Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dan Buckman" wrote in message
...

Ed Huntress wrote:

"larry g" wrote in message
...


It looks to me like a fiddly machine to run. Why put the Y axis

adjustment


on the back of the machine? Or in other words why put the main machine
between the operator and the adjustment and what he's trying to see to
adjust? It's MY prejudice but the Swiss machines that I have had to keep
running are not built with ergonomics in mind, and they take a lot of
adjusting to keep them going. Its a different mind set I guess. We

have

assembly lines custom made in Chicago and Switzerland. The Chicago

machine


does with ten parts what the Swiss machine does with 35 small parts.

The

Swiss machines are constantly needing attention to keep running, while

the

Chicago machine just keeps rolling along.


That's the Swiss/German engineering mindset (which I otherwise admire),
which says, "Never use two parts to do a job when three parts will do."

--
Ed Huntress



Is that worse than the british, a well built machine must offer a chalange


Hmm. I don't think so. The Brits tend to design things that are very
straightforward and mechanically obvious. I think, for example, of the
little micrometer dial on the side of the distributor of the original A-H
Sprite. It's hard to imagine a more sensible or straightforward way of
adjusting ignition timing. Likewise their several brands of sliding-throat
carburetors. They had too many moving parts and too many places where wear
resulted in a need for adjustment. But they eliminated several circuits in a
carburetor simply by profiling a sliding needle that took care of
square-ratio effects with real mechanical simplicity.

Years ago I wrote an article about national character and engineering style,
and some interesting sayings cropped up in my research. This one sounds a
little over-the-top today, but General Motors engineers used to say, "Any
damned fool can design a carburetor for a Rolls-Royce. It takes a genius to
design one for a Chevrolet." g

What they meant was that it's easier to design things when money matters
little and when service and adjustments are not your problem. British
engineering was notorious for being good but requiring frequent adjustment.
The same is true of Italian engineering.

Of course, those generalizations have many exceptions, and proving the point
requires a certain amount of willingness to believe. But there are some very
clear examples that, IMO, show a connection between the style of many
products manufactured within one country that relate to expectations placed
upon the user, as well as manufacturing methods.

Try adjusting the exhaust valves on an old Porsche with a Carrera engine
(like a Speedster) for an extreme example. g

--
Ed Huntress


I hate cars so I have no Idea how they engeneer their auto's, I have
had three of their lathes, a myford coppy lathe, a herbert #3 turret
lathe and a harrison. My feeling that they were deliberlety mada a
challange may be somewhat subjective... or not.
Mixing british withworth and sae fasteners ,for one, must have been done
on pourpose.
course you can now point out how amercian manufactures did this for
years (mixing sae and metric though) in their autos just to be
dissagreable (and now you are going to be forced into that mode because
to take any other position might tarnish your self view of being always
right, or maybe that's never being wrong ? Probably the basis for it is
fear of not being listened to) but the old american metalworking (that
is what we were talking about not cars, cars arn't engeneered the're
fashon designed any real engeneering is purly accidental) didn't mix
fasteners and I felt the british stuff (admitedly a small sample) was a
pain compaired to the amercian stuff (much larger sample).

I'm now wondering if it's cars I hate or just the people that talk about
them.
I mean they are machines and I have a definite affinity for things
mechanical, by rights I should like cars. I guess it's probably just
that alot of guys apply their viagra to car-dom then waive it arround.