The death of the fix-it-yourself generation

[Trippy Turtle]

I would prefer if I could fix it myself but businesses need to make a profit and we still can fix some things ourselves.

 

[renegade7]

I agree, you save loads of money by trying to get as much use out of something as possible. I learned this through repeatedly fixing my own computer: there is nothing a repair shop can do that you can't do yourself.

I don't think things are made any cheaper than they were 40 years ago...I just think there's the mentality that anything that breaks can be fixed by someone else, so you don't need to take take care not to break it. Then I also think there's the whole "new, new, new" mentality that is so pervasive in our consumerist culture. If it breaks down, you have to have the shiny new one, not the one that's old and 'broken'. It's self-sufficiency that's dying in our culture.

Another case in point. Recently my PSP's screen broke and got cracked (it was in my backpack and I crashed on the way to school). So my options were to spend $150 + shipping to send it off for two weeks to have it fixed. This was a flat out no, since I bought it used and only paid $100 for it. So I go online and find out that new screens cost about $12-$15 + shipping. So I bought one of those and read up online about how to install it. Guess what? I ended up saving about $130 and it took half as long as sending it to the shop would take.

Take care of your stuff, and it will take care of you.

 

[thiosk]

Most of that stuff thats been crammed into the engine compartment is there because Americans and the US government wanted increased fuel efficiency and minimized environmental impact. We could all go back to the day of the muscle car, sure, where the engine filled 1/3 of the engine compartment, and the miles per gallon could be counted on two hands (or sometimes one).

But it ain't gonna happen.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Not being the "handyman" type of guy is one of those things I'd really love to change about myself one day.

If something breaks, whether it be a computer of a car, I'm completely helpless. And that bugs me. One day, I'm going to take it upon myself to learn how to manage all of it myself. Quite frankly, it just makes me feel stupid.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

As technology and fields become more specialized, and our population increases, a DIY attitude is just bad for the society.

Think of us becoming less like a gang of 5 gorrilaz that sit around in the jungle and do everything ourselves, and transforming into a colony of a bajillion ants, each with certain roles.

Its the course of all expanding societies.

I would like to solve all my problems but guess what? Car repair doesn't interest a lot of people. ITS BORING. A lot of people would like to make their own food, but guess what? FARMING IS EQUALLY BORING. So if we can designate certain tasks to the individuals that ENJOY IT than everyone can be happy. I see no negative to relying on your fellow man for help. Screw old people and their selfish ways.

YEAH! fuck old people wanting to be self-reliant, that's just so selfish! Don't these old fuckers know about the bajillion ants, and the gorrilaz; it's called progress grandpa! Becoming dependent on each other is for the betterment of society; why don't they understand that! Just think of how great it will be when we're all technical experts with little to no skills outside of a single chosen designated field. Learning lots of stuff is boring, that's why us kids opt for the idiot-savant method to learning.

 

[halfeclipse]

Also, there seems to be alot of "mechanical engineers are evil!!! They designed a car to advanced for me to fix!!" in this thread.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a reasonable cost of technological advancement to me.

Problem is, the advancement has been pretty superficial. Sure, my car doesn't have leather heated seats, an onboard computer, HUD, satnav, et cetera... but it gets better gas mileage than a Prius, travels about the same speed, costs far less in maintenance, and was built in 1974... and because it's owned by me, it'll probably be driving long after the last Prius goes through an extremely costly disposal process... but that's just one example.

Also, I can fix a new car, but it takes much longer, thanks to space-saving tendencies of engineers. The biggest problem with maintaining a new car is how tightly everything fits together. Want to get to the transmission? Pull the skid plate, exhaust, half a dozen fuel lines... and that's if you have a lift. Want to get at it from the top? Pull the engine.
Oh, and my favorite... wanna get at the battery? pull the front left wheel. Christ I hate modern cars. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of great technology in 'em, but the people designing 'em need to be in on building and fixing prototypes. Physically.

How's that the designers fault? People want cars with a billion gadgets, better fuel efficiency, sound proofing, more room, a dozen airbags, and this that and the other thing. They have to cut down the size and weight of the car while finding room for all that, all while keeping production costs down. Means they have to get up to funny stuff.


Oh and a 2012 Prius will do 40-50 MPG. If it's from the 70s Whatever your driving may have done 25, maybe 30 MPG brand new. Now?

