It was done as a cost cutting effort. You point is? Adam Maas wrote:
>Note that Saturn, which used to do its own engineering (And the SC2 was >an example of that) is now just another GM nameplate from the production >side of things. The Ion for example, is an Opel (And is the same as the >Chevy Cobalt and the equivalent Pontiac). Only the dealer network >retains any independence. > >-Adam > > >P. J. Alling wrote: > > >>There is a difference here, the user, in this case the driver never >>noticed the change. On the other hand Saturn which used to have one of >>the best variable assist hydraulic power steering systems by all >>accounts, and I know how good it was on the SC2, I own one. Seems to >>have replaced this with an electrical system, which is light as a >>feather with no road feed back as all as far as I can tell. It was done >>primarily for cost savings. From a drivers point of view it's absolutely >>horrible. I wonder how much money they've saved? I wonder how many >>sales they've lost because of it. GM is in serious trouble right now, >>they can't afford to lose those sales. >> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >> >> >>>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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > > -- Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler. --Albert Einstein -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
