> I find it astounding that you can purchase *any* car from new at under 

> tags...

Most high-volume manufacturers have a small car that starts in the 7-8K 
price range (eg Peugeot 107, Ford Ka, Renault Clio etc).

> I always thought that this is why stuff is so much cheaper now. Not so 
> long ago, everything was made of metal, and it was all very expensive. 
> Today everything is made of plastic, and it's jaw-droppingly cheap. It's 
> such an obvious correlation that it seems almost self-evident that the 
> only possible explanation is that metal is expensive.

But when you buy something, the *material* costs are usually a tiny 
proportion of the cost.  Even something like a mouse or keyboard, the actual 
material is probably like 5p of plastic.  It's the designing, manufacturing 
process and assembly that costs the most money usually.

> If metal isn't expensive, why do they insist on making *everything* of 
> plastic? Even items that really *should* be made of metal?

Two main reasons plastics are used a lot in cars, firstly they are much 
lighter than the equivalent part made from metal (so will reduce fuel 
consumption and emissions), and secondly it's much easier (ie cheaper) to 
make complex curved shapes out of plastic than metal.  Imagine trying to 
make a car dashboard out of metal, and then what it would look and feel 
like.  Additionally, imagine trying to make the engine or suspension out of 
plastic...  Each material is suitable for certain things, the raw material 
cost is usually small enough that it doesn't come into the decision making 
process.

> But aren't cars rather like processors? Sure, it costs a lot to design 
> one, but once it's designed you can just go on churning out copies of it 
> forever.

Sure the same effect, but sales volumes of processor designs are orders of 
magnitudes higher than cars, and assembly costs are higher for cars.  So 
even if a processor and a car both cost $x billion to design, the processor 
will sell for $100 and the car for $10000.

> I mean, hell, when was the Ford Fiesta designed?

The current one?  Less than 7 years ago I would guess.  7 years is usually 
the maximum lifetime of car designs, because it takes that long to design a 
new one.

> And it's *still* on sale today! Surely they've more than recovered the 
> original design costs by now?

No, as Gilles said, it's just the name that's the same.  Typically Ford keep 
the same names for new cars, until something goes wrong (like with the 
Escort), then they make a new name.  It doesn't mean it's the same design.

Post a reply to this message

> Note 10 years ago means 1998.
>
> Wikipedia:
>
> "The first true digital camera that recorded images as a computerized file 
> was likely the Fuji DS-1P of 1988, which recorded to a 16 MB internal 
> memory card that used a battery to keep the data in memory. This camera 
> was never marketed in the United States, and has not been confirmed to 
> have shipped even in Japan.

I remember we had a digital camera at school in 1994, we used it to take 
photos for the school newspaper and stuff.  Was a bit naff (like only VGA 
resolution) but it was cool at the time.  We called it the "Ion Camera", but 
I have no idea who made it and what technology it used.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> (I still can't get over how my mum looses her keys and her perse EVERY 
> DAY OF HER LIFE! I mean, WTF? Every day she has to spend hours searching 
> for them. Me, I just always keep mine in the same place, so I can always 
> find them. How friggin' hard is THAT??)

Hey, she's a woman, she loses things!

<ducks and runs>

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

> tum-ti-tum ah urban dictionary "an attitude adjustment"
> 

A LART then?

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:11:00 -0000, Nicolas Alvarez  
<nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> did spake, saying:


>> tum-ti-tum ah urban dictionary "an attitude adjustment"
>
> A LART then?

Certainly a LART would be considered to fall under the upside the head  
umbrella when divorced from its original physical aspect.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> 
> It's probably not turbo lag, more the fact that the turbo doesn't work 
> properly until around 2200 rpm and the throttle is very heavily damped 
> by the ECU.  

Still I'd say there's something wrong. Under Saab's hood that engine 
(and turbo) starts working from somewhere around 1500rpm. The way you 
defined here sounds like Volkswagen 1.9TDI (which is older technology 
with really short torque rpm's). For example the Audi I drive pulls at 
2000-3800rpm. Under 2000, it's a nolifer.

> If you're used to driving a petrol it can really catch you 
> out sometimes.  

Yep. My '89 Saab (2.0 petrol turbo) pulls from 1500rpm and trough the 
whole rpm area (1000-6000rpm) nicer than Audi - and it's still turbocharged.

> The biggest difference is around 1500rpm in 2nd gear 
> (common situation when pulling out from junctions that you don't need to 
> stop for), really my 70 BHP petrol engine felt *way* faster than this 
> 120 BHP diesel under those conditions.  Once you are in the 2500-3500 
> rpm range it's fine though.

Turbocharger actually removes some torque from the really-low revs 
('bout <1500rpm), after that it starts to wake up and gets torque much 
higher than with naturally aspirated engine. After driving 6 years with 
turbocharged cars, I wouldn't even think about naturally aspirated one 
:p - once I got used to the sub-rev torqueloss, I've just let myself 
enjoy the long and stable torque (expect for the Audi, which has only a 
short spike of torque, but it's cheap to drive, so...).

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Bill Pragnell wrote:
> 
> Is that the one with the 'concept' backside? I've never driven a Renault 
> before but I've heard nothing but Good Things.

My mum had a Megane earlier ('97 1.6RT coupe). Only real problem (which 
got fixed pretty well) was a grounding problem with rear lights.

OTOH, my mum's "boyfriend" (what's the word, when he's over 50 years 
old? :p) had Laguna ('02 1.6 sedan) with nothing but problems. I guess 
this one was built on Monday.

> I don't think anyone's made a car without power steering for some years 
> now. Everyone says that it's hard going back to 'regular' steering but 
> I've never had a problem... (mind you, it's not so bad with small, light 
> cars).

I still think that power steering in small cars are waste of 
(petrol)energy. But people are used to them, so...

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook wrote:
> 
> Which a) should have come with the camera and b) is probably the stuff 
> you can download of the Canon website.
> 

And c) works with Windows versions X, Y and Z.


-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> 
> I remember we had a digital camera at school in 1994, we used it to take 
> photos for the school newspaper and stuff.  Was a bit naff (like only 
> VGA resolution) but it was cool at the time.  We called it the "Ion 
> Camera", but I have no idea who made it and what technology it used.
> 

I'd guess it was Canon ION.

http://www.digicamhistory.com/1992.html

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> 
> When did the ones that recorded on 3.5" floppies come out, I wonder?
> 

Was there any other than various models of Sony Mavica (which was 
released 1997 IIRC)?

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message