Nolan Penney wrote:
> Which is why no product recall has ever existed. The designers know
> their product completely, and have resolved all issues with it, and
> there will never be any problem of any type with any product ever made.
Let's not confuse saying a product is "perfect" versus saying a
product is "known".
They may KNOW that the weak spot of the design is the connecting rod,
or the flywheel end of the crank, etc. etc. That's part of knowing every
failure mode, every cost cutting measure, and so on that I talked about
in my post.
When you work as a designer and see 200 of your product come back
with the same failure, you learn a few things. Alternatively, when you
make a cost cutting measure and DON'T see 200 units come back with a new
failure, you also learn.
When you test-bench a product for a full life cycle and then strip it
down for analysis, you learn. When you recover an end-of-life product
from the field and strip it down, you learn.
The point being that you learn things about the product that one or
two people owning one or two units are just not going to. (even setting
aside that fact that you probably have a lifetime of theory and
experience compared to the customer who learned everything he knew
trading misinformation drinking beer in an alley)
> Isn't that absurd? Of course it is. The design engineers do *not*
> have an absolute knowledge. Never have, never will.
>
> You would be appalled at how little many of those design engineers know
> about their product.
To turn this around, could you imagine a situation where even the
slackest of all design engineering teams knew less about the product
than "the next door neighbor" or "some guy on a list"?
> Wrong. Engineers do not write that manual. The manual is written by
> marketing, blessed by the lawyers, and sent out.
Right, so I can see your theorized meeting now:
Engineer: "Our product lasts longest on modern multiweight oils, which
is convenient because they are commonly available, cheap, and probably
what people would use by default anyways".
Marketing: "Agreed, but it's just not sexy enough. In order for our
product to truly make a splash in the marketplace, we need to make
people think that only old-technology oil makes it work. It'll make our
customers think of the tractors their grandfather used to own. People
love their grandfathers, and it'll make them buy our product!"
Legal: "Agreed. And after a cost-benefit analysis, we have found that,
since straight-weight oils are harder to find, our customers are more
likely to be killed in a traffic accident driving around to find them.
Dead customers don't claim on warranties, so the savings add up. Don't
even get me started on how slippery multi-grade can be if they spill it
on the floor. Lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits".
Harumph!
...we all agree that a lot of decisions are made based on cost,
legalese, or marketing. I remain unconvinced that this is one of them.
--
Trevor Boicey, P. Eng.
Ottawa, Canada, tboicey@brit.ca
ICQ #17432933 http://www.brit.ca/~tboicey/
Nothing protects dry skin like a Sith Lord.
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive/shop-talk
|