(800) 853-2651
SHOP NOW

Thoughts on engineers.. let's hear yours

Yesterday's Tractor Forums
N

NCWayne

Well-known Member
I read the post the other day where the guy got slammed by some fellow (an architect, basically something of an engineer) for asking the weight of a steel beam. Then I see a reply to the post 'found on road dead' where one guy was talking bad about CAD programs and another guy who, engineer or not, was defended them. Seeing those posts and reading my Machine Design magazine, which is basically aimed at engineers, got me to thinking about some things. First most engineers I've known had a 'complex' that they new everything and were better than the rest of us. Funny thing is I had a frend knew one that couldn't even change his own tire. He probably could have designed the drivetrain but couldn't change a tire.
That presents one of the biggest problems with todays engineers, many of them have book smarts but that's about it. They go to colledge and then graduate where their asked to design machines or parts of machines that they have little to no clue what the machine is ultimately supposed to do in the real world. Personally I think before an engineer can design or especially upgrade/change an existing design they should be required to spend time in the field working on and around the equipment their designing. Granted there are new products designed and I understand that but if you make a new machine, say a widget to replace an older machine,say a gidget, then you need to know what that giget did before you can design a proper widget to take it's place. I read articles in Mach.Design and sometimes I feel like their just designing new stuff every year to justify their jobs. I read in Machine Design where these engineers are talking about making a new thingamajig to do exactly what the old style thingamajig did. The old one did it mechanically and was easy to buy parts for locally and repair on your own when it broke, while the new one costs more (may be cheaper but who really cares since it only lasts half as long as the old ones), is now all electronic and using propriatory components, only lasts half as long as the old ones, and couldn't be repaired if you wanted to. Better yet I've read articles where they are taking a machine that, for instance, has 100 parts and they add electronics and another 25 parts in order to 'simplify' the design for the consumer. This kind of logis just doesn't make sense to me. As for the CAD vs a "pencil and paper" I think CAD has it's uses but when it takes the place of a true designer it becomes worthless. In the slide rule days a guy could figure it might take 3 inches to get a part out so he gave 31/8 just to be safe. Nowdays if that computer says it's going to take 2.999 clearance to remove that part, etc then they give 2.999 clearance to work on it. They seem to forget the tollerances on the part are +.003 and minus .001. You can pray your part comes out of the factory being .001 undersize becuse if it's on the high (+003 end it's not coming out. I often wonder if the old guy figuring with his slide rule that he might be 5% off on his calculations so he gave an extra .006 to remove the part. Working on both new as well as old equipment I find alot more of the new stuff that parts don't fit properly here or there, or part A can't come out without a major ovrhaul,all because there's no room to make them fit properly. On the older stuff I only see that problem on rare occasions..
 
Posted before I meant to... My whole thing is that engineers nowdays seem to be simply trying to justify their jobs by redesigning tried and true designs even when there is nothing at all wrong with the old design. Many have never seen the part, machine, etc they have designed and are clueless what they could actually do to make it better in real world use. They rely too much on CAD instead of the real world. Had a guy told me a few years ago that their engineer swore that a 3/4 thick plate would fit in a certain place because "the computer said it would". They said he refused to walk out in the plant to see that the place the 3/4 plate was supposed to go was, in reality, only 1/2 due to design tollerances on several other parts and assemblies. I think my auto mechanics teacher in high school, Mr Miller said it the best I've eve heard. His take on engineers was that "They work in pairs. One comes up with some new and/or dumb a$$ idea and the other finds a place to put it where it can't be worked on"....But that's just his .02 and I have to agree...
 
The best guy to design a product is the guy that uses the product. The engineer is only good for drawing the products pictures to the designers specs. To the engineers. Sorry boys, your not as important as you think you are. Some day these companys will figur that out, at least the ones that servive.
 
I completely agree with you on most points, too many times I"ve come across things that require you take the whole machine apart to replace a small part. And has anyone else noticed that the old machines seem to have lees problems with nuts/bolts seizing in place than the newer machines... case in point, I"m currently working on two tractors, one built in 1966, on which I"ve yet to come across a bolt/nut that won"t undo with just a wrench or socket, but the other machine in my workshop was built in 1997 and had bolts that wouldn"t come undone even with heat (we had to drill them out). I"ve come to the conclusion that engineers should have to do a years service work as a minimum on anything they design... would that help?
Incidentally my brother is an engineer with a large multi national aerospace company, (but he grew up on a farm which might make a difference - he at least knows how to fix tractors and cars).
And has anybody noticed how today parts aren"t made to be fixed just thrown away - and then they stop making replacements...
Got to love engineers, although some of the things they can make today are amazing, and whats get me more is the machines they use to make them.
 
Wayne: let me preface this by saying that in following your posts over the years, you've consistently been one of the most knowledgeable, helpful people on this board, so I mean no disrespect when I say that perhaps you haven't been in both sets of shoes. I'm an engineer by trade--mechanical to be precise, with a nice piece of paper to say I spent 4 years learning enough to be able to be called an engineer. I've spent the last 16+ doing design work for sealing systems at automotive supplier, and currently head up the design and estimating department at my workplace. If you drive a car from one of the Big 3 (and several foreign makes as well), there's a very good chance one of my products is in it. I've published articles in various trade papers (including Machine Design.....), set on committees for the various trade groups (such as ASTM, SAE, and ASME) and I think I've seen enough of the engineering side of the coin to make a reasonable statement on the "design" side of things. Most of the complaints I see relative to designs seem to be reserved for designs that are difficult to work on. Unfortunately, maintenance issues are typically so far down the list of design specifications that they quickly get compromised (and as a side note, ANY design is a long series of compromises) by issues such as manufacturability, ease of assembly, cost, regulatory concerns, safety concerns, weight, interference with other components, etc. etc. etc., to say nothing of making sure the part can actually do the job it was designed for. I also grew up on a dairy farm, and still do most of my own wrenching on my old tractors, vehicles, motorcycles, small engines, etc., so I see plenty of cases where I say to myself "what was that idiot thinking"?, but in most cases I can understand that the fact that Joe Sixpack doesn't have room to get his Crescent wrench on something isn't very high on an engineer's (or an accountant's, who usually have the last say in such matters) list of criteria for a successful design. On the subject of CAD, any modern CAD programs is fully capable of including tolerances into the base dimension, and in addition, CAD gives a number of ways of optimizing tolerances that would be nearly impossible to do by hand--I know, as I've had to do tolerance stackups manually on old "paper" prints, and it's a rip-tailed snorter--it's a whole lot easier to plug in the tolerances and let the program do the work for you, particularly when you've got a few hundred points in 3 dimensions to do! While CAD (like anything) can be misused, the days of "well, we'll just give it a little extra to be safe" are unfortunately long gone. By the time you give a "little extra" on a few thousand components, things like cost, fuel mileage, reliability, regulatory issues, weight, etc. have went out the door. Very few if any parts (and exactly none at any company that has any sort of automated, computer-controlled manufacturing equipment) are designed on paper these days, and that trend will only increase in the future. CAD is such an incredibly powerful tool that it's safe to say it's one of the single largest reasons for the improvements in manufacturing that have taken place over the last 20-30 years. It allows (among many, many other things) designers to make corrections and adjustments without having to actually make a part, test it to fit, make another, test it again, etc. and allows the testing of complete designs and assemblies to be done before a single part is ever actually made "for real", with a degree of accuracy that's incredible--many times within a few tenths of a percent of "actual" values once the final design is made and tested. Again, this isn't meant has a poke at you, but having seen both sides of the coin, rest assured that in 99% of cases, there's a very good reason why something was done the way it was, even if it may not be immediately obvious to the casual observer. Engineering is a never-ending quest to achieve the impossible, and each time the impossible is achieved, it becomes the new "normal", and the bar for "impossible" gets reset. That's the reality of today, and what gets an engineer up in the morning!
 
