Well, when you know Fjord® engineers who are paid to make a part last 100k miles and no more. (even if it costs more to manufacture) Well then, that kinda proves "planned obsolescence"
And, as an engineer type person, you look at something and see... this wasn't done to make this thing better, this was done to make it impossible to repair.
Take some of the new GiMiCk® trucks, where you have to pull the cab off the truck to get at important parts of the engine. Of course the factory technicians now have a cab crane.
Further, let us look at electronics. They have been made in such a way that specific components WILL burn out just after the warranty time. And there is nothing that you can do that will convince me otherwise. They "MIGHT" have saved 1¢ putting in the cheap component... maybe, but the way it was put in says, this was done on purpose.
And now we have Boogle® actually putting in code that makes the android software run slower over time.
So, from my perspective, planned obsolescence is real and in my face all the time. I can't go to HomeyDepot and buy a drill of the quality i did twenty years ago. They just don't exist there. However, we could do a lot better with computers if we make them in a way that allows one to use them for slower/non-important stuff as they become obsoleted.
If the CPU board in your typical laptop was something that looked like a hard drive. Then you could pull it out and plug it into another box and have it run a file sharing server, or a firewall, or even a music box. But no, it is a specialized thing that sits only in that old clunky case. And all of its connectors are proprietary. It doesn't have to be that way.
Yep, I agree. It is infuriating. I would make a ballpark estimate that adverse engineering comprises 20%-30% of engineering time spent on most products.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I'd like to see evidence to support that claim outside the realm of government mandates.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You are using the word evidence as if it were evident. It isn't. It is the crux of most problems reaching consensus. If you don't believe that, just try to give me a careful description of you would consider acceptable evidence to be.
The topic of how planned obsolescence (a special case of artificial scarcity) could be measured is worthwhile, but not trivial.
What I would consider the best 'evidence' for me is the simple fact that If a company can sell 2 things instead of one, it tends to profit (up to) twice as much. To the degree that that is true, it guarantees the inclusion of artificial scarcity in markets given enough time for it to arise.
A better question seems to be are there any markets where artificial scarcity doesn't arise? If so, what special traits of that market act to suppress it?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Ford likes to claim they sell the longest-lasting trucks. Their market isn't just former Ford owners, but current Chevy and Dodge owners, current Nissan and Toyota owners, and a growing population. To say a limited lifespan is ipso facto proof of artificial scarcity and planned obsolescence doesn't pass muster.
I do know engineering to reduce costs happens, but the mandate is usually "meet this high target within these material and cost parameters," not, "pare it down to this this bare minimum," unless you're talking about Harbor Freight junk.
Don't shift the goalpost or the burden of proof. I never denied that planned obsolescence never happens or that artificial scarcity isn't a thing, i said it was a more complex subject than typically understood, and not the open-and-shut case it is considered to be. Yes, it is difficult to measure. that is why you need to offer verifiable evidence that it has happened in order to demonstrate any specific allegation that it has occurred.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
You speak of 100K miles as though it is nothing at all. And on a truck, that's 100K miles including rough roads, heavy loads, and hard driving. It's no small feat to make something last through that and still remain somewhat affordable.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
i understand what you are trying to say, however, with today's metalurgy, we should be talking about 1M miles at affordable prices.
100k was a bar to reach for in the 1950s
it isn't even a hurtle today.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Why do you think we should, and on what parts? Modern alloys and steel formulations are amazing, but there remain material limitations. With proper PMCS, engines can last 500K miles or more. I personally know someone with many Volvo badges for mileage. But anything that moves wears. Some materials resist wear better than others, but there are also usually downsides such as brittleness that make them less suitable for automotive applications. Electrical components, suspension, and pumps experience incredible mechanical stresses from vibration, temperatures, and the nature of their operation that shorten their lifespan and necessitate them being designed as consumables. And people don't always change oil and maintain coolant levels as they should.
Meanwhile, costs are artificially inflated by taxation and regulatory mandates, making it harder to meet a consumer price point, but that is a different subject entirely than the allegation of planned obsolescence, which still needs specific evidence for specific accusations.
You may find Oliver Wendell Holmes' The Deacon's Masterpiece or, the Wonderful "One-hoss Shay": A Logical Story amusing, though.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I am sorry, none of what you said here makes any sense in relationship to what we were talking about.
As an engineer type person, you can tell what the design engineer was thinking when they created the product. You can easily see, "here they were cutting corners to save money," and you can easily see, "here they were making the product so it would fail earlier."
There is nothing that you can say that will get me to disbelieve my own eyes.
Back in the 50s americans had a mission to build things better AND cheaper. There are designs that use less material and last longer.
At some point in the 70s they decided to make things cheaper and cut back on the quality. Not because they had to. Not because they were trying to save money. But because they were making a car to fall apart and need replacing. There are books by Fjord® engineers discussing this.
Today you have great big Dodgem® trucks who's supension, if you don't take it to a shop and have reinforcement welded on, will fail disastrously during normal driving.
At the same time you have Toyota® sponsoring baja rally trucks to find out where their suspension breaks down.
Right now, we should be aiming at cars lasting 1M miles.
We should be aiming at cars that have tons of standardized, bolt on parts. Like we can go buy cool new wheels and just bolt them on, so should most of the parts in a car. There should be 4 brake rotors total. Auto part stores should be an easy stop. As in, do you have the 7" or the 10" rotor.
But we have nothing like that. Manufacturers specifically make parts that are not standard. AND they make parts that will fail sooner by design.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Link to the books, don't just say, "they exist!"
There are major failings past and present in all makes and models, some of them incredibly short-sighted. I readily acknowledge this, It doesn't prove your case, though. Talk to any mechanic and they will tell you what was designed without repair in mind, but is that engineering oversight or planned obsolescence? That's a harder case to make, and you still bear the burden of proof.
Toyota has led the way in using GD&T in their design, have less trade union BS, and have a better corporate design philosophy than US manufacturers, but that still doesn't prove corporate planned obsolescence. And you haven't even offered a link to support your suspension issue assertion.
Standardized bolt-on parts? It's the Society of Automotive Engineers that standardized those bolts in the first place. Chevy small block engines and Honda 4-cylinders are very popular for modification, but engine technology is still evolving and there are valid reasons for there to be so many engines used, even if we set aside the regulatory mandates complicating matters. What do you want to be universal, specifically?
There are many factors in brake design besides diameter, and each application has specific needs based on mass, engine power, intended use, etc. Why do you discount the advantages of rear drum brakes? Those aren't obsolete at all in certain applications.
You just keep vomiting assertions without making any real case.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
And the same with you.
I am just telling you what i see.
Of course, to me it is obvious.
And you keep dancing on either side of the issue.
So, it is apparent that you do not see.
How do you "prove" to someone who cannot see, what is obvious in front of your eyes?
I can design and build a car from the ground up. Can you?
Lets take a easily verified thing.
It is all the rage lately for a high end car to come with tires of a size that has never been used before.
Now, was this because that was mathematically the exact best size, or did they do this so that they could make a deal with tire manufacture to be the only supplier?
I have had better engineers than me lay out a good argument for their only needing to be four tire sizes.
In the automotive industry, i see shenanigans everywhere.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit