"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:37:54 -0000, "Dave Liney" wrote:


You have to remember that these are the idiots who wasted good money
inventing the new number plate system which pandered to the motor
industry.

In what way does it pander to the motor industry? Changing the 'year
identifier' twice a year was brought in with the old single letter
identifier scheme.

Which is exactly what happened with the yearly letter change and then the
6
monthly nonsense which resulted from the august sales glut.

You seem to have missed the point that the twice yearly changeover has
nothing to do with the new system but was already in place before it was
introduced. There was no change in the time of identifier change with the
introduction of the new system.

As I understand it the car industry would much rather not
have a change at set points in the year but rather have a continuous
series
and so reduce the peaks and troughs in car sales after and before the
changeover time.

Pardon my french, but F*ck the car industry. Other countries manage just
fine without changing a year identifier every 6 months.

If you actually read what I had posted you would have realised that I said
that the car industry does not want the changeover at 12 months or 6 months,
they would rather have a continuous series. Which apparently you are
suggesting but feel the need to disagree with me.

Dave.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:20:32 -0000, "Dave Liney" wrote:


Which is exactly what happened with the yearly letter change and then the
6
monthly nonsense which resulted from the august sales glut.

You seem to have missed the point that the twice yearly changeover has
nothing to do with the new system but was already in place before it was
introduced.

Which was an attempt to smooth over august sales peak caused by the suffix
changed being moved there from January.

Are you suggesting that said movement of the yearly identifying mark and
the resulting distortion on sales had nothing to do with the motor industry
?


There was no change in the time of identifier change with the
introduction of the new system.

Proof if any was needed of the current dogs breakfast. If one is going to
introduce a completely new system and encode a yearly identifying mark,
changing it every 6 months is just silly.

Pardon my french, but F*ck the car industry. Other countries manage just
fine without changing a year identifier every 6 months.

If you actually read what I had posted you would have realised that I said
that the car industry does not want the changeover at 12 months or 6 months,

That would be the car industry who persuaded the govt to move the suffix
change from Jan to Aug in the Mid 60s, and then whinged even more to get a
twice yearly change due to the distorting effects that change had on the
market.

Unless you are suggesting the govts of the day had some other reasons for
taking such arbitrary action ?

they would rather have a continuous series.

The registration system doesn't exist for the benefit of the car industry.




greg

--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

"Greg Hennessy" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 01:20:32 -0000, "Dave Liney" wrote:

You seem to have missed the point that the twice yearly changeover has
nothing to do with the new system but was already in place before it was
introduced.

Which was an attempt to smooth over august sales peak caused by the suffix
changed being moved there from January.
Are you suggesting that said movement of the yearly identifying mark and
the resulting distortion on sales had nothing to do with the motor
industry?

The move of the suffix to August did not cause the sales peak. There had
been one when the changeover was in January and the changeover month was
moved to a time when the demand for new cars could more easily be met. The
distortion of sales was caused by the government's introduction of the
yearly indentifier; nothing to do with the motor industry.

There was no change in the time of identifier change with the
introduction of the new system.

Proof if any was needed of the current dogs breakfast. If one is going to
introduce a completely new system and encode a yearly identifying mark,
changing it every 6 months is just silly.

What is encoded is a six monthly id mark. Changing that every six months
makes sense to me.

If you actually read what I had posted you would have realised that I
said
that the car industry does not want the changeover at 12 months or 6
months,

That would be the car industry who persuaded the govt to move the suffix
change from Jan to Aug in the Mid 60s, and then whinged even more to get a
twice yearly change due to the distorting effects that change had on the
market.

They asked the government to move the changeover month, which happened in
1967. However this was in response to the government bring in the year
identifier in in 1963, which was not of the motor industry's doing. They
were trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Do you really think that people didn't want to show they had a new car by
getting one right after the changeover in January, but when it changed in
August they suddenly did?

they would rather have a continuous series.

The registration system doesn't exist for the benefit of the car industry.

