Engineers of yester year compared to today!

When I go to the doctor I really wish the clock would roll back to 1910 because they were smarter back then.


Is it just me or does that sound completely ridiculous?

Many posters in this thread have mixed up building a vehicle that lasts the first time it's built with building a vehicle that's capable of being rebuilt repeatedly. Hot rodders want things that can be rebuilt, but hot rodders aren't the ones buying new vehicles. Ordinary everyday consumers that don't know a torx from an allen head are the ones buying those payment books.

Still a lot of interesting observations here.

 

I'm a "new" engineer (relatively speaking). Same thing goes for the "old" engineers that "know" they're always right. They'd be better off if they listened to the "new" guys once in a while.

 

Thunderace, if I was still working as an engineer your post would be on the wall of my cubicle!

 

Wonderful!

Saying old all old engineers are better than new engineers, and that craftsmen are always better than ANY engineer is like saying all old race car drivers are better than all new race car drivers, and that tire changers are better than ANY race car driver.

It's all bullshit.

Back in the day, there were a few excellent engineers, a few crummy engineers, and a whole bunch of mediocre engineers.

Now, we have a few excellent engineers, a few crummy engineers, an a whole bunch of mediocre engineers.

Not much has changed with the men, the difference is the tools available to them. The best make excellent use of all the available tools. The worst won't do any better or any worse, regardless of what tools they have, and the mediocre will always hover in the middle.

This is why I think we see that the median engineering feat has become somewhat more elegant and reliable. Not because the median man is better, but because his tools are better, and he's just good enough to take some advantage of that fact.

The best engineers are doing things now a days that would leave the dudes of yesteryear agape, mostly because their vision is less limited by materials, modeling power, and manufacturing technique today than it would have been 75 years ago.

And yes, I am an engineer. And yes, I'm certain that I fall in the "mediocre" category (though I'm always doing my damnedest to work up into the next level).

 

While driving my 55' Oldsmobile 2dr ht through an intersection a complete idiot runs the red light at 40ish mph. He is driving a new Toyota Camry and he T-bones me at this speed without braking. The center of his bumper hits right where my door and rear-quarter meet. The door of the Rocket caves in 5-6" and the quarter cuts into the Camry's front fender and I drag him across the intersection till we stop. The Camry's frame was broken and its motor was off the mounts and halfway into the radiator, and the Rocket's quarter appeared to literally tear through the front of his car, ripping the fender, lights. and grill right off of it. The Rocket drove home with only cosmetic damage.

I am not an engineer, but am I correct in saying he hit me with the strongest part of his car in the weakest point of mine?

I could swear I heard/read something about hardtops being weak due to the lack of pillar support, did not seem true in this circumstance or would the same car with post taken less damage?

Is my car over-engineered, or I guess my question is why is the rocket so much stronger? Quality of steel, x-frame, sheer weight?

 

New cars are designed to have the front end completely collapse...hopefully preventing damage to the passenger compartment. Back in the old days, just as many people died in cars as they do today, but there weren't as many people driving, and they didn't drive as much.

Really, US car designers gave no though to safety until required by the fed gov't in the late 60s.

 

Then there were guys like Preston Tucker

 

yeah....and look how far he got....

 

I'm siding with those who claim the comparison is unfair. Old time engineers had to work within the limits of the day. Here are a few:

Single-viscosity oils with little in the way of additives to prevent foaming and corrosion

Cooling by water only, or in Winter by alcohol-based antifreeze, with not much to inhibit corrosion or pump wear. Overheating was a pretty common occurence, and a damaged cylinder head would not have been acceptable after every such event, so engines needed to be heavier, with thicker metals, in order to survive such conditions without permanent damage

Fuels with insufficient octane to support higher compression or ignition advance controls

Metal alloys that weren't as finely tailored to their purpose as those available today

Gaskets and seal technology very far from reliable

Rubber formulation and tire technology inferior to the cheapest available today

Filtering by coarse screens or oil baths

Poor roads, often unimproved, gravel, rutted, high crowned, sometimes oiled dirt or even real paving

Untrained mechanics, one step removed from blacksmiths (not meant as an insult. I have the highest regard for blacksmiths, but most aren't mechanics)

Drivers often more acquainted with driving buggies, needing simple and intuitive controls, perhaps at the expense of precision

There are probably many more examples, better than these. Ask yourself how long TODAY'S car would last back then, without the sweetheart deal they have now.

 

It's perfectly fair, those engineers that had the limits CREATED THE TECHNOLOGY to expand those limits.

I'll make my point again. Engineering is an evolutionary process, every engineer builds on the stuff that was developed and tested by their predecessors. Lessons learned create the baseline for future projects.

 

Bean counters? At some point in the business cycle profit has to exist. Not sure how this train of thought makes sense; especially when tied to the automotive industry. Any of us can currently see the economic state of North America, there may have been a time in business when profit was not so hard to come by. That time is gone; however quality and profit are not two unrelated topics. Sorry to get off topic but i dont believe that any decline in quality is related entirely to profits. In fact i believe a decline in product quality eroded profits.