Sad but true in many cases - I dated a gal last year that has an engineer for a brother in law.
This guy was 38 years old and did not even own any basic tools.
His in laws gave him a socket set for Christmas and the look on his face said it all - like "What will I ever do with these"
Of course he always had an attitude around me when it came to mechanics - he thought he knew more than me - I have been a professional mechanic for 20 years. Best just to let em think they are smart.
 
OK I admit - I secretly wish I were an engineer rather than a "lowly" mechanic.
But rest assured it takes a smart cookie with a different set of skils to be a good mechanic these days with modern day electronics and feedback computerized systems getting more complex every year.
It takes a special kind of person to diagnose this modern equipment accurately and without wasted time and replacing only parts that are needed.
 
As an engineer, (retired) I find you comments very interesting and I think you make some valid points. Like most non-engineers, however, you have this idea that one design engineer spends all his time thinking of what or how HE/SHE isgoing to design a major system and then design it.

Let me share some of my 34+ years of aircraft engineering experience with you. (I believe it to be similar to what those at other transportatation equipment manufacturers would experience.)

It may surprise you to know that engineers take direction from company project management who receive input from marketing, sales, and customer service, regulatory agencies, etc as well as the customers themselves. Design organization are provided with design requirements, cost targets, and schedules. To the extent that all the "real requirements" are captured by the design requiremnts depends on how accurately all this imput is communicated to the design community. Notice I used the words "design community". No one engineer designs a complete product. The job is broken into pieces and design teams design the sub parts and work together to integrate the parts into the whole. We used to say that "an airplane is a million parts flying in formation".

Only relatively recently was "manintainability" a big issue. I don"t believe that it should have been that way but the big wigs from the customer who buy the product and the big wigs from the manufacturer who design and manufacture the product set the major requirements and, in the past, these guys didn"t give a darn about things like maintainability because it was such a samll part of the cost and profit picture that they didn"t care.
Then along came deregulation of the airline industry and it went from a "cost +" industry to an out and out free enterprise competeitive business like the automotive industry or McDonald"s etc, and every cost issue became important. It took about 10 years for the impact of airline deregulation to finally get to the impact of design on things like maintainnability. Then it got put into the design requirements and suddenly engineering was designing for it. The company I worked for spent billions on software and brought airline mechanics in from all over the world to participate in the design process to make sure it happened. And every new airplane is better from the last one in this regard. So that"s an simplistic synopsis of the aircraft product development. I will say this, having worked with airline mechanics and airline service personnel. They can"t agree on everthing, so compromises abound and the guy that doesn"t get his way cries in his beer that "those damm engineers didn"t listen to ME!" That"s life.

The same things are true in the automotive business, farm equipment, etc. The maintainability in the modern automobile leaves a lot to be desired from my viewpoint because I like to fix things myself. But you know what? Me and my kind are in a very, very, small minority. Most people just want to turn the key and drive off. So the manufacturers are concentrating on reliability not ease of maintenance. (And they"ve done a darn good job of it, in my opinion. I remember when it was something to get 100,000 miles on a car. I have a "91 Toyota p/u on our ranch that"s at 240,000 miles and still going. It"s a B**** to work on though i don"t have to work on it too often!)Also dealer"s service bays have become a real profit center so the manufacturer wants to help encourage their use.

It has nothing to do with the age, experience, or talent of the design and product development engineers and what they CAN do. It"s what the design requirements dictate they MUST do or they can go flip burgers at McDonald"s.

I know there are those they say this explanantion is just an excuse to blame somebody else. You can think that way if you want but the reality is that it"s the voice of the consumer and their wants and needs that the manufacturer"s care about. When a significant number of buyers who are "do it yourselfer"s" say that maintainability is important and buy a car for that reason, they will change their design requirements. I wouldn"t hold my breath waiting for that to happen, though.

From an engineer whose been there!
 
gotta admit i've scratched my head sometimes wondering why a certain thing was made or put together a certain way,but ya gots to look at the big picture. I didn't go to a fancy school but i can figure out most things, how to get something out or put it in,how to fix it and sometimes how to make it better,just never had the papers to say i knew these tings(never had the paycheck that said it either)lol
 
