602 Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Hi, This is provoked by the LEZ discussion and "Treasure Island UK". I was taking to a scrap yard owner. He told me that somebody was looking for a seat belt for a Volvo. Apparently he had had a minor shunt, which had activated his pre-tensioning belt. Belt is now useless, cannot be used again, so he needs a new belt. They cost £500. 8-) Does that mean that £1000 to £2000 has been added to the cost of a new car? 602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 No, what manufacturers charge for spares does not necessary relate to how much they pay for the item. Parts that are manufacturer specific and with low volume requirement in the after market can often fetch large premiums for the manufacturer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hallii Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 An air bag going off could (and does) cost so much (£1100) that if say, two go off and the repairs cost a few bob the car, even quite new ones will be "written off". Two air bags and two belt tensioners doesn't bear thinking about! H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flicka Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 hallii - 2011-02-23 3:10 PM An air bag going off could (and does) cost so much (£1100) that if say, two go off and the repairs cost a few bob the car, even quite new ones will be "written off". Two air bags and two belt tensioners doesn't bear thinking about! H As sample costs 2 x £1000 for belts + 2 x £1100 for Airbags, one would assume some other accident damage also. NO WONDER Car Insurance is escalating so much. >:-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 hallii - 2011-02-23 3:10 PM An air bag going off could (and does) cost so much (£1100) that if say, two go off and the repairs cost a few bob the car, even quite new ones will be "written off". Two air bags and two belt tensioners doesn't bear thinking about! H ....in many accidents that would cause 2 air-bags and 2 belt-tensioners to go off, the alternative probably doesn't bear thinking about. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
602 Posted February 23, 2011 Author Share Posted February 23, 2011 Hi, Seat belts are reputed to have saved thousands of lives. How many of those that could have been saved with pre-tension belts weren't, because they hadn't been available yet. Is it worth 30,000,000 drivers having to stump up the extra for pre-tension belts, if there will be little difference to the statistics? Unless you are one of those statistics. of course. If a seat belt becomes useless after a minor bumper bang, very little other damage, and costs £500 to replace, how many people will not replace that belt until forced to by an MOT? 602 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 602 - 2011-02-23 4:11 PM Hi, Seat belts are reputed to have saved thousands of lives. How many of those that could have been saved with pre-tension belts weren't, because they hadn't been available yet. Is it worth 30,000,000 drivers having to stump up the extra for pre-tension belts, if there will be little difference to the statistics? Unless you are one of those statistics. of course. If a seat belt becomes useless after a minor bumper bang, very little other damage, and costs £500 to replace, how many people will not replace that belt until forced to by an MOT? 602 I think you'll find that pre-tensioners in one form or another have been around since the early '80s; the effect they were designed to have, and the successful or otherwise occurrence of that effect in the statistics will be well known. My particular post, however, was about the consequences of a crash which had fired off 2 seatbelts and 2 air bags - I suspect statistically few of these would be minor enough not to have some significant potential effect on the occupants. I also doubt that anyone of sound mind with a car in that state (should it be repairable) would choose to do anything but replace the items. I've absolutely no doubt one can statistically predict the likelihood of onesself having an accident, unfortunately, the point at which you realise that you are the 1 in n that would have been saved by a pre-tensioned belt is just slightly too late to make the purchase. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 In general terms, there were three versions of seatbelts. First were fixed belts, second retractable belts, and third pre-tensioned belts. The fixed belts were replaced by retractable because a) people wore them too slack, and b) they tripped over them getting out of cars. The retractables fixed those problems, but still didn't hold the individual firmly enough to avoid steering wheel etc in a severe crash, so along came retractable, which reel in the belt to restrict forward movement. Those who sat too far forward were still prone to injury, so in came airbags. Etc. etc. It's like an arms race!Don't know if this is universally true, but I believe the arming circuits are made when the belt is buckled, and there is only one trigger that fires belts/bags as armed. All are activated by propellant (cordite, I think) charges, which need handling with care, especially when connecting/disconnecting, and which need replacing after around 10 years. Garages generally do not stock them, or stock only one or two, due to restrictions under explosives regs. So, they are an improvement on what went before but, as with most things, the closer you get to perfection, the higher the cost and complexity. Don't forget that they save many more injuries (and so facial reconstruction operations), than lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 According to a research paper I read some time ago, the only cost effective way of reducing accidents and that could eliminate virtually all accidents would be to replace the centre boss of the steering wheel with a six inch spike. The researcher was not advocating this approach but wanted to highlight the way people assess risk - people are less willing to take a risk if they are directly affected by the consequence of taking a risk. Most people assess risk by what they stand to lose, not what they may gain. A rise in insurance premiums is not seen as a risk by many who become almost immune to the consequences of a crash if they believe their car safety systems will work. For some reason, being spiked is not a risk people want to take. Just think, no more tail gating! On second thoughts, I think I'd prefer to spend thousands on seatbelts and airbags. I still can't believe that in some new motorhomes, passenger airbags are just an option and there are one or two PVCs I've looked at where it is not mentioned they can be an option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Why do they charge so much? Because nobody else can supply the parts and only they can - supply and demand laws apply as ever and the greater the monopoly the worse the abuse. Because in most cases the cost is met by the insurers and thus hidden from any owner who might be put off buying the same make of car again if he knew the true cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted February 23, 2011 Share Posted February 23, 2011 Tracker - 2011-02-23 5:33 PM Why do they charge so much? Because nobody else can supply the parts and only they can - supply and demand laws apply as ever and the greater the monopoly the worse the abuse. Because in most cases the cost is met by the insurers and thus hidden from any owner who might be put off buying the same make of car again if he knew the true cost. I'm sure there is something in what you say, but there are so many other factors here at play. It is easy to take the stance that, if the individual parts costs so much, how can the manufacturers afford to sell the car at the price they do? In today's Just in Time manufacturing environment, however, parts bound directly for the production line cost little in stocking, warehousing and the rest, they are simply bound for the production line, where hopefully, the end result will be sold on fairly quickly, tying up little capital (I did say hopefully ). ;-) Spare parts, however, under various pieces of legislation, need to be made available for n years after manufacture, with no guarantee of sale, costs of warehousing, processing and the long-term capital investment to support them. I wonder what the write-down percentage is for stocked spares? (you can discount whole vehicles to cut your losses, it's much more difficult to shift spares that aren't in demand). Alternatively, a manufacturer can depend on a low-volume, short-term and irregular production runs from suppliers (since most stuff is not manufactured in-house) which will cost orders of magnitude more than a large production run. Many consumer goods have spares which appear to be hugely inflated in price - if you can get them! (and for lower cost items than vehicles, they generally inhibit repair). At least with vehicles you can usually get something that is more cost effective than write-off (even if it is expensive). ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.