But this 'technology' stuff as you put it is expensive and prototypes still must be developed and run into the ground correct? As new materials are developed they cost money. I would venture it actually costs more to develop a new chassis now than it did 10 years ago because of the more rigorous testing and the associated cost of technology, would you not agree with that?

 

You are forgetting about the wonderful machine known as a computer. CAD and computer testing saves a lot of time, and time = money.

 

Right, I know this - thus why they really only make a big difference in the torque input to a drivetrain off the line because as RPMs increase from zero, it loses 'steam'.

 

'83? Hmmm...

I do agree that you can't really predict when they'll launch a C7 based on Corvette's history. The C6 came about so soon because GM didn't want to allow the C5 to become stale; they didn't want to cachet of the car to wane before replacing it. I guess this is generally the mindset with a car like this, at least with the right people making decisions. The C5 was supposed to launched as a '93.

 

You just wanted a chance to flame me.

 

The article pinpoints 2009 as an all new Corvette developed for right hand drive. :dunno:

 

Yeah that is it because this board revolves around you.

But come on guys it costs just as much or more money to develop the tech that lowers the cost and put it together with new building techniques that have to be developed, and paid for. What makes it more profitable is keeping changes to a minimum and making the business case work in such a way that you have built in enough profit to your vehicle to pay off the excessive initial development costs.

And how much money does it cost to buy the computers, pay the operators, program the virtual parts that need to be confirmed with real world data? Computers does not = cheap. If you have the systems and practices in place then yes it is cheap but if you have to go outside the box, like the C5 team did with its hydroformed frame rails and central backbone then it takes BIG money. The only reason that the C5 program seemed so cheap is that a lot of the costs were hidden in other Chevy programs to keep the bean counters occupied. Also the C6 is an evolution of C5, as I am sure the C7 will be.

Lets not forget the $100+ Million it took to make a new nose for the 4th gens in 98.

 

Less than doing it on paper thats all I know.

WS6 upgrade was worth the money

 

Well if you say so, but you do take most every opportunity you can find to flame me. This case was made pretty evident by your quick jump to ask me what I've been smoking for making what appears to have been a pretty accurate statement as you've ended up arguing about development costs with, well, people who do the developing - engineers.

 

Instead of putting a dollar figure to it, I'll simply quip "less than it did yesterday".

Since taking my first engineering job in '97, CAD systems have gone from uber-expensive SGI boxes that required a dedicated sysadmin to Wintel boxes that really aren't any more expensive than a hot gaming PC. Running FEA - and more importantly, getting accurate results from FEA - continues to get faster and cheaper. Preliminary crash test results can now be obtained from computer simulations, as can powertrain performance attributes such as emissions and fuel economy. Rapid prototyping machines can put a sample of a part in my hands tomorrow so that I can evaluate it for design and tooling problems, and in some cases I can even throw the part on a test stand to start generating a performance baseline before I've even consulted a tooling shop. If I'm building an electronics module, affordable PCB routers allow me to cut a board in hours instead of waiting days or weeks. There are even means by which we can generate rapid-prototype tools, and production-ready tools take less time than ever to generate with the proliferation of CNC and EDM techniques.

Time is money - human resources, lost market opportunities, the cost of dealing with outdated designs. All of this technology allows engineers to do more with less.

 

Actually Threxxy that was meant in jest. It seems as though I am wrong and it is cheaper BUT the fact remains that decreased model times and rapid up dates have a point of decreasing the bottom line and can only happen after a few years. We won't be having any complete redos in 4 years on ANY car anytime soon.

As far as my spending my day online searching for ways to flame you, get over yourself. I actually enjoy reading your perspectives into luxury automobiles and gadgetry, as they are outside of my scope of refrence. Since you seem to think all I do is e-stalk you I will simply try not to respond to you in the future, sound good (Ok then lets do that).

 

That's interesting, but to me it seems that GM is still taking their sweet time by laying off engineers. A few months back how many engineers did they fire? Now instead of getting stuff done faster with more engineers, they have opted to get it done in the same amount of time, by having less engineers. Is that true because that is how I am seeing the situation?