Concerning auto design and "extra gadgetry", "The Ten Most Decadent Options" may be of interest:
http://autos.yahoo.com/articles/autos_content_landing_pages/849/the-ten-most-decadent-options/ On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 4:48 AM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > The arguments for good design involve issues beyond the formal elements as > discussed in the article Berg posted. Sometimes those other issues, cost, > audience preference, manufacturing habits, etc., take precedence over the > formal concerns even when they don't need to. Sometimes bad design, or I > should say, bad design arguments, lead to stupid and ultimately costly > decisions. Nowhere is this more evident than in the design and manufacture > of > American automobiles from the 1950s onward, even to today. > > Look at 1950s ads for American autos to see what I refer to. These ads > emphasize style length, heaviness, engine power, extra gadgetry, and so > forth, > all features that led to the demise of the American auto industry. How did > this happen? The answer is very simple. Somewhere in the 20C American > manufacturing became a top down enterprise that led by marketing people and > not engineers and design specialists. The engineers and design people were > told what to make based on surveys and marketing results, including the > wide > use of psychological preference models. Almost all American manufacturers > of > consumer products, led by the auto industry, were led by marketing people, > those who rose through the ranks as sales experts, and they in turn stuffed > their corporate broards with similar colleagues while the engineers and > designers were relegated to more passive positions. > > Thus with sales and costs uppermost, engineers were led to allow much wider > specs for parts and materials and they were forced to incorporate fanciful, > trendy exaggerations of design more suited to the fashion industry than to > industrial manufacturing. Most of all, the basic philosophy of American > manufacturing was changed to "make it only as good as it needs to be" -- > mindful of fashion and programmed obsolescence -- and away from "as good > as > it can be" -- the prevailing ideal of 19C industry. > > We all know how crummy American autos were after the mid 1950s. They broke > down frequently because the engineering tolerances for parts were too wide > (and poorly fitted moving parts wobble,wear out, and easily break). They > rusted out after a few years and were hugely uneconomical. ANY Japanese car > was better than any American car because the Japanese manufacturing was led > by > engineers (not marketing heros who never held a wrench) and could make > turnaround imporvements in weeks whereas any American car change took years > because it was tied to fashion overhauls, not incremental performance and > endurance improvements. Further, the Japanese held to tight specs and > continually sought manufacturing improvements and economical costs. > European > autos were also better than American autos but unlike the Japanese favoring > of > economical methods/design/function they did not care about higher > manufacturing costs that came with higher quality and thus aimed at the > luxury markets. > > This is a long and sad story, easily verified in the literature. Until > there > is a genuine shift away from the American imperialism of wide-smile > marketing > and a restoration of an attitude to make things as well as they can be made > -- > with the use of newer methods and cost-saving materials -- we will not see > a > return to the great American economy we thought was our birthright. > > Push for getting the engineers and designers, with their rolled up sleeves > and > procket protectors back into the front windowed offices and reseat the > bespoke > suited salesmen in the inside offices where they don't have as much > authority > to tell a engineer to put a doo-dad in and take a washer out. > WC > > > > > > --- On Thu, 3/19/09, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: joseph berg <[email protected]> > > Subject: "Innovation of new objects seems to go more and more toward the > development of tawdry junk for the annual Christmas gift market.b > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Thursday, March 19, 2009, 12:00 AM > > http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20090318/a-good-argument
