Comments by "ootmaster1" (@ootmaster1) on "driving 4 answers"
channel.
-
2300
-
130
-
16
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gnerko123
was busy today and replying to each comment one at a time would have been annoying
"One could argue that a modern car where you only have to replace components now and then is more repairable than an older car which keeps on rusting. Changing a component is easier than bodywork, as long as the part is avaibalbe of course."
And when you keep adding more and more complexity requiring more and more parts, that depend on availability. When an older car has far far fewer components to fail? what is the result of that?
its easier to weld in a new sheet of metal than it is to replace a out of production computer module
"You first mention that awd, turbo's, computers are bad."
Nope, i said nearly everything is turbo AWD run by a million computers... 2000's AWD and turbo tech were less complex and thus simpler... and thus easier to repair...
"you change your point that those systems used to be less complicated than they are now, thus only modern turbo's/awd's/computers are bad. Hardly seems fair."
My point was less complex and easier to repair from the beginning, and pointing out that nearly every car on the market today is awd turbo, meaning more numbers of higher complexity machines... but ok,
"EV AWD systems are very simple. One motor on each axle, done. much simpler than an engine, gearbox, transfer case & axle."
And all run with computers, and electricity tied to a grid. And somehow less simple than older awd/4wd systems... "its just an electric motor and vroom means simple" is just amazing
""They kinda are when they are made poorly and cheaply. And when they are exposed to drastically changing environments"""
"This applies to any component."
No not really, we are talking about you saying computers are usually reliable, firstly, no, they aren't, LMAO, second, a mechanical rod moving the mechanical shift lever on a transmission is and always will be infinitely simpler than current day solenoid electric shifting... mostly because its still moving the mechanical shifter level on the transmission...
"You mention negligible gains. I disagree about the negligible part. Unfortunately, most of the efficiency gains are offset by increasing vehicle weight and size. However, modern cars are faster, safer, cleaner, more comfortable, better equipped than older cars.
"i disagree"
Imediatly following
"Unfortunately, most of the efficiency gains are offset by increasing vehicle weight and size"
Thanks for proving my point while saying you disagree with it.... 300IQ
and throwing a bunch of useless techno bullsht doesnt count as " better equipped"
" its not really anecdotal to point out the increasingly complex un unrepairable nature of newer vehicles for negligible gains"
You literally included an anecdote to make your point. In said anecdote, you discuss how you could repair the modern car, albeit after searching for some hard to come by part. There is a multitude of parts of older cars that are excessively hard to come by.
Its like you are missing the point to try and say im wrong here... If my example was an older car, i could have thrown a rubber fuel hose and a hose clamp on it and be done with it. You cant do that anymore, therefore its harder to repair.. "old parts are hard to come by too" right, and older cars have far far fewer parts to remain functional... and as newer cars age, what do you think will happen? Honestly its starting to sound like you've never actually worked on vehicles before...
"actually i asked you several questions that you ignored"
I'm not going to count the number computers in a rav4. I'll not deny that needless complexity can be a risk for longevity. Anything that's on the car can break. More components = more failure modes, more risk for issues.
Yet: your questions are all address by the same thing I have said multiple times already:
Even if modern cars don't last as long as older cars, you can factor this in into the calculation; you simply offset their production costs over a shorter mileage.
"even if you are right and cars become harder to fix, wont last as long, become disposable commodifies like cellphones, and end up with more landfill and wasted resources, its slightly better in my " cost benefit" analysis somehow"
incredible my dude
"If you don't know how much shorter the lifespan of a modern car is compared to an older one, make an estimate. We can always refine the numbers later. I keep hammering on the need for a quantative comparison, otherwise we are comparing apples and oranges."
You are trying to live in data, i live in the real world. Do you work on vehicles? I do, I do it every day, i see and deal with this nonsense every single time i try to fix something on anything newer than 2010. I cant give you data, i can see and give you observable trends. And extrapolate end results of what i see. " data" will inevitably always tell you what it was set up to tell you. Honesty or reality are not required
"Old cars emit more during use, but they last longer. OK, but which one of those points weighs heaviest?"
the one that doesnt involve vehicles being pushed to the point of disposable appliances for the sake of " benefits" Who benefits when you need to replace your car every 3-8 years? Who benefits when we have to fill landfills with garbage? I fail to see how you can manage to conjure up some numbers that says having cars become disposable appliances to save the environment is a winning strategy. You obviously dont say that verbatim, but nearly everything i brought up you agreed with in one way or another, and yet the culmination of those ideas fails to sink in?