Hey Tim, I agree with you in that any design is a compromise of many different variables. Too I realize that alot of the design paramaters are thought up by a marketing person, etc and it's up to the engineer to make their vision a reality so in the end it's the engineer that gets cussed. Still I see all the different designs out there nowdays and have to wonder WHY SO MANY. True CAD and other programs let you design parts faster without prototyping, but that just makes it easier to throw something together faster,and make more changes than are absolutely necessary. More often than not it seems we end up with the most complicated gaget the world has ever seen and it's done in record time. Gone are the days of find a good design, really testing it under real world conditions and then and sticking with it until you were sure you had something better. Nowdays it's come up with something today on the computer, test it there, put it in production,find the real world problems later, redesign, and start the process over (and over and over and over on some occasions, or so it seams) at the expense of the consumer. If you take, for instance, some of the old Northwest or Bucyrus Erie cranes that I often work on, heck even some of the older CAT machines, there were many different models of all brands and there were technolicical advances over the years, but on each succesive design, on each larger design they carried over many of the details from previous designs. True some of the smaller machines necesitated a certain design for a certain function and they used that design until the machines got too large for it to be viable, or until technology demanded a change such as going from manual controls to air or hydraulic, pony start to electric, etc. Still you could find many parts that fit say an old manual #6 Northwest machine from say the early 60's that also fit an 80D from the early 80's. The controls on a 30B BE were basically the same as those on a 25B, the mechanisims were basically the same only the parts were designed a little larger, the same pony fit a CAT dozer that fit a grader that fit a marine engine, etc etc etc. Try that on just about any machine nowdays and you'll be out of luck. Back then once the machine got too big for one thing to work they changed the design and then as the machines got larger they simply made the part larger to accomodate it and keep the basic design the same. Nowdays, it's make a completely new part, do the complete control process different and change it again when it doesn't work. Even with cars and trucks from the same era, the same points in a 302 Ford engine fit a 361, 390, 391, etc. and with Chevrolet it was the same way. Nowdays every mfg feels they have to come up with some new design, some completely new way of doing things, or whatever every year, sometimes several times a year, and more often than not several times on the same model in the same year. Many times I know it's the EPA is to blame for much of it but even that could be controled if the automakers really wanted to. Thing is they don't because changes every year, to so many OEM specific parts, simply guarantees them a steady parts business until they decide to quit carrying them and then it means the consumer has to buy a new one. In other words build a throw away machine using planned/designed obsolescence instead of designing and planning for the machine to last and actually be repaired. Throw into all that they often source parts from vender A for a month and then find them cheaper from vender B for 6 months and then from vender C for another 5 months because vender B got bought out and closed down. Granted that isn't the engineers fault but many times changes like that are made that the engineer has no control over yet the fault still gets laid on his shoulders in the end because "the parts don't fit" due to vender A who's part the design was engineered around maintained a +/-.002 tollerance but by the time they got to vender C the tollerance was relaxed to .005. I routinely work on a rock drill who's design was bought and sold several times. By the time it made it back to the origional OEM the tollerances had been converted to metric, as well as roundeded up or down here and there during the process. I routinely talk to the guys that origionally designed it and they said they had one heck of a mess to clean up when it got back to them. As far as the impossible becoming the routine I understand that too. Still there have to be some limits as to how far we push technology, how far we go trying to satisfy a consumer that in reality is never going to be satisfied anyway. Heck did you see the article in Machine Design some time back where some of the engineers that wrote for them tested all these new cars and the technology incorporated into them? Yes, "the consumer" test groups had come up with all these things on their wish lists that allowed their car to do everything but wipe their butts for them and the guys designing the cars had done their best to accomodated their wishes. In the end the engineers testing them couldn't figure out how to actually use half of the things that were on the test vehicles. If they couldn't figure it out what makes you think that the average Joe that bought one would ever figure it out. Not to mention with everything so integrated nowdays it isn't hard to see a part, system, etc that's not actually needed causing a problem that shuts the car down, or worse something that seems like a good idea and is done for a "good" reason, but in reality creates a nightmare for the consumer. I saw a mention in one post about the new sealed automatic transmissions...good idea in some cases but bad when they leak...OH well, future work for the dealership as long as it makes it through the warranty period. Jumping back to equipment in general, look at hydraulic fittings. Used to be JIC fittings were everywhere, now you don't know what your going to find. They designed ORFS fittings and used an oring to handle higher pressures than JIC could supposidly handle yet I've seen JIC fittings routinely handle the same pressures without leaking. Thing is within a few years the oring in an ORFS fitting gets a compression set to it do to heat and pressure and starts to leak. Try explaining to a customer the only way to stop all the leaks is to tear the machine down at a substantial cost in order to access all the different connections and replace maybe $25 worth of orings. Funny thing is CAT used the same basic connection for years starting WAY back, on lower pressure systems than todays, and guess what they typically leaked after a few years...Why didn't todays engineers learn from the past??? Heck to add insult to injury I encountered a ORFS fitting awhile back on a "gray market' machine where the female half was "standard" to what I see on other machines while the male half wa machined differently and used a funky shaped ring instead of a standard oring...WHY the difference in 'the same' fitting??? Your guess is as good as mine because they both sealed the same pressures on the same systems. From the consumer standpoint it's just more parts to have to keep up with. In the end I understand the need for engineers, I understand the desire to overcome the impossible but come on, there has to be some real thought put into things such as "do we really need to change that part or is it still good", are there any real, are there benefits to changing this or that or is it just for show, do the benefits to the enviroment justify the changes or is throwing it away and making a new one gonna cause more pollution that letting the design run on for another year or two. In other words technology is great, heck we're all using computers right now if that says anything, but at some point there have to be limits......
 
I worked with civil engineers for 33 years, and the best ones all had a farming background. I took them for granted a lot because most of the stuff we did was "textbook" stuff that anyone could do with a little experience and simple instruction. When I got into more technical stuff I realized that they had something that I didn't have. Things like bridges across the Mississippi river aren't just thrown together by chance the way I'd build something in my little shop. I always said I could design and build an airplane, but it would be too heavy to fly. My brother was a civil engineer and he couldn't change a sparkplug. The other four of us brothers never could understand how the basic mechanical knowledge that we all had could have bypassed him. Who do you think we all turned to when we had a complicated math problem though? He could figure things in his head that I couldn't figure on a calculater, and I used one every day of my life. I loved him 'cause he was my brother, and also because he was humble enough to know that he DIDN'T know every thing about everything. I've been around a lot of good engineers, and some not so good - just like any other profession.
 
Check out my reply to TimV. Short version if you don't want to read it all...I understand all your points but at some point there has to be a limit set. Who or where those limits are going to come from is the big question. Consumers can have an unrealitic wish list a mile long, just like a kid in a toy store, but when the mfgs/parents say NO then the consumer simply has to be happy with what they have. Until that happens Engineers are always gonna get blamed for all the problems, wether they deserve the blame or not...
 
Wayne: I understand what you're saying--technology for technology's sake isn't necessarily the best thing, but ultimately it's decided by the consumer--if something can be made profitably and people will buy it, it will be made, and if one company doesn't make it, another company will. I saw a cartoon once where one caveman was looking at another one, and both were watching a third throwing a spear. The one looks at the second and says "first clubs, then rocks, and now this--when is this arms race going to end?" Don't suppose I know the answer, but improvements in technology have been going on since caveman days, and I doubt if it's going to end any time soon.
 