 

[Duck Sandwich]

While I like the idea of doing stuff myself and saving money in the process, fixing cars is something I'd rather leave to the professionals, simply because learning how to fix things often involves trial and error. And if you screw up fixing a car (like improperly changing a tire for example) it can be dangerous. While we're on the subject of DIY, I find it annoying that you're pretty much expected to eat out at restaurants nowadays, rather than cooking your own food (which I do a lot because I take my health very seriously). For example, you're not allowed to bring your own food to movie theatres, and if you go out on a date, it's almost a given that said date is going to take place at a restaurant.

Stuff that was entertaining to read.

Well said. Even Plato's been quoted for giving the whole "Them youngin's got no respect!" tirade. I think it would be awesome if someone too old to be alive today were to come on this thread and posted "Back in my day, we didn't have these fancy wheel machine thingys called cars. If you wanted to get somewhere, and it was too far to walk, you had to ride a horse!"

 

[loc978]

Also, there seems to be alot of "mechanical engineers are evil!!! They designed a car to advanced for me to fix!!" in this thread.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a reasonable cost of technological advancement to me.

Problem is, the advancement has been pretty superficial. Sure, my car doesn't have leather heated seats, an onboard computer, HUD, satnav, et cetera... but it gets better gas mileage than a Prius, travels about the same speed, costs far less in maintenance, and was built in 1974... and because it's owned by me, it'll probably be driving long after the last Prius goes through an extremely costly disposal process... but that's just one example.

Also, I can fix a new car, but it takes much longer, thanks to space-saving tendencies of engineers. The biggest problem with maintaining a new car is how tightly everything fits together. Want to get to the transmission? Pull the skid plate, exhaust, half a dozen fuel lines... and that's if you have a lift. Want to get at it from the top? Pull the engine.
Oh, and my favorite... wanna get at the battery? pull the front left wheel. Christ I hate modern cars. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of great technology in 'em, but the people designing 'em need to be in on building and fixing prototypes. Physically.

How's that the designers fault? People want cars with a billion gadgets, better fuel efficiency, sound proofing, more room, a dozen airbags, and this that and the other thing. They have to cut down the size and weight of the car while finding room for all that, all while keeping production costs down. Means they have to get up to funny stuff.


Oh and a 2012 Prius will do 40-50 MPG. If it's from the 70s Whatever your driving may have done 25, maybe 30 MPG brand new. Now?

1974 mini. 1L i4. 55mpg highway, around 46-48 city. Carbureted. Also about 20% faster than stock. Just takes a little tuning, no high-performance replacement parts. "Brand new" is a funny term, people like to assume that means "as good as it will ever be". The truth is often quite the opposite.

As for the designers... I suppose it's not their fault. I could blame "our culture" which is my usual fallback, but what's the solution? I don't think there is one, aside from forcibly take people's toys away... but no one wants to live in a society that controls their lives at that level. Sad thing is, this one already figured out how, without taking options away. Group psychology is a dangerous thing.

 

[halfeclipse]

Also, there seems to be alot of "mechanical engineers are evil!!! They designed a car to advanced for me to fix!!" in this thread.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a reasonable cost of technological advancement to me.

Problem is, the advancement has been pretty superficial. Sure, my car doesn't have leather heated seats, an onboard computer, HUD, satnav, et cetera... but it gets better gas mileage than a Prius, travels about the same speed, costs far less in maintenance, and was built in 1974... and because it's owned by me, it'll probably be driving long after the last Prius goes through an extremely costly disposal process... but that's just one example.

Also, I can fix a new car, but it takes much longer, thanks to space-saving tendencies of engineers. The biggest problem with maintaining a new car is how tightly everything fits together. Want to get to the transmission? Pull the skid plate, exhaust, half a dozen fuel lines... and that's if you have a lift. Want to get at it from the top? Pull the engine.
Oh, and my favorite... wanna get at the battery? pull the front left wheel. Christ I hate modern cars. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of great technology in 'em, but the people designing 'em need to be in on building and fixing prototypes. Physically.

How's that the designers fault? People want cars with a billion gadgets, better fuel efficiency, sound proofing, more room, a dozen airbags, and this that and the other thing. They have to cut down the size and weight of the car while finding room for all that, all while keeping production costs down. Means they have to get up to funny stuff.


Oh and a 2012 Prius will do 40-50 MPG. If it's from the 70s Whatever your driving may have done 25, maybe 30 MPG brand new. Now?

