Comment by roc | Hacker News Reader

Comment by roc | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Cars are a good example of why "built to last" doesn't make universal sense.

We don't make trucks like we did 15 years ago, because we know what happens to the human body inside a rigid metal shell during a collision. We know that we can design engines and transmissions that will keep you on the road better, keep you out of more accidents and at least halve your fuel bill. And these gains will trivially outweigh the higher costs for maintenance, repair costs and increased frequency of replacement.

Similarly with major appliances like refrigerators, furnaces and hot water heaters. It's not at all uncommon to see people with older versions of those appliances that are 30+ years old, still tickin and trivial to repair and maintain. But they're so horribly inefficient that even if you replace that classic with a modern model that will fall apart the day after its warranty expires, you can save so much more money in the interim that you'll still be ahead after you replace it.

Now, I'm not arguing that you should go out and buy the latest. Or that aiming for longevity and repairability is never right.

I'm just saying that there are trade-offs when something is "designed to last" and "easy to repair". And, particularly when moving parts and electronics are involved, those trade-offs can cost more in the long run.

you can save so much more money in the interim that you'll still be ahead after you replace it

Are you seriously saying that the price of e.g., a new $1000 refrigerator + the cost of running it for 10 years is going to be less than the cost of running an existing 10 year-old model?

Now, I have to admit that I haven't done the math (beyond a back of the envelope estimate), but I'm having a hard time believing that it's even close, unless you live in an area with astronomical electricity rates.

In order to be cost efficient tradeoff, a new refrigerator should save 100 bucks a year on the electricity bill, or roughly 8 bucks a month.

This site (http://www.refrigeratorefficiency.com/efficiency-matters/ref...) seems to think that is plausible. > Consider Upgrading > > Consider replacing refrigerators that are more than 10 years old. The efficiency of modern refrigerators can be over 40% greater than older models. This can save $15 per month on your electric bill.

Ten year old, probably not. 30 year old, and it becomes possible - some of those (per http://appliancecalculator.stanford.edu) wind up using over 2000 kWh/yr. Of course, if the 10 year old one is in not-great repair, that probably increases its energy use (think a poor seal, funky motor, clogged whatever), and leaving it be might well cost more than replacing, and the real question being between replacing and repairing.

A good point about reliability not being the only factor in buying a car. I drive a Toyota 4Runner, which has a 4-star safety rating. It's from years before pedestrian safety laws, so the pedestrian safety rating is low, but the passenger safety rating is quite good. 20mpg is still hard to get from a V-6 truck engine these days. The only modern safety features I wish I had are hill start assist and traction/stability control. Maybe side-impact air bags.

Your point is perfectly valid for most cars. I would never drive a Corvair just because it's more repairable than a Volt. But there certainly is a market for a dead-simple yet modernly designed car.

> "20mpg is still hard to get from a V-6 truck engine these days."

True enough. But 4 cylinder engines are turning out 150hp and 3500 pounds of towing capacity these days. So the V-6, in and of itself, may not be an appropriate requirement.

As to the market: perhaps. I'm not saying it's impossible to find a modern middle-ground. But I don't know how many people even want to lift their hood these days.

This past model year it's already started to become somewhat common for commuter cars to ditch the spare tire. And perhaps more bothersome, it's pretty difficult to find drivers who really care that they're missing.

> But there certainly is a market for a dead-simple yet modernly designed car.

It's a shame that those two things are contradictions in terms, then. Even if you were to keep only the safety features from a modern car, it would still be many times more complex than your 1975 dodge pickup.

Where do you get your information regarding the environmental costs of manufacturing and disposal of vehicles and large appliances so that you can make this judgement?

Ideally, the environmental costs of manufacture are built into the list price. And the costs of disposal/recycling are offset by the consumer-facing price of disposal and from the value of any recovered materials.

The degree to which those two things isn't true is well outside the capability of an individual market participant. I'm at the mercy of intermediaries to expose failures in this regard.

And holding onto old products isn't much better in that regard, as I also have incomplete information on where those old parts are going, where the new ones came from, what they were made of, what hidden costs are buried in the repair business' books, etc. To say nothing of issues such as extending the life of products that rely on now-banned chemicals. Leaded paints, refrigerants like Freon, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com