"We need to compare them somehow. We use numbers for that and put them in an equation. Otherwise, we're just sharing opinoins and feelings. That does not lead to an accurate outcome."
You are so caught up in data you forget that the data comes from real life...
1
-
1
-
@Gnerko123 " adding more words doesn’t make you more right and doesn’t make them relevant automatically."
and we just skip right passed everything i brought up, and ignored it... wonderful conversation pal.
" I don’t need to respond to every paragraph you wrote, because everything boils down to what I wrote."
Buddy, you literally agreed with nearly every point i made, yet still ignore it... Sure buddy
"You don’t agree with my equation. How would you go about comparing environmental impact of two different cars?"
you dont have an equation, you have what other people say to you. You clearly havent thought about this entire thing on a grand scale if you hjust straight up stop responding to things i bought up after you conceded that what i was saying was right...
How would i compare:? thats what ive been doing with all those words you ignored. You know those things where you say things, and they mean things? yeah those things...
your point essentially boils down to " so what if they are harder to fix, more complex and prone to breaking, and slowly being pushed into disposable commodities, but newer cars somehow are less environmentally impactful "even if your own words state that the size and weight make any environmental gains negligible, and this leads to newer vehicles becoming throwaway appliances, that somehow means less environmental impact because of my particulate " equation"....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gnerko123 "disposal of the car is taken into account in the equation"
Really? so what is the environmental impact of a car being sat in a lot being crushed by a salvage yard?
"tailpipe emissions"
I remind you that your only mode of data is literally the c02 emissions data of ICE vehicles. not having anything to do with the environmental impact of a vehicle sat rotting in the open, or the breakdown of the endless plastics they use in modern vehicles. Once the vehicle stops running, the environmental impact doesnt stop.
" It appears you think this is impossible, "
the issue here is, i am thinking outside of the literal c02 (tailpipe) emissions of vehicles and am focusing on the long term viability, and environmental impact of current trends ion the automotive industry.
". It appears you think this is impossible"
If you only account for tailpipe/c02 emissions, you are missing the largest part of the environmental equation, and that has been the entire point of this discussion, detailing to you that there are other environmental factors outside of tailpipe emissions... You seem to think that this isnt the case. It seems to me that you are ignore the environmental impact of disposable vehicles, because" tailpipe emissions work out better" but that doesnt take into account of other environmental factors. I tried to explain this in multiple ways with multiple questions and scenarios. Looking into the future of current trends is very valuable in making future decisions , and seeing the trend of vehicles being endlessly complicated for in your own words reduced gain of efficiency will inevitably lead to more waste than necessary, which leads to higher levels of pollution and environmental damage. . but you seemed to just ignore them and acted like a snarky know it all who is too ignorant of anything outside of your narrow scope of understating of the topic IE tailpipe emissions. Mind you, never actually citing a single thing despite lambasting everything i say as opinion. So what if a newer vehicle produced slightly less emissions of an older vehicle? if the newer vehicle wont last as long as a newer vehicle. But yeah i dont have data for this. why would i be able to provide data for this? Im just looking at the future result of endless complexity added to a simple system for an ever reducing level of gains. The point of diminishing returns was somewhere in the mid 2000's if im being honest, but that really is just an opinion of working on vehicles of a wide array of vehicles for maybe a decade or more.
I discuss this topic because i have a vested interest in how these things function. FFS this is a year old comment thread that im still responding to. LOL I disagree with your assessment not because i believe your data is wrong, but because the data you are using isn't the entire picture
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gnerko123
"If that is really what you think, it really is sad."
it is, because you keep doing it. i ask questions and you ignore them. Its honestly disrespectful at this point...
Here are a few you have yet to answer
"what are you comparing if not co2?"
"What is the environmental impact of a car being sat in a lot being crushed by a salvage yard?"
"How are you so sure of your opinion?"
