GM is even dumber than it looks at first glance. -Adam
P. J. Alling wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