These design/engineer problems could easily be solved, this is how. Nobody gets near a college or university untill they are at least 25 with at least 5 years of working at bottom end of the field they want to study. Just my .02 worth. Mike
 
As a proud retired Engineer (BSEE Purdue) and now an Attorney (JD Indiana University)) IM NOT TOUCHING THIS WITH A TEN FOOT POLE LOL..... the rest of ya (if anyone chooses to do so) will have to pass judgment and/or criticize and derate peoples chosen and proud careers and professions whether they be an engineer or a mechanic or a tradesman or a school teacher or farmer or an insurance salesman or WHATEVER. I think its like any professions or careers THERE ARE BAD ONES N THERE ARE GOOD ONES REGARDLESS OF ONES CHOSEN OCCUPATION.....

Im here to help my fellow man in this great hobby we all love n share n repay all those who helped me over the years n Im NOT here to fight or criticize others or their chosen livelihoods or professions, only to share n help others

Sooooooo God Bless yall regardless of your chosen professions n lets all try n get along n help our fellow tractor collectors

John T Retired Engineer and Country Lawyer and darn proud of it
 
I read all of the posts with some amusement. I am a retired production supervisor with 38 years of experience in the manufacturing sector. I have nothing but admiration for the engineers I've worked closely with for those 38 years. Only once did I have to work with an engineer who had the attitude that he was better than the people who worked on the floor. Most engineers are only too happy to work with those that actually produce the product, and in most cases welcome input from the production supervisors and the floor workforce. I guess I might have been lucky, as I never had to work with an engineer who didn't have a clue as to why he designed things as he/she did. Did evetything work the first time we tried something new? Of course not, but they always were able to come up with a workable solution.
 
I've worked around engineers (civil) for 28 years and the best ones have common sense in addition to class room education. Some people has it and some don't. You can't teach common sense in a class room. Some of these auto engineers need to work in an auto repair shop awhile.
 
I think you misunderstand what it is that engineers do. Engineers solve practical problems using science and mathematics. So, for example, if you want to know if a given bridge design will support a a given load, any competent civil engineer can give you an answer. If you ask two different CE's that same question, they should give you the same answer. Likewise, a mechanical engineer can determine if a crankshaft is strong enough to handle a given set of conditions. An electrical engineer can determine if a motor can handle a load, etc.

Now, much of what you're complaining about falls in the realm of design. Design is not a precise science and cannot be expressed in mathematical terms. A good designer combines experience, rules of thumb and imagination to develop an elegant solution to a problem. Many compromises are made when designing any product; it's not always obvious which tradeoffs are acceptable and which are not. I've known great engineers who were poor designers and great designers who were poor engineers. The best engineers have imagination and vision balanced by technical know-how.
 
(quoted from post at 15:12:24 04/02/08) I read the post the other day where the guy got slammed by some fellow (an architect, basically something of an engineer) for asking the weight of a steel beam. Then I see a reply to the post 'found on road dead' where one guy was talking bad about CAD programs and another guy who, engineer or not, was defended them.
Click to expand...

I will admit, I am still a rookie, I have only been at it for 3 years profesionally now, been drafting for 8 counting high school and college and building misc projects on my own for as long as I can remember. For sure there are guys that can do a lot more than I can, but I have been around long enough to know that we don't all get get together and see who can do the best job of stumping mechanics. Like it was said before it is all a matter of compromises.

I also catch some grief too (in good humor), because both my dad and brother are mechanics...
 
I worked almost a year as an engineer for one of the Big 3. Never had any project that was very helpful, useful, or sensible. I could not choose my projects. Went back as electrician where I could be useful. You can't fly if they don't let you leave the next.
 
Now I'm insulted. Having been a practicing engineer for 38 years, and worked on everything from low tech communications to aircraft to spacecraft, its obvious that you see only one small part of the profession, and then from a jaundiced view. People like to complain about engineers not knowing anything of the real world...well, I'll bet I'm a better mechanic/carpenter/plumber/etc., than 95% of the people on this board. Yes, I make my living doing rather esoteric work involving electromagnetics and spacecraft, but I think you'll find most practicing engineers are a lot more practical than you'd like to think.

I have never seen an engineer given the opportunity to re-design something just for the sake of re-design, as you seem to think happens. Nobody would stay in business if they did that. As someone else pointed out, designers work within a whole bunch of constraints. Fortunately for me, I'm one of the systems guys who creates the requirements and constraints for the designers, but I've also done design.

I get just as upset as anyone when I have to work on a something that you can't get to or that requires special tools. Unfortunately, in our society, maintainability is NOT a market driver, and in a lot of instances, neither is reliability. Given the choice between a design that's cheap to produce and one that's easy to maintain, cheap to produce will win EVERY time, regardless of what the engineer may want.

The commercial design world is driven by market pressure, NOT by some engineer. Engineers are tasked to respond to the market by producing products that sell, not necessarily products that are high quality, easy to maintain, etc.

We can all find examples of someone doing something dumb...in fact, I've made my share of decisions that turned out wrong. I'm certain I can find plenty of examples of people in your profession making dumb mistakes, being arrogant, etc., just like you say about mine.

Hope this doesn't come across as being too defensive, but before you make generalizations about some other group of people you ought to make sure you have the whole story. Engineering is a challenging and creative profession. We take technologies that someone has dreamed up, and make them into useful products.

Keith
 
Like in any profession, you have the good, bad, and ugly; Engineering is no different. With time, most engineers, if they have an attitude, will soon find out they don't know everything and can learn from all people involved in the project.

Bottom Line: I think the problem you're addressing is more the personality of the individual, not the profession. I know some "know-it-all" mechanics / plumbers / bankers / teachers / etc It's just something we all have to deal with on occation.

Good discussion point...we all can inprove.
 
You said it very well Keith.

A typical engineer struggles through college frequently paying his or her own way and at the same time learns several different disciplines. Once they graduate they are usually paid less than a low skilled unionized auto worker who never graduated high school. They do not have job protection, guaranteed annual increases, and frequently don't have the same health care services of a unionized laborer. They struggle to pay back the enormous debt that they incurred while attending college.

When they start their career they are expected to hit the ground running and must design for life, for safety, for ergonomics, for manufacturing capability, for assembly and disassembly, to meet a cost objective while using the cheapest materials possible and at minimal manufacturing cost and within a very closely monitored time constraint. The product must meet or exceed the competition in price, performance, and durability.

