Monbiot wants a recession

[NoXion]

I said "rapidly enters". Objectors of planned obsolescence frequently extend it beyond reason. e.g. cars

It's definitely a thing though, and why wouldn't such a model be pushed into more products and services, by entities whose sole overriding purpose is to create a profit?

 

[platinumsage]

Figures differ on age of cars but more like 8 years I think.

Average age of the vehicle fleet

The average age of road vehicles in Europe has increased since 2000. In 2014, the average age of passenger cars was 7.4 years, 8 % older than that of the average fleet in 2000. For other vehicle types, the average age was 8.4 years for vans, 8.1 years for heavy duty vehicles, 9.1 years for...

www.eea.europa.eu

Why would you want to fit a turbo engine into a Triumph Herald? You're just making stuff up now. If they made car parts more modular the engine and other parts could at least be upgraded to improve safety/emissions/consumption.

You're making some good points but they're lost in, as killer b said, you arguing with things people haven't posted. I'm off to go for a ridiculously expensive dog walk experience instead.

You're the one missing the point. Whatever super-upgradable car you invent now will be more expensive and inefficient than other cars on the market, due to making provision for future upgrades. However no one will be able to forsee what future upgrades to make provision for, so it will still have to be scrapped in e.g. 15 years making the whole project a massive waste. Lighter and stronger materials that can't be incorporated into the chasis, or centre-airbags that won't fit in the interior etc..

Often recycling and starting over is the most efficient thing to do

 

[two sheds]

Yes. The most effeicient way of improving those things is to design new cars and recycle the 15-year old ones. Re-engineering is a lot more inefficient and wasteful. Imagine trying to fit boron-steel struts and a 3-cycldiner turbo engine into a Triumph Herald.

I mean .....

What sort of buffoon would want to put a 3-cylinder engine into a Triumph Herald? First time out on the road you'd smash straight into a lamppost and write the whole thing off. The brakes just wouldn't hold it. That's upgrading gorn maaaaad.

You wouldn't want a Triumph Herald in the first place if you wanted a 3-cylinder turbo engine in it. You'd buy something that would take a 3-cylinder turbo engine. Something like a Ford Anglia.

 

[platinumsage]

I mean .....

What sort of buffoon would want to put a 3-cylinder engine into a Triumph Herald? First time out on the road you'd smash straight into a lamppost and write the whole thing off. The brakes just wouldn't hold it. That's upgrading gorn maaaaad.

You wouldn't want a Triumph Herald in the first place if you wanted a 3-cylinder turbo engine in it. You'd buy something that would take a 3-cylinder turbo engine. Something like a Ford Anglia.

Right. Read the post above about your designed-from-scratch upgradable car idea and how it makes no sense.

 

[two sheds]

And it just wouldn't be worth it for car makers. They'd have to design 3-cylinder turbo engines that could go in a Triumph Herald, a Ford Anglia, a Morris Minor and every other car someone might want to put a 3-cylinder turbo engine in. It would cost them billions and they'd go out of business. That's no sort of business model.

And what if someone wanted a 5-cylinder wankel rotary engine for a Ford Popular instead? The warehouse space alone would make it cost-prohibitive.

 

[two sheds]

Right. Read the post above about your designed-from-scratch upgradable car idea and how it makes no sense.

No. You read the post above about your 3-cylinder-upgradable-Triumph-Herald car idea and how it makes even less than no sense.

 

[platinumsage]

No. I think the current car life-cycle is probably the most efficient. I have used both a silly example and a logical argument to try and convince you that building longer-lasting upgradable cars would be wasteful. If you want to persist with the silly example rather than addressing the points in my other post, that suggests that you don't have an argument.

 

[ska invita]

this made me smile

 

[two sheds]

No. I think the current car life-cycle is probably the most efficient. I have used both a silly example and a logical argument to try and convince you that building longer-lasting upgradable cars would be wasteful. If you want to persist with the silly example rather than addressing the points in my other post, that suggests that you don't have an argument.

No, I don't want an argument, I don't like arguments because they rarely get anywhere. I like discussions where you learn something.

First you give a dismissive comment to a poster with rolley eyes rather than respond in a serious way. Then you give a dismissive 'Shameful' to another rather than respond in a serious way. Then you say planned obsolescence rapidly enters conspiracy theory territory but ignore valid points people make and respond to points they've not made to try to make them look daft.

I've already said you make good points, and I think the truth lies some way between our positions. But you're not interested in that. You gave the silly answer just to try to make me look stupid, and I do a good enough job of that on my own.

I don't know if you're normally like this, but I can't be bothered.