"what data do you use other than c02 emissions? "
"what is the environmental impact on newer cars becoming disposable like old appliances?"
"whats the environmental impact of throwaway cars?"
"does that factor into your equation?"
"You're making the same points over and over again, only in different forms."
You are literally not making a single point whatsoever, you ignore relevant questions, and you dismiss everything i say as opinion while providing nothing in response
'll try one last time. You originally wrote:
"keeping an old car running effectively is far more useful at reducing total overall pollution than scrapping it and buying a new one."
You need to make an apples to apples comparison of the overall pollution of both cars to be able to draw this conclusion.
SInce this has already been answered before
Car that exists pollutes less than one that needs to be made to replace it...
I cant seem to understand why you have such a hard time understanding what seems to be a simple concept...
"Yet you appear to refuse to do this."
If you read this comment thread, you will find it answered more than once. you are disingenuous, and quite frankly frustrating..
"If not, I am keen to finally hear what your metric is for 'overall pollution' and how you came up with the conclusion that keeping an old car running always scores better on this metric than scrapping the old car and buying a new one."
If you would answer the following questions,
"What is the environmental impact of a car being sat in a lot being crushed by a salvage yard?"
"what is the environmental impact on newer cars becoming disposable like old appliances?"
"whats the environmental impact of throwaway cars?"
"does that factor into your equation?"
this would be apparent to you. but you have a dogmatic manner of approaching this conversation and refuse to even comprehend what is being said to you... its incredibly frustrating
Now i expect you to just straight up ignore everything i post, but here i am
1
-
@Gnerko123
"my point is we can calculate them and then make a comparison."
"what are you comparing if not co2?"
"What is the environmental impact of a car being sat in a lot being crushed by a salvage yard?"
"what data do you use other than c02 emissions? "
"what is the environmental impact on newer cars becoming disposable like old appliances?"
"whats the environmental impact of throwaway cars?"
"does that factor into your equation?
"we compare all tailpipe emissons, emissions expelled during production of the car, including environmental damage from battery production, environmental damage from oil production and refining, environmental damage from car recycling, and for an EV emissions created in generating the electrical power it consumes. There are methods to convert all figures to CO2 equivalents."
So somehow you convert plastic breakdown, and fluids, to c02 numbers? Dont buy that one bit. Talk about apples to oranges.... Also " recycling"? Only most of the metal is saved, the plastics, fabrics, and paints end up in landfills... Not sure how you can justify changing a plastic/microplastic environmental decomposition into a co2 number... seems like its not gonna make much sense no matter what you do with it
"..environmental impact ...disposable... appliances?"
I like that you ask this question, have no quantitative answer yourself, yet state that "moving away from things like appliances and cars being disposable like cellphones will go much farther than pushing evs"
Its like you arent capable of listening ot what ive said in a coherent genuine manner...If cars stop being made throwaway disposable appliances, the waste will be reduced. I dont need a study or complex math to comprehend that point. I feel like you are misunderstanding it intentionally. I have repeatedly stated my opinion on this idea. Not making new cars and re using already existing ones is better for the environment.
"How are you so sure of your opinion?"
It is my opinion that we should make a calculation to know the outcome of an equation. We weigh the pros and cons of both new cars and old cars and decide which is less and which is more. This is a quantitative question. No quantitative conclusions without a quantitative approach. My opinion then logically follows.
You somehow mash plastics into a c02 number, and call it a fair comparison? You are weighing a math equation made with estimates for extremely different scenarios while pretending its a fair comparison because some math? cmon dude, be real here
You once again show that you have no metric for making a comparison, yet know the outcome of the comparison. Lacking a quantitative analysis, you have no foundation to make a quantative conclusion such as "Car that exists pollutes less than one that needs to be made to replace it..."
I really think you are just fking with me at this point... Seriously... Creating a new object will inevitably always cost more energy and resources to create than one that already exists.. Ya know... because the one that exists already already exists...
My line of thought is summarrised below in small steps. Please let me know at what point you satart to disagree and which point we can agree on.
