9 ms·

For such an old problem that's clearly had a lot of incentive to reduce cost, you can be sure people have tried really hard to improve it. The fact that they're

For such an old problem that's clearly had a lot of incentive to reduce cost, you can be sure people have tried really hard to improve it. The fact that they're resorting to a lower tech solution to save maintenance costs shows how hard engineering for reliability is. When I was working on trains, I was surprised how old fashioned everything was. It hadn't really changed in 100 years. But once you see what an absolute beating they take continuously in normal operation, and the high cost of taking a wagon out of service for any reason - let alone the cost of performing maintenance itself, you realize the value in big dumb machines that just keep on working even if they underperform by some less financially important metrics. There are high-tech trains of course, with modern wonders like electricity and even computers, but they're expensive and don't make sense in many applications. A lot of "surely they could improve that"s end up meaning "surely they could spend more money on that".

JohnFen 3y ago
> you can be sure people have tried really hard to improve it I am certain they have not. The reason I'm certain of it is because the injury rate can be reduced to zero, without impacting the game, by just turning the equipment off before anyone goes near it.
- EnigmaFlare 3y ago
  That's surely a matter of the operator's health and safety policy requiring lock-out/tag-out before working on a machine, just like happens in every factory.
adrianmonk 3y ago
I see what you're saying, and I'm sure mechanical engineers have been involved who know what they're doing. It might not be as simple as it seems. On the other hand, sometimes a product really is behind the times. This is probably a relatively small, niche market. Most of your sales probably happen only when a new bowling alley is built. Outsiders might not want to invest in trying to break into the market. It's expensive to create a new design and set up a factory. And then you have to convince buyers to buy from you, the upstart, instead of companies that have been selling pinsetters since the 1950s. And if you succeed, the reward might not be that large. The established companies might have a perverse incentive against innovating. The machines seem to do the job but require a good amount of maintenance, so the manufacturers might get a nice, steady stream of income from replacement parts and/or service contracts. Even if they are interested in updating the design, it's probably a safer bet financially to make incremental improvements instead of a radical redesign. (Why rock the boat if you're making money?) None of this means necessarily means that the traditional pinsetter isn't as good as it can get. I just think it could either way. Now that I think of it, if a better/safer/cheaper (non-string) pinsetter is possible, ironically maybe the threat of string pinsetters could be what brings it about. If the traditional pinsetter manufacturers see their business threatened (for the first time in decades), maybe it will force their hands and they'll take a risk on a radical redesign.

JohnFen 3y ago

> you can be sure people have tried really hard to improve it I am certain they have not. The reason I'm certain of it is because the injury rate can be reduced to zero, without impacting the game, by just turning the equipment off before anyone goes near it.

EnigmaFlare 3y ago
That's surely a matter of the operator's health and safety policy requiring lock-out/tag-out before working on a machine, just like happens in every factory.

adrianmonk 3y ago

I see what you're saying, and I'm sure mechanical engineers have been involved who know what they're doing. It might not be as simple as it seems. On the other hand, sometimes a product really is behind the times. This is probably a relatively small, niche market. Most of your sales probably happen only when a new bowling alley is built. Outsiders might not want to invest in trying to break into the market. It's expensive to create a new design and set up a factory. And then you have to convince buyers to buy from you, the upstart, instead of companies that have been selling pinsetters since the 1950s. And if you succeed, the reward might not be that large. The established companies might have a perverse incentive against innovating. The machines seem to do the job but require a good amount of maintenance, so the manufacturers might get a nice, steady stream of income from replacement parts and/or service contracts. Even if they are interested in updating the design, it's probably a safer bet financially to make incremental improvements instead of a radical redesign. (Why rock the boat if you're making money?) None of this means necessarily means that the traditional pinsetter isn't as good as it can get. I just think it could either way. Now that I think of it, if a better/safer/cheaper (non-string) pinsetter is possible, ironically maybe the threat of string pinsetters could be what brings it about. If the traditional pinsetter manufacturers see their business threatened (for the first time in decades), maybe it will force their hands and they'll take a risk on a radical redesign.