An engineer is provided with a cost objective and must meet that cost or come back for a redesign which will accomplish the cost target. If they slip up on one design feature and that results in a product defect and warranty return, or high litigation cost they probably are going to be looking for a new job since they don't have the job protections afforded the unionized labor.

Then why on earth would anyone want to be an engineer? It is what they want to do. These people want to be able to design a product that others can use and enjoy even if the purchaser doesn't know or understand who designed and agonized over the balance between cost and serviceability of that product. It is done for self satisfaction.
 
Mechanical engineer myself, hands on guy myself. I'm not as strong in math as many of my peers. I've been told I'm a much better designer though. I do rely on my math strong peers for things I can't do.

I'll agree some things get over engineered, or at least the management of an engineering project lets things get out of hand. I was reading in SAE a couple of years ago they were putting computer modules into taillights in cars. Nice tech challenge, many problems with concept.

We get a bad name interfering with trades and techs but it can be amazing the types of mistakes made when you don't have a science background. Just as amazing as engineer mistakes with no hands-on background. So I'd say both sides of the puzzle are needed and great things can be achieved when both sides work well together!
 
Hey there;
Just one simple question. WHY can't these
HIGHLY EDUCATED "injunears" realise how
much simpler it would be IF, the fuel tank
inlets were ALL on the driver's side??????
As it stands people have to wait, till they
can "fit" into the "flow" at gas stations.
I just think it' kinda sad!!
 
I think you all need to give more credit to the accountant than the engineer because no matter how well the part or product is designed the accountant will say make it cheaper, lighter, use Chinese cast iron and child labor because that is what sells.
 
I have one of those cars with filler on the right side. It's a 1981 Mercury Cougar. The better place would be in the center of the gas tank. I've had cars with that setup and you can fill from either side. I worked along side of an engineer for years from PR and he spoke perfect English and Spanish, but when he was trying to remove the driveshaft from his Mustang he called me over and ask for help since he had rounded off the heads of the bolts when trying to remove them. I told he needed another tool and he asked what that was and I pointed to the torch we had. I rolled the torch over and heated those bolts one at time and then used vice grips to loosen them. I told to take my truck and go get new bolts. We may have kidded one another, but we got the job done. He just retired last year.
Hal
6jdn6h0.jpg
 
MarkB_MI,
You're absolutely right about design and engineering. I've seen great designers without an engineering degree and smart engineers that couldn't design a peg to go into a hole. A lot of the things that "engineers" do to ensure that a given design will work (loads, stresses, etc). are now automated. Just today, a designer (no engineering degree) told me we needed to provide more support on a weldment because "controls" had added 1000# of weight and the new deflection on the frame was double. Took him longer to email me that fact than it took the computer to calculate it.

Old-timer: LOL, I agree with you 100%. Makes the most sense to put it on the driver side (less walk time) of ALL cars. I think that's the kind of thing that initiated this topic. It would be interesting to hear from some auto designers as to why it makes sense to put it on the passeger side. Remember when some cars had them behind the license plate at the rear? Getting him from behind presented a real potential catastrophe.

Good topic, lots of good points without ranting and raving.
 
Well I from other country.In my country I am engineer in US I am... ...security guard.The reason it doesnt fit is called MADE IN COMMUNIST CHINA.The older stuff..Made in USA.You know the original Gidget was actually not a bad movie.Sandra Dee.I respect anyone who knows calculus engineer or not.Computers have also ruined blueprints or made them show stupid things.
 
I'd like to know who had the brilliant idea to put the fuel pump inside the gas tank. Used to be, even a tool challenged guy like me could do some repairs himself. Not any more. Seems like so much stuff has to be unbolted/removed just to get at the part you need to replace.

Larry
 
Allright, I"ve been on both sides of the fence and here"s what I think... I started sweeping floors and drilling holes in a machine shop. I worked my way up and finally ended up with ME degree, took 8 years, managing and designing projects for all types of industry.

There is just no substitute for being on the floor or in the field. When you"ve been sent into a tank that held ink and wasn"t cleaned out, know what happens to turkey guts at the rendering plant, know that pillowblock bearing won"t slide past a step on a shaft .250" larger than the bearing diameter and have installed fittings and hardware in a biomedical research facility you have tremendous advantage that you don"t get from school.

That being said, the degree goes a long way toward helping out the paycheck. It gives a measure of credibility and marketability to potential customers that will help get you in the door. Those guys that run finite element analysis on parts to show why you can use thinner sections end up saving weight, materials and ultimately cost. I wouldn"t trade my Jetta TDI in on the "78 Malibu Wagon we had growing up. I"m glad bridges aren"t built based using gut feelings.

There will always be overeducated idiots and lazy whiners. The good thing is that most of us fall somewhere in the middle and it is pretty amazing what we can accomplish. As for me, it was well worth getting up at 4:30 this morning to haul calves to the stockyard because I know I"d be stuck behind a desk and computer the rest of the day. When I get home there is a JD 2755 that needs the water pump put back on it.
 
I agree,once they try and contort their hand to get to something,or spend a day and a half taking something apart just to get to a small part to fix it,they might do a better job of making things.Worrying about whether the average Joe with a crescent wrench can get to it could make the difference between them being employed and unemployed in the future.Every mechanic I know is about sick of this especially in cars nowdays.It seems like they are designed for dealers to work on,and even dealers have a hard time,or dont want to do it.Its making a whole bunch of otherwise good machines,disposable,and at a high price.All it would take is to simplify the design,or make it to where the average Joe could work on it.
Its got a lot to do with management versus labor.Management wants you to buy more cars,labor wants to fix up the ones they had.
They drag up those old failed designs like the o-ring lines because they have a bunch of them on the shelf,or the company that makes them sells them to a manufacturer for a cheap price.Or like you say they dont learn from their mistakes.
 
Please don't be so rough on enginers: A friend's son (good kid) flunked out of enginer school, but still went to college, now he is somebody's doctor!
 
Ultimately, the consumers get what they want because they have many choices in the market place, so they can choose the product that is the closest to meeting their "real" wants and needs. In automobiles, for example, look how many choices you have. There must be at least 20 major manufacturers out there. All the manufactiurers feverishly work to provide what people WANT (as indicated by what they will pay for)so that their product is the perferred product by consumers. Consumers vote with their dollars! If you have what the majority of buyers want, you make a lot of sales so you continue to design the same types of vehicles.

