A gloat at Sears?!?!

[George Max]

You're far far of the mark.

I work in engineering in exactly the kind of situation you're expounding on. My company makes many thousands of any particular model.

It is in fact not especially difficult to make changes within any particular product to cheapen it.

30 years of my life are invested in product design and development. Don't hand me that line of crap. It is in fact extremely easy to make changes and substitutions that result in real cost savings for the manufacturer without inordinate expense to do so.

[George Max]

That's a good thing - careful inspection. Even better that they take more than one parachute. Do you know if they take only 2? Is it even possible to take 3?

And crazy looks like a pretty fair description of people that jump from perfectly good airplanes.

[George Max]

Wow. an exploding reciprocating saw.

I hope your injuries weren't permanent.

It seems a flat out honest thing to say that no manufacturer makes the best in each category of tool.

Hence the endless posts about is this blurfl any good?

[CW]

[tom]

[Morris Dovey]

| That's a good thing - careful inspection. Even better that they | take more than one parachute. Do you know if they take only 2? Is | it even possible to take 3?

It's possible - but the question is really: Once you've determined that the current chute is not going to do the job, how much time is available to deploy the next? From "Beautiful Streamer" (US paratrooper's lullabye): "Time is elapsing - and here is the ground."

There's always the inclination to attempt to correct any problem with the currently deployed canopy before releasing it and trying the reserve...

| And crazy looks like a pretty fair description of people that jump | from perfectly good airplanes.

Ok.

-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA

[Allen Roy]

They are permanent. I get to look at the scars everyday...and not be able to make a complete fist as well...

Allen

[Gary]

"George Max" wrote

If I may, I think you have to put what he said in context.

Consider a factory in China pumping out billions of identical tools: Everything is pretty much the same except for the colour of the plastic and the badge they stick on them before they're boxed.

I agree that it would be far more expensive to retool the line in order to "cheapen" something for (in this example) Sears, than it would be to just keep the line going.

We're talking mass production here, and the *real* savings are in the "mass" part: It make no sense to create a different product to make it cheaper: They're already smokin' them out the door as cheaply as possible.

Cheers!

Gary

[J. Clarke]

If your company makes "thousands" you're probably using NC machines. That's semicustom manufacture. Get to real high volume and you'll find that purpose-made tooling is used, the changing of which isn't cheap.

[George Max]

The changes I mean are not in changing the form of a housing for example, that *is* difficult and time consuming to do.

What I mean (for example) is to buy a group of motors from the motor supplier that use sleeve bearings instead of ball bearings. Or use less expensive batteries. Maybe use more regrind in the plastic. Or simply pack fewer accessories.

That's what I mean. From my design end of the process, there are a lot of things to do.

However, I work at a place that doesn't make bottom of the barrel products, so it's obvious to me how to help them get there.

I will agree to a point with my last paragraph:

Of course if the starting point of the product being debated is

*already* at the bottom, then it would take a little more ingenuity to wring even more savings from it, and that may not be worth the effort.

[George Max]

Reliable - good to know.

I learn something new every day.

[George Max]

I thought about that while I was writing. Is there enough time to deploy a 2nd or 3rd or..... That ground is rush up mighty fast.

[Morris Dovey]

| On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:11:09 -0500, "Morris Dovey" | wrote: | || George Max (in [e-mail]) said: || ||| That's a good thing - careful inspection. Even better that they ||| take more than one parachute. Do you know if they take only 2? ||| Is it even possible to take 3? || || It's possible - but the question is really: Once you've determined || that the current chute is not going to do the job, how much time is || available to deploy the next? From "Beautiful Streamer" (US || paratrooper's lullabye): "Time is elapsing - and here is the || ground." || || There's always the inclination to attempt to correct any problem || with the currently deployed canopy before releasing it and trying || the reserve... | | I thought about that while I was writing. Is there enough time to | deploy a 2nd or 3rd or..... That ground is rush up mighty fast.

That pretty much depends on the jump. From 1200' (normal altitude for military training jumps) there's plenty of time to open and shake out a reserve chute. On a 300' combat jump a reserve would just be extra baggage since a normal inflation can eat up to 200' of altitude.

I would guess that if the main canopy were deployed at 2000' or above, there'd be time to try two more chutes. Nonetheless, any person who has accumulated sufficient bad karma should probably stay on the ground...

-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA

[George Max]

We do nothing of the kind. Our stuff is put together pretty much the same as any power tool.

Trust me, there are plenty of things to do to save money. This is what they pay me for - be imaginitive.

[J. Clarke]

I'm having difficulty believing that you are using custom-made machinery for such small volumes.

Uh huh. Whatever.

[George Max]

I have several patents. How many do you have?

[CW]

Most people outgrew that kind of comeback about age 12. Looking to blow your credibility? You succeeded.

[tom]

[CW]

[tom]