So as a driver I don’t go from a very effective main beam to a dipped beam in one go, I get illumination where it doesn’t dazzle anyone, and other traffic just seem my dipped beam.

That's the theory - all very clever. What do the receiving drivers actually think ?

Thats assuming they were asked, the assumption is because they work that way they don`t blind, which looking at the video they don`t, being on the other end could be a different story...the point I was making was because they appear to not blind the opposing driver, the intensity of the light may say different

Like a powerful torch not aimed directly at you but the beam being really intense enough to make you look away

So as a driver I don’t go from a very effective main beam to a dipped beam in one go, I get illumination where it doesn’t dazzle anyone, and other traffic just seem my dipped beam.

That's the theory - all very clever. What do the receiving drivers actually think ?

Thats assuming they were asked, the assumption is because they work that way they don`t blind, which looking at the video they don`t, being on the other end could be a different story...the point I was making was because they appear to not blind the opposing driver, the intensity of the light may say different

Like a powerful torch not aimed directly at you but the beam being really intense enough to make you look away

Ethan and mcb seem to be assuming that because nobody is flashing their lights, nobody is getting dazzled. As I said earlier, I get dazzled very regularly, but these days I hardly ever flash my lights because it happens so often.

It doesn't help that a lot nof dazzling is caused not by people not changing from main beam to dipped as they approach a car /other road user or pedestrian, but that their dipped headlights are either poorly adjusted (manual version via a dial) or the auto-adjust feature (presumably goes by the weight distribution of who/what's in the vehicle) isn't working. Some cars may also have an auto-full beam-to-dipped feature as well.

Apparently faults with auto-adjustement on them is a common MOT failure these days. I suspect that many people with such auto features don't even bother to check theirs is working properly and rely solely on the MOT (or a competent service agent) to diagnose it.

This is yet another problem with today's increasingly gizmo-filled cars.

The story I’ve heard here in Taiwan was that dazzling (certainly a thing here) was due to aftermarket LED bulb replacements (which I’ve considered buying) having a poor light distribution pattern. I dunno if this true, but if it was, since there are relatively few old vehicles, I would expect the problem to diminish as better OEM equipment replaces the vehicle stock. There is no sign of this, but automated dipping should be a benefit, since Taiwanese dipping discipline is very likely to be poor. A big mirror on the passenger side of the windscreen could reduce flashing fatigue, but I suppose it could cause the dazzler to crash into you head on, a somwhat Pyrrhic victory

Beam scatter can certainly occur when LED bulbs are used to "upgrade" filament bulbs - as the LEDs are more spread out than the filament so less likely to be sitting at the focal point of the reflector.

The last simple modern cars? Previous Dacia Sandero Suzuki Celerio Suzuki Ignis (non hybrid pre facelift model) MG3 Previous Fiat Panda (non hybrid or non 4x4 version) Anything else?

Define 'modern'. Some might say that simple (we could do with a definition of that too) cannot be modern.

Some objectivity required - technology has typically improved most goods over time - TVs, cookers, DIY tools, lighting, etc etc.

Speaking of definitions - we need to define 'improved'. Many things can be improved, or developed, past the point where there is any advantage in doing so. Some may argue that some cars have reached that point ?

Is simple actually more reliable, or just capable of DIY fix when they go wrong.

Are they more reliable, but when they do go wrong, more expensive to fix.

Mostly early adopters of new technology bear the cost of high purchase cost, high repair cost, and (often) little improvement in reliability. Later buyers reap the benefits.

Some objectivity required - technology has typically improved most goods over time - TVs, cookers, DIY tools, lighting, etc etc. Why would cars be different.

And all of those things haver gradually been made not able to or too expensive to repair, parts unavailable except for entire units often almost the cost of a new complete item.

What's changing is the cost of energy and the sinister forces being exerted to make fossil fuels too expensive via taxes and penalties and artificially made increasingly difficult to come by at all, see gas pipelines being blown up or an amazing number of refinery fires worldwide.

The western world is being increasingly coerced into ditching fossil fuels in favour of electricity, one can only imagine what the price of electric power will be when its the monopoly (that can be turned off at a moments notice via smart meter if you fall out of favour with the state), this applies especially to cars which can only be massive consumers of power of whatever type.

My own gut feeling is that us plebs are not part of the utopian wonder future of private traffic free roads the elites have planned for themselves.

As in everything follow the money.

Is simple actually more reliable, or just capable of DIY fix when they go wrong.

Are they more reliable, but when they do go wrong, more expensive to fix.