1974 mini. 1L i4. 55mpg highway, around 46-48 city. Carbureted. Also about 20% faster than stock. Just takes a little tuning, no high-performance replacement parts. "Brand new" is a funny term, people like to assume that means "as good as it will ever be". The truth is often quite the opposite.

As for the designers... I suppose it's not their fault. I could blame "our culture" which is my usual fallback, but what's the solution? I don't think there is one, aside from forcibly take people's toys away... but no one wants to live in a society that controls their lives at that level. Sad thing is, this one already figured out how, without taking options away. Group psychology is a dangerous thing.

Now see thought you'd at least be driving something in the same weight class as a prius. saying your mini gets better fuel mileage then a midsize is just d. It's much smaller then the prius and probably 2/3-1/2 the weight. A better comparison would be those bitty things popular in Japan which get something like 60-70 MPG highway.

 

[Alexander Cunningham]

[sub][sub]Moo! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9iIgQN5uZE][/sub][/sub]

What.the hell. was that?

 

[Something Amyss]

And I'm especially annoyed that replaceable batteries are becoming a thing of the past. Are people really so clueless that they actually think sending their tablet in and paying an exorbitant service fee is a good thing?

One thing to remember with non removable batteries is that you can increase the battery capacity by doing so. Apple reported a 40% increase when they switched to unibody construction because they didn't have to install a door, locking mechanism, physical sides to the battery shell, etc. Imagine if the iPad had a removable battery and got 60% of the battery life it does... no one would be happy.

Funny. My phone gets more battery power than an iPhone with a removable battery.

Pretty sure Apple only did it this way so that they could keep their battery power while maintaining their usual obscene profit margins. It has no correlation to what's doable, but what's cheap

 

[broadbandaddict]

Funny. My phone gets more battery power than an iPhone with a removable battery.

Pretty sure Apple only did it this way so that they could keep their battery power while maintaining their usual obscene profit margins. It has no correlation to what's doable, but what's cheap

Well hardware factors into battery life a considerable bit. New tech will usually (read: hopefully) get better battery life than previous tech. I had an iPhone 4 and recently switched to a Galaxy Nexus and the Nexus definitely gets better battery life while being removable but the phone is physically larger. The non removable battery was more of a thing for the laptops because they boosted the life from 4-5 hours to 7-8 hours. The iPad batteries would be weird to have anyways, think of how big they would be and I'm assuming they would be easy to damage as well.

 

[loc978]

Also, there seems to be alot of "mechanical engineers are evil!!! They designed a car to advanced for me to fix!!" in this thread.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a reasonable cost of technological advancement to me.

Problem is, the advancement has been pretty superficial. Sure, my car doesn't have leather heated seats, an onboard computer, HUD, satnav, et cetera... but it gets better gas mileage than a Prius, travels about the same speed, costs far less in maintenance, and was built in 1974... and because it's owned by me, it'll probably be driving long after the last Prius goes through an extremely costly disposal process... but that's just one example.

Also, I can fix a new car, but it takes much longer, thanks to space-saving tendencies of engineers. The biggest problem with maintaining a new car is how tightly everything fits together. Want to get to the transmission? Pull the skid plate, exhaust, half a dozen fuel lines... and that's if you have a lift. Want to get at it from the top? Pull the engine.
Oh, and my favorite... wanna get at the battery? pull the front left wheel. Christ I hate modern cars. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of great technology in 'em, but the people designing 'em need to be in on building and fixing prototypes. Physically.

How's that the designers fault? People want cars with a billion gadgets, better fuel efficiency, sound proofing, more room, a dozen airbags, and this that and the other thing. They have to cut down the size and weight of the car while finding room for all that, all while keeping production costs down. Means they have to get up to funny stuff.


Oh and a 2012 Prius will do 40-50 MPG. If it's from the 70s Whatever your driving may have done 25, maybe 30 MPG brand new. Now?

1974 mini. 1L i4. 55mpg highway, around 46-48 city. Carbureted. Also about 20% faster than stock. Just takes a little tuning, no high-performance replacement parts. "Brand new" is a funny term, people like to assume that means "as good as it will ever be". The truth is often quite the opposite.

