> Surely not this kind of manufacturing.
No. Most of those cars epitomized "tacky" before TV elevated the word
from the rural south to global slang. But at least they had audacity
(or, better, chutzpah).
Cars for the last couple of decades, with the possible exception of
Chrysler's PT Cruiser, have all looked like brightly painted
cow-flops. But then, my mechanic tells me that the PT cruiser has a
cam/valve design flaw such that the predictable failure of a $20 belt
can trash the engine. And those cars of 50+ years ago weren't
strategic regulatory game pieces, either. The PT Cruiser reportedly
was carefully designed to meet the regulatory specs for "light truck"
in order to jigger Chrysler's fuel consumption statistics.
IMHO, that jiggering with the fuel efficiency stats is yet another
little factoidal instance of the growing complexity catastrophe. Is
there any way that any one could infer that particular design
criterion from looking at a specimen of the car? (I'll have to ask my
mechanic if he knows that.)
There's a principle there, somehow, that I can't quite pin down.
- Mike
--
Michael Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada .~.
/V\
[email protected] /( )\
http://home.tallships.ca/mspencer/ ^^-^^
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
