11 ms·
This is engineering: Army Jeep torn apart and reassembled in 4 minutes
- g0atbutt 16y agoJust Enough Essential Parts = JEEP I would love to know more about their design mantra.
- ramy_d 16y agototally. we need this kind of design back.
- mhd 16y agoI think even if people were willing to let go of some features that require additional parts, just getting a car made that would conform to modern security and environmental regulations would probably be an impossible task. It's not like we forgot how to build like that or that car companies want to waste money with superfluous parts.
- electromagnetic 16y agoWhy? Crumple zones are simply part of the vehicles material designs and require no additional parts. A piece of sheet metal with engineered weak points takes as many parts in a vehicle as piece of sheet metal. Both form the hood of the car just fine. > It's not like ... car companies want to waste money with superfluous parts. Built in pre-market Satellite Radio isn't a superfluous part, especially when you can't opt out of it. The 'man-step' from Ford isn't superfluous? It's the most redundant feature in any work vehicle as it's less 4" lower than the top of the wheel and is placed where a toolbox is, making it impossible to use in the vast majority of vehicles it is placed. Whilst using the wheel (the method used probably since shortly after Ford released the first truck) allows you to grip the side, and gives you enough height to lean over and fully reach into the bed. Companies place superfluous parts into their vehicles all the time. DVD players and LCD screens help with environmental regulations and vehicular safety? Really?
- jacquesm 16y agoDon't forget that this is not a unibody car, but a rolling chassis. The crumple zone concept does not really work for a rolling chassis because it transmits the forces in a completely different way compared to a unibody with subframes.
- bonzoesc 16y agoThose aren't superfluous, because they help with the primary goal of selling more vehicles at higher margins.
- jerf 16y agoAre you a programmer? If so, don't you hate it when people come up to you and suggest that programming Facebook is no big deal and maybe you should help them with that next weekend? You just did that. I am not an automotive engineer, but large swathes of my family are and I have had many discussions about their work from an engineering point of view. You would not believe what goes into just that crumple zone stuff, nothing the word "simply" applies to. Did you know there are entire engineers dedicated to making sure the cars pass rather stringent noise emission requirements from the body (that is, not the engine)? It's hard enough to get cars to pass specifications without adding in yet more restrictions about the nature of the cars. (Or adding $20,000 to the price.)
- Retric 16y agoA lot of automotive complexity comes from the evolutionary nature of their designs. If you built a gas turbine electric car you could have far fewer moving parts. But you would add a new set of basic downsides that you would need to tweak. By the time you had something with reasonable tolerances, materials, pollution, noise, and vibration levels you would probably have built something almost a complex as a modern engine.
- mhd 16y agoI'm mostly talking about the engine, chassis and transmission section. Whether the whole entertainment or "lifestyle" sections are superfluous or not doesn't event matter, as this really doesn't increase maintenance costs or makes the car itself that more complex. That's pretty orthogonal to the basic design. You could revamp a Model T with DVD players if you'd want to. I'm not saying that we need all that all that added stuff (AC, sound etc), but that even the essential components nowadays require a high level of complexity. To get a reasonable amount of safety, you have to be either very cleve or apply huge amounts of brute force, i.e. build a friggin tank. Which probably still won't be as safe as other vehicles, neither for the car itself nor the one it hits. And the fuel economy will be utterly atrocious, especially if you want to keep the engine simple and user-maintainable. I'd like to be proven wrong, but I think that it's simplicity, safety, performance – pick two. Maybe not even that, depending on current laws, standards and morals. I doubt that even something like the VW Beetle or the Citroen 2CV would be feasible today. You'd either end up with a gas-guzzling tank or a not-quite-car like the Vespa Ape, if simplicity is a constraint. Again, I'd like to be proven wrong. Then at least I know what car to buy next.
- ramy_d 16y agototally get that, and i don't want to give the impression that it's a simple thing to ask for, but there is definitely something here that is enviable. think of how fixed gear bikes made a comeback in a market swelled with ridiculous mountain bikes that were simply overegineered for what they were needed for ( or poorly manufactured with hindering mechanics ). People can appreciate a simple design, that's easy to maintain and fix.
- eru 16y agoOr even one gear bikes. Though if you want a really simple bike, go for a unicycle. (They have a fixed gear, too.)
- aw3c2 16y agoSounds like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle
- jhghjnmmn 16y agoSome of us never lost it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_Series http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_Series
- HeyLaughingBoy 16y agoJust buy a kit racecar :-)
- Splines 16y agoI remember reading somewhere that only a small percentage of Jeep owners actually take their vehicle off-road. Someone high up in the organization suggested that they no longer build Jeep trucks to withstand off-roading so they can sell them for a lower price. The suggested didn't last long - kudos to the people at Jeep for sticking to the principles that make their cars unique.