As for the designers... I suppose it's not their fault. I could blame "our culture" which is my usual fallback, but what's the solution? I don't think there is one, aside from forcibly take people's toys away... but no one wants to live in a society that controls their lives at that level. Sad thing is, this one already figured out how, without taking options away. Group psychology is a dangerous thing.

iGoogler
Now see thought you'd at least be driving something in the same weight class as a prius. saying your mini gets better fuel mileage then a midsize is just d. It's much smaller then the prius and probably 2/3-1/2 the weight. A better comparison would be those bitty things popular in Japan which get something like 60-70 MPG highway.

...which never make it to the states because of our insane crash safety laws owing to our insanely easy-to-acquire licenses (but that's another debate entirely). Also, the Prius' weight class is pretty far above its size class, owing to the electric motors and batteries. You want an example with the same cargo space as one? Geo Metro/Chevy Sprint/Suzuki Swift from the early 90s. Again, with a little tuning, those get better gas mileage at about the same speed as the Prius... and they're cheap and easy to maintain. Progress nil.

 

[halfeclipse]

Also, there seems to be alot of "mechanical engineers are evil!!! They designed a car to advanced for me to fix!!" in this thread.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a reasonable cost of technological advancement to me.

Problem is, the advancement has been pretty superficial. Sure, my car doesn't have leather heated seats, an onboard computer, HUD, satnav, et cetera... but it gets better gas mileage than a Prius, travels about the same speed, costs far less in maintenance, and was built in 1974... and because it's owned by me, it'll probably be driving long after the last Prius goes through an extremely costly disposal process... but that's just one example.

Also, I can fix a new car, but it takes much longer, thanks to space-saving tendencies of engineers. The biggest problem with maintaining a new car is how tightly everything fits together. Want to get to the transmission? Pull the skid plate, exhaust, half a dozen fuel lines... and that's if you have a lift. Want to get at it from the top? Pull the engine.
Oh, and my favorite... wanna get at the battery? pull the front left wheel. Christ I hate modern cars. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of great technology in 'em, but the people designing 'em need to be in on building and fixing prototypes. Physically.

How's that the designers fault? People want cars with a billion gadgets, better fuel efficiency, sound proofing, more room, a dozen airbags, and this that and the other thing. They have to cut down the size and weight of the car while finding room for all that, all while keeping production costs down. Means they have to get up to funny stuff.


Oh and a 2012 Prius will do 40-50 MPG. If it's from the 70s Whatever your driving may have done 25, maybe 30 MPG brand new. Now?

1974 mini. 1L i4. 55mpg highway, around 46-48 city. Carbureted. Also about 20% faster than stock. Just takes a little tuning, no high-performance replacement parts. "Brand new" is a funny term, people like to assume that means "as good as it will ever be". The truth is often quite the opposite.

As for the designers... I suppose it's not their fault. I could blame "our culture" which is my usual fallback, but what's the solution? I don't think there is one, aside from forcibly take people's toys away... but no one wants to live in a society that controls their lives at that level. Sad thing is, this one already figured out how, without taking options away. Group psychology is a dangerous thing.

iGoogler
Now see thought you'd at least be driving something in the same weight class as a prius. saying your mini gets better fuel mileage then a midsize is just d. It's much smaller then the prius and probably 2/3-1/2 the weight. A better comparison would be those bitty things popular in Japan which get something like 60-70 MPG highway.

...which never make it to the states because of our insane crash safety laws owing to our insanely easy-to-acquire licenses (but that's another debate entirely). Also, the Prius' weight class is pretty far above its size class, owing to the electric motors and batteries. You want an example with the same cargo space as one? Geo Metro/Chevy Sprint/Suzuki Swift from the early 90s. Again, with a little tuning, those get better gas mileage at about the same speed as the Prius... and they're cheap and easy to maintain. Progress nil.

"iGoogler." Or you know a basic understanding of mechanics, weight, and physics?


Weight is a far bigger factor on fuel efficiency then size, something like a 2% loss of efficiency per 50 kilos? The battery and motors will be what it 150 kilos at worst? Even if you hauled that out if Prius doesn't have something 500 kilos on the Geo I'd be shocked. Size is of course a concern as well, but WAY to much math to work that out.

Even assuming the Geo or Sprint got the same MPG as a Prius (It doesn't unless the person driving the Prius is a dumbass, or mostly drives highway.) you still need to adjust that for weight. Scaled down the Prius would still get something like 15%-20% better fuel mileage. 19%-26% if you include the battery weight.

 

[loc978]

Also, there seems to be alot of "mechanical engineers are evil!!! They designed a car to advanced for me to fix!!" in this thread.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a reasonable cost of technological advancement to me.

