Discussion
MintSprint said:
That's because you've been very thoroughly conditioned by the major manufacturers to have a clear perception that 'quality' is what they want to sell you this year.
They take a great deal of trouble to make sure that this perception evolves, so that in 5 years time, you'll be as horrified by the 'poor quality' and 'dated aesthetics' of today's cars as you are of those horribly passe things that were built back in the dark ages of 2010.
However could we have lived without the luxury of swathes of genuine, soft-touch leathergrain-effect charcoal plastics, trimmed with the sporty sophistication of chic, aluminium effect plastic highlights? Oh, the humanity!
And Of course an organically sculpted piece of plastic with concealed fixings as a glovebox handle is superior to a to a braided strap, secured by (shock! horror!) visible screws. How could anyone possibly think otherwise?
It must be, because the manufacturers of the cars who have developed such components in an effort to make their current model year look more modern than last year's model year tell you it is, right?
Say 'baaaaaaaa!', you lovely, perfect little consumer, you!
I didn't have a strong opinion on Bristol cars before this thread, but every post of yours make me dislike them more.They take a great deal of trouble to make sure that this perception evolves, so that in 5 years time, you'll be as horrified by the 'poor quality' and 'dated aesthetics' of today's cars as you are of those horribly passe things that were built back in the dark ages of 2010.
However could we have lived without the luxury of swathes of genuine, soft-touch leathergrain-effect charcoal plastics, trimmed with the sporty sophistication of chic, aluminium effect plastic highlights? Oh, the humanity!
And Of course an organically sculpted piece of plastic with concealed fixings as a glovebox handle is superior to a to a braided strap, secured by (shock! horror!) visible screws. How could anyone possibly think otherwise?
It must be, because the manufacturers of the cars who have developed such components in an effort to make their current model year look more modern than last year's model year tell you it is, right?
Say 'baaaaaaaa!', you lovely, perfect little consumer, you!
Well done.
NomduJour said:
I have a 411 and a 603. Interiors look fine to me:
I wonder if people think the Blenheim is the only Bristol that has existed.
That does look good (excluding the transmission tunnel). How much of that is due to it being "restored" though? I'm hard pushed to believe it left the factory like that.I wonder if people think the Blenheim is the only Bristol that has existed.
What in particular do you like about your cars? In what areas are they better than the competition? Interesting to speak to someone who actually owns them
Edited by Funkstar De Luxe on Saturday 13th December 13:49
MintSprint said:
That's because you've been very thoroughly conditioned by the major manufacturers to have a clear perception that 'quality' is what they want to sell you this year.
They take a great deal of trouble to make sure that this perception evolves, so that in 5 years time, you'll be as horrified by the 'poor quality' and 'dated aesthetics' of today's cars as you are of those horribly passe things that were built back in the dark ages of 2010.
However could we have lived without the luxury of swathes of genuine, soft-touch leathergrain-effect charcoal plastics, trimmed with the sporty sophistication of chic, aluminium effect plastic highlights? Oh, the humanity!
And Of course an organically sculpted piece of plastic with concealed fixings as a glovebox handle is superior to a to a braided strap, secured by (shock! horror!) visible screws. How could anyone possibly think otherwise?
It must be, because the manufacturers of the cars who have developed such components in an effort to make their current model year look more modern than last year's model year tell you it is, right?
Say 'baaaaaaaa!', you lovely, perfect little consumer, you!
Hmm, funny you should say that. I'm actually a quality engineer for a major manufacturer.They take a great deal of trouble to make sure that this perception evolves, so that in 5 years time, you'll be as horrified by the 'poor quality' and 'dated aesthetics' of today's cars as you are of those horribly passe things that were built back in the dark ages of 2010.
However could we have lived without the luxury of swathes of genuine, soft-touch leathergrain-effect charcoal plastics, trimmed with the sporty sophistication of chic, aluminium effect plastic highlights? Oh, the humanity!
And Of course an organically sculpted piece of plastic with concealed fixings as a glovebox handle is superior to a to a braided strap, secured by (shock! horror!) visible screws. How could anyone possibly think otherwise?
It must be, because the manufacturers of the cars who have developed such components in an effort to make their current model year look more modern than last year's model year tell you it is, right?
Say 'baaaaaaaa!', you lovely, perfect little consumer, you!
Funkstar De Luxe said:
That does look good. How much of that is due to it being "restored" though? I'm hard pushed to believe it left the factory like that.
Obviously retrimmed but nothing actually looks different.AW111 said:
I didn't have a strong opinion on Bristol cars before this thread, but every post of yours make me dislike them more.
Well done.
I generally prefer to make my own mind up about things, but whatever suits.Well done.