My point was that "ease of maintance" is a factor for maybe less than one in a thousand buyers of automobiles. If that"s true, why would the design requiremnts make "ease of maintenance" high on the "must do" list??
 
There are some very good engineers that are very smart and straight forward. There are also some engineers that overly complicate things. I think a lot of times the latter do it to justify their "engineer status". I can give an example. I worked at a place that was looking at installing a large air compressor on an upper level about 16 feet high or so. The compressor weighed about 4000 lbs. An engineer designed a rather complicated hoist and track system to lift up the compressor and then put it on a cart so it could be rolled on rails onto the upper floor. The floor needed to be reinforced some to support the weight when the compressor was rolled onto it. The compressor then had to pushed down the floor another 2 to 3 hundred feet. As myself and another welder would be building the hoisting arrangement, we were asked to give an estimate what the one time use contraption would cost to build. We figured roughly $4000. I suggested they just rent a telescopic forklift like a zoom boom and save a lot of hassle and money. They checked everything out for clearance and lift height and came to the conclusion it would work. It would be easier, faster and cheaper. I also questioned, that if the floor had to be reinforced where the compressor was first unloaded, what about the floor for the 2 to 300 feet where the compressor had to be moved? The other welder agreed. We never did get an answer on that one. In the end, after paying the engineer to design this complicated mechanism and realizing there was an easier way to do it, the upper management decided they couldn't afford the new compressor. My question, Would you say the engineer in this case was on the ball or just trying to get a chunk of money to justify his "engineer status"? Dave
 
Someone once said an engineer must have designed the human body. Only an engineer could run a waste disposal line through a recreation area.

One of my best friends is a civil engineer, and I couldn't resist running that past him. He wasn't overwhelmed by the humor of it.
 
I work with engineers all the time. Most are great guys. But I don't know why anybody would want to be a engineer now. The pay sucks, the hours are terrible, benefits get taken away at a whim. Lots of stress, no respect. If management can they will replace you or outsource your job in a heartbeat. After 25 - 30 years, you get kicked out for somebody cheaper and younger. There is a good reason this country has a shortage of engineers - the job sucks.
 
What you describe, I used to deal with all the time.

1st, in a situation like that, if you have retained the use of a design professional for a fee, you can't release that person to complete a full design of something without first reviewing the situation and identify what things need to be determined to make it work. Hoisting and live load ratings of the floor is all you needed to determine that.

Field people, trades and similar have a good wealth of knowledge on means and methods in most cases, a designer may not in most instances, but it depends on the background and experience of the person involved, we all come from different walks of life and backgrounds and some who you may think just because they are a designer don't have suitable field experience, might just be a hands on type, not often found but there are some that do have a well rounded background.


A situation like this is a combined effort, field people and the engineer. Instruct the engineer to analyze the floor, provide a design to reinforce it with temporary shores or whatever needs to be done to the floor to accomodate the new equipment, maybe it's load rating had to be increased, only in the area where the equipment, compressor is to be installed, the rest could have been shored temporarily or maybe there was some structural retrofit needed overall and that would also work and was in the budget. Either or, once you have those determinations on the table, you can cost load them; temp shores = x, structural modifications = Y compare and decide what works best there. Now you can achieve the ratings you need, and what the engineer did for you here is very valuable because using my example you have 2 scenarios to compare.


Being a field person you knew the telescopic material handler would probably make the pick, it is an easier thing to determine, then you just needed to make sure the floor could handle the loads once the unit is placed onto it and is to be moved to it's location to complete the excercise.

The engineers idea or plan for a "one of" system to do the same job of hoisting and the rest, was probably unecessary, how could someone release the engineer to commence a design of something that could easily be ruled out in conceptual stage up front ? That is a waste of design time and fees, shows no one did any value engineering nor had any capability to do so up front. It also shows that no qualified person took the lead here, you need that to happen, someone has to take the lead that knows what they are doing and what important answers they need to make it happen, and what things do not apply.

Hoist, yep get me a Lull 844D ( I've used those, they are a great piece of equipment ), ok what does the floor hold, can we shore it, or are we going to permanently beef it up...... done.


There are times when you do need that engineer to do an all out design of something that could be a "one of" 1 time use etc., but that is usually the case on much larger complex projects, like in industrial plants and or similar. I have had a few designed when there was no other choice, that happens too, and from the designers view, it works, can be done but may not provide the best value to an owner or can be value engineered to reduce costs by utilizing more cost effective means.

A little value engineering, collaboration between field people and design people goes a long way to create solutions to complex problems and to keep costs from becoming excessive. Team effort, forget titles, credentials etc., work together and get it done, even if you have to look at multiple scenarios first.

Maybe some designers, consultants do like to fluff up billing hours, I've know a few that seemed to have a reputation for that, but I can tell you one thing, in a situation like yours, someone needed to direct the engineer, not let that person take lead. He billed for hours that rendered a useless and non-applicable design, that also canned the project.

I had one engineer that was the structual engineer of record for a building I was a project manager on, and he would not make 1 lousy site visit to review a very delicate situation that could have collapsed an adjacent building that he designed the underpinning for. The existing building's stone foundation encroached into the new buildings foundation. This is like 2 cars trying to park in one spot, something has to give, and this was holding up my project. Nope, he refused,( in shear arrogance) to look at in the field. I had to make the changes myself and demanded that he take these changes and provide me with a design based on what I told him needs to be done. It cost the owner an additional $55,000, I could not risk collapsing the existing building, so I had to put a slight jog in the foundation, coordinate the masonry shell, eliminate precast concrete plank in that section on that floor and change it to reinforced concrete, my design, he had to calc it and provide the actual details with a revised stamped detail amending the drawings. If I did not take the lead here, this would have screwed up the critical path of the job and caused a sizable delay.

Excellent example for discussion, can't tell you how many situations similar I've dealt with, back and forth with an engineer or other designer, sometimes it's not easy to find solution that can be built and will not break the budget. I find that once you have developed a working relationship with a designer, working as a team, is most effective.
 
My Dad finished 6th grade (not uncommon in the 20s) and went on to work as a drill press and lathe operator for a period in his life. He used to refer to some engineers as "educated fools".
He had an uncanny ability when it came to anything mechanical which (thank God)I have inherited. Having said this, I truly wish that I had taken the appropriate subjects in H.S., had gone to college and become an engineer. I believe there are people out there with a natural
mechanical ability who have an engineering degree and contribute tremendously to the advancement of civilization as we know it.
 