Mostly early adopters of new technology bear the cost of high purchase cost, high repair cost, and (often) little improvement in reliability. Later buyers reap the benefits.

Some objectivity required - technology has typically improved most goods over time - TVs, cookers, DIY tools, lighting, etc etc. Why would cars be different.

The problem is with most modern electronics, and especially in cars, is that users are now viewed as defacto beta testers and where the cost of repairs under warranty gets subsumed into part of the purchase cost*.

In other fields, such as building services, poor reliability of new tech quickly leads to firms losing large amounts of money, not being bailed out with government grants to keep swapping out faulty parts to keep customers happy via subsidisng R&D costs. products that are lreiable (because they've been properly tested before release to market) sell well, those that didn't will soon find their sales dry up and reputation suffers.

For second hand car buyers, many, especially when the car gets past 10 years old, are least able to have faults in such systems diagnosed/fixed (really bigger parts just swapped out due to the high cost or impossibility of repairing sub-components). This means they could seriously lose out financially if they either have to flog the car at a big discount or scrap it after an MOT failure.

* Unlike with TVs, phones, computers, etc, some of the cost of such parts or tech (EVs) is borne by the general taxpayer via green subsidies for cars that are mainly bought by people who could easily afford the actual full cost.

I wonder how much 'carbon' pollution is produced by those other modern items in comparison to road vehicles via electricity production in use and the mining, production and sales?

Many (most) modern products now are built to relatively low 'economic lifespans' to generate further sales and 'repairs' (parts replacements) because the tech and laws/standards are often deliberately changed so that older kit cannot be physically or legally kept going one way or the other. Sourcing pattern parts (and of decent quality that will last at an affordable price, including fitting) is getting more and more difficult, especially with electronics.

Even with older kit, like the left front fog lamp in my 16yo Mazda3 - it will cost me nigh on £200 to have a new OEM one (whole component) fitted just because the lens is cracked.

The nearest I got to a 'pattern' part was a dodgy-sounding outlet on ebay operating out of someone's garden shed, and even then it cost about £40 sans-bulb and wiring (just the plastic housing and lens), which would require at least a £50 (30 mins) fitting job, maybe more.

Other OEM parts are now hard to come by (many have been dropped by Mazda), ICE (sound system) parts, even OEM alloy wheels.

How will someone only able to afford a £2k car be able to afford a new EV battery pack (or major part thereof) or drive motor, or for ICE cars, any number of electronic 'safety' gimzos that are MOT failures if they break? I find it ironic, given that an 'old' ICE car built 30+ years ago can keep passing its MOT time and again without them and yet be far less safe, even without the gizmos included.

I can understand the attraction of simple, basic, DIY capable cars where individual components can be easily replaced by competent amateurs.

Simple observation shows that most people don't like simple and basic, and prefer to pay a bit extra for refinement, performance and gizmos - all of which increase complexity.

Lots of companies have tried the simple/basic formula - the latest being Dacia. Their lower mid range Expression model now includes air con, alloy wheels, body coloured bumpers, cruise control, rear electric windows - hardly basic spec.

For a dealer, fixing a car is a mix of component + labour costs. For DIY labour cost is "free". For a dealer it is much cheaper to stock one "assembly", (say) a starter motor, than separate bearings, coils, casing, brushes, springs, gears etc.

Replacing modules seriously reduces labour costs - it avoids complete dis-assembly and allows less well trained and less well paid staff to achieve a satisfactory repair.

None of this helps subsequent DIY capable owners - as a breed they are rapidly becoming increasing scarce. For car manufacturers buyers of new cars are their target market - not those wanting spares for cars 3++ years old.

For components where there is a proven demand - brakes, clutch. exhausts etc - other suppliers will fill the gap. For the rest of the car - get used to it.

The way a car is designed, later serviced and repaired is down to the car manufacturer.

Their concern is selling new cars that run with high levels of reliability for 3-5 years, and that any repairs necessary can be carried out by a dealer economically and quickly.

Used car buyers only have a choice of those cars which were sold new 5, 10 or 20 years previously. Manufacturers have an obligation to stock spares (I think) for 10 years.

Car manufacturers are understandably uninterested in selling spares other than with high prices and profit margins. Maintaining production capacity and tooling for a market which by definition is shrinking as cars get scrapped is hugely unattractive.

This may not be environmentally of socially good, but inevitable. I am of an age and DIY capability where regular visits to breakers yards to keep bangers going was routine. I am now (50 years on) very happy to leave this to independent service and repair.