If there's a dislike towards Bristol because of what they are, then you'd also expect to see similar feelings toward Allard, Apollo, Bitter, Bizzarini, Cunningham, De Tomaso, Facel, Ginetta, Gordon Keeble, Intermeccanica, Iso, Jensen, Lister, Marcos, Monteverd, TVR etc.
NomduJour said:
I generally prefer to make my own mind up about things, but whatever suits.
If there's a dislike towards Bristol because of what they are, then you'd also expect to see similar feelings toward Allard, Apollo, Bitter, Bizzarini, Cunningham, De Tomaso, Facel, Ginetta, Gordon Keeble, Intermeccanica, Iso, Jensen, Lister, Marcos, Monteverd, TVR etc.
To be fair, most of those manufacturers produce 'sports cars' - so as long as they have a big engine and interesting enough styling they can get away with poor build quality. Luxury cars are more difficult to let pass.If there's a dislike towards Bristol because of what they are, then you'd also expect to see similar feelings toward Allard, Apollo, Bitter, Bizzarini, Cunningham, De Tomaso, Facel, Ginetta, Gordon Keeble, Intermeccanica, Iso, Jensen, Lister, Marcos, Monteverd, TVR etc.
The 411 is an acceptable looking machine.
MintSprint said:
That makes sense then.
You'd hardly be any good at it if you didn't believe your own propaganda (and that of your employer's marketing department)?
You misunderstand what I do. Through material choice, design, and manufacturing processes I define and control the quality of our products. I am not in charge of saying "our products are good quality". Neither is anyone else for that matter (marketing included). Engineering and marketing are departments that don't really communicate.You'd hardly be any good at it if you didn't believe your own propaganda (and that of your employer's marketing department)?
Funkstar De Luxe said:
... Engineering and marketing are departments that don't really communicate.
That's concerning. Marketeers should be investigating what consumers want and should really be communicating those insights to the engineering teams, no?ETA: whether the consumers' wishes are right or not
Funkstar De Luxe said:
I define and control the quality of our products. I am not in charge of saying "our products are good quality".
But you are in charge of ensuring that your company's products meet customer perceptions of quality.And the marketing department is responsible for ensuring that those perceptions constantly but predictably shift, so that they can only be fully met by this year's model.
You have heard, I am sure, the term 'planned obsolescence'. Like it or not, you are a cog in that machine...
They're certainly not immune, but Bristol are less fixated on Planned Obsolescence than most manufacturers, and most Bristol purchasers will be people who are less taken in by it.
NomduJour said:
Funkstar De Luxe said:
That does look good. How much of that is due to it being "restored" though? I'm hard pushed to believe it left the factory like that.
Obviously retrimmed but nothing actually looks different.AW111 said:
I didn't have a strong opinion on Bristol cars before this thread, but every post of yours make me dislike them more.
Well done.
I generally prefer to make my own mind up about things, but whatever suits.Well done.
If there's a dislike towards Bristol because of what they are, then you'd also expect to see similar feelings toward Allard, Apollo, Bitter, Bizzarini, Cunningham, De Tomaso, Facel, Ginetta, Gordon Keeble, Intermeccanica, Iso, Jensen, Lister, Marcos, Monteverd, TVR etc.
I get that they don't have to be perfect, and I am glad that you like Bristols (stop sniggering at the back).
I myself am tired of all the guff about "soft touch" and "premium" plastic in modern cars, and think a lot of the marketing-speak about modern cars is twaddle.
However : abusing people who don't agree, calling them sheep, etc., as the poster I quoted has done several times in this short thread, is not any sort of way to spread the enthusiasm - it just makes the poster look a proper prick, and stuck up at that.
Your posts show a knowledgable enthusiast, so good on you.
SamPet said:
That's concerning. Marketeers should be investigating what consumers want and should really be communicating those insights to the engineering teams, no?
ETA: whether the consumers' wishes are right or not
No, why the hell would marketing do that? Product planning do that. You have no idea.ETA: whether the consumers' wishes are right or not
MintSprint said:
But you are in charge of ensuring that your company's products meet customer perceptions of quality.
And the marketing department is responsible for ensuring that those perceptions constantly but predictably shift, so that they can only be fully met by this year's model.
You have heard, I am sure, the term 'planned obsolescence'. Like it or not, you are a cog in that machine...
They're certainly not immune, but Bristol are less fixated on Planned Obsolescence than most manufacturers, and most Bristol purchasers will be people who are less taken in by it.
No, that's massively incorrect. Quality as in how the products function, how they last, how adequately they do their jobs, as well as manufacturability. Perception of quality is through design. Don't mistake me for a touchy-feely engineer.And the marketing department is responsible for ensuring that those perceptions constantly but predictably shift, so that they can only be fully met by this year's model.
You have heard, I am sure, the term 'planned obsolescence'. Like it or not, you are a cog in that machine...