Problem is, the advancement has been pretty superficial. Sure, my car doesn't have leather heated seats, an onboard computer, HUD, satnav, et cetera... but it gets better gas mileage than a Prius, travels about the same speed, costs far less in maintenance, and was built in 1974... and because it's owned by me, it'll probably be driving long after the last Prius goes through an extremely costly disposal process... but that's just one example.

Also, I can fix a new car, but it takes much longer, thanks to space-saving tendencies of engineers. The biggest problem with maintaining a new car is how tightly everything fits together. Want to get to the transmission? Pull the skid plate, exhaust, half a dozen fuel lines... and that's if you have a lift. Want to get at it from the top? Pull the engine.
Oh, and my favorite... wanna get at the battery? pull the front left wheel. Christ I hate modern cars. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of great technology in 'em, but the people designing 'em need to be in on building and fixing prototypes. Physically.

How's that the designers fault? People want cars with a billion gadgets, better fuel efficiency, sound proofing, more room, a dozen airbags, and this that and the other thing. They have to cut down the size and weight of the car while finding room for all that, all while keeping production costs down. Means they have to get up to funny stuff.


Oh and a 2012 Prius will do 40-50 MPG. If it's from the 70s Whatever your driving may have done 25, maybe 30 MPG brand new. Now?

1974 mini. 1L i4. 55mpg highway, around 46-48 city. Carbureted. Also about 20% faster than stock. Just takes a little tuning, no high-performance replacement parts. "Brand new" is a funny term, people like to assume that means "as good as it will ever be". The truth is often quite the opposite.

As for the designers... I suppose it's not their fault. I could blame "our culture" which is my usual fallback, but what's the solution? I don't think there is one, aside from forcibly take people's toys away... but no one wants to live in a society that controls their lives at that level. Sad thing is, this one already figured out how, without taking options away. Group psychology is a dangerous thing.

iGoogler
Now see thought you'd at least be driving something in the same weight class as a prius. saying your mini gets better fuel mileage then a midsize is just d. It's much smaller then the prius and probably 2/3-1/2 the weight. A better comparison would be those bitty things popular in Japan which get something like 60-70 MPG highway.

...which never make it to the states because of our insane crash safety laws owing to our insanely easy-to-acquire licenses (but that's another debate entirely). Also, the Prius' weight class is pretty far above its size class, owing to the electric motors and batteries. You want an example with the same cargo space as one? Geo Metro/Chevy Sprint/Suzuki Swift from the early 90s. Again, with a little tuning, those get better gas mileage at about the same speed as the Prius... and they're cheap and easy to maintain. Progress nil.

"iGoogler." Or you know a basic understanding of mechanics, weight, and physics?


Weight is a far bigger factor on fuel efficiency then size, something like a 2% loss of efficiency per 50 kilos? The battery and motors will be what it 150 kilos at worst? Even if you hauled that out if Prius doesn't have something 500 kilos on the Geo I'd be shocked. Size is of course a concern as well, but WAY to much math to work that out.

Even assuming the Geo or Sprint got the same MPG as a Prius (It doesn't unless the person driving the Prius is a dumbass, or mostly drives highway.) you still need to adjust that for weight. Scaled down the Prius would still get something like 15%-20% better fuel mileage. 19%-26% if you include the battery weight.

So... your point is that if they can get a heavier car to get decent gas mileage, that's an excuse to design cars heavier than they need to be? I understand that heavier cars are less efficient... that's why designers used to try to make lighter fucking cars.

As for suzuki 1L 3-cyl engines and fuel economy in a car that weighs a little over a ton (and yes, I know the Prius weighs about a ton and a half, 3042lbs to be exact. That's one of the things that's wrong with the design. It's a compact hatchback that weighs as much as a mid-sized sedan)... I used that example because it's what my uncle drives. He gets a little better mileage than I do out of my mini (1993 Metro, averages around 58mpg from it). I guess you could say that's progress, but it happened between the 70s and the 90s. We've had plenty of technological breakthroughs since then, but not many that are implemented for increased efficiency or longevity of the vehicle.
'Course, building a reliable vehicle isn't good for business expansion. Too many people like my dad who have been driving the same car for over 30 years.

