RobbH
Member
- First Name
- Robb
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2020
- Threads
- 0
- Messages
- 24
- Reaction score
- 34
- Location
- New Mexico
- Vehicles
- MME FE - Grabber Blue
So my beef with this isn't because of anything he said about the MME but his assumptions and conclusions on this and all of there other reviews he has done lately.
Cars aren't designed and built in a vacuum and those "other" things needs to looked at just as much as the parts (maybe a Systems-Engineering approach?). Sandy has vast experience in the automotive industry and I want to learn from him but his random "if they just did this" approach, without discussing the possible reasons why they might have made these design choices, makes his videos little more than back seat engineering.
Instead I would like to see him approach these reviews from the POV that the Ford engineers aren't incompetent. Then he could use his automotive knowledge to explain to the auidance the possible reasons that they might have made those design choices.
For example:
You might be able to design a part that from a fresh start would be cheaper and more focused for the MME (what Sandy is suggesting). But now Ford has to design it, test it, contract or create the tooling, establish the supply chain for that new part...for a new model without an existing customer base or without a good idea on how well and how long it will sell.
OR:
Take a suitable (but maybe less elegant) part that requires no new design, has been real-world tested, has an existing supply chain...etc, etc, etc
That would be a far better lesson to take from his videos rather than "Here's a part that could be better" or worse "Well, Tesla does it this way".
If this was only one of three cars that Ford built then Sandy's suggestions would be far more applicable than they are. I mean honestly, explain to your audience that this is why smaller more nimble companies can produce more innovative products. This is how they can gain a competitive advantage over a global giant. But all he does is make reductive comments and say "when I was in the industry" and blame it on bureaucracy rather than explaining industrial momentum.
Anyone can make suggestions but to actually bring them to fruition successfully is where the real work is. Maybe if he approached these reviews with a little more humility and a bit of respect for other engineers he would deserve more praise.
TLDR: Engineering is hard and sometimes you have to take the best of the bad choices. **Insert Teddy Rosevelt's Man in the Arena quote here
Cars aren't designed and built in a vacuum and those "other" things needs to looked at just as much as the parts (maybe a Systems-Engineering approach?). Sandy has vast experience in the automotive industry and I want to learn from him but his random "if they just did this" approach, without discussing the possible reasons why they might have made these design choices, makes his videos little more than back seat engineering.
Instead I would like to see him approach these reviews from the POV that the Ford engineers aren't incompetent. Then he could use his automotive knowledge to explain to the auidance the possible reasons that they might have made those design choices.
For example:
You might be able to design a part that from a fresh start would be cheaper and more focused for the MME (what Sandy is suggesting). But now Ford has to design it, test it, contract or create the tooling, establish the supply chain for that new part...for a new model without an existing customer base or without a good idea on how well and how long it will sell.
OR:
Take a suitable (but maybe less elegant) part that requires no new design, has been real-world tested, has an existing supply chain...etc, etc, etc
That would be a far better lesson to take from his videos rather than "Here's a part that could be better" or worse "Well, Tesla does it this way".
If this was only one of three cars that Ford built then Sandy's suggestions would be far more applicable than they are. I mean honestly, explain to your audience that this is why smaller more nimble companies can produce more innovative products. This is how they can gain a competitive advantage over a global giant. But all he does is make reductive comments and say "when I was in the industry" and blame it on bureaucracy rather than explaining industrial momentum.
Anyone can make suggestions but to actually bring them to fruition successfully is where the real work is. Maybe if he approached these reviews with a little more humility and a bit of respect for other engineers he would deserve more praise.
TLDR: Engineering is hard and sometimes you have to take the best of the bad choices. **Insert Teddy Rosevelt's Man in the Arena quote here
Sponsored