This is engineering: Army Jeep torn apart and reassembled in 4 minutes

Re:This is engineering: Army Jeep torn apart and reassembled... by sbierwagen on Sunday September 12, 2010 @07:08PM (#1684809)

This 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-2...

2: http://bbot.org/blog/archives/2009/02/27/blind_nostalgia_and...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:This is engineering: Army Jeep torn apart and reassembled... by sandeepshetty on Monday September 13, 2010 @05:32PM (#1688409)

You've summed up neatly what I've tried to do miserably in another comment. While I was fascinated when I first saw the video, the questions that kept bugging me were: What was this design optimized for? What were the design goals behind it?

While the original source does not answer these questions, I came across a lot of answers here in the comments but none of them are substantiated yet.

If the design is optimized for the 4 minutes effect (which it seems to be, based on the compromises made) then I do not think this is simple design and I wonder if it would have the same effect on everyone if they took over an hour to field strip an "actual, drivable condition" Jeep like you say.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:This is engineering: Army Jeep torn apart and reassembled... by KaeseEs on Monday September 13, 2010 @05:30PM (#1688404)

It did have a radiator, you can see it getting put back in at about 3:18

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:This is engineering: Army Jeep torn apart and reassembled... by sbierwagen on Monday September 13, 2010 @09:39PM (#1689061)

Whoops, you're right.

However, that radiator didn't appear to have any coolant in it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:This is engineering: Army Jeep torn apart and reassembled... by eru on Monday September 13, 2010 @03:39AM (#1685873)

I guess, if we had good batteries, we could make a simple electric car. (Though if you optimize for an objective, like simplicity, other goals, like mileage or comfort, probably suffer.)

[ Parent | on HN ]