Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:10:40 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "Brad Knowles" <brad.knowles@skynet.be>, "Rahul Siddharthan" <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> Cc: <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Mundie, Perens, GPL, BSD etc again Message-ID: <000301c0f6fc$9d87fb60$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <p0510030bb751b0d4db9a@[194.78.241.123]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>-----Original Message----- >From: Brad Knowles [mailto:brad.knowles@skynet.be] > > Not entirely true. Whenever you make a significant change like >this, there is a certain amount of redesign that has to go on. There >is a lot that can be used unchanged, but there are some things that >simply won't work. The Seat Leon and the Skoda Fabia share a lot of >parts in common with the Golf and the platform that underlies them >all, but the base platform only gets you 80% of the way there -- you >end up redesigning that other 20%, and as we all know, that last 20% >can make all the difference. > Actually, the biggest redesign between new models using the same frame is the shell (I called it slapping on new fiberglass but as someone else pointed out most cars have no true frame anymore and are unibody construction) but I wouldn't say that the sheetmetal is 20% of the design - more like 5-10%. As long as the new body has roughly the same drag coefficient, wheelbase and weight as the other bodies and you don't do anything radical (like moving the engine from the front to the back) your fine because you then don't have to change the engine power. What matters is if they change any of the major subsystems like the engine and transmission and dashboard control (except redesign on the dash plastic which always happens), those account for the most design work particularly as the entire thing then has to go back through emissions redesign which can be considerable. That's bad enough but worse is you also have to get all of your subcontractors that build components (like the A/C compressor, alternator, etc.) to redesign their stuff. I read that the auto manufacturers are headed to a 42 volt power system in cars. Frankly I think this is a mistake - they should have made it 48 volts so they could re-use a lot of the Telco electronics which is all 48 volt. That's what you would call a 20% redesign. ;-) > >> If you really want to know if a car is quality, then look at how many >> of them are still on the road 20 years after production. > > Indeed, that is a very good criterion. > It's also a good criterion of how well the manufacturer supports the cars. I've seen that GM is now starting to obsolete parts over 10 years old, and worse not only do they stop manufacturing, but they wipe out the old inventory. Damn bastards! Just try getting some weird emissions hose replacement or other specialty part now. At least the Asian manufacturers will still hold on to parts inventory even 20 year old inventory, although they may stop parts production. >> VW churned >> out millions and millions of the old bugs but you rarely see one around >> today, whereas there's still plenty of old Japanese manufactured cars >> around and about. > > Actually, there are some factories in Mexico that are still >building the original Beetle design! There is no other car design in >the entire history of the business (that I know of) that can make the >same kind of claim. > This is somewhat of a bogus claim because the current "old-bugs" rolling off the line in Mexico have catalytic converters and fuel injection - the engine and everything else has been completely redesigned, as well as the frame so it can pass a modern crash test. This is NOT the original Beetle design. You can buy one of these here http://www.vw-online.co.uk/reilich-corp/ Of course good luck getting replacement parts unless your willing to have them shipped from Mexico. > Show me *ANYTHING* in this modern world where the same basic >design has been built in factories around the world for over sixty >years. Most hand tools even precision ones (Micrometers, etc) have been around this long and those really haven't deviated from their original designs. I can think of some other things too, toasters, vacuum cleaners, incandescent light bulbs, etc. >> Hell I've got a 20 year old 210 with 250,000 >miles on it >> and >> it's still kicking along on the original engine, you could never get >> that kind of mileage out of an old bug engine. > > But what about the design? Could it still be useful sixty years >after it was first put to metal? > No, the 210 design couldn't, at least not in the US, because you have to go multivalve and DOHC to get the high RPM and power output with the low emissions that the American buying public wants. Low-RPM pushrod engines are an anacronism today anyway, although from a maintainence standpoint they are superior to OHC because as long as you keep the oiling in the engine controlled it wears out slower than a faster-turning engine. However, the Datsun/Nissan 510, introduced in 1968, is an entirely different matter. Most of them sold with the L20 engine which was used also in the 240Z and is a favorite of racers, it came stock with wedge combustion chambers, forged crank and connecting rods, superior oiling, and of course the OHC allowed you to tune them to run up to very high RPM. There were quite a lot of 510's running in early 70's stock car races and a whole series of hi-pro