They're certainly not immune, but Bristol are less fixated on Planned Obsolescence than most manufacturers, and most Bristol purchasers will be people who are less taken in by it.
Also, there is no planned obsolescence in my industry that I have seen. There are huge and false compromises put in place in order to differentiate highend / lowend models, but there is not planned obsolescence. Hell, we provide spares for 15 years.
I'm pleased that everyone understands my job more than I do :-D
I'm not willing to discuss work any further - it's the weekend now! :-P
Edited by Funkstar De Luxe on Saturday 13th December 14:27
Funkstar De Luxe said:
There is no planned obsolescence in my industry.
...Hell, we provide spares for 15 years.
...Hell, we provide spares for 15 years.
Thankyou - that's made my weekend!And I'm betting that you don't even see the tiniest smidgen of irony in those statements!!
15 years, eh? Who'd have thought anything could remain current and technologically viable for that long?!MintSprint said:
Thankyou - that's made my weekend!And I'm betting that you don't even see the tiniest smidgen of irony in those statements!!
15 years, eh? Who'd have thought anything could remain current and technologically viable for that long?!And no, things don't remain "current" for that long. That's why a new fiesta is lightyears better than a 15 year old fiesta. The limit of spares is not planned to diminish the product, it's simply what is affordable and practical to stock.
I'm not willing to discuss this further.
Edited by Funkstar De Luxe on Saturday 13th December 14:51
Funkstar De Luxe said:
You do not understand what planned obsolescence means if you think that's it.
To be fair, you drew the link yourself, by mentioning spares availability period in the same breath, as 'proof' that your product did not operate planned obsolescence.... it was you telling us that it was relevant to your argument.Funkstar De Luxe said:
... a new fiesta is lightyears better than a 15 year old fiesta.
Lightyears? Well, we'll have to agree to differ, there.
Sure a modern Fester is better than a 15 year old one, but that's only partly due to technological advances, and if the automotive industry didn't operate a system of planned obsolescence, the majority of those advances could be retrofitted to older vehicles to give very similar performance in all essential aspects except, perhaps, crash safety (which has been driven forward by legislation more than technology).
I'd point out that jet fighter aircraft can remain in front-line service for 40 years or more, but of course I recognise that they're not anything like as sophisticated or technically advanced as something like a family hatchback.
Funkstar De Luxe said:
...The limit of spares is not planned to diminish the product, it's simply what is affordable and practical to stock.
...but the affordable practicality of stocking the spares will depend on the life of the product.If you have deliberately planned obsolescence, then it will become commercially unsustainable to provide spares support shortly after you 'kill' any generation of product. Failure of viable spares supply thereby becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
In my industry, we're still able to provide cost-effective spares support for products whose lifespan is counted in millennia, but we're not as clever as you engineers.
Bristol, to bring things back on topic, were able to provide spares support and rebuilds to any of their cars, back to the earliest models.
Funkstar De Luxe said:
I'm not willing to discuss this further.
Top quality flouncing! 
MintSprint said:
Top quality flouncing!
This will be my last reply to you, because I'm sure you're trolling.Planned obsolescence or built-in obsolescence in industrial design is a policy of planning or designing a product with an artificially limited useful life, so it will become obsolete, that is, unfashionable or no longer functional after a certain period of time.
I have shown you that there are practical issues with supporting a product long term. The storage space required and management of stock. The manufacturing of the parts, maintaining tooling, and the contracts required to sign up a manufacturer for 20+ years. That is not artificially limiting the lifespan.
None of these factors have anything to do with design or planning, but instead are manufacturing constraints and cost impact to the user.
We can make a product that would be supported indefinitely, but those added costs would be passed on to the users. It doesn't make the product any better.
Comparing the maintenance and support of a jet fighter to an automotive product is idiotic.
MintSprint said:
In my industry, we're still able to provide cost-effective spares support for products whose lifespan is counted in millennia, but we're not as clever as you engineers. wink
No, no you can't.MintSprint said:
the majority of those advances could be retrofitted to older vehicles
Really? You think someone would take a Fiesta in for an engine or chassis upgrade? Consumable does not equal planned obsolescence.Funkstar, I can see the temptation, but you really shouldn't feed trolls.
If you do, they start to depend on handouts from humans, and can no longer survive in the wild without help.
I know you think you are being kind, but it's better for them in the long run if you harden your heart and ignore the pleading eyes and cute faces.
Oh s
t - I got trolls mixed up with squirrels again, didn't I.
As you were.
If you do, they start to depend on handouts from humans, and can no longer survive in the wild without help.
I know you think you are being kind, but it's better for them in the long run if you harden your heart and ignore the pleading eyes and cute faces.
Oh s
t - I got trolls mixed up with squirrels again, didn't I.As you were.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff