"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 02 Nov 2014 02:09:15 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Ed Huntress on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:48:16
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:48:01 -0700, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

Ed Huntress on Mon, 22 Sep 2014 09:35:46
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Or, as they used to say at GM, "Any damned fool can design a
carburettor for a Rolls-Royce. It takes a genius to design one
for a
Chevrolet."

Or the tongue-in-cheek motto applied to Mercedes-Benz: "Never use
two
parts to do a job when you can get away with three." g

OTOH, when you have three parts, you can replace one of them.
B-)

Nowadays, we have modules which are plug and play, do multiple
functions, and can't really be repaired. Not cost effectively,
compared to removing and replacing.

I don't know about the cost effectiveness. I've had this
conversation
with Tier 1 automotive supply-chain engineers -- me being in line
with
your thoughts, and the frustrations of not being able to fix many
things these days -- and they've pretty well convinced me that
making
things repairable at a flesh-and-bones level is not at all cost
effective with today's engineering.

I don't know. Sometimes I miss my old VWs and MG, which I could fix
while on the road. OTOH, I now own two 10-year-old cars that have
never needed a repair.

My suspicion is that they're doing it right. Nostalgia for fixing
and
adjusting my S.U. carburetors (carburettors, I guess) on my
mother's
kitchen table isn't enough to overcome the fact that I had to do
*something* with my old cars almost every week.

There is the one side which says "make it good, and get it to
last". There is the other side which wants it "soon" to last "long
enough". I recall reports of a determination by various War
Department Planners which determined that the "life expectancy" of
combat aircraft was limited to N hours. Ergo, it was not "cost
effective" to build aircraft which would "last" for 2N hours, if
half
the useful life was not going to be used.
And there is the story of Henry Ford, who sent Engineers out to
the junk yards to find the parts which weren't breaking on his
automobiles. Those parts were "over built", so they could be less
"well made", and saving the Company money in the process. What's
the
old saw - that eighty percent of the cost is in the next decimal
place.
--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

I think the answer is that we should *collect* those old things,
admire them and shine them up on weekends, and show them off when
the
neighbors come over.

And then put them back in the garage or basement, and drive away in
our new cars that we hardly have to touch.

--
Ed Huntress

I've been making the rounds of dealerships to price a few parts and to
see what I might want if a tree fell on my car (the wind is roaring
outside right now). They are telling me that it's a good thing they
don't need much because any serious work requires connection to the
computer to reprogram it. I could still replace plugs and brakes and
belts, but not too much else like the new ignition system I put in my
truck.
-jsw