parts (ever seen a 4 banger with headers?) for them. The 510 with a hotted-up L20 is still seen in SCCA racing today. The original 70's 510 could definitely have another 30 years of life in it even without a fundamental engine design/ body change. The body has the longer wheelbase that the US buyers like and as far as the engine all you need to do is replace the head with a DOHC head and put electronic fuel injection on it. You wouldn't even need to replace the transmission if you were going to use it in a tuck, and the Nissan/Datsun rear-wheel drive 4-speed transmissions of the 70's and 80's are practically indestructible. (unlike the 5-speed of that period which is paper-mache) I don't know a lot about Nissan-Renault new engines but I suspect that the Nissan DOHC 4 bangers of the 90's are basically built on the L20. I understand that today Renault is trying to push out all of Nissan's engine designs so we will see what happens. > Why don't you find me in forty years and tell me the answer to >that question then. > >> Auto manufacturing literally does need to track every bolt and nut. >> Not that this is that difficult considering how it's so highly >> automated. There's quality reasons of course but the primary one is >> cost - if you are churning out a million cars a year on a line, a >> small mistake is enormously expensive. > > True enough, but how many other factories in the US are allowed >to build domestic and export models of their cars on the same line? >None. > While the European vehicles are of interest in the US, if you want to talk about the US auto market, you have to accept that the real power players are the Big 3 US makers and the Japanese automakers. VW is probably the largest foreign maker here after those. That's why deals like the Renault one happened, it's a way for the European makers to get access into the US market, as their direct sales here have been disappointing. Remember that there's still trade animosity between US and Japanese markets. Many manufacturing sectors in the US have been fighting for years to get product into Japan, and American auto buyers really don't like the idea of purchasing vehicles made overseas. The Japanese build cars in the US because the US buyers want it that way, and it reduces the political pressure on the US Government that the Japanese are taking all the manufacturing jobs away because the jobs lost by sending final manufacturing overseas (like paper, there was a huge political fight because we were shipping raw logs to Japanese saw and paper mills) are offset by new manufacturing jobs created here. Japanese firms also take a big hit here because of the perception that they won't invest in US infrastructure. I've seen this firsthand in the communications field, Japanese firms won't purchase circuits unless it's a matter of life or death. So if they put a plant here to make cars it helps to offset this perception somewhat. I suspect, but don't know, that the big Japanese automakers have a quiet policy of not manufacturing cars here for sale in Japan because of the American buyers not accepting foreign-made cars. They figure what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I also think that as far as the Big 3 making vehicles here then shipping them to Europe, that's a no-go as well because the labor here is way more expensive than it is in Europe. In fact one of the bigger political issues here is the amount of manufacturing that the Big 3 send overseas anyway! I suspect that if the Big 3 had their way, all auto manufacturing in the US would be shut down and moved to Mexico. So, it's not surprising that you don't see anyone else with dual-use plants in the US. >> Of course, though, the big reason they are selling is still >marketing - the >> idea that the country is full of wide-open spaces and you need a big >> car to get around in them - despite the fact that this isn't true >> anymore and few SUV drivers spend more than 2% of the time >driving anywhere >> other than in the city. > > No, the real reason is that these things are taxed and regulated >as trucks, which means that companies like Ford can clear $10,000 >profit on each and every SUV built -- even on their lowest-end >models, and probably something more like $20,000 profit on the >high-end models. > No, that's the reason that the Big 3 _want_ to sell more of them, that's not why the consumers are are buying them. But all this is a moot point now because what is going on now in the US is an economic recession that was triggered last year by the Dot-com implosion. Coupled with this the gas prices jumped tremendously since the beginning of the year, and both of these factors are the two jaws in the vise that's closing on SUV's. To add to the fun, there's now a large scale dumping of the Ford Explorer on the used market both due to bad publicity with the Firestone Tire thing and the rollover problems. So, the SUV owners now are really stuck with white elephants that no one wants. I think that we have seen the peak on that market pass. > If that's not motivation for car companies to put murderous and >intentionally lethal vehicles on the road, then I don't know what is. > :-) Bad vehicle design probably accounts for maybe 5% of all accidents here. The biggest problem we have with vehicle accidents are the drunks, and with traffic congestion that triggers frustration in drivers causing them to do dumb things. Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000301c0f6fc$9d87fb60$1401a8c0>