Is always results in slower growth, higher costs and greater scarcity. If you cost control something, the profit available makes companies supply less. Lower supply would normally increase the selling price, or cost to the consumer but with controls it can’t, so scarcity is the result. Scarcity drives lower growth. Scarcity also drives the black market in that product since there is high demand and scarce supply.
It creates an ugly spiral.
Speaking of an ugly spiral, have you seen the new front end of the Mustang? That bulbous shape is supposedly the result of mandates in Europe to reduce pedestrian injuries in the event of an accident. Compare that the the new Camaro which has not yet been redesigned to account for these requirements.
I’ve liked the new Mustang when they redesigned it several years ago…the new retro look. And still liking it.
I am NOT a fan of the Camaro retro look.
But I like the 60’s Camaro looks over the 60’s mustang. Go figure.
The Camaro has been available for sale in Europe for many years. It bridges this and the last generation. Both would need to be built to the Euro pedestrian protection regs.
I’d suggest the difference is the engine used in each car. The DOHC V8 in the Mustang is taller than the pushrod V8 used in the Camaro. I read that the 1LE is not sold in Europe because of the front splitter won’t pass the Euro pedestrian regs.
I believe you’re referring to cost control through mandated pricing. I was thinking of subsidies and grants that lead to innovations that bring down production costs.
The Mustang has had the DOHC engine since 2011. Its been sold in Europe… with right hand drive… since 2015 so the hood heights on the '15 would need to meet Euro pedestrian standards.
The split pic you posted shows the hood height is the same but the nose is raised on the 2018. The area of the grill isn’t a big concern as it’s the “drop the guy on the hood” crush distance to the engine itself that the regs cover. The engine is nearly 2 feet behind the grill area so common hood heights make sense. I don’t like the bigger grill much.
Not really “cost controls” … as you say, subsidies and grants.
Cost containment, or cost improvement goes on all the time irrespective of grants and subsidies. My first big screen TV - $2400, now available for $399. Batteries back in 1976, $50, now $105 even though inflation says it should cost $222. And the products are all better.
Ford’s Model T cost $850 in 1908 and less than $300 in 1925 even though inflation nearly halved the dollar’s value. The Old Mini took 73 labor hours to build, the new one in 2001, took 21.
Do you really think the insurance companies advocate for more safety features out of the goodness of their hearts? I think they do it to make more money. Our safety is secondary.
Consider the cost to the survivors for bodily harm and death. I sat on a petit jury panel in the 1980s. We heard a personal injury case for a woman injured in a car accident. She lost full use of her arm for a few months and regained about 80% use by the time the case went to court. Add to that the pain she had for several months. We gave her $350,000 -in the 1980s - and her lawyers were floored. I’m sure they expected much more than that. Property damage is small potatoes compared to personal injury. I imagine that the same award would be more than $1,000,000 today.
I’m not sure that comparing insurance costs and costs for hard goods is appropriate. The TV examplemay not be the best example. Most of that cost decrease was due to paying off the norecurring costs, like engineering. I’m not aware of an analogous cost for insurance products.
You are right, there is no analogy for services. Services are mostly labor with limited ability to reduce costs except by automation - computers and computer programs, web sites and such. The cost of employees have grown because benefits have grown far faster than salaries due to health care costs, and regulatory costs - workman’s comp, unemployment, pension insurance, ect.
I’d mostly disagree with that. The R&D costs for product develop are done (somewhat) but the R&D costs for manufacturing process improvement continue. Tooling is a mixed bag depending on the deisng improvements needed or the process improvements.
Ford simplified the Model T by offering very little in the way of options and improving the work-flow on the assembly line. Batteries are virtually all manufacturing process improvements. TV’s are design - Plasma to LED to OLED - as well as process.
I lumped the process improvement costs into norecurring engineering since they only do them once.
Not true. Process improvements can be ongoing from the first to the last day the product is produced.
Interesting. Here’s what the article had to say about it-
The 2018 Mustang also gets updated and—according to my Instagram followers—polarizing new sheetmetal. Ford’s decision to take the Mustang global means that the car is subject to Europe’s restrictive pedestrian safety regulations, which often have an adverse effect on design. That’s the why the headlights are so tiny while the hood is so bulbous.
It doesn’t say what year that first happened so the effects could be a few years old by now. The latest design does look even more rounded IMO.
The photo that followed was more dramatic in term of bulbous nature of the design-
The Camaro design breaks up the hood slope so it doesn’t look quite so dramatic IMO.
Maybe the bigger grill opening is practical - more cooling. The car is making more and more power and opening up the grill by removing the fog lights does seem to help the older cars at track days. Of course, it could be just a design change for the sake of updating the car.
Not sure why the writer thinks Euro sales are a new thing. Ford and Top Gear both made noise about finally making RHD models for the UK. with the 2015 re-design
There’s no doubt the end result is the balancing of many factors. I’m just not a fan of the bull nose look. The styling I like is terrible for efficiency and pedestrian safety 
BTW- my next door neighbor just bought a '65 convertible w/70k original miles a couple weeks ago. Spotted it in his garage the day he brought it home. Super straight and almost zero rust. It’s already painted and body back together. Bet he has the interior done in a couple weeks. Makes me look bad 
As a matter of fact, they should be continuous, but eventually, you reach a point where the marginal improvements are so small that they are no longer worth the effort.
Big grill openings = lots of aerodynamic drag. Usually the entire opening is only needed for worst case scenarios.
