Indeed, to replace a brake you must remove it first; and better brake pads there are. Oerlikon of Switzerland has brake pad technology that has near zero emissions and does not need replacing. It’s not in production due to pressure for revenue from service shops.
The lifetime of most cars a mere hundred thousand miles. If you consider that the current top-end for brakes is ~60k miles and an improvement of ~30% is possible, we're already at ~78k miles -- and this area has scarcely been invested and researched. I'll let you find sources, I've already given you the name of one of the major R&D firms.
Something about this story doesn't add up. Service shops aren't even vaguely a cartel, if Bob's Brakes won't install the magic brake pads which never wear out, then Alan's Excellent Brakes shop will.
If, on the other hand, a company has a vaporware product, that's a great excuse to offer the public.
> If, on the other hand, a company has a vaporware product, that's a great excuse to offer the public.
I explained a bit more in a sister comment. The stuff ain't vaporware and Oerlikon no vaporware producer either - they're in the brake business for many, many decades, with a rich history especially in train brakes.
> Oerlikon of Switzerland has brake pad technology that has near zero emissions and does not need replacing. It’s not in production due to pressure for revenue from service shops.
You're likely referring to DiscCover [1], a relatively recent development - at least Volvo Trucks has an agreement to use that technology [2].
The problem is that the car industry is notorious for long product development cycles. New inventions (unless you're Tesla, obviously) tend to take many years before they go from after-market / high performance tuning shops to mainstream models. It's not as bad as in aeronautics (if you want examples, look at GA still using leaded fuel and engine/airframe designs from the 70s or earlier), but still, there's no need to suggest conspiracies.
> Take for example our DiscCover coating solution: authorities worldwide have introduced stringent limits for exhaust emissions — including NOX, CO2 and particulate matter. Increasingly, regulators are turning their attention to fine dust emissions from brake wear. On average, 31% of passenger- vehicle-related emissions are caused by brake wear. This results in more than 90 000 metric tons of fine dust per year in the OECD countries alone. The DiscCover solutions from Oerlikon Balzers and Oerlikon Metco significantly reduce fine dust from brake discs so that our customers are equipped to comply with stricter regulations as they improve their environmental footprint.
and elsewhere [1]
> We can help brake system manufacturers and designers prepare for stricter regulations by significantly reducing fine dust and extending disk life
Reducing fine dust is great, but (1) this seems to only be about brake discs, not brake pads, and (2) there's no support in Oerlikon marketing materials for GP's claim that this magically means brake pads don't need replacing.
> Oerlikon of Switzerland has brake pad technology that has near zero emissions and does not need replacing
This seems not unlike the stories that go around about how someone was sold a 200mpg prototype car by accident but then the car company took it back because they don't want people to have them.
So? There would only be one "brake pad salesman" left, who would sell indestructible brake pads to car manufacturers, and all the others would go bust.
Right. It's not like they can form a cartel and collectively decide how long a brake pad should last, just like the incandescent light bulb cartel [1] of the early 20th century or the NAND flash memory cartel of the 21st century.
Mate you're far too naive to believe what you're saying.
A theoretical cartel can do precisely nothing, since it's a mere mental construct. It takes an actual cartel to fix prices (ignoring as a distraction the fact that the link you provide gives several good reasons to think that planned obsolescence was not the primary factor in the lifetime of incandescent bulbs).
There is no brake pad cartel. If there is, demonstrate it. If not, again, an imaginary cartel can only do imaginary things. It can't do real things.
Translation: you have no coherent response to what I said, and don't like that, so you figured a bit of snark might recover some dignity. It's better to simply not reply.
I gave you my argument in detail above with sources that companies routinely collude in anti-consumer ways, but you decided to strick your fingers in your ears and sing "lalala I don't believe you".
Therefore I have no more replies for you to protect my sanity. Feel free to believe whatever you want to believe, just leve me be, i have no duty to waste my time to change your opinion of something you're fixated on.
The link that says "although there is vigorous disagreement about whether 1000 days was a good technical standard or a case of planned obsolescence, a cartel did exist, and there are sources which say it was to use planned obsolescence to sell more bulbs". Inconveniently, longer-lasting bulbs emit less light, and more heat. If you remember the heat of a 100W incandescent bulb, perhaps you might see the fire hazard in encouraging bulb companies to compete on the basis of bulb life. But no matter.
This definitely demonstrates that there's a brake pad cartel, right now, doing the same thing. By implication, you see.
If you think incandescant lightbulbs could last forever, and no one would break ranks to cash in on this universally better product, that's fine of course. It just sounds unlikely.
