*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
No, you're not wrong....
I would guess when you double the number of components in a vehicle you
multiply the likelyhood of a 'terminal' failure by a factor of about eight
- not worth the risk.
When I lift the bonnet (sorry - hood) of an early Dodge I know exactly
what bit performs what function, and most of it I can repair myself. The
over-design in structure usually means that the chassis can have 60 years
of corrosion on it and still do the job, which is not a feature of todays'
vehicles.
If you put a Sherman up against a tiger tank the technologically superior
Tiger would have lunch, but what US / Allied planners realised is that if
you can produce ten Shermans with the same resource it takes to make a
Tiger then they can crawl all over it. Henry Ford and Tayor had done
their bits for mass prodcution and standardisation too, so you could use
standard tools on pretty much all the US vehicles and even interchange
regulator boxes and the like.
I wouldn't have said that the UK knew this either, but if they did they
had to re-learn it post war when they made the Austin Champ to replace the
jeep, only to discover that it cost twice as much as a landrover which
could do 90% of the Champ functions. Unfortunately most of the recent US
procurement policy that has resulted in simpler, cheaper vehicles has been
purely cost driven, and I've never liked anything that an accountant
designed.
Enough complaints, I'm off to clean down the Sno-cat in case we get any
snow.
By the way, does anyone on the list have an M19 ski / wheel trailer
they're not using ?
Gordon
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 04 2000 - 21:57:06 PDT