 

If it's all a continuum, which is what I am guessing you're trying to say, then there's no point to argue. There are no good, bad, inspired or dull engineers, just interchangeable engineers carrying on their work, down through the years. Is this really your position?

 

Both cars received the same kinetic energy. Difference is that the Toyota's structure absorbed most of the energy whereas your car simply passed the energy onto you. The fact that your car was still able to drive away is NOT better engineering, it's poorer engineering, if the parameter is to avoid injuring the driver. This is a good parameter, because few dead people buy cars.

Cosmo

 

One word: MASS

You had it, the Tye-Oder did not.

In a kinetic argument, the bigger man always wins.

Moreover, your car body is built from heavier sheet steel, double thick in places, and anchored atop a full length ladder frame built, once again, from very thick steel.

Your body work is maybe 24 gage at least. His was MAYBE 32 gage, at most. His was a better and stronger alloy to be sure, but you can only do so much to make up for lack of cross section. Once again, mass carries the day.

His car is also made to fold up and dissipate energy. It crumples up and sheds parts to bleed energy from the impact before it get to the driver's compartment. You car is just there, a somewhat immovable object.

When the two meet, they do what they're designed to do. His car folded all up and he lived through the lick. Yours sat there and took it. You walked away because his car took the brunt of the lick, and he hit you in a less than mortal position.

Move that lick up into the center of your driver's door, and have it come from a similarly sized vehicle, and you may not be here making that post.

This is why folks in T-Buckets loose their kinetic arguments, regardless of what they run into.

If you can't bring superior engineering to the fight, at least try to bring plenty of mass, and a little luck.

 

I don't think you can make a qualitative comparison like this. The engineers of 3 and 4 generations ago did not have the accumulated knowledge that engineers work from today. Early cars were a transition from horse drawn, wooden construction carriages. Metallurgical science was not far advanced. Engineering had not yet determined the best materials and methods to use. Many innovative but evolutionary dead end concepts came and went as did their manufacturers. A lot of stuff had to sorted through to find out what worked best.
Engineers of the time responded to the needs of the time just as engineers today will do if given a chance.

When you have effective big picture thinkers like Alfred Sloan, the early Henry Ford (discounting his virulent racism and anti semitism), Walter Chrysler etc. who can bring this engineering to use in an effective business model you get well made useful products available to consumers.

Today's engineers have to also adhere to super strict cost controls and meet legislated standards regarding safety emissions, mileage, performance which will force some compromises as well as brilliant innovations to meet requirements.

 

All things considered I would rather take my chances in a wreck with a large size modern car than one from the '50s. I remember what those wrecks were like.

 

All I can say is it seems that a lot of new engineers are crying about having it made,,,,,most of you guys I work with can't fix anything.

But,, to be fair,,I know some that are pure brilliant,,the smartest guys I ever met.
If you are these smart guys,,my hat is off to you.

I am certain that good engineers have been around for a long time.

By the way,,,look at some other old stuff.
U2 spy plane,,SR-71 Blackbird,,,B-52 bomber,,and space race stuff..this was designed by great minds back in the 50's and 60's,,,but to make it all work it took a skilled craftsman.
And these machines are still the best the world has ever seen.
Great minds,,everybody working together.

Again,,my hat is off to the brilliant engineers,you guys are tops.

Tommy

 

The Selectric typewriter is the best machine ever made

(designed in the late 50s)

 

add to that the fact that the mass battle is stacked in your favor today... if the majority of the sh!tboxes on the road today are tercel-esque unibodies and you have a '50s / '60s full frame car, even something small like a late '60s Le Mans, you have a cage around you that no crumple zone can beat... transfer that energy and momentum into the weak link...the sh!tbox.

 

X2......if you're the most brilliant engineer in the world, you still won't get anything done if yer a dick to work with. Brilliance with humility goes a long way.

 

...the want ad stated "some trigonometry helpful". I applied anyway. Get a Machinests Handbook and read it. And keep learning. Have an open mind, think
creatively, have fun and a positive attitude. Engineering is fun and a rewarding career. Aren't we all designer fabricators? Make mine a roadster, thanks.

 

Geez, I could spend an hour answering this post. I'm a 27 year Engineer, the last 15 in Powertrain design. I do everything in CAD, but I build hot rods at home with a lot of old school tools. My observations:

Back in the day, good Engineers rose to management and schooled the young guys. Now, worthless Management grads with no practical knowledge are brought in and beat the hell out of the Engineers and force stupid decisions, mostly cost-based.

Today's Engineers are poor planners. Surrounded with instant communication, they are very poor at looking forward.

Being an engine guy, the EPA gives me nightmares.

The fire power of today's electronics Engineers is mind boggling.

The best Engineer is still the guy that pictures machining the part and assembling it in his mind while designing.

Passion for the product drives a good Engineer. Those that care only about their career or following all the rules will only produce junk.

Farm kids make good Engineers. X-box addicted citiots do not.

I could go on and on.

And I like working with Japanese Engineers. Brits and Germans are arrogant and piss me off.

 

I worked construction before I became a fabricator, I was a fabricator before I was a machinist, and I was a machinist before I was an engineer.