 

[Diminished Capacity]

I'd say that there's at least an encouraging counter-point to all of this: Thanks to the Internet, consumers are becoming more aware of their options and more willing to shop around, or even to get the information they need to do something by themselves rather than forking over hard-earned cash for every minor annoyance.

I wish I had your optimism. I'm afraid (as in, me personally) that not enough people have the willpower (or intelligence) to embrace the power of technology that would enable them to better serve themselves. Allow me to explain with an example.

I work in a sporting goods shop that also sells a variety of watches, GPS enabled and otherwise. I can't tell you the amount of seemingly able minded young people who come in with this sense of helplessness that is both infuriating and unattractive. Please see the following dialog between myself and a customer.

Them: I bought this $20 timex watch here 6 months ago, and I don't know how to set it. Can you do it for me?

Me: I've never set this particular model. Do you have the documentation it came with?

Them: No, I just figured I bought it here, so you'd do it for me.

Me: I'll have to google search the model to find the directions. Our computers here are locked, and I can't get to google. Do you have a smartphone?

Them: Yes.

Me: Google search the watch model, and you should be able to get the directions for the watch.

Them: (hands me their phone) Can you do it for me?

**Angry Brain Explosion**

In closing, I agree that the concept of consumers becoming more aware and savvy in the wake of advances in technology has potential. Unfortunately, I don't trust society at large to be diligent enough to proceed properly.

 

[halfeclipse]

Also, there seems to be alot of "mechanical engineers are evil!!! They designed a car to advanced for me to fix!!" in this thread.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a reasonable cost of technological advancement to me.

Problem is, the advancement has been pretty superficial. Sure, my car doesn't have leather heated seats, an onboard computer, HUD, satnav, et cetera... but it gets better gas mileage than a Prius, travels about the same speed, costs far less in maintenance, and was built in 1974... and because it's owned by me, it'll probably be driving long after the last Prius goes through an extremely costly disposal process... but that's just one example.

Also, I can fix a new car, but it takes much longer, thanks to space-saving tendencies of engineers. The biggest problem with maintaining a new car is how tightly everything fits together. Want to get to the transmission? Pull the skid plate, exhaust, half a dozen fuel lines... and that's if you have a lift. Want to get at it from the top? Pull the engine.
Oh, and my favorite... wanna get at the battery? pull the front left wheel. Christ I hate modern cars. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of great technology in 'em, but the people designing 'em need to be in on building and fixing prototypes. Physically.

How's that the designers fault? People want cars with a billion gadgets, better fuel efficiency, sound proofing, more room, a dozen airbags, and this that and the other thing. They have to cut down the size and weight of the car while finding room for all that, all while keeping production costs down. Means they have to get up to funny stuff.


Oh and a 2012 Prius will do 40-50 MPG. If it's from the 70s Whatever your driving may have done 25, maybe 30 MPG brand new. Now?

1974 mini. 1L i4. 55mpg highway, around 46-48 city. Carbureted. Also about 20% faster than stock. Just takes a little tuning, no high-performance replacement parts. "Brand new" is a funny term, people like to assume that means "as good as it will ever be". The truth is often quite the opposite.

As for the designers... I suppose it's not their fault. I could blame "our culture" which is my usual fallback, but what's the solution? I don't think there is one, aside from forcibly take people's toys away... but no one wants to live in a society that controls their lives at that level. Sad thing is, this one already figured out how, without taking options away. Group psychology is a dangerous thing.

iGoogler
Now see thought you'd at least be driving something in the same weight class as a prius. saying your mini gets better fuel mileage then a midsize is just d. It's much smaller then the prius and probably 2/3-1/2 the weight. A better comparison would be those bitty things popular in Japan which get something like 60-70 MPG highway.

...which never make it to the states because of our insane crash safety laws owing to our insanely easy-to-acquire licenses (but that's another debate entirely). Also, the Prius' weight class is pretty far above its size class, owing to the electric motors and batteries. You want an example with the same cargo space as one? Geo Metro/Chevy Sprint/Suzuki Swift from the early 90s. Again, with a little tuning, those get better gas mileage at about the same speed as the Prius... and they're cheap and easy to maintain. Progress nil.

"iGoogler." Or you know a basic understanding of mechanics, weight, and physics?


Weight is a far bigger factor on fuel efficiency then size, something like a 2% loss of efficiency per 50 kilos? The battery and motors will be what it 150 kilos at worst? Even if you hauled that out if Prius doesn't have something 500 kilos on the Geo I'd be shocked. Size is of course a concern as well, but WAY to much math to work that out.

