Previously written by Shel - >I knew a > number of people in the automotive business many years back, and >they'd > watch every penny, literally. One cent spread over the cost of more than a > million units adds up quickly enough. Listening to these guys discuss > costs was an amazing experience. One conversation centered about spacing > bolt holes on a panel to see if they could get by with four instead of > five > bolts. Not only did they consider the cost of the additional bolt (which > seemed trivial until one multiplied by the estimated number of units > needed), but they factored in the time to install that one bolt during > manufacture, and the cost of adding the fifth hole.
To which I'll add - Shel I was a design engineer (also held most other engineering positions -development, durability etc.) at one of the Big 3 for many years. I can vouch for what you've stated. During my design career, I did work on the F-series of trucks, mainly in the steering/suspension & brake systems area - with volumes in the millions - a penny saved was a serious cost save on those kinds of volumes. We also figured other issues into the cost save equations - like complexity - if we could eliminate a part from the assembly plant it was equated into a cost savings due to the lack of handling, storage, procuring etc. Process assembly engineers also considered the cost savings of having minimizing/reducing assembly costs. Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: The JCO survey > Yes, I understand that, but I wonder of JCO grasps the concept. I knew a > number of people in the automotive business many years back, and they'd > watch every penny, literally. One cent spread over the cost of more than a > million units adds up quickly enough. Listening to these guys discuss > costs was an amazing experience. One conversation centered about spacing > bolt holes on a panel to see if they could get by with four instead of > five > bolts. Not only did they consider the cost of the additional bolt (which > seemed trivial until one multiplied by the estimated number of units > needed), but they factored in the time to install that one bolt during > manufacture, and the cost of adding the fifth hole. > > John Celio pointed out that the mechanism is more complicated than some > may > realize, and while the actual cost of parts may be trivial, the cost of > the > steps needed to include those parts also must be included, as you say. > Plus there's the time involved, and the possibility that there may be more > rejected items, and inventory and storage/shipping costs. The truth is, > we > _don't_ know the true cost of including the item on contemporary DSLR > camera bodies. We're just not privy to that information. > > I think JCO, with his continued harping on the cost being $5.00 is just > blowing smoke. It's a number he pulled from the air, based on some > abstract calculation that he came up with. For all we know, including the > aperture simulator on contemporary cameras, especially after the design > has > been set to not include the item, may cost more than the inclusion of > shake > reduction. Are you listening, John. There's a lot more to the true cost > of an item than the small cost of materials. And just because the > peripheral costs may not have been very great on K-bodied cameras, those > numbers may be completely different for the DSLR. > > BTW, Leica found out about the cost of the need for precision manual > assembly, and their newer cameras were designed to eliminate as much of > that type of work as possible. > > Shel > > > >> [Original Message] >> From: Pål Jensen > > >> ----- Original Message ----- >> > How do you know the part in question costs $5.00? >> > Does the $5.00 reflect only the cost of materials, or >> > does it include any manufacturing and setup >> > costs to implement the item in cameras that were >> > designed not to include the part? >> >> >> If it cost $5 and you sell a million cameras thats five million. >> I personally believe that the lens mount without mechanical coupling are >> more suited for robotic assembly. Mechanical linkages needs precision and > is >> probably far more expensive to manufacture I suspect. Therefore I don't >> think we will see a completely compatible lens mount in anything but a >> top-of-the-line body if at all. >> Personally, I find this issue trivial. Although it would have been nice > with >> complete comaptibility with K and M lenses, Pentax after all fully > support >> all lenses made after 1983. Thats best in business. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