All of those things made me a better engineer than a lot of my peers while I was in school. I am not lost in a shop or on a job site.

I do not scoff at craftsmen, I embrace their advice, that is, when they'll give it. Mostly, I just get generic derisive comments about being booksmart but not knowing anything about the real world. Generic, because I get them on the first day we've met. Not a word or action from me to go on, and already they're sure I'm a moron.

Being a dick works both ways, and I have encountered far more pipe fitters and welders and carpenters who had chips on their shoulders about my education than guys who would offer advice when I asked.

Sometimes they come around and we get along good. Sometimes they refuse to listen to a word I say, and I have to come back in two weeks and figure out a workaround to fix the "solution" they decided on (which had to be better than what I asked them to do). I never get an apology for the wasted time and money. I never rub their nose in it. I've watched guys "I toldja so" some tradesman and then watched the tradesman proceed to fuck up everything he did from then on. Some of it from being mad and not paying attention, but a lot of it out of spite. What's he care? He's working by the hour. No skin off his ass if the job goes over budget and off schedule.

The fact is, sometimes engineers ask the tradesmen to do things that don't make any sense to them, not because we're stupid or "out of touch", but because the tradesmen don't always have the entire picture in front of them. Things don't make sense when they're viewed out of context.

This is especially true of buildings and infrastructure. It may look stupid to joggle a pipe over ten feet before going through the roof, when you've got 40,000 sq ft of roof area, but what the plumber might not know is that directly above that pipe is where a giant HVAC unit is supposed to go, or a big satellite dish is supposed to live, or that spot will allow the vent to show from the ground, or, or, or, see where I'm going with this?

Craftsmen are generally very narrowly focused on what it is they do. That's how they're supposed to be. BUT, that narrow focus makes it hard for them to see the big picture sometimes. When the engineer is in charge, he has to see the big picture, or crap-ups get made (and it's his ass on the line, quite literally, 'cause if something goes wrong and someone gets croaked, he goes to jail).

The old guys give wonderful insight when they're willing, but I have found that many simply are not willing. They made up their minds long ago that all engineers are stupid, and that's that.

Not to imply that there aren't stupid engineers out there. I know a great many of them, and it must be infuriating to work for them, but that doesn't make us all alike.

Just like not all tradesmen are closed minded assholes. I go into every job hoping to find good folks that I can get along with and learn something from, but most of the time, I get disappointed.

 

Coolhand: well said. I wish more of us would view the world like you do.

This thread brings up a good question though. I always did admire the speed and precision that engineers during WWII had, to put out the work they did, it's pretty impressive.

 

I think they were highly motivated...that helps....

 

LOL...the threat of one's existence would tend to help motivation I guess?

 

It's difficult to judge which group of engineers is superior, since the rules, regulations and desired results have changed so radically over the years. Back in the day, the goal was to make a product that could be produced as cheaply as possible, could be repaired easily by someone with limited skills, and had a design that would appeal to the largest number of buyers. Safety features, fuel economy and extended mileage (product life expectancy) were of secondary importance. Most early cars were considered worn out at 80,000 miles or so and valve jobs at 20,000 miles were part of the deal. The bar has been set much higher for today's engineers with ever higher CAFE standards, more mandatory safety equipment and ever-increasing government controls. Also, the customer has much higher expectations with regard to handling, warranty coverage, "bells and whistles" and product life expectancy.

Sorry, got to go with the current people, depite the fact that the early people had to do much more with less.

 

yes i agree with billsill 45 but why in the hell do they make such bad body,s that rust and breake welds after going over a few bump,s ???? engine techonlagy is great with efi we have married computers into car,s and trucks but the body,s fall apart

 

Thank you.

And I agree with you about how things got done during the war.

I am constantly in awe of what American Industry was able to do during WWII. Just the sheer scale and scope of the production, and the leaps and bounds undertaken in development, boggle the mind.

Very impressive, especially given the manufacturing technology of the day.

I dunno about Canada, but I haven't seen a rusted out production car in damned near a decade.

I know GM and Ford both use only galvanized sheet steel in their bodies. They fought with the primer technology for years to get paint to stick to galvanize, but they've got it figured out now.

Fatigue cracks are one thing (more a function of work hardening the sheet), but I haven't seen a car less than 15 yrs old with any rust on it to speak of. Certainly nothing like a mid-70's GM truck (you know, the ones where the bed sides would be rusted plum off of them by the time they hit 60k miles).

As far as I can tell, they've nearly cured automotive cancer. I'd call that one a win for materials and coatings technology more than classical engineering though.

 

CoolHand,
I agree with your views, having lived long enough to retire, working in a couple of fields and encountering engineers quite often I have observed a couple of things.
1) A good engineer communicates to the lowliest workers, and is able to explain the job at hand. He is smart enough to communicate on their level and show respect. When this happens the average worker will break their back to get the job done right.
2) A poor engineer doesn't explain and sees every question as a threat, this breeds doubt in his ability and creates animosity amoung the people who have to ultimately get the job done.
This pertaines to front line engineers, Just an old guys opinion.