okay the tundra failed the five star rating. how many people acutally lookat safty ratings today though? i mean i just bought a car and i didnt even look it could be one out five stars and i know im only one person. but seriously out of curiousitys how many people u think looking at that truck will look or care? when you guys bought your last cars did you look at safty?

 

Honestly, I never did.. Until I got married, and my wife had a close call when the front pass tire competely blew out on our Avalanche.. And got me thinking.. what happened if she slammed into a tree, rolled over, etc etc. Then what urked me was on an inelastic collision at like 35 mph(like hititng an unmovable object in a single car crash), you'd be safer in a Mini, since it disappates the energy and keeps the cabin intact. (note this is much diff than a 2 car crash)


Soo, long story short, if I was going to buy a replacement Truck or SUV, I will get one 5 stars, and airbags all around. GM platform offers this right? Since most trucks are pretty similar in performance and ability, might as well get something thats safe in a crash.

Same goes for the G8.. I expect that to do really well in the crash tests..

For my own personal sports cars and stuff, I worry about it less... Cause at this level, I'm looking for performance.. But I would expect it to be at least respectable.

Now for motorcycles.. I like the least amount of stuff(but I do wear full gear and backprotector).. well, actually I enjoy fuel injection, no chokes, no petcocks, no reserve flips...

 

Odds are that it will - something like 85% of all new vehicles earn four or five stars from NHTSA

 

I chuckled when I read your post. You see, I was a mechanical engineer with GM for 5 years designing automotive parts, and then chose to be an engineer for a fantastic chemical company for the past 7 years designing consumer end use products.

I meant exactly what I said. By the way, manufacturing does not design products, they produce them.

If you want to keep designing overpriced products, then go for it, but any engineer worth his salt will know the design criteria before-hand and build the simplest, least expensive option which meets that criteria.

If you are designing products to be 2x-4x the design criteria, then your design criteria are wrong.

Dan

 

Yes. I've always half joked that I felt its not that GM manufactures, assembles, or even engineers anything thats, flimsy or substandard, especially in the past.. Its just that the final design specs exactly call for it to be exactly that.


IOW, that rocker switch might feel cheep and flimsy from day one.. But I bet 10 years later, it'll feel exactly the same, cheep and flimsy.. and most likely would still work! lol

 

Yeah, but who's ever met one of those? Or is it just the ones I work with?

 

Yeah, all of our great inventions happen by accident.

Dan

 

Nope - most of us engineers do a crappy job just so people can act big and talk crap about us on the Internet.

 

Its the bean counters lol

 

LOL!!!

Actually to address stereomandan's point, I find that I MUST design at 2 to 4 F.S. for multiple reasons...
1) First and foremost, the beancounters will want a reduction in the budget and my design is the main target for cuts... put some fat in the design for them to aim at. If they get it, I'm still safe... if they don't, then I have the option of building a more "indestructible" machine that earns a great reputation for runtime and output, or simply coming in under budget by a bit - either of which REALLY DISSAPPOINTS MANAGEMENT and makes me look bad (hence my lowly position as a senior engineer for a global company, responsible for designing, building, and installing about $20-million of equipment annually from Chester, SC to Kunshan, China).

2) <sarcasm = 1> I can always expect everyone who uses my equipment to treat it as it was intended. Actually, I find they treat machines I design as if they were their own investments, giving them the utmost in care, maintenance, and frequent cleanings. <sarcasm = 0>
Remember, my "switches" aren't in a cockpit of an automobile... they are on plant floors. MUCH easier to push a button with a broomstick or a hammer-handle than a finger. Easier to adjust the position of a machine with a towmotor than a hydraulic ram too. And there's always the production "adjustment"... "what size hammer was that we used last time to move that proximity switch bracket?"

3) I worked in production for many years - I know their angle. Get parts out the door on time, as cheaply as possible. Know who forces them to be that way? Front office. Man upstairs.
There's not a soul on a manufacturing floor that is there because they WANT to take value or quality out of the product... it happens because they are cut back too far, not given the tools or time to execute the job correctly, and they are ridden to death.
If management will let me do my job, I can provide the worker with a peice of equipment that will do the job, as budgeted, at rate, safely, for a long time.

Actually, at my last 2 companies (12 years tot), I have found that production does not want to cut in the designs of the equipment. They want the best they can get. It's only after the equipment hits the floor and they start doing PM work that cost-cutting comes into play. They want to use cheaper bearings, cheaper sensors, cheaper belts, etc. These things might save you a nickel today, but they can cost downtime and losses in the long run if the replacements are not properly specified. I therefore have to recant my feelings towards production a little, they want it right from the beginning, but seem to succumb to budgetary pressures when it comes to replacements or maintenance of the equipment.

It always comes back to the folks in the front office that "everyone" reports to. They are the ones that are mandating that...
ENGINEERING must cut 10% out of the project.
FABRICATION must save 10%.
MAINTENANCE must reduce spending by 10%.
PURCHASING must save 10% on the project.
PRODUCTION must cut 10% out of their operating costs.

All so they can have a 10% BONUS at the end of the year.

stereomandan, you may have a GREAT job and you get no pressures whatsoever from the top to cut back on your projects or budgets... if so, that's AWESOME and you have a very unique management team where you are. Enjoy it. MOST of the world is NOT like that. I could try to be a "1-man show" (meaning in my own world with no managers, production, maintenance, or other groups to affect me) and design to the critical limits of effect v. cost, but if I do that in my current job, my stuff WILL FAIL because I will be inevitably be forced to make cuts (always am) and so will the people who use my equipment after it goes in. And in my job, if my equipment fails, people are severely hurt or often die. It ain't worth it to me.
And it's not just me... about every engineer I work with or communicate with fights the same battles. I won't doubt what you say you do, and I agree that it should be that way, but your situation is very rare, not common. We ***** fight to make it as good as we can for what we have to work with, only to get the pizz beat out of us to make it ever-cheaper - in my field, you learn to play the game or you get whacked.

Also, if what you claim was really true, Dilbert would never have any material for his comics, and it would not even exist.

 

Good reply ProudPony, and I knew we were playing a little bit with our engineering terms. I can guarantee that I do have a budget, but for me, they are hard line numbers to begin with. If I can't design product X for Y amout of money, it just simply won't go to market because the product economics have already been determined. We are simply coming from two different areas of engineering. (manufacturing versus product R&D). The dynamics are different between the two, I agree.

Dan

 

I can't understand how Toyota keeps screwing up the full size (or near full size) pickup. It's not rocket science. Get a Chevy & Ford, make it better. Toyota makes good cars but full size trucks it just can't get?