The Post-Christmas Fiesta

It's that time of year when the bills from Christmas start arriving, and people tighten their belts to save money. When companies are looking to cut the price of their goods so that you can buy them more cheaply (while they still make a profit), there are a couple of tricks they can use.

One way is to send the manufacturing process to a different country where manufacturing costs are lower (such as legal minimum wage levels). This is how we currently get more stuff for less money. But there was a time when we were happy with less for less money. Perhaps we need to get back to this.

Let me give an example.

Ford Fiesta Mk1
Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Introducing the Ford Fiesta (Mark 1), one of the best selliing cars of the 1980s in the UK. Cars and the environment may not always be happy bedfellows, but the Fiesta shows us an alternative route to lower prices that we chose not to continue, despite its success.

The Fiesta was popular because it was affordable. And it was affordable because the base model had everything non-essential stripped out. Fewer parts means less cost, and less time to get the car off the production line and into the shops. It also means less energy used in production, and therefore less waste and pollution both in manufacturing and disposal (at the scrapyard). The list of missing parts might surprise you, but if you think about it, most of them aren't necessary for a basic car that's used to commute to work and very occasional longer trips. And remember, this was a major car maker in the 1980s.

What's inside the box?

• Stereo - nope. It was possible to buy parts to fit a stereo underneath the dashboard yourself, although this involved drilling holes. There were holes pre-drilled into the panels by the back seats which worked well as speaker grilles, but you had to invent your own way of mounting your own speakers behind them. Then, of course, you would have to drill into the car bodywork to fit a radio aerial. Alternatively, you could skip all that and have a portable battery-powered radio sitting on the passenger seat. Or sing accapella.
• Windscreen wipers - only at the front, and they were either on or off. There was no intermittent setting, although there was a "one wipe only" function.
• Windscreen washers - one nozzle on the bonnet, which squirted in two directions at the same time. Operated by a foot pump on the floor, similar to the ones you use to blow up airbeds. Unconventional but simple, and it worked faultlessly.
• Courtesy light - on or off. If you wanted a light to come on when you opened the doors, you had to work the switch yourself.
• Mirrors - there was no passenger-side mirror; in the early 1980's this wasn't a legal requirement in the UK. Use of the other mirrors and checking over your shoulder were advised.
• Lights - the sidelight was inside the headlamp assembly rather than on its own. Again, fewer parts equals less assembly time. And forget halogen headlamps - the bulbs were basic tungsten bulbs. You could fit halogen ones yourself if you wanted to.
• Rear fog light - not originally fitted, until a change in UK law made it mandatory. The factory then started bolting a lamp unit to the back of the car.
• Heated rear window - nope. This could be a real pain if you needed to reverse out of your driveway on a cold morning. Remember, there was no rear wiper either. There was an interesting way to demist the rear window - see "air vents" below.
• Air vents - there were no air vents that blew in your face. There was a flap in the middle of the dashboard that you could lift up, and it would blow air straight down the middle of the car. Teamed up with the heater fan on full speed, it would eventually demist the back window.
• Reversing lights - nope. You could improvise by switching on the rear fog light, which lit up the road behind you with a red glow.
• Gearbox - four gears forward, one gear back. One less gear means fewer parts.
• Windows - manual window winders in the front. The back windows didn't open at all. But if you've ever been in the back of a car when the front windows are open, you'll know that ventilation isn't a problem.
• Heater - two fan speeds. No aircon.
• Seats - vinyl faux leather - very cold on wintry mornings! These were common in lower-end cars in the 1980s. Dealers and car accessory shops sold seat covers that you could fit yourself.
• Clock - nope. It was easy enough to buy a digital clock that stuck onto the dashboard, again, from a car accessory shop.
• Wheel covers - none. The wheels were painted silver instead.
• Glovebox - nope. There was a little cubby-hole for passengers to put their stuff, like a glovebox but without a door.
• Door pockets - nope. There was plenty of storage space on top of the dashboard, but things tended to slide around as soon as the car went round a corner. There were home-grown solutions, which involved sticking boxes and small storage containers of various kinds to the dashboard with sticky foam pads.
• Parcel shelf - nope. The contents of the boot were there for all to see. You could cover it with a blanket though - but again, you needed to supply the blanket.
• Carpet - carpet throughout, except in the boot. I guess the designers figured that luggage doesn't really need home comforts. The boot floor was a large piece of hardboard painted black. There was a hole in it so you could lift it up to get at the spare wheel.

