He's saying that the CAFE standard is obviously pushing automakers to shed weight in their cars while safety standards are indirectly pushing them to add weight. The only real way to get around it is to use high strength, expensive materials, which pushes the cost up and up.

[NomisR]

CAFE hasn't been adding weight. He's saying that the CAFE standard is obviously pushing automakers to shed weight in their cars while safety standards are indirectly pushing them to add weight. The only real way to get around it is to use high strength, expensive materials, which pushes the cost up and up.

Thank you!