I spent the first 20 years of my adulthood working as a carpenter and welder. At some point in my midlife crisis I went back to school and got a Mechanical Engineering Degree. I was 45 when I finally graduated. I was told that it would be very hard to find work at my age and they were right.
Lots of young malleable minds out there without the baggage of opinions and experience to get in the way. That’s what American manufacturing is looking for these days. I had several long term engineering jobs before I decided that I really liked working for myself far to much to take the daily routine of the mushroom farm (keep you in the dark in a hot room and feed you S@#t until you produce what they want). My last job, I worked for a railroad car manufacturer ,"designing", tank cars and hopper cars. I was a production engineer which meant that I was handed what the sales people had sold the customer without consulting (engineering), and was expected to produce a set of production drawings using as many existing components as possible and attaching to the body of the car all the purchased parts which were specified. Which basically meant that we dusted off an old set of plans (200 plus pages)made what ever minor chnges were needed and sent them on down the pipeline.
In addition we were responsible for submitting all the required paper work to the federal government and various suppliers to make sure that the required components ended up at the plant in time to put the units together. Many of the parts we used over and over again were designed initially in the early 1900’s.
At one point I was called to one of the few remaining assembly plants in the US because they claimed my drawings were wrong. I was somewhat doubtful because quite honestly the same set of prints with some signage changes had been used to build at least 5 other orders of cars with no complaints. However I’ll be the first to admit I make mistakes so I was open to whatever they had to say.
When I got there I found that the welders at the final assembly fixture were using 50 ton jacks, come-alongs and sledgehammers to make the seams of the hopper cars in question line up close enough to weld. Somehow they were making it work but it was a huge mess. At that point they were working on weldments which had been worked on and assembled out of pieces from at least 4 different plants. As I faced the plant manager, 2 floor superintendents, the manufacturing engineer on sight and a crew of welders, I was doing my best to be open minded and try and pull some clue out of the mismatching parts and warped cars coming off the line. They were all mad as hell and somebody had to be blamed.
As far as they were concerned it was my fault.
I asked them if they would work with me to try and figure it out. They wanted me to completely redrawing the prints, saying the prints were crap.
Well the first thing I did was barrow a 4 foot spirit level and a 30 foot tape and start back up the production line checking the fixtures for level and square and angle. One fixture after another I checked with the irate managers breathing down my neck. Sure enough the fixtures all seemed to be fine. But there was one huge fixture at the very end of the line which was hard to get a measure on. It was 14 feet high and 11 feet wide and made out of 3 x 3 angle. My carpenters eye for plumb and true told me something wasn’t right. Then I asked the welders working on that fixture if they were having trouble with this setup. They said that the weldments they were getting were so far off spec that they had to modify the jig to get the pieces in there. Oh really? Modify it how? Just a little here and cut off a little there not much just enough to get their pieces to fit together.

OK so what’s next? I went outside and looked at the weldments which came from across the border. There sat 10 sets of ends of the cars. These massive 5 ton pieces were constructed of about 4 different ¾ and 1 inch thick plates welded together at about a 30 degree angle to one another. You know what a lasagna noodle looks like on the edge. That’s what the edge of the plates looked like after the heat of welding distorted them. Obviously whoever was doing quality control at the suppliers end was new on the job. I went back into the Plant and asked the manager to decide who he was going to back charge for the cost of air arcing the welds on the weldments from Mexico since they were done at a subsidiary of the same company. I told him that I was sorry his parts were so F@@ked up but that the drawings we gave him to build by were good. I told him we would make a special note asking production down there to just tack weld the troublesome joint and not weld solid until final assembly. The fact that his production line was being shipped unusable subassemblies was out of my control. Someone in Monclova Mexico was who he needed to talk to. Talk to purchasing.
End of story
I was looking for another job within a month.
Bottom line.
It was the engineers fault.
 
I think the engineer is on retainer there. The old engineer who was good quit because they were always trying to cut corners. The old one was a welding engineer as well which was a huge benefit. He still worked as a consultant for them at times. It was good because if we came up with a welding procedure that was better, he knew what we were talking about and in every case agreed with our procedure. The boss I had used to work as an ironworker and on a lot of jobs would tell us to just go ahead and do it and the engineer could approve it later! One job in particular was putting in structural floor supports where an elevator used to be. The other welder almost got fired because he refused to do the job until he had a proper set of stamped engineers drawings. By law it is a requirement and he could have had his ticket taken away if he did the job. He was also supposed to have a CWB structural ticket to do the job. What kind of self respecting engineer just goes along with someones ideas without researching them? I can see why the first engineer didn't stay on permanently. It's very hard to work with cheap outfits that always want to do things as cheaply as possible. Dave
 
A few years ago I had an experiance with a real stupid engineer, over a Manuciple tile drain. He claimed that 9.5 acres of our farm was going to enter this tile drain. We hired our own engineer to come and level read our land, and proved that we had 0 acres go into this tile drain, because our land was sloped away from the tile drain. He was giving my Mother a hard time, and I had to interviene. I told this Bozo, that in order for our water was going to work, I would have to turn the whole farm upside down, and when I did that, I also would put the drainage ditch that runs along the back of our farm to the front of our farm. Our farm didn't need the tile drain, like the people across the road. I also told him that our water runs down hill. The farm on the other side of the road is on top of a hill, and our far is on the bottom of this hill. He was convinced that our water was going to enter that drain, and I told him to explain how, at a township meeting, and he couldn't This made our neibours accross the road very angry, and we have not been on speaking terms ever since. We did't have to pay into the drain, because our farm was not going to benifett from the drain, that was put in across the road from our property. ENGINEERS CAN'T USE COMMON SENCE that God gave them. My oppinion any way. Bruce
 
IMHO.. some of the best engineers are ones that went thru a 'technician' stage. ( reguardless of the actual engineering field involved ).

I'm an engineer that ironically.. gets to do mostly 'technician' level work... I actually prefer hands on work vs driving a desk..

soundguy
 
Something i forgot to add... Lots of times engineering staff gets countermanded by bean-counter staff, and administrative staff.

IE.. take this design, and un-engineer it so that it saves 4 cents and becomes just barely adequate so that we can pinch the end user for replacement parts or total unit replacement every 'X' years...