Cars for many are no more than expensive "white goods" a means to get from A to B at minimal cost in maximum comfort. Costs of a leased car at £200-300 pm may be a quarter of the monthly mortgage or rent - long term spares and repair prices are of no concern.

I think my old Toledo is pretty basic - no infotainment, no radars, no adaptive whatnot - but even that still has cruise control, aircon and heated mirrors. And it has a turbo which, even 15 years ago, would have been considered pretty exotic.

I'm pretty sure we'll see infotainment go back in the bin over the next few years. They're almost all rubbish, hard to use and must cost a fortune when they go wrong. It would make a lot more sense to just go back to buttons and switches for everything, Bluetooth and somewhere to put / charge your phone.

I think manufacturers will watch what happens with Dacia with interest. They have stripped out a lot of safety kit (such as lane keep 'assist' and autonomous (random) braking) to keep costs down and have received rubbish EuroNCAP scores. Will buyers be put off? Probably not; most people would rather save a few quid than have various distracting things go off when they don't want them.

<< In the end, the customer is the one that (or that should) dictates what is needed, not manufacturers. >>

I disagree. I doubt that hordes of customers were demanding the switch to chunky SUVs which occupied most makers after 2000. One or two departed from the habitual hatch-or-saloon regime, and enough customers (possibly including rental outfits) took to the idea. Equally I doubt that the buying public decided that solid white, black or red should be this year's range. They were offered a limited choice - except for a few who paid over the odds for whatever colour they wanted, of course.

<< In the end, the customer is the one that (or that should) dictates what is needed, not manufacturers. >>

I disagree. I doubt that hordes of customers were demanding the switch to chunky SUVs which occupied most makers after 2000. One or two departed from the habitual hatch-or-saloon regime, and enough customers (possibly including rental outfits) took to the idea. Equally I doubt that the buying public decided that solid white, black or red should be this year's range. They were offered a limited choice - except for a few who paid over the odds for whatever colour they wanted, of course.

The switch to crossovers was definitely driven by customer demand - they have more interior space and better visibility than the equivalent size saloon/hatchback - I agrre though that colour choice is determined by car makers, not their customers.

Completely agree that customer demand is why crossovers/SUV's (both stupid and ultimately meaningless terms) have taken over. But I don't believe it was anything to do with offering more interior space (which is only sometimes the case anyway), they just became fashionable. After all, MPV's (also a stupid and meaningless term, though perhaps not as much so as 'people carrier') were already offering more interior space and better visibility than an equivalent sized hatchback (and indeed crossover/SUV). They are not fashionable though, which is why that type of vehicle has all but died out in image obsessed Britain.

A Hyundai ix20/Kia Venga offers more interior space, greater boot capacity, and much better all round visibility than any equivalent small crossover/SUV (most of which, slightly ironically, are not as tall either!).

The last simple modern cars? Previous Dacia Sandero Suzuki Celerio Suzuki Ignis (non hybrid pre facelift model) MG3 Previous Fiat Panda (non hybrid or non 4x4 version) Anything else?

There are car magazines for shiny new cars where the focus is usually upon gizmos, performance, handling, etc. There are classic car magazines which play to those interested in anything between 25-100 years old.

Both of these may be of academic interest only to the average s/h buyer who may look to spend £2-15k on something 2-20 years old..

There is almost nothing (AFAIK) which provides systematic quality analysis of cars 5-20 years old where reliability, spares availability and cost, independent garages, etc assume more importance.

This gap could usefully be filled. Of the 32m cars in the UK, ~7m (up to 3 years old) were bought new, and ~25m s/h (~ 80% of car owners)

But those who are hoping manufacturers will listen to their pleas for simpler, cheaper and easier to repair are (IMHO) wasting their breathe, no matter how well their case is argued.

Car manufacturers sell new cars. Their main focus is on warranty costs and the first owner experience who, if happy, may choose the same brand for its replacement. 2nd ++ owners really don't get on their radar.

<< In days gone by, many firms made decent (not spectacular) profits almost all the time (not varying as much as today) by offering good products for a reasonable (not artificially low) price and good after sales customer care, >>

In the 'days gone by' you refer to, obsolescence was a slower process which tended to happen naturally, and in the case of cars corrosion may have been quicker. These days it is planned, but as the basic essentials of a car were optimised years ago, little development is available except to the crazy stylists and gizmo designers.

More fool the car manufacturers, who, in my view, make FAR more profits from maintenance and repairs (outside warranty and for accidents) than they do flogging new or nearly new ones.

It is mostly the dealer, not the manufacturer who makes money out of servicing and repairs. When the warranty runs out, even the dealers start to lose business as owners transition to independents who tend to be cheaper.