- jonah 16y agoUnfortunately, they've been moving away from sticking to that offroad capable mantra across the product line. "In 2004 Jeep started using a special 'Trail Rated' badge on certain Jeep vehicles to mark that that vehicle trail worthy according to Jeep's specifications." [1] [1] http://www.jeepfan.com/tech/trail-rated.php http://www.jeepfan.com/tech/trail-rated.php
- sokoloff 16y agoAnd to the "Mall Rated" badges: (not from Jeep, obviously) http://www.google.com/images?q=mall+rated http://www.google.com/images?q=mall+rated
- jedc 16y agoI bought a Jeep ages ago, and decided to try it out off-roading. I went to a Jeep Jamboree weekend and spent an entire day going down what seemed like impossible trails and through muddy streams and more. It was cool that an absolutely stock Jeep had no problems on the day, despite the fact most of the other Jeeps with me were totally tricked-out for real off roading. I really respect Jeep for continuing to engineer each vehicle to do this. (Or at least they still did when I bought mine 10 years ago!)
- eru 16y agoIn German Jeep is the generic word for a (off-road) SUV.
- cschep 16y agoDoes anyone know if this is an older model that has since been over complicated? Or if this sort of vehicle is available for civilians? What a cool toy, and seemingly a cool way to learn more about vehicles/engines. Kept simple enough, seems like it could even be affordable..
- garyrichardson 16y agoThat's a vintage military jeep. These are available to civilians, if you can hunt one down. Based on the tires and the model, I suspect it's WWII era. Even modern humvee's are way more complex. I doubt you'd want one as a daily driver though. If you get a jeep made since 1995, it's definitely way more complex. The jeep in the video doesn't have the same emission controls and safety requirements of a modern vehicle. Modern jeeps still shars some of the same design principles. For instance, tub on frame -- they lift the tub off of the frame. The cabin of a jeep is like a bathtub on a wagon. The suspension in modern jeeps is far more complex in order to give a smoother ride -- the jeep in the video has leaf springs on front and back. Modern jeeps typically don't have leafs in the front. Jeep CJ's were the first consumer models available. Some of the older ones may be close to that simple. I drive a jeep. I think it's awesome. For the same reasons I like it, most of my passengers hate it: - it's loud (soft top or top down you basically have to yell to hear each other, forget listening to the stereo on road trips) - it rides rough -- you get thrown around - it has almost no features. I have a heater, headlights, three speed wipers (off, too slow and too fast), manual windows/mirrors and a button to reset the trip counter Also, it's a bit of a money pit. It's super rugged, but when you take it into the bush, you push the machine to its limits. I'm not really an expert in vehicle repairs (spent my teen years on computers instead of with my dad in the garage), but I'm definitely getting more into it as a way to save money. I get about 15 L/100KM (~15mpg). It's as aerodynamic as a brick flying sideways, so you can't really do anything to improve gas mileage. That all being said, I love my jeep. I can't see myself not owning a jeep in the future.
- jcw 16y agoIf you get a jeep made since 1995, it's definitely way more complex. Did you mean 1945? If not, were Jeeps made before 1995 comparatively simple?
- garyrichardson 16y agoI saw this video on a 4x4ing forum this morning. My 99 TJ is no where near this simple. I wish it was though. Jeeps are money pits and it would be awesome if I could do repairs with a handful of tools.
- stretchwithme 16y agoIts easy when you don't pull the engine apart first. :-)
- d_c 16y agoCompletely pointless drill.
- tfh 16y agoPerfection (in design) is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but rather when there is nothing more to take away. -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
- jacobolus 16y agoI really recommend the whole chapter this quotation comes from, and for that matter the whole book (Wind, Sand, and Stars, or in the original French, Terre des hommes). It’s a fantastically optimistic take on the relation of humans to technology (the specific example is airplanes, but the argument is quite general). [Here’s the immediate context in French: http://wikilivres.info/wiki/Terre_des_hommes/III http://wikilivres.info/wiki/Terre_des_hommes/III and in English: http://books.google.com/books?id=Ep-h7MuxLiIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=Ep-h7MuxLiIC&lpg=PP1...]
- jacobolus 16y agooh, and just for completeness, the quotation in its original form: « Il semble que la perfection soit atteinte non quand il n’y a plus rien à ajouter, mais quand il n’y a plus rien à retrancher. Au terme de son évolution, la machine se dissimule. » or in the not-quite-literal translation by Galantière: “In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away, when a body has been stripped down to its nakedness”
- da5e 16y agoThis is great! If only psychiatrists could be so efficient. This is a excellent example of teamwork too.