I've worked in places like that... it's frustrating..

soundguy
 
Not to single you out but you should do some spell checking before you post. It makes it easier to read and understand. Everybody has typo's now and then though. There are some very smart engineers, so I don't think it's fair to put them all in the same category. Dave
 
Engineers are guys that drive trains- In their job, someone else tells them where to go and how to get there. And if they fall asleep or die the train stops by itself.....
 
Well - there ARE good ones out there, but most of the ones I have come across/worked with weren't worth the paper their diploma was writen on. Not all are in this boat, but most of the ones I have come in contact with are of the "I've got my diploma, I don't HAVE to work" mentality. I met one in Kansas that had worked for the state for nearly 40 years in the Bridge Design section and had NEVER set foot on an actual bridge project! He could draw them, but was clueless as to how they were actually built. I drug him out to one I was working on, and it changed his whole outlook on life.
Most of them were just lazy.
Again, not saying EVERY Engineer is this way, just what I have run across.
 
Just read this & thought it fit here -

"At that time [1909] the chief engineer was almost always the chief test pilot as well. That had the fortunate result of eliminating poor engineering early in aviation." —Igor Sikorsky
 
for what it's worth... I also am an engineer, also went through a tech college in same field before going to engineering. I enjoy the techwork much more, but the money is better in engineering :)

It is correct that most engineers are good in the books and not real life, I see it everyday!

But I aslo see the tech only guys have a complex about engineers and trying to pit themselves against the engineer. There are very good and intelligent tech's that would have made VERY excellent engineers if they had the balls to go through the schooling required, but now they just sit back and mouth off at the engineer.... who's right, who's better... IMO they both are, each have their stengths and need to work together.
 
Engineer approving something after it is installed, as built....... that is an absolute no no for structural components and violates building codes, to say the least.

I had an erector on a job site who encountered field conditions on structural connections that made what was called for on the stamped drawings, impossible. The design was defective from the start, we ended up re-engineering the entire system. This was a job that we took over after another contractor was defaulted and the bonding company took over, it was a sorted mess, shop drawings and other documents were missing etc.

This erector took the liberty to make field modifications of these connections that needed to be checked by an engineer, he also used materials found laying around on the site. The controlled inspection firm had a full time inspector on site and would inspect every one of these connections, there were hundreds of them. I realized that the erector was technically challenged and fired the company, put my own iroworkers on the job, supervised same, spent weeks on the phone and the fax on site, doing field sketches, solving these connection problems, and installing connections per a set of stamped details and calculations that were heavily amended to reflect all the odd conditions we discovered on site. The new building we were attaching our connections to when being constructed was not properly coordinated, dimensions blown, tolerances not maintained, it was a real disaster job, if that erector was left to do what he was doing, we would have had every connection rejected, the job would have been a huge loss, and if one of those connections failed, someone could have been killed.

I had 2-4 ironworkers up on articulated boom lifts for months welding, they were required to have city of new york dept of building welding certifications, usually achieved in apprentice school, and the specifications made reference to AWS criteria, that the inspector enforced, my erector wanted to fight him on that, some people just don't have what it takes to recognize what really needs to be done, the job made 15% profit, and in 1 month I got more acceptable work in place than this erector completed in 3 months, a very good call to get him off the site.
 
I work in a water plant ( hence the name) that just went over a major expansion. To make a long story short the head civil Engineer to the district Sup. that if you remove 3 gallons of water and replace it with 2 you will never run out of water. I gues now a year later, ( millions of $$$S later) a whole lot of stuff really dont work
 
One hundred and some odd years ago, we had no comercial airplanes, airports, freeways with overpasses, High rise buildings, instant global communication, reliable power, medicines for common diseases, etc, etc.

Engineers helped bring all of these things to the average person like myself. My daughter is alive today because a doctor engineered a solution for her issue, when he could have just said sorry, I cant do anything for you.

All humans want a better life and are at some level engineers who are trying to make their life or if they are very generous, someones elses life better.

The issue here is with egos and personalities.
 
Not quite sure I follow the analogy.. but some projects are just doomed to fail anyway.. especially ones run by commitie.

soundguy
 
I think there are a number of problems in the engineering field. There is certainly a need for more "GOOD" engineers today then ever before. As there is a need for good______ (fill in the blank) for whatever field you want to describe. One problem is that alot of people go into a field because it "pays" more than another weather they have a gift of ability there or not. We all want a better bottom line. If a company wants 100 more engineers for R&D dept, they may hire all 100 but, how many of that bunch are true "engineers" and how many are pencil pushers? An engineer should have a good mechanical understanding of what he/she is working on not just a bunch of theories.

I am a machinist and have bumped heads on more than one occasion with engineers. There have been days I would like to have sent them all to the bottom of the ocean in a cement box. Then again I have worked with some really good engineers who could design stuff real well and even some who could run the machines I was running.

One other thought is that sometimes when you see a really dumb mechanism being used keep in mind it may not have been the engineer who wanted it released that way. There are accountants (remember Detroit shoving the donut spare tires down our throats which saved like $14,00 per vehicle or something like that)? Some times it's the CEOS of the company in a big rush to make the $$$$ for himself. (Can anyone using Vista on PCs relate)?

You have good ones and bad ones in every field. Just like teachers, doctors, scientists, laborers, even lawyers -only I can find no real evidence that there are "good" lawyers so, that may just be a rumor.
 
That also happens on older equipment. I'm working on a 1941 VC Case with a Continental engine. I was missing part of the governor-carburetor linkage but found replacement parts on another tractor. When I went to put everything together. I did not have clearance between the carburetor and the block to fasten the rods to the throttle shaft; I had to buy a complete carb kit just to get a new throttle shaft with the lug on the shaft closer to the carburetor and I had already put a kit in the carburetor. I've replaced that but I now have another clearance issue so I think I'll have to remove the gas tank to get everything lines up.
Years ago my dad used to cuss the "smart engineers" who designed our Massey_Harris Super 26 combine as nothing was easily accessible on it.
 
(quoted from post at 18:09:23 04/02/08)

7 words that construction superintendents hate to hear..........
"I'm an engineer. I'm here to help."
Click to expand...

Yeah.... back in the 60s (before CAD, calculators, PCs, etc.) I worked as a draftsman at HP's facility in Co. Springs, CO and there were degreed and non-degreed engineers, draftsmen and designers in the unit that I worked in. I've got to say that having a degree or not doesn't have much to do with engineering 'savy'. There were good ones and bad ones of both stripes. Common sense and a real desire to overcome the design challenges presented on a daily basis makes the difference but a combination of that coupled with the necessary education and experience