+1
I lucked-out, in a sense, from Superstorm Sandy in 2012. My original roof was then 16 years old, and I knew that I would have to replace it w/in a few years. The storm damaged/removed the old shingles to the extent that the insurance adjuster approved a complete re-roofing for me. While I did have to pay for some fence repairs, that storm actually saved me ~$8k for a new high-quality re-roofing job.
Maybe - Maybe NOT. R&D is very expensive. Designing a new (cheaper) tire is costly. I don’t deal with manufacturing of tires, but I have dealt with a lot of this in circuit boards and telecom equipment. It was ALWAYS cheaper to buy off the shelf (as long as it did what we wanted) then to get have a specific board/circuit/equipment designed to our specific needs.
A few years ago we were using this circuit board by this one manufacturer. They went out of business, so we had to find another. We found a company that would design a new board for us, but they had another board that would meet our needs. This board was really overkill. We didn’t need 1/10 it’s functionality…but it was far far cheaper to buy this off-the-shelve board then to have them design and build a far less complicated board. The off-the-shelve board was less then half the price of them designing a new board.
True, but imagine if you didn’t change the actual design of the circuit board, just used the cheapest parts you could find. They work as the part is supposed to but just not for long. Skips some steps in the fabrication of parts that add to reliability/longevity but the part works fine for 1/2 the time of the better part. A relay with cheap uncoated contacts, a film cap with 1/2 the foil so it degrades faster, etc. They are just saying- use that rubber formulation that may not last as long without those expensive ingredients for example. Not a fundamental design change…cheap @$$ materials…
And all those tires on new cars are built t the car manufacturer’s specs regardless of the brand.
Yes, it is NOT cost. It is fuel economy. The tires are designed specifically to the OEM’s specs - just like everything else on the car, and in this case, what the consumer wants in a tire (long wear) is not a consideration, or rather, the car makers needs overrule the consumer’s wants.
I bought a 2006 Chevrolet Uplander in 2006. It came with Goodyear tires. Except for a tire that picked up a nail and was damaged too close to the sidewall to be repaired, those tires lasted for 50,000 miles before they needed to be replaced. On the other hand, I bought a new 2011 Toyota Sienna. I barely got 30,000 miles out of the original equipment Firestone. Also, the battery in the Uplander was good for 6 years. I barely got 2 1/2 years out of the original battery in the Sienna. That battery, made by Johnson Controls,was outgassing so badly that it was corroding the battery cable clamps. The service manager admitted to me that those batteries had been a problem.
Now replacing tires and batteries is part of the cost of operation of a vehicle. When I did the calculations, the cost per mile for running the Uplander was less than the Sienna for the first 100,000 miles. It would have been better if Toyota had equipped the Sienna with better tires and batteries as original equipment. I bought a new Sienna in 2017. It also came with Firestone tires. I hope these tires do better than the Firestone on the 2011 I owned.
Not from my experience. Almost every aftermarket tire I’ve bought - it got better fuel economy (at least no worse) then the OEM tire. In one case the fuel economy went up significantly (2-3mpg). Same type of tire…Both were all season tires designed for SUV’s or pickups. OEM was a bridgestone. The aftermarket were Cooper Discover. The tread design patterns were very similar too. The Bridgestone tires lasted just under 20k miles. The Coopers lasted well over 50k miles.
The reason the off-the-shelf board was cheaper was because the company sold a lot of them. They were a general purpose board used in many different industries. Higher volume = lower cost. The board we replaced was very specific to our use. But the general purpose board easily handled it’s functionality. We just didn’t need all the extra stuff it provides. But to design a new board and sell to a very small market was too costly for us.