Technological progress VS favourite cars: choose one option
The worst thing car-maker can hear from you: “The car is perfect! I will never buy anything else!”
June 28, 2014. That was a cloudy day at Coventry, UK. Jaguar enthusiasts held their meet at the square in front of the transport museum. One of the cars presented was 1929 Austin Swallow tourer. The man driving it, grey-haired gentleman, stood aside and spoke of his experience. All I managed to grasp was that the car had been with him throughout his entire life. Moreover, he planned to drive and service it until he would be able to. What a hell of a man! What a disaster!
Falling in love with your car, caring about it too much, servicing and crafting it – this is unthinkable! Intolerable! We are living in the world of consumerism which appraises only “wow” things which did not exist yesterday. We used to need more, better and now!
By saying consumerism here, I mean our willingness and readiness to purchase new things. Because new things. Because the “old” stuff becomes unattractive, non-fashionable and not-up-to-date. The society and industries are perfectly fine with this. Moreover, they eagerly propel the consumerism to new highs.
In the automotive industry, consumerism has its bright and dark sides. On the one hand, it pushes you towards buying new cars on the expense of good-old-proven vehicles, which, actually, perform quite well. On the other hand, through buying new cars, you invest money into new technologies and propel the industrial progress. A closed circle emerges here. Purchasing a new car makes you support new technologies; supporting technologies makes you enrich the market with new levels of comfort, enjoyment and security; the latter makes you become even more eager to purchase a new car. The “more, better and now” rule moves the humanity forward.
Paradoxically, crafting reliable and long-lasting vehicles does not pay off to the manufacturers. This is not only because the technological progress stalls, but also because the manufacturers risk going bankrupt. The Japanese “car crisis” of the early 1990s serves a good illustration here. Toyota, Nissan, Honda, and other companies became victims of their own success. The Japanese cars of that time appeared to be the best price-to-quality choices if compared to their European, American, and Korean alternatives. This resulted in fact that people purchased these cars quite actively, drove them for a long time, and rarely opted for new models or even spare parts. In such a way Japanese companies were under-receiving revenues what was not always the case for their competition. This triggered serious financial complications in the country of the rising sun.
I do not want to say here that the Japanese manufacturers craft less reliable cars today. Absolutely not! What has changed is that the Europeans, Americans, and Koreans learned to do things in a subtler way.
Speaking of Europeans, by the way. In the mid-1970s they understood that the major problems for the next decades would be the arms race, environmental pollution, demographic boom and stagnation of global economics (because of the fuel crises). This required a new automotive philosophy. Cars were to be crafted to last – with no rust – for at least thirty years. They were also to become more fuel-efficient. For this reason, Porsche, Mercedes, Audi and Volkswagen set up a chain of narrow-focused R&D departments. Their success was a market disaster. Yes, the European cars of 1980s became of epic reliability, but they also became too expensive for a mass buyer. Europeans started losing money. The niche of affordable cars was taken then by the Japanese. Who had to learn their consumerism lesson in 1990s.
Surely, you may be picky and ask: “Hey, what about classic cars”? Good question. But... how many owners of the classic cars do you personally know? How many of them live in your area? How many of them drive their classics on a daily basis? What I want so to say here is that classic cars are not making weather in the world of automotive consumerism. Already not. Museums await majority of them.
It is also important to note that the progress of humanity is “hampered” by the laws of physics and sober logics. Let me show it on alternative example. Once I was fond of photography. To save money, I purchased lenses from 1970s and mounted them – using adapters – on my 2010 DSLR camera. Surely, no auto-features worked, the colour transfer was not the best (these lenses were made for monochrome pictures), but the overall sharpness and quality of pictures was satisfactory. I paid around €50 per item instead of €500. What I mean here is that the technology of how lenses are made has not changed over time. Physics of light retraction, as well as the allocation of convex and concave lenses, has remained the same. What has changed, though, is the quality of glass and the number of extra features the lenses are equipped with.
Transferring this photographic example onto cars, thousands of engineers modernized the internal combustion engine throughout the 20th century, but none could radically change the way it operates. Therefore, the Benz Patent-Motorwagen № 3 and the Mercedes S-class have comparatively “similar” engines. They make the vehicle move through converting the energy of controlled explosions into rotation and passing it to the wheels. What has changed is the efficiency, ergonomics and reliability of the engine. Apart from this, engineers developed usability of the car itself, making it more comfortable, simple and safe. Therefore, the S-class goes much better than the Motorwagen. This does not mean, however, that the latter became underivable. The logics of pure consumerism fails here.