- chuhnk 16y agoThat is absolutely exceptional work.
- Qz 16y agoWhat I find most interesting is the use of spatial organization when taking the Jeep apart. You could probably walk those guys out half way through, bring in a different set of guys, and they could put it back together by just looking at where the pieces are on the ground.
- electromagnetic 16y agoThis is generally taught by good mechanics. I know my father, who owned a mechanics garage when he was younger, did this whenever he disassembled anything. I once saw him dismantle a motorbike clutch and reassemble it without looking at where he placed a thing, and this was over several days as he had to get replacement parts in the intervening time. Now I ask, how much would these guys make if they could do things with that speed in a real mechanics shop where fully disassembling a vehicle likely has 20+ hours of labor tied to it.
- jacquesm 16y agoIt would not be possible in a 'shop' situation. For one, everything would be bolted down with the bolts torqued to spec, instead of just strong enough to hold things together for a demonstration run. Also things tend to rust and taking oxidized stuff apart without breaking it takes quite a bit of time and preparation, sometimes multiple days (if the part is precious enough, for instance on classics it can definitely be worth the extra effort). Then there's the accessibility of parts, this is a ladder chassis car, which means that the chassis and the body are two separate parts. That makes for a vehicle that is very easy to disassemble at the expense of a higher weight (and so reduced fuel economy) higher manufacturing expense and less safety in the case of an accident. So you'd never ever get this kind of performance in real life situations.
- HeyLaughingBoy 16y agoThat's what I was thinking too. When I saw this, I imagined doing the same thing (alone) with my old 1987 Toyota pickup. It is difficult for one person to completely remove the body (I've had to raise it by myself to install body spacers) from the frame, but once the body is off, the rest of the truck would disassemble easily. Most of the effort is dealing with rusted/frozen fasteners. The rest of the vehicle comes apart fairly easily. Working on these older, simpler vehicles is pretty straightforward. Contrast with my 350Z: it would take days to accomplish the same thing. Much more integrated system and access is more difficult.
- pascalchristian 16y agoThe guys at autoblog are discussing this vid. It seems that it has been prepared, there's no liquid coolant nor any fluid containers that can be seen. Edit: here's the link http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/10/video-team-tears-down-then-rebuilds-a-jeep-in-under-four-minute/ http://www.autoblog.com/2010/09/10/video-team-tears-down-the...
- jacquesm 16y agoThat was pretty obvious (that it had been prepared), you can see how plenty of the parts are just popped on/in and not bolted on, but that does not change the fact that it drives in and drives out and is disassembled in to it's main sub-assemblies in a ridiculously short time. If they did the same thing having to drain fluids and so on it would likely be a lot more messy, and more risky (and a bit slower) so I can see why they didn't choose to do it that way.
- kls 16y agoSome military jeeps had air cooled engines so that the cooling could not be damaged by an impact of munitioned. Shooting out the radiator was a common tactic for disabling a vehicle.
- jleader 16y agoI'm pretty sure I saw a guy lift out a large vertical rectangular object from in front of the engine, fairly early in the video. When it was put back in, he reached way down in between it and the engine, like maybe he was re-attaching the bottom hose (presumably without a hose clamp, or any fluids). But I could be wrong, I only watched that part twice, and I wasn't concentrating on the radiator.
- byw 16y agoI went back to see it, and indeed it's there at around 0:32. It's right behind the grille, so it's probably a radiator or at least a fan.
- rue 16y ago…Of course a modern vehicle will probably stand up to an attack a bit better. Compromises.
- sandeepshetty 16y agoThis is a great example of teamwork and practice, but, I don't get it. Why is this engineering? Why is the ability to take a Jeep apart and reassemble it in 4 minutes "simply great design"? Is that what Jeeps are for?
- CamperBob 16y agoTry doing major repairs at the side of the road with people shooting at you, and you'll appreciate the design.
- sandeepshetty 16y agoHow does the ability to take a Jeep apart and reassemble it in 4 minutes (by 8+ guys) help you in "doing major repairs at the side of the road with people shooting at you"? In a hostile context like you describe (if that's what this is meant for) don't you think there might be other design considerations?
- jhghjnmmn 16y agoThe british army stick with a 10year old version of the land rover for the same reason - you don't want to be in a ditch in Afghanistan trying to fix a computerized engine management system with a hammer.
- sandeepshetty 16y agoThe point I've been trying to make is that simplicity/great-design has a context and that context is missing in the original source. Everyone here seems to be adding context, but I have to take their word for it because they are not presenting it with any supporting facts. e.g., a reference to where the British army claims to be sticking with a 10yr old version of the land rover, to avoid having to deal with computerized engine management system malfunctions in hostile situations. While I can see and agree with the point that people are making, I would just prefer if they were substantiated.
