Quote:
Originally Posted by ninjamunky85
You know, sometimes it's good to have a different perspective on things. Get too many engineers together stroking each other's egos and you end up with brilliant ideas like Ford's two piece spark plugs, or Chrysler's cab forward design where you had to take half the car apart to replace the battery.
|
Yes, but have you ever had to explain to someone who doesn't have a technical background how a pump pump curve can be interpreted? Once they get the concept of flow vs pressure, then you get the wonderful opportunity to explain the efficiency curve on the same piece of paper. At that point, they usually forget everything they just learned and were just able to reiterate to you about the whole flow vs pressure thing. Lather, rinse, repeat... I'd rather bang my head on the desk. Don't even get me started about congress wanting to make industrial equipment (including pumps) to be more efficient and use less power... to have the goal of improving the efficiency of all pumps in industry by X percent in Y years is also silly because it's not that simple. It just doesn't work that way.
I'd hazard a guess (and some put some money on the table) that the two part plugs or awkward battery placement where not just as simple as the engineering team saying, "let's do this to be different" because that's not sensible. They likely had some strong input from up the food chain that meant they had different constraints on the project and had some very different focus from what they usually did. But there's still a good chance it may have just been a goof from too many stroked ego's, as you said.
