4 ms·

> which seems to be implying that since engineering perfection is unobtainable It is unobtainable. Full stop. The end. No amount of money thrown at a proble

> which seems to be implying that since engineering perfection is unobtainable It is unobtainable. Full stop. The end. No amount of money thrown at a problem can absolutely, positively, 100% guarantee safety. Even if you had a car that cost $1b it still wouldn't be perfect. It might have a perfect safety record but that's because there would only be 500 drivers on the road worldwide and at that kind of a very, very sparse distribution cars might only pass one another a few times per day. It might take years or decades for enough car-to-car interactions to take place to find the remaining weak spots in the billion dollar car to ensure that it didn't accidentally kill someone. But in the mean time you'd make millions if not billions of people poorer for not having the ability to drive cars which exist in the realm of affordability. Nearly everything is always about time and material (and monetary) constraints. If it wasn't we'd all own skyscrapers and have private yachts and vacation all the time and etc, etc, etc. > Ford and Toyota are companies that generates billions of dollars in profit. And? Ford has $53b of "property, plant and equipment" and on that $53b it made a profit of $5b in 2012, $7b in 2013 and $3b in 2014. That averages out to $5b or a little under 10% annualized yield. Since automobile design and manufacturing is a little more complicated than real estate, so it shouldn't be surprising that the yield is higher. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=F+Balance+Sheet&annual http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=F+Balance+Sheet&annual http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=F+Income+Statement&annual http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=F+Income+Statement&annual

douche 12y ago
I was trying to explain this concept to our sales rep today. He seems to think that releasing a product means that it is 100% finished and there will never be any problems with it ever. Reality is that we are always one bizarre untested configuration away from having an issue on a new install. The terms "Beta" and "Gold" have this magical aspect for some classes of people, which I just can't get my head around, seeing the trunk code change every day.
Tomte 12y ago
That's why ALARP is such a widely used methodology. Unless you're in the bands "unacceptable risk" or "broadly acceptable risk", economical considerations are valid.
Spooky23 12y ago
That's a cop out argument. Gas pedals and ignition switches are things that have existed for decades. Why are they screwing around with materials that don't perform well for a part as universal as a gas or brake pedal? Why not leave the damn thing alone?
- lambdaelite 12y ago
  In part because throttle and ignition control are increasingly eschewing mechanical linkages in favor of electronics. IIRC, the Camry in question had an electronic throttle, and the pedal part that experienced accelerated wear was an acetal bearing surface that was supposed to mimic the feel of a traditional throttle control. I don't know the details of this case, but acetal isn't uncommon for bearing applications. As to why move to electronic throttle, it's mostly due to regulatory compliance.
  - msandford 12y ago
    > In part because throttle and ignition control are increasingly eschewing mechanical linkages in favor of electronics. I would go further than this. I would guess that at least 50% of the cars on the road today have electronic-only throttles and that fully 99% of cars sold in the last year have had electronic-only throttles. Drive-by-wire is basically the standard these days, even on very inexpensive cars. Emissions standards have basically forced it.
    - Spooky23 12y ago
      So you have a safety critical component that was redesigned (with a floor mat recall) in the last decade, and modified after a series of incidents. Sounds like an engineering failure to me.
      - lambdaelite 12y ago
        Parts are changed all the time over the production run of a car. How does that constitutes an "engineering failure"?

douche 12y ago

I was trying to explain this concept to our sales rep today. He seems to think that releasing a product means that it is 100% finished and there will never be any problems with it ever. Reality is that we are always one bizarre untested configuration away from having an issue on a new install. The terms "Beta" and "Gold" have this magical aspect for some classes of people, which I just can't get my head around, seeing the trunk code change every day.

Tomte 12y ago

That's why ALARP is such a widely used methodology. Unless you're in the bands "unacceptable risk" or "broadly acceptable risk", economical considerations are valid.

Spooky23 12y ago

That's a cop out argument. Gas pedals and ignition switches are things that have existed for decades. Why are they screwing around with materials that don't perform well for a part as universal as a gas or brake pedal? Why not leave the damn thing alone?

lambdaelite 12y ago
In part because throttle and ignition control are increasingly eschewing mechanical linkages in favor of electronics. IIRC, the Camry in question had an electronic throttle, and the pedal part that experienced accelerated wear was an acetal bearing surface that was supposed to mimic the feel of a traditional throttle control. I don't know the details of this case, but acetal isn't uncommon for bearing applications. As to why move to electronic throttle, it's mostly due to regulatory compliance.
- msandford 12y ago
  > In part because throttle and ignition control are increasingly eschewing mechanical linkages in favor of electronics. I would go further than this. I would guess that at least 50% of the cars on the road today have electronic-only throttles and that fully 99% of cars sold in the last year have had electronic-only throttles. Drive-by-wire is basically the standard these days, even on very inexpensive cars. Emissions standards have basically forced it.
  - Spooky23 12y ago
    So you have a safety critical component that was redesigned (with a floor mat recall) in the last decade, and modified after a series of incidents. Sounds like an engineering failure to me.
    - lambdaelite 12y ago
      Parts are changed all the time over the production run of a car. How does that constitutes an "engineering failure"?