- 16y ago
- hebejebelus 16y agoReminds me of the ifixit team on Apple product release day.
- ganley 16y agoI've long wanted someone to build and sell a dead-simple car like this today. With modern emissions and safety standards, it might well not be possible.
- elblanco 16y agohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano
- ganley 16y agoYeah, I'm familiar with that, and it's very much in the spirit of what I had in mind (though not as much so as the Willys). But note that they lost much of that simplicity in the Europa - the version that meets EU safety and emissions requirements - which ballooned the price from US$2,000 to US$6,000.
- jeffffff 16y agoin a few years you might be able to build an electric car that is this simple. safety standards will still be an issue, but all you really need is a frame, steering, batteries, 4 wheel hub motors, and a computer.
- mkramlich 16y agoI've heard it said that you can't fully understand how a thing works until you are capable of completely taking it apart and then reassembling it back together again in it's original working condition.
- vaksel 16y agobonus points when you have parts left over...means you improved the design.
- 1amzave 16y agoThe Law of Inanimate Reproduction: if you do this enough times, you'll eventually have enough parts left over to build an entirely new one.
- Natsu 16y agoMaybe that's a necessary condition, but it's certainly not a sufficient condition. I've disassembled (and reassembled) quite a few things that I didn't fully understand. I did have to take notes for some of the more complex devices, though, or I'd have never gotten the wires reconnected properly.
- forensic 16y agoIf you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.
- chadgeidel 16y agoWhat I cannot create I do not understand - Richard Feynman
- sown 16y agoThere's no way that drive-train could be attached that loosely and have it go over so much as a pothole.
- tlrobinson 16y agoNow try that on a sportscar...
- jonah 16y agoYep. Watch a Formula 1 team replace major components after a crash.
- jonah 16y agoReminds me of the teamwork and efficiency of formula 1 pit crews and the modular design of the cars.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deyan 16y agoA better title might be "This is reverse engineering" :) Ah good old times..
- erikstarck 16y agoVery cool, but the most complex part, the engine, is still left as one piece. This is like saying "oh, look I've split my program in to many source code files to make it less complex" and yet one of the files is 20KLOC.
- woodall 16y agoI think of the motor as more of the Operating system and everything is build around it.
- vishaldpatel 16y agoHeh.. first thought was this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WDvqPOn6g4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WDvqPOn6g4 (Lord of War - plane salvage scene)
- oasisbob 16y agoI've always been impressed by how easily a VW Beetle's engine can be removed. People have similar contests to see how quickly the engine can be swapped: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9Du5atasfQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9Du5atasfQ
- sbierwagen 16y agoThis is neat. Heck of a job. I probably couldn't do it anywhere near that fast. But... When I watched the video I got a sinking feeling regarding the comment thread on HN. Sure enough, I come back here, and see people praising the simplicity of the design. Ha ha. Surely you jest. This is engineering compromise, but heavy on the compromise. The Jeep they used for this video didn't have a radiator, only used two lug nuts per wheel, and didn't have any brakes. (Note how it coasted to a stop.) A Jeep in actual, drivable condition would take a least an hour to field strip to the same degree, and one that had any significant mileage would take even longer still, what with rusty bolts and seized connectors. And even a Jeep in running condition compromised a lot to reduce the number of parts. You can have a car that's as simple as a Jeep if you're willing to give up: Air conditioning. Airbags. Any kind of modern emissions controls. Modern engine diagnostics. Electronic stability control and ABS brakes. Cheap maintenance. Decent fuel efficiency. (Jeeps are pretty heavy, thanks to the simple design, have lousy aerodynamics, and an carburetor-fueled engine that isn't afraid to waste gas) A roof. Any kind of sound insulation. Doors. Jack Barath wrote a column[1] on the death of the basic car, and it boiled down to "people won't buy a car without these features"; along with some bonus wibbling about government regulations (see "emissions controls" in that list above) that would make such a car illegal to sell. I thought his column sucked[2], but the point is that a basic car is not impossible, or a relic of ancient technology that is now lost to us, but because outside of a few specialized applications, such as military vehicles, "basic car" is actually a codeword for "a car that sucks", and I would confidently lay money that the dozens of people expressing admiration for the Jeep's elegant design would hate to be forced to drive one. 1: http://www.speedsportlife.com/2009/01/21/avoidable-contact-22-airbags-killed-the-am-radio-star/ http://www.speedsportlife.com/2009/01/21/avoidable-contact-2... 2: http://bbot.org/blog/archives/2009/02/27/blind_nostalgia_and_cars/ http://bbot.org/blog/archives/2009/02/27/blind_nostalgia_and...