I think my old Toledo is pretty basic - no infotainment, no radars, no adaptive whatnot - but even that still has cruise control, aircon and heated mirrors. And it has a turbo which, even 15 years ago, would have been considered pretty exotic.

What age Toledo are we talking about here?, I though you had the most recent model (twinned with the Skoda Rapid) but that was introduced a decade ago.

Also, who is going to be thinking a turbo was exotic 15 years ago (more than 20 years after the 'first age' of turbo)?

Even when turbos became normal on diesels, they were still exotic on petrols - the introduction of the 1.0 Ford Ecoboost was probably the change point

Yes, it's a 2013. I still think turbos are pretty exotic. As RT says, they were fairly rare on petrol engines until the Ford Ecoboost came along.

Really exotic was my old Mazda Xedos9, which had a 'Miller Cycle' engine that necessitated a supercharger. Now, I know Mercedes sullied superchargers by putting them on half the repmobiles and divorcee's SLKs in the country, but they still seem a lot classier than a turbo. Equally importantly, that Mazda went like stink and sounded like Jackie Chan's car in Cannonball Run.

So, just to get this straight, in the 80s and 90s some manufacturers offered turbochargers on some of their cars. Primarily the top of the range or 'sporty' version of each model.

Then a small number of unusual cars that were not sold in volume in the UK, if at all (I wonder how one might describe such uncommon vehicles from a foreign land) also had turbos.

Finally, Renault introduced turbo petrol engines to the mainstream in 2007, which was (removes sock to count toes too)....15 years ago.

QED. Petrol turbo cars were not in any way considered exotic up until about 15 years ago. CAse closed.

The first production car with a turbo appeared in 1962. BMW's first effort was in 1973 (though they didn't stick with it), Porsche's was a year later. SAAB introduced the 99 Turbo in 1977, the start of a long history of using turbo's. Renault started using turbo's in 1980 and for a good portion of the 80's and into the 90's there was a turbo version every model of Renault except the 4.The 80's was when turbo's really took off with pretty much every manufacturer at it.

Smaller turbo's?, well In 1985 Lancia put a 1050cc turbo in the Y10, Daihatsu introduced its 1.0 turbo around the same time. In Japan, Kei cars from around 1990 onwards would often have a turbo (more for torque than power as the maximum allowed was 64bhp), though some, like Subaru, decided to go with a supercharger (that was from 1992).

We are currently in what I think of as the second age of turbo, which is more about downsizing. While VAG (with the 1.2TSI) and Ford (with the Ecoboost) may have popularised the idea with the big sales volume, it was actually Renault started it off with the 1.2 TCE in 2007.

So were turbo's exotic 15 years ago?, no.

None of those earlier models were mainstream, so yes petrol turbos were exotic 15 years ago

More fool the car manufacturers, who, in my view, make FAR more profits from maintenance and repairs (outside warranty and for accidents) than they do flogging new or nearly new ones.

Is it not the dealer that makes money on that part?

My mate had an MG Metro 'not turbo' and that was pretty sexy. Red seat belts.

My mate had an MG Metro 'not turbo' and that was pretty sexy. Red seat belts.

I had one for a week, while I was between company cars - it was horrible, bouncy on motorways, glad to get a Cavalier back!

If you went over a speed bump in my mate's the dash lights flashed..

Now I think about it, my Dad had one when he wrote off his company car. He crashed it on the same road...

<< Turbo petrol cars became very common from the early 80's into the 90's, therefore not exotic. >>

Turbo diesel cars were a later arrival IMHO. The 205 Dturbo appeared about 1990 and SWMBO had one for about 7 years, it had GT trim and fittings, and went very nicely if you kept the injectors clean.

More fool the car manufacturers, who, in my view, make FAR more profits from maintenance and repairs (outside warranty and for accidents) than they do flogging new or nearly new ones.

Is it not the dealer that makes money on that part?

Presumably the manufacturer must make something on supplying parts and their own consumables / fluids, otherwise why do it at all?

That's the point though - they aren't bothered about doing that part as the money is in selling the cars, not the parts - at least for the manufacturers. Why would you think that selling the parts is more profitable for them?

I had a search a couple of weeks ago and they were costing up to about 10 grand. The good old days are gone

They are always gone...

I had a search a couple of weeks ago and they were costing up to about 10 grand. The good old days are gone

They are always gone...

And the times they are always changing, but not always for the better.

Indeed, and unfortunately a lot of people just shrug, and give up, saying 'what can I do about it?'.