4 ms·

Does anyone else find the pictures of tractor engines hypnotizing? It's a total antithesis of American or Chinese-for-American manufacturing, where everything

Does anyone else find the pictures of tractor engines hypnotizing? It's a total antithesis of American or Chinese-for-American manufacturing, where everything is maximal or minimal. Instead everything is "reasonable", a reasonable cost, a reasonable engine efficiency, a design that makes simple sense, parts that aren't optimized to the micron in order to save plastic...it's so refreshing to look at the inside of a mass-market machine that doesn't look over-optimized.

pinot 7y ago
I would think tractors are pretty optimized — to be stout — and naturally aren't going to look like an automobile being manufactured.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Paperweight 7y ago
Meanwhile in Corporatist America you are not allowed to fix your own tractor due to software copyright laws...
- weberc2 7y ago
  It is remarkable what can be accomplished when another much larger state is heavily subsidizing your entire economy. Good on the Belarusians for the progress they’ve achieved, but let’s not pretend it’s attributable to communism.
rayiner 7y ago
Nothing refreshing about it. Soviet technology being stuck in a state of “reasonable” was why, before the fall of the Soviet Union, America was several times more energy efficient per unit of production.
CapricornNoble 7y ago
My opinion: It's the Soviet engineering mentality, forged during WW2, and honed during the Cold War. From more than a few sources I've read, the Soviets basically optimized their country from top to bottom to fight and win a nuclear war, and that included manufacturing equipment that was considered highly durable, and easy to repair in harsh weather conditions (up to and including post-nuclear ones). But hardware that is over-optimized for the worst-case scenario ended up highly inefficient during normal peacetime operations, hence their economy was hugely underperforming. I suspect the Soviet economy would have proven surprisingly robust in another total war .....fortunately we didn't find out.
- iguy 7y ago
  Yes, it seems to me that they really thought they would fight that war. At the tractor-engineering level, isn't it partly that they didn't iterate many times? What Ford was making in the 50s was not so different. But they junked the whole factory several times since then, or rather were forced to do so by competitors... it's easy to see how hard it would be to persuade even a well-meaning bureaucrat that you want to close down and replace a factory whose tractors worked just fine last year. I have read (but am not completely sure) that every factory had a second purpose ready to go, e.g. your tractor factory had the tank blueprints ready, and made sure their machines could work for both. If true this must have been another enormous incentive not to change... if your plan for switching to lighter more fuel-efficient tractors means you can't make all the tank components you were supposed to, then you aren't going to get permission.

pinot 7y ago

I would think tractors are pretty optimized — to be stout — and naturally aren't going to look like an automobile being manufactured.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Paperweight 7y ago

Meanwhile in Corporatist America you are not allowed to fix your own tractor due to software copyright laws...

weberc2 7y ago
It is remarkable what can be accomplished when another much larger state is heavily subsidizing your entire economy. Good on the Belarusians for the progress they’ve achieved, but let’s not pretend it’s attributable to communism.

rayiner 7y ago

Nothing refreshing about it. Soviet technology being stuck in a state of “reasonable” was why, before the fall of the Soviet Union, America was several times more energy efficient per unit of production.

CapricornNoble 7y ago

My opinion: It's the Soviet engineering mentality, forged during WW2, and honed during the Cold War. From more than a few sources I've read, the Soviets basically optimized their country from top to bottom to fight and win a nuclear war, and that included manufacturing equipment that was considered highly durable, and easy to repair in harsh weather conditions (up to and including post-nuclear ones). But hardware that is over-optimized for the worst-case scenario ended up highly inefficient during normal peacetime operations, hence their economy was hugely underperforming. I suspect the Soviet economy would have proven surprisingly robust in another total war .....fortunately we didn't find out.

iguy 7y ago
Yes, it seems to me that they really thought they would fight that war. At the tractor-engineering level, isn't it partly that they didn't iterate many times? What Ford was making in the 50s was not so different. But they junked the whole factory several times since then, or rather were forced to do so by competitors... it's easy to see how hard it would be to persuade even a well-meaning bureaucrat that you want to close down and replace a factory whose tractors worked just fine last year. I have read (but am not completely sure) that every factory had a second purpose ready to go, e.g. your tractor factory had the tank blueprints ready, and made sure their machines could work for both. If true this must have been another enormous incentive not to change... if your plan for switching to lighter more fuel-efficient tractors means you can't make all the tank components you were supposed to, then you aren't going to get permission.