> It scares me a bit that they would need thay type of engineering > expertise, > I suppose it is inevitable though.
Welcome to today's world of big business, lawyers & lack of personal responsibilities. Its a fact of life - kind of like what Dillinger (?) said when asked why he robbed banks - "it where the money is". Most large firms employ technical advisors to assist in product litigation. I had that job due to my 40 years of experience in the auto industry covering all aspects of design, development, manufacturing & service. > Operator error is unavoidable, manufacuterers need to take this into > account, especially when peoples lives depend on their error not killing > them. > Most 4x4s fail miserably in this regard. How about operators not understanding that vehicles like the Explorer are not like other vehicles. The high ground clearance is there for a reason & it produces operating characheristice different than the common car. Kenneth Waller http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Ford claims ownership of images > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ken Waller" > Subject: Re: Ford claims ownership of images > > >> Believe what you want. >> I worked as a Mechanical Engineer in the design analysis group @ Ford for >> over 18 years. My function was to investigate vehicles involved in >> product >> litigation, assist in technical defense, attend depositions & trials >> (expert >> witness). > > It scares me a bit that they would need thay type of engineering > expertise, > I suppose it is inevitable though. > >> >> While I only handled a few of the Explorer rollovers cases, it was >> obvious >> that most of the events were due to operator inexperience/operator error >> like improper maintained (tire inflation)/lack of driving instruction >> (controlling a vehicle with a blowout). > > Operator error is unavoidable, manufacuterers need to take this into > account, especially when peoples lives depend on their error not killing > them. > Most 4x4s fail miserably in this regard. > In construction, we have a term called variance. This is what could be > termed the margin of error. For example, when installing roof trusses, the > ideal situation is to have the truss completely covering the top plate of > the wall. On a 2x4 construction, you can have perhaps an inch of top plate > showing on the outside of the truss. Any more than that, and the structure > is compromised, since the wall can now only shift another inch or so under > the truss before there is a very real risk of failure of the truss system. > My understanding with the tire thing is that Ford took away almost all the > variance by recommending tire pressures that were very close to > underinflation. > Tire failure is inevitable at highway speeds with a loaded vehicle and > soft > tires. > >> >> ABTW, my parents did own a 61 Corvair Monza, a great vehicle that GM >> killed >> prematurely IMHO. > > It probably could have been a great vehicle, had it actually been > reliable. > My dad's Corvair spent almost all of it's short life (he only kept it for > a > year before he tired of it's reliability issues) in the shop, and when he > went to trade it, discovered that it had almost no residual value at the > GM > dealership. > The thing was so bad that GM didn't want it back on a trade-in. > This was a fairly common fate with the Corvair in this part of the world. > > William Robb > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