A couple of the items were only absent on the most basic model, while almost all were available on the "luxury" Fiesta Ghia model - although its' price tag was beyond the reach of many buyers. With so many missing items that we take for granted these days, you might wonder how Ford managed to sell these cars at all. But they did, and they were very popular because of the trusted name and the low price tag.

The Fiesta supported manufacturing jobs in the UK, Spain and Germany, where the cars were built. The basic nature of the base models also fuelled a vibrant market in car accessories like seat covers and fitting kits for stereos. This in turn supported a large number of small independent motorist shops across the UK and a couple of national chains.

While the Mark 1 Fiesta would certainly look out of date today, the second-hand market in the 1990's was strong, even with the cars then being 10 years old or more. Compare that to today. I recently overheard a friend saying that their 7 year old car was "out of date" because the built-in stereo wasn't MP3 compatible (and couldn't easily be replaced for one that was) and the built-in sat nav was unusable because the manufacturer had stopped producing updates for it (and again, it couldn't be swapped out).

In today's world, even basic cars come with a relatively high level of equipment as standard. Probably as a result, motorist shops have largely disappeared from our high streets. Car manufacturing often doesn't benefit the local economy as much either, as it's increasingly being done in far-flung countries to reduce cost (although, notably, Ford still have factories in Spain and Germany that build the current Fiesta). And some budget car brands apparently make up for their low car prices by increasing the price of servicing parts (the original Fiesta actually won a UK Design Council award for reducing running costs).

As you might have guessed, my first car was a second-hand Fiesta. I prefer my current fuel-efficient low-emission car with it's creature comforts, although I do begrudge having to pay for the standard "accessories" that I never use (particularly when most of my daily commute is on public transport). The Fiesta is an extreme example of "back to basics". But far better to start basic, and add things as you need them, I think. It's the best way to reduce waste.

A wise person once told me "you can't have everything for nothing". Wise words indeed.

(Note: I haven't commented on Ford's current models or manufacturing processes. This is entirely on purpose; the article isn't intended as a crtitique of Ford, but as a view of manufacturing in general).

Image: adapted from original "Ford Fiesta MK1 front 20071023.jpg", licenced under Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0 unported licence. Original available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ford_Fiesta_MK1_front_20071023.jpg

Natural Synthetics

I heard recently that scientists in the Antarctic have discovered masses of microscopic plastic fibres underwater. Could this be the biggest environmental polution problem yet?

One of the main causes, apparently, is synthetic fibres from clothes coming loose in the wash, and being rinsed down the drain. The fibres then make their way into the sea, and for some reason (which I'm still unclear about) end up in the Antarctic. Here, they are swallowed by marine life, causing harmful effects. Again, I'm unsure how microscopic particles do this, although I do know that a whole carrier bag can kill if swallowed by, say, a turtle.

So there were a few gaps in the news article that was reporting this story, and I need to do some research of my own to fill the gaps. But what came next in the news story took me by surprise.

An "expert" gave their opinion that the problem would be much better if people stopped wearing cheap synthetic clothes, and bought clothes made from natural fibres, such as cotton and wool. On the face of it, this sounds like great advice. Natural fibres break down in the water, whereas synthetic fibres don't degrade.

I might have believed this a few years ago before I started doing my own research. The trouble is, this advice only looks at the problem from one side. While natural fibres are biodegradable, they also take a lot of energy to grow and process. The research I've seen shows that the energy needed for this is far more than the energy needed to produce synthetic fibres. And when you consider that most of the energy used to grow natural fibres comes from fossil fuels, the overall environmental impact of natural fabrics can be much worse.

There are some people who point out that synthetic fabrics cannot be made without oil. But they forget that modern intensive cotton farming also needs oil - not just for the farm machinery, but as ingredients in pesticides, herbicides and other agrochemicals.

So the fish might not be swallowing plastic shards, but the pesticide run-off from the cotton field that washes into the rivers might get them instead. Basically, you can't win either way. But synthetic fibres seem to have the edge, as they need less energy overall to make, and tend to last longer.

What we really need is a new fabric that is energy efficient to produce and lasts a long time, but breaks down when disposed of. I think this is technically difficult, and probably won't be developed while mass consumers are focused on price versus designer brands. However, some moves are being made, and bamboo fibres are looking promising.

Bamboo is quick and easy to grow, and can be spun into a stretchy, breathable, cotton-like fabric. I have a few pairs of bamboo socks, and they're very comfortable. What's more, they're about the same price as ordinary socks. Unfortunately, they're still not as biodegradable as cotton.

Other developments may take longer. I guess what it boils down to is that no-one wants to develop a product that doesn't make a profit. But sometimes there is no monetary profit in looking after the enivronment. This, I think, is the greatest environmental dilemma of all.