Surely, you may be picky and ask: “Hey, what about electric vehicles”? Good question, but this case looks similar to the classic cars. Electric drivetrain was considered by Henry Ford as early as mid-1890s. He concluded then that the long-range batteries were not even on a horizon and rejected the idea. As for today, the electric vehicles should be treated as a technological breakthrough with limited usability. They have not become the market gamechangers yet. But they may become such in future. This will prove again the validity of the “more, better and now” rule.
Thinking of the consumerist nature of our societies, you should also keep in mind the planned obsoleteness. This is the manufacturer’s expectation (strategy?) for its products to start looking non-fashionable or turn non-functional after a certain time. In a perfect scenario, the manufacturer calculates when its product becomes obsolete and arrives with a replacement in a right moment. But it also happens that the manufacturer “enforces” its product to become obsolete (i.e. makes it deliberately fragile or excessively specific so it cannot be adjusted to new technologies). The planned obsoleteness should encourage people to buy newer products from the same manufacturer. Unless the manufacturer gets condemned as a “cheater” and sued to death.
The planned obsoleteness has some strong roots in the automotive industry. Some even claim it originated from there. In 1924, to compete with the “always black” Ford Model T, the General Motors head Alfred P. Sloan Jr. suggested that his company should introduce annual face-lifts to all their cars. In this light, the previous year’s model – being technologically the same – would appear outdated. The trick worked out. The General Motors outsold Ford in 1931 and set the pattern for doing automotive business in future.
Speaking of my personal consumerism dilemma, I drive the 1997 Mazda 323F. It is unique, fun and well-engineered. It provides me with everything I need. It takes me everywhere I want to go. It is also well-equipped with some never-being-stock options (f.e. multimedia steering wheel or on-board computer). Last but not the least, the insurance comes far below my expectations.
But mates, the car is 20 years old! Rubber parts are not that flexible any more. Indicators start failing one after another. Mechanic parts are getting worn. From time to time rust appears in different places. Surely, it is very cheap to fix everything, and spares are very affordable. But... sometimes I feel that I get tired. I respect my car’s age and recognize her right for whims, but that is not the way I would like our coexistence to look like.
Apart from this, there is the technological strain. New cars are faster. It takes under seven seconds for a modern turbo-charged diesel with automatic transmission to hit 100 kmh. Whilst I need to manipulate with pedals and gears for around ten seconds. New cars are also safer. Yes, my Mazda showed herself very good in crash tests of 1990s, but these were the previous century’s tests! Today, in case of a collision with a newest Golf, Megane or Civic – even on a country road – I stand little chance of getting off from my vehicle unhurt. Unlike the driver in front of me.
And here comes the moment when the human-car connection starts cracking. On the one hand, I cannot imagine myself selling (scrapping?) this car. It looks great, runs perfectly well and never ruins my budget. On the other hand, I get tired of anxieties and challenges. Spare parts cannot be bought new. Used parts in good condition also diminish in numbers. My dreams of car upgrades become questioned by my calculations of buying a new one with all upgrades already installed.
Unfortunately, the time of saying good-bye seems imminent. Consumerism will eventually win. Unless...
… you know, mates, I admired that gentlemen with his 1929 Austin Swallow.
P.S. This is a significantly re-worked article I wrote for the book "Introduction to Academic Driving: Stories of Cars and Science." Here you have the original:
P.P.S. Matt Parsons can be reached here: www.behance.net/Matthew_Parsons_SA
#acadrive, #smalltribesrule, #classic-cars, #jaguar, #mazda, #spotting, #spotted, #cars, #story, #jdm, #japan, #japanese, #coventry, #UK, #austin, #lantis, #astina, #mazdalife, #323F, #mazdaspeed, #citycar, #citycars, #driving, #japanese, #japancars, #japanese-cars, #classiccars, #classics, #classiccar, #consumerism, #capitalism, #car-philosophy, #philosophy
Join In
Comments (24)
Cars should be changed regularly. Like socks. Even if they are not socks.
Ost, you are very young and naive. Old cars should be scrapped, not kept on running. Don't keep Mazda for too long.
Does this mean then that you should drive one car till it physically collapses and buy 10-years old "new" car afterwards?
Interesting point. As stated in one of his comments: "As long as the good outweighs the bad in a car, it's a keeper!"...
Read moreWell... my favourite cannot be modern, disagree to choose. Once you will move to our side, too, and will be in love with modern, eco friendly, less noisy, more comfortable cars ;)
It's very interesting)I like only"picture" of old car,but i prefer a new one. It's only my choice😉
Very reasonable choice. The best cars ever made are the newest cars!