Even assuming the Geo or Sprint got the same MPG as a Prius (It doesn't unless the person driving the Prius is a dumbass, or mostly drives highway.) you still need to adjust that for weight. Scaled down the Prius would still get something like 15%-20% better fuel mileage. 19%-26% if you include the battery weight.

So... your point is that if they can get a heavier car to get decent gas mileage, that's an excuse to design cars heavier than they need to be? I understand that heavier cars are less efficient... that's why designers used to try to make lighter fucking cars.

As for suzuki 1L 3-cyl engines and fuel economy in a car that weighs a little over a ton (and yes, I know the Prius weighs about a ton and a half, 3042lbs to be exact. That's one of the things that's wrong with the design. It's a compact hatchback that weighs as much as a mid-sized sedan)... I used that example because it's what my uncle drives. He gets a little better mileage than I do out of my mini (1993 Metro, averages around 58mpg from it). I guess you could say that's progress, but it happened between the 70s and the 90s. We've had plenty of technological breakthroughs since then, but not many that are implemented for increased efficiency or longevity of the vehicle.
'Course, building a reliable vehicle isn't good for business expansion. Too many people like my dad who have been driving the same car for over 30 years.

The Prius is a mid size. Whats the average for those, 3500 lb?


You're not going to see huge fuel economy improvements. The ice is a PoS, 37% theoretical efficiency (20% average, 25% with a really good engine.), you can only make things so aerodynamic, and weight can only be decreased so far before you're just being stupid.


I also don't see your point about cars dying sooner. They don't. They've got more fiddly bits that break, sure but so? People what pretty clearly want their ABS, air-conditioned, 12 airbag, oiltight, watertight, no tune-up required etc, cars. Things can be a bit of a pain to get at from time to time, but the repairs are still simple.

The big parts will still last for a couple hundred thousand miles if you don't abuse them.

 

[Dogstile]

Want to apply this to software? This is what Apple have been trying to do with their software for years. It disgusts me how much people let them get away with.

Edit: fixed a silly mistake.

 

[Pat8u]

cough cough...Baacckk in myyy dayyyy

OT: Forty years ago cars were alot simplier, and many people can fix their own computers these days

 

[loc978]

Also, there seems to be alot of "mechanical engineers are evil!!! They designed a car to advanced for me to fix!!" in this thread.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a reasonable cost of technological advancement to me.

Problem is, the advancement has been pretty superficial. Sure, my car doesn't have leather heated seats, an onboard computer, HUD, satnav, et cetera... but it gets better gas mileage than a Prius, travels about the same speed, costs far less in maintenance, and was built in 1974... and because it's owned by me, it'll probably be driving long after the last Prius goes through an extremely costly disposal process... but that's just one example.

Also, I can fix a new car, but it takes much longer, thanks to space-saving tendencies of engineers. The biggest problem with maintaining a new car is how tightly everything fits together. Want to get to the transmission? Pull the skid plate, exhaust, half a dozen fuel lines... and that's if you have a lift. Want to get at it from the top? Pull the engine.
Oh, and my favorite... wanna get at the battery? pull the front left wheel. Christ I hate modern cars. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of great technology in 'em, but the people designing 'em need to be in on building and fixing prototypes. Physically.

How's that the designers fault? People want cars with a billion gadgets, better fuel efficiency, sound proofing, more room, a dozen airbags, and this that and the other thing. They have to cut down the size and weight of the car while finding room for all that, all while keeping production costs down. Means they have to get up to funny stuff.


Oh and a 2012 Prius will do 40-50 MPG. If it's from the 70s Whatever your driving may have done 25, maybe 30 MPG brand new. Now?

1974 mini. 1L i4. 55mpg highway, around 46-48 city. Carbureted. Also about 20% faster than stock. Just takes a little tuning, no high-performance replacement parts. "Brand new" is a funny term, people like to assume that means "as good as it will ever be". The truth is often quite the opposite.

As for the designers... I suppose it's not their fault. I could blame "our culture" which is my usual fallback, but what's the solution? I don't think there is one, aside from forcibly take people's toys away... but no one wants to live in a society that controls their lives at that level. Sad thing is, this one already figured out how, without taking options away. Group psychology is a dangerous thing.

iGoogler
Now see thought you'd at least be driving something in the same weight class as a prius. saying your mini gets better fuel mileage then a midsize is just d. It's much smaller then the prius and probably 2/3-1/2 the weight. A better comparison would be those bitty things popular in Japan which get something like 60-70 MPG highway.

