11 ms·

Same is true of cars on the road -- some or all vehicles from past model years would fail to meet this year's automotive regulations.

riskable 10y ago
Cars are vastly different though. A building will persist for decades (sometimes hundreds of years!) and house dozens to thousands of people at once. They also use up vastly more energy and take up many orders of magnitude more space. An unsightly or unsafe car is easy to remove whereas doing the same with a building is (usually) cost prohibitive. We're all stuck with whatever ends up being built at a given spot for a long time.
rmc 10y ago
Many countries have legally required mandatory periodic tests of vehicles. If your car doesn't pass, you can't drive it.
- ljf 10y ago
  There are usually 'grandfather' clauses to allow these to keep driving with some level of testing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause
mseebach 10y ago
Except new cars are universally better than old cars on virtually all fronts. The appropriate analogy would be if we could build 200 mpg cars, right now, today, except they could only be red, and red cars are illegal due to a regulation introduced in 1983 (while everybody agrees that it's great to be rid of gaudy red cars, some people -- mostly unpleasant and tasteless fans of obnoxiously coloured cars -- grumble that the regulation was pushed by the green-paint-industry).
- humanrebar 10y ago
  I don't know about universally better... the prices are higher as well.
  - mseebach 10y ago
    In 1960 a Ford Falcon ("first Compact Car with mass appeal") cost $1975[1]. In 2016 dollars, that's $15,890[2]. A 2016 Ford Fiesta starts at $14,090 MSRP[3]. I defy you to declare the 1960 Falcon better than the 2016 Fiesta on even a single reasonably objective metric. 1: http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/60scars.html http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/60scars.html 2: http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=1975&year=1960 http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=19... 3: https://www.ford.com/cars/fiesta/ https://www.ford.com/cars/fiesta/ EDIT: @marincounty, your comment is dead. And yes, if I actually needed a car to drive around for practical purposes (and not a collectors object) I'd take the Fiesta.
    - Retric 10y ago
      1975 Falcon had 130 hp, Fiesta has 123 hp.
      - mseebach 10y ago
        Fair. However, the Fiesta does 0-60 (a little) faster, and has a (slightly) higher top speed, so at the end of the day, it's not doing the Falcon much good? http://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/1975/993575/ford_falcon_500_sedan_200_six.html http://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/1975/993575/fo... http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/ford/fiesta/hatchback-2008/ http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/ford...
        ptaipale 10y ago
        I bet this is because due to better technology, the current Fiesta engine produces a much flatter curve of torque, meaning that it is both easier to drive and it accelerates faster. And don't even start with the fuel economy or emissions.... (but of course, this also means that current cars would choke on the fuel of 1962, and not just because of lead.)
- 4ad 10y ago
  > Except new cars are universally better than old cars on virtually all fronts. More like "expensive new cars are universally better than expensive old cars". When it comes to the cheapest of the cheap Chinese junk, I find them worse than old cheap cars produced by reputable manufacturers. Oh yeah, and this is true if "all fronts" doesn't include design. Most modern cars are fugly.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
    One quick way to get a feel for quality difference is to look at warranties, and how they've gone from "powertrain only" (if they were offered at all) to "bumper to bumper", and also how they've gotten longer over time (several companies offer 100k powertrain warranties and 60k bumper to bumper warranties, which would have been absurd in the old days).
  - hx87 10y ago
    If most modern cars are fugly, then 90% of everything made by American manufacturers from 1973-2008 is eye bleach material.
    - 4ad 10y ago
      You're referring to cars, or in general?

riskable 10y ago

Cars are vastly different though. A building will persist for decades (sometimes hundreds of years!) and house dozens to thousands of people at once. They also use up vastly more energy and take up many orders of magnitude more space. An unsightly or unsafe car is easy to remove whereas doing the same with a building is (usually) cost prohibitive. We're all stuck with whatever ends up being built at a given spot for a long time.

rmc 10y ago

Many countries have legally required mandatory periodic tests of vehicles. If your car doesn't pass, you can't drive it.

ljf 10y ago
There are usually 'grandfather' clauses to allow these to keep driving with some level of testing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause

mseebach 10y ago

Except new cars are universally better than old cars on virtually all fronts. The appropriate analogy would be if we could build 200 mpg cars, right now, today, except they could only be red, and red cars are illegal due to a regulation introduced in 1983 (while everybody agrees that it's great to be rid of gaudy red cars, some people -- mostly unpleasant and tasteless fans of obnoxiously coloured cars -- grumble that the regulation was pushed by the green-paint-industry).

humanrebar 10y ago
I don't know about universally better... the prices are higher as well.
- mseebach 10y ago
  In 1960 a Ford Falcon ("first Compact Car with mass appeal") cost $1975[1]. In 2016 dollars, that's $15,890[2]. A 2016 Ford Fiesta starts at $14,090 MSRP[3]. I defy you to declare the 1960 Falcon better than the 2016 Fiesta on even a single reasonably objective metric. 1: http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/60scars.html http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/60scars.html 2: http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=1975&year=1960 http://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=19... 3: https://www.ford.com/cars/fiesta/ https://www.ford.com/cars/fiesta/ EDIT: @marincounty, your comment is dead. And yes, if I actually needed a car to drive around for practical purposes (and not a collectors object) I'd take the Fiesta.
  - Retric 10y ago
    1975 Falcon had 130 hp, Fiesta has 123 hp.
    - mseebach 10y ago
      Fair. However, the Fiesta does 0-60 (a little) faster, and has a (slightly) higher top speed, so at the end of the day, it's not doing the Falcon much good? http://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/1975/993575/ford_falcon_500_sedan_200_six.html http://www.automobile-catalog.com/performance/1975/993575/fo... http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/ford/fiesta/hatchback-2008/ http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/reviews/facts-and-figures/ford...
      - ptaipale 10y ago
        I bet this is because due to better technology, the current Fiesta engine produces a much flatter curve of torque, meaning that it is both easier to drive and it accelerates faster. And don't even start with the fuel economy or emissions.... (but of course, this also means that current cars would choke on the fuel of 1962, and not just because of lead.)
4ad 10y ago
> Except new cars are universally better than old cars on virtually all fronts. More like "expensive new cars are universally better than expensive old cars". When it comes to the cheapest of the cheap Chinese junk, I find them worse than old cheap cars produced by reputable manufacturers. Oh yeah, and this is true if "all fronts" doesn't include design. Most modern cars are fugly.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  One quick way to get a feel for quality difference is to look at warranties, and how they've gone from "powertrain only" (if they were offered at all) to "bumper to bumper", and also how they've gotten longer over time (several companies offer 100k powertrain warranties and 60k bumper to bumper warranties, which would have been absurd in the old days).
- hx87 10y ago
  If most modern cars are fugly, then 90% of everything made by American manufacturers from 1973-2008 is eye bleach material.
  - 4ad 10y ago
    You're referring to cars, or in general?