What do you want? Half the time you are saying there should be a continuous
series and then you say it would be terrible to do it because the motor
industry would prefer it.

Dave

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:05:36 -0000, "Dave Liney" wrote:


The move of the suffix to August did not cause the sales peak.

Of course it did.

There had
been one when the changeover was in January and the changeover month was
moved to a time when the demand for new cars could more easily be met.

That contradicts what I've heard elsewhere. It was moved to August
precisely to stimulate demand. Few people were in the humour to spend money
on new cars just after Xmas.

The
distortion of sales was caused by the government's introduction of the
yearly indentifier; nothing to do with the motor industry.

There was never a sales peak in January, thats nonsense.



greg
--
You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot
after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts.

Greg Hennessy wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 19:05:36 -0000, "Dave Liney"
wrote:


The move of the suffix to August did not cause the sales peak.

Of course it did.

There had been one when the changeover was in January and the
changeover month was moved to a time when the demand for new
cars could more easily be met.

That contradicts what I've heard elsewhere. It was moved to August
precisely to stimulate demand. Few people were in the humour to spend
money on new cars just after Xmas.

I don't know where you heard that, but my recollection from that time is
that there was indeed a peak in the New Year, originally in order to
have the cachet of a car dating from the new year, and reinforced from
1963 onwards by the year letter. Car manufacturers tended to tool up
for new models during the August holidays. Thus, the "1966" models were
put into production in September 1965, exhibited at the October 1965
Motor Show, and then lay around unsold because people wanted a 1966
registration. It was for that reason that the year letter change was
moved to 1st August. It was indeed done to stimulate demand, but to do
so in August in order to lessen the huge peak in January.

The distortion of sales was caused by the government's introduction
of
the yearly indentifier; nothing to do with the motor industry.

There was never a sales peak in January, thats nonsense.

I disagree (see above). Your evidence?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

Dave Liney wrote:

If you actually read what I had posted you would have realised that I said
that the car industry does not want the changeover at 12 months or 6 months,
they would rather have a continuous series.

I don't believe you. Surely the motor industry loves the fact that so
many people buy a new car just because the year identifier on the number
plates has changed?

Here in Australia we do have a continuous series and there are no year
identifiers, and the average age of the cars looks lot higher (although
for obvious reasons it's hard to be sure). However, there are still
sales peaks caused by the introduction of new models (and the
discounting to get rid of the old ones) and in June (at the end of the
financial year).

"Aidan Stanger" wrote in message
...
Dave Liney wrote:

If you actually read what I had posted you would have realised that I
said
that the car industry does not want the changeover at 12 months or 6
months,
they would rather have a continuous series.

I don't believe you. Surely the motor industry loves the fact that so
many people buy a new car just because the year identifier on the number
plates has changed?

Most industries would prefer, for the same number of sales annually, to have
them level across the year rather than have a significant dip and peak once
or twice a year.

I don't think the changeover makes people buy cars. It makes them buy a new
car, if they are going to buy one at all, just after the changeover rather
than in the month before but that is a different thing altogether.

Dave.

Dave Liney wrote:
"Aidan Stanger" wrote...
Dave Liney wrote:

If you actually read what I had posted you would have realised that I
said that the car industry does not want the changeover at 12 months
or 6 months, they would rather have a continuous series.

I don't believe you. Surely the motor industry loves the fact that so
many people buy a new car just because the year identifier on the number
plates has changed?

Most industries would prefer, for the same number of sales annually, to have
them level across the year rather than have a significant dip and peak once
or twice a year.

But most would give that up for more sales annually.

With a fluctuating demand, they have the opportunity to manipulate their
pricing policy to take advantage of it.

I don't think the changeover makes people buy cars. It makes them buy a new
car, if they are going to buy one at all, just after the changeover rather
than in the month before but that is a different thing altogether.

The changeover certainly made people buy cars when it was annual. Did
the change to every 6 months make people realise how silly that was?