3 ms·

There's also AvE's teardown, which in addition highlights the multiple WTFs in the construction. I.e. this wasn't overengineered by experienced people, like a L

There's also AvE's teardown, which in addition highlights the multiple WTFs in the construction. I.e. this wasn't overengineered by experienced people, like a Leica or a Hilti, it was overengineered by a bunch of freshly graduated mech.eng.'s.

sloppycee 9y ago
Is that surprising though? I doubt mech engs graduate with enough (any?) experience with manufacturability [1]. Seems the lesson learned here is that unlike software, physical goods require an experienced up-front design that can't be haphazardly iterated on by new-grads to be fixed later. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_for_manufacturability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_for_manufacturability
- chx 9y ago
  Eh, most of the software skills you bring from university need plenty of tweaking before it is useful in a real world environment. The academic goals are severely misaligned with the real world programming usage.
- jlarocco 9y ago
  > Seems the lesson learned here is that unlike software, physical goods require an experienced up-front design that can't be haphazardly iterated on by new-grads to be fixed later. I'm not so sure software is any different. I think a large part of software's reputation for low quality and buggy software is due to this.
phasetransition 9y ago
Watching AvE's teardown, it seems to me that the team behind the external industrial design was highly experienced. Very big, nice injection molded parts and over molding. Would not surprise me to see it was, e.g. ideo behind that. By contrast, the mechanical internals and motor controller are simultaneously over engineered, and in some places poorly engineered. It feels like a young team trying hard. BTW, not throwing rocks. I'm sure I would have done many of the same mistakes years ago. Also, AvE is great.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

3 ms·

There's also AvE's teardown, which in addition highlights the multiple WTFs in the construction. I.e. this wasn't overengineered by experienced people, like a L

by semi-extrinsic 9y ago

sloppycee 9y ago
Is that surprising though? I doubt mech engs graduate with enough (any?) experience with manufacturability [1]. Seems the lesson learned here is that unlike software, physical goods require an experienced up-front design that can't be haphazardly iterated on by new-grads to be fixed later. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_for_manufacturability https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_for_manufacturability
- chx 9y ago
  Eh, most of the software skills you bring from university need plenty of tweaking before it is useful in a real world environment. The academic goals are severely misaligned with the real world programming usage.
- jlarocco 9y ago
  > Seems the lesson learned here is that unlike software, physical goods require an experienced up-front design that can't be haphazardly iterated on by new-grads to be fixed later. I'm not so sure software is any different. I think a large part of software's reputation for low quality and buggy software is due to this.
phasetransition 9y ago
Watching AvE's teardown, it seems to me that the team behind the external industrial design was highly experienced. Very big, nice injection molded parts and over molding. Would not surprise me to see it was, e.g. ideo behind that. By contrast, the mechanical internals and motor controller are simultaneously over engineered, and in some places poorly engineered. It feels like a young team trying hard. BTW, not throwing rocks. I'm sure I would have done many of the same mistakes years ago. Also, AvE is great.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]