OT: Industrial Design and CAD

Your thesis sounds like a good topic for a doctoral dissertation.

For a full evaluation yes. I didn't explain myself well. Sales hype is always worded to make every feature sound amazing. the documentation would tell me a lot more about what it actually does. Not enough to evaluate multi-$1000 CAD tools, but sometimes enuogh for $50 utilities.

I suspect the Honda Element is an attempt to cash in on the market of those who like the boxy looks of the Hummers. I guess it's supposed to look functional or something. I'm just speculating of course. I don't even know if the sales numbers are good on those things.

I am always astounded when I see someone driving one of those things (element), to think he/she actually BOUGHT that UGLY thing. But your speculation is reasonable, considering the lead time required to bring a concept to market- it's just that our tastes did not evolve in the direction they expected.

I dunnno I dare put the Element up against the Aztec for THE most horrible and ugly design of the century award. You have got to wonder how either of thise made it out the gate. And I have to agree, what was going through that persons mind when they were in the dealership. "This boxy, ugly thing...YA know that is just my style."

When it come to the automive industry, I get too heated with the fact that less that 10 of cars actually change from year to year. Though that has been less and less the case. Chrysler's new series is quite inpressive, if you look at in with in context to what they have done in the past. The Pacifica, the300, and Sebring all look damm good.

I was at the show in Detroit this Spring and everything looked the same except Ford's GT and the new mustang. Oh, and VW had an interesting SUV concept. The rest of the show seemed like rehash and immitation.

Criminy, I'm getting hard to impress in my old age.

Oh yah, the Ass-tec.... but that is destroyed by the design of the rear- the rest looks ok I think.

I got to meet a bunch of the damilerchrysler engineers when they came up to our plant about a year and a half ago- our company was looking to get a contract to supply them with the perforating punches they were going to need and they needed to make sure I could deal with their cad (catia). really big bunch of americans in casual wear. style is one thing, substance is another...from what I hear damilerchrysler has a lot of problems with their cars in terms of their engineering. i was considering getting one and just about everyone i spoke to warned me about their 1st & 2nd hand experiences. it sounded like kia.

actually if mr howard pursues his theory he should try to meet with the automotive engineers from a bunch of manufacturers and see how thier cad evolved and how it affected the design process. but thinking of it further, as I recall damilerchrysler were using version

4 catia, not 5- so their cad software did not evolve along with the rest. so i guess if the software they use is typically slow to change then this cad design theory is blown too. sorry.

Laz

OH man dont get me started on the new Mustang. The early concept version that was looking like the rugged muscle car that it is supposed to be was NICE. Was a nice throw back to the old days and the Shelby. NOw...I dunno what happend. Maybe it was marketing and sales that got to it. Google those pics down, the lines on it are toned waaaaaaaaaay down.

The hummers get there look from the tools used to make them. On a real hummer (Not the crappy H2) you can see that the body and frame parts were made with standard press brake tooling instead of stamping dies. As well other low tech methods were employed in the design. Is this so in a war the whole pool of small shops in the US can be utilized for production or was it because the makers could not justify $$$ machined die sets, who knows but the design tools and the manufacturing tools both play a part in design.

Yeah, I noticed that the several parts were vacuum formed instead of injection molded. Cheaper for small runs, but not a very slick look.

Mark B.

I wonder what the actual production quantities are for the civilian version. I also wonder if any of this has to do with maintainability in the field for the military version.

A guy I know had contact with a Designer who worked on the Aztec (yes, the designer actually admitted to being involved). The designer said that the original design was actually pretty cool, but some part of the glass technology didn't work out and they had to make an 11th hour change that gave us the final Aztec. This could explain why the rear is what destroys the whole thing.

Or maybe I was lied to and the whole vehicle was just a practical joke perpretrated by a sick design team. That would also explain it.

That's a interesting post; I wonder what they were originally trying to do. but also, why did they keep the back-end in sucessive years when they had the time to fix it ?

Failure makes for far more interesting stories than success.

I disagree...I think it would be far more interesting to look over the shoulders of the designers at ferrari than say jordan, ducati than honda...lance armstrong is far more impressive than jan ulrich. failure provides an opportunity to learn to avoid failure-

Personally, I like success. I read IBD's "Leaders and Successes" column every day.

However, if you want to get pe> > Failure makes for far more interesting stories than success.

there really are far too many steps with sw to do fairly simple or basic things- don't get me wrong i love working with sw; and this is not to compare sw with other cad software, because i don't have any real experience with many other cad systems- that said however, i do find myself avoiding some things in sw because i didn't want to head down that path unless i absolutely had too, now ok, maybe that means i'm not a good cad operator by having the software impact the design, but it does also say the software is not there yet either. ( my opinion )

Laz

I think someone from Renault came over and infiltrated into Honda, that is the only real explination that I can come up with for why the Element looks sooo sexy. ;)

He he he - I have gone this way too. I've turned my back on those funky snow-brushes and I now use the old wooden handle one like back in the 60's when those things did an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. It has not broken yet, and yes, it looks like something that only has utility and no "sizzle", but who needs "sizzle" when there's an inch of ice on your windshield?

I must say that I am intrigued by all the two shot molding that goes into the tooth brushes these days - that is still a complete mystery to me that I awefully gaze upon with confusion and admiration.

I too have been afflicted by industrial desingers galore - I married one and my brother is one as well. I do love their creativity and the world is better because they are around, BUT when was the last time I slapped on a black beret and a unibody suit carrying a book by Jean-Paul Sartre and declared myself an artiste simply because of cap screw placement? The ID folks sometimes come down with a really bad case of that, like they were haute-couture clothing designers . . .

I still want to ram my fist into the gut of the guy who designed that "neat" tent that my kids love (can't throw it out) that I cannot get back into a flat form, you know, that one with the two intertwined rings that can be (in theory) collapsed like a bandsaw-blade into a nice tidy flat package . . . many family fights revolved around that thing

"no take the other end and pull that in"

;)

SMA