Driving any car pollutes. An old car has more tailpipe emissions than a new car. Thus the marginal emissions of an old car are higher than of a new car. A new car needs to be produced, this creates additional emissions which we don't need for the old car. A new car has a finite lifetime. We can determine the emissions needed for production and eventual recycling of the new car. We divide those production and recycling emissions by the mileage lifetime of the new car. We add this figure to the marginal emissions of the new car. This gives us a figure for the total emissions per mile of the new car. If this figure is lower than the marginal emissions of the old car, we create less overall polution by scrapping the old car ASAP and getting the new car.
All your entire argument hinges on the mashing together multiple different environmental factors into a simple data point, ignoring that this is not really accurate to real life, New cars are more and more likely to fail earlier and earlier, causing the " gains" they make to be less and less. Even to a point that you admit to that the gains are reduced based on the size and form factor of the vehicles ( which also exists emissions)
"If this figure is lower than the marginal emissions of the old car, we create less overall polution by scrapping the old car ASAP and getting the new car."
And if this figure is wrong? Where is it in your equation to solve the issue where newer cars end up not lasting as long, and the "lifetime emissions" are lower than "mathematically expected"? What about the end lifecycle of the newer vehicle? How many newer vehicles have to be scrapped, while older ones hang on to change your lifetime emissions metric? At what point do you consider the reparability of these vehicles as a factor in their overall emissions? This isnt even talking about EVS so to speak, because you can retrofit an older vehicle with an EV drivetrain and this would also reduce its overall lifetime emissions... but a dead car,, ICE or EV, thats unable to be repaired will never be a better option.
This analysis doesn't take into account that the old car also has a finite lifetime. If we would, the case for the old car would be worsened.
Gonna be real honest with you here chief... A car has an infinite lifetime. I know, sounds crazy... but it does. You can repair body panels, weld in new frame, replace engines, and transmissions... The case for old cars is even greater here. I tried to explain this to you but you apparently dont want to listen or you dont care.
I will note that it can take some time before the overall emissions of the new car are lower than those of the old car; the new car needs to drive some miles to compensate for its production emissions. If the new car lives past this point, scrapping the old car and getting the the new car creates less overall pollution than keeping the old car on the road.
And when new cars fail sooner and sooner, and dont live up to lofty emissions expectations? like ive been trying to tell you.. also im refusing to even acknowledge your point that " if co2 emissions work out, its better to forever live in a world where disposable vehicles are a thing as long as my very narrow specific manner of calculating its value is met.. its sorta insane
There is a point where the tailpipe emissions of the new car are so much lower than those of the old car, that the new car is cleaner, even factoring in production and recycling emissions. This is because the production and recycling emissions per mile aren't enough to offset the tailpipe emissions difference between the old and new cars. Whether or not this is the case, can be determined by a calculation.
"a calculation"
where you convert everything to c02..
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Gnerko123 my original reply was deleted for some reason
"I asked you about your overall pollution. You only mention production and recycling. This is why it looks like you’re ignoring tailpipe/marginal emissions. I’m not advocating looking at tailpipe emissions only, nor co2 only (tailpipes emit more than co2 alone)."
You bring up nothing of overall pollution, i at least explained my points. How am i ignoring tailpipe emissions whatsoever???
"you drew a sweeping conclusion that keeping an old car running always creates less overall pollution than scrapping it and getting a new car, without data to support your claim. I then provided a framework to assess which is less bad regarding overall pollution. I do not claim that junking any old car and replacing it by any new car is a good idea. You subsequently get into all kinds of objections against my method, still without providing your own method. You have no basis for your sweeping conclusion."
I provided a framework detailing my position, and gave examples while you have not really done the same. I provided my method. repeatedly over the course of several days. you ignored almost all of it.
i being up recycling not being what you seem to think it is, and you quote from wiki is essentially what i just stated that you somehow disagree with. It saves mostly metals, and most of the non metal is sent to landfill..
I bring up ease of repair in endlessly complex systems, more components to fail, increasing costs of ownership and maintain, and ends up furthering the end result of the disposable consumer vehicle
I bring up regulations being a driving factor to this issue, CAFE standards forcing cars to become larger and larger to meet obscene emissions regulatory guidelines. You yourself even admit to this point. that the gains from newer vehicles are mostly offset by size and weight
You act like i havent explicitly explained everything you've asked over and over again, and you just refuse to even attempt to try to understand the concept...
YOU have no basis for your conclusion ...
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1