Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
[quote=”barneyb” post=133615]Some people are serial wreckers of cars and if you start fixing for them you might as well figure on becoming their full time mechanic. Put air in one tire and they will drive on the next one that goes flat and ruin it.[/quote]
That is the stone cold truth right there.
I learned a long time ago that if someone’s car trouble is caused by failure to perform routine maintenance… they’re not worth helping. And if you do help them, they’ll generally be relatively ungrateful and will return in short order with a new problem. I know it sounds harsh, but I no longer have any interest in spending a Saturday laying in someone’s driveway replacing a clutch… just to find the car dead 6 months later because they never changed the oil.
-McWicked
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=115319] it was a general statement yes, I also added an edit with an example. However I will give another. What is with the LCD screens that incorporate every function under the sun from nav to radio to A/C; god forbid the LCD screen goes out, you lose everything. Knobs and switches weren’t good enough? Also, why eliminate a shift linkage? Quite a few cars now have an electrical “module” now as an input for the computer where the knob(Chrysler), button(Aston Martin), or shifter(most everything else) rather than a simple mechanical linkage.[/quote]
I actually know the answer to both of those and you won’t like either one of them.
1. LCD screens are cheap. The exact same LCD screen can be used across multiple models (unlike custom consoles, knobs, and switch gear) which makes them even cheaper to use. Also, since you now can’t swap out the factory radio without lousing up your GPS, HVAC, and backup camera… the consumer is more willing to pay for the “premium” sound system, since they’ll be stuck with it. And right now, selling consumers on electronic gizmos is where all of the $$$ is at.
2. Getting rid of the shift linkage gives interior designers more options to play with. With a servo-actuated transmission, you can mount the shifter anywhere (or have no shifter at all). Also you can sell suckers the same transmission for more money. “Sure this ol’ boring stick comes standard… but a smart and discriminating buyer, such as yourself, will choose the new Touch-o-Matic Drive System…” Again $$$ for no value added.
IMO these are definitely bad ideas. Good ideas for the car makers, but terrible for everyone else. Basically anytime you run across a crappy design on a car and ask yourself “Why on Earth did they do that?” The answer almost always is “Money”.
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=115319] it was a general statement yes, I also added an edit with an example. However I will give another. What is with the LCD screens that incorporate every function under the sun from nav to radio to A/C; god forbid the LCD screen goes out, you lose everything. Knobs and switches weren’t good enough? Also, why eliminate a shift linkage? Quite a few cars now have an electrical “module” now as an input for the computer where the knob(Chrysler), button(Aston Martin), or shifter(most everything else) rather than a simple mechanical linkage.[/quote]
I actually know the answer to both of those and you won’t like either one of them.
1. LCD screens are cheap. The exact same LCD screen can be used across multiple models (unlike custom consoles, knobs, and switch gear) which makes them even cheaper to use. Also, since you now can’t swap out the factory radio without lousing up your GPS, HVAC, and backup camera… the consumer is more willing to pay for the “premium” sound system, since they’ll be stuck with it. And right now, selling consumers on electronic gizmos is where all of the $$$ is at.
2. Getting rid of the shift linkage gives interior designers more options to play with. With a servo-actuated transmission, you can mount the shifter anywhere (or have no shifter at all). Also you can sell suckers the same transmission for more money. “Sure this ol’ boring stick comes standard… but a smart and discriminating buyer, such as yourself, will choose the new Touch-o-Matic Drive System…” Again $$$ for no value added.
IMO these are definitely bad ideas. Good ideas for the car makers, but terrible for everyone else. Basically anytime you run across a crappy design on a car and ask yourself “Why on Earth did they do that?” The answer almost always is “Money”.
[quote=”ToyotaKarl” post=115316][quote=”McWicked” post=115311]I’d like to hear an example of “over-engineering”. The term gets thrown around a lot, but I’m never quite sure what people mean exactly.[/quote]
So first lets discuss the definition… What is over-engineering? Building something that exceeds the scope of what it is intended to do…. One could also argue that the definition could be building something so difficult to work on, that only people with special training and special tools could work on it….
-Karl[/quote]
Most engineers would probably define over-engineering as the former. As for the latter… what are you complaining about? You’re one of the people with the special training and tools. 😉
[quote=”ToyotaKarl” post=115316][quote=”McWicked” post=115311]I’d like to hear an example of “over-engineering”. The term gets thrown around a lot, but I’m never quite sure what people mean exactly.[/quote]
So first lets discuss the definition… What is over-engineering? Building something that exceeds the scope of what it is intended to do…. One could also argue that the definition could be building something so difficult to work on, that only people with special training and special tools could work on it….
-Karl[/quote]
Most engineers would probably define over-engineering as the former. As for the latter… what are you complaining about? You’re one of the people with the special training and tools. 😉
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=115314][quote=”McWicked” post=115311]I’d like to hear an example of “over-engineering”. The term gets thrown around a lot, but I’m never quite sure what people mean exactly.[/quote] from a mechanics perspective and I’m sure I can speak for most of us, we believe in the phrase “KISS” or “keep it simple stupid.” overengieering is anything that doesn’t agree with that in my opinion.[/quote]
Thanks Chevyman, but I was looking for something a little more specific. Most engineers (believe it or not) strive to make their designs as simple as possible. I’m interested in hearing about specific designs that you have come across that appear “over engineered”.
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=115314][quote=”McWicked” post=115311]I’d like to hear an example of “over-engineering”. The term gets thrown around a lot, but I’m never quite sure what people mean exactly.[/quote] from a mechanics perspective and I’m sure I can speak for most of us, we believe in the phrase “KISS” or “keep it simple stupid.” overengieering is anything that doesn’t agree with that in my opinion.[/quote]
Thanks Chevyman, but I was looking for something a little more specific. Most engineers (believe it or not) strive to make their designs as simple as possible. I’m interested in hearing about specific designs that you have come across that appear “over engineered”.
I’d like to hear an example of “over-engineering”. The term gets thrown around a lot, but I’m never quite sure what people mean exactly.
I’d like to hear an example of “over-engineering”. The term gets thrown around a lot, but I’m never quite sure what people mean exactly.
[quote=”KerbDragonRider” post=114906]
The study should have focused on the difference in tyre pressure due to tempeture and altitude.Altitude would be particularly interesting!
[/quote]Why would that be?
[quote=”KerbDragonRider” post=114906]
The study should have focused on the difference in tyre pressure due to tempeture and altitude.Altitude would be particularly interesting!
[/quote]Why would that be?
For those of you comfortable with wading through scientific literature, here’s a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2009/811094.pdfFor those of you comfortable with wading through scientific literature, here’s a study conducted by the U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/NRD/Multimedia/PDFs/Crash%20Avoidance/2009/811094.pdf[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=114731]I really don’t mean to sound ignorant, but I don’t trust anything the EPA or the gov tells us. It is biased towards certain “beliefs” and altered and exaggerated studies. I live my life through real life experiences, not a bureaucrats altered statistics. Again please don’t take this as me being “one of those people”.[/quote]
I think this is the part where I motion the waiter over and ask for the check…
[quote=”Chevyman21″ post=114731]I really don’t mean to sound ignorant, but I don’t trust anything the EPA or the gov tells us. It is biased towards certain “beliefs” and altered and exaggerated studies. I live my life through real life experiences, not a bureaucrats altered statistics. Again please don’t take this as me being “one of those people”.[/quote]
I think this is the part where I motion the waiter over and ask for the check…