...which never make it to the states because of our insane crash safety laws owing to our insanely easy-to-acquire licenses (but that's another debate entirely). Also, the Prius' weight class is pretty far above its size class, owing to the electric motors and batteries. You want an example with the same cargo space as one? Geo Metro/Chevy Sprint/Suzuki Swift from the early 90s. Again, with a little tuning, those get better gas mileage at about the same speed as the Prius... and they're cheap and easy to maintain. Progress nil.

"iGoogler." Or you know a basic understanding of mechanics, weight, and physics?


Weight is a far bigger factor on fuel efficiency then size, something like a 2% loss of efficiency per 50 kilos? The battery and motors will be what it 150 kilos at worst? Even if you hauled that out if Prius doesn't have something 500 kilos on the Geo I'd be shocked. Size is of course a concern as well, but WAY to much math to work that out.

Even assuming the Geo or Sprint got the same MPG as a Prius (It doesn't unless the person driving the Prius is a dumbass, or mostly drives highway.) you still need to adjust that for weight. Scaled down the Prius would still get something like 15%-20% better fuel mileage. 19%-26% if you include the battery weight.

So... your point is that if they can get a heavier car to get decent gas mileage, that's an excuse to design cars heavier than they need to be? I understand that heavier cars are less efficient... that's why designers used to try to make lighter fucking cars.

As for suzuki 1L 3-cyl engines and fuel economy in a car that weighs a little over a ton (and yes, I know the Prius weighs about a ton and a half, 3042lbs to be exact. That's one of the things that's wrong with the design. It's a compact hatchback that weighs as much as a mid-sized sedan)... I used that example because it's what my uncle drives. He gets a little better mileage than I do out of my mini (1993 Metro, averages around 58mpg from it). I guess you could say that's progress, but it happened between the 70s and the 90s. We've had plenty of technological breakthroughs since then, but not many that are implemented for increased efficiency or longevity of the vehicle.
'Course, building a reliable vehicle isn't good for business expansion. Too many people like my dad who have been driving the same car for over 30 years.

The Prius is a mid size. Whats the average for those, 3500 lb?


You're not going to see huge fuel economy improvements. The ice is a PoS, 37% theoretical efficiency (20% average, 25% with a really good engine.), you can only make things so aerodynamic, and weight can only be decreased so far before you're just being stupid.


I also don't see your point about cars dying sooner. They don't. They've got more fiddly bits that break, sure but so? People what pretty clearly want their ABS, air-conditioned, 12 airbag, oiltight, watertight, no tune-up required etc, cars. Things can be a bit of a pain to get at from time to time, but the repairs are still simple.

The big parts will still last for a couple hundred thousand miles if you don't abuse them.

Prius, mid-size. Uh-huh. Ever stood next to one? I've compared one with a metro rather in-depth... the size difference is minimal, the Prius has more small nooks and crannies for storage, but the geo can actually carry larger items... stock, the Prius is a bit quicker off the line, but with a couple of filter changes and a $20 muffler, the Geo becomes the faster of the two (and gets better gas mileage for the part swap).

Also, you can get a car with ABS, air-conditioning, air-tight and water tight without going overboard. The issue I have with newer cars and their creature comforts pretty much comes from things beyond those few basics... though I have seen such poorly implemented in cars from the 90s... with those, I could easily envision how it could be done better. When you want to control everything electronically, though... well, I know electronics better than I do cars. Built 'em for a living for quite awhile. Cars produce vibration, no matter how smooth a ride you can design, there's still more vibration than you'll find in an unmoving building. Vibration+electronics=degradation. I understand there are maintenance plans for this, but without the electronics present, the car is much, much easier to maintain... and electronics only provide a shortcut to mechanical efficiency. It can be done better without them.

Reliability... this is where we're getting entirely theoretical. I personally haven't seen a single car built after 1994 with over 300,000 miles on 'em... seen many, many older cars that fit the description, though. I've seen the final years of a 327 small block with over 600,000 miles on it. Lost compression in 1994, poor thing. I challenge you to find any passenger car engine running on gasoline and built after the 70s that lasted as long... and I say running on gasoline because a few hundred thousand miles is just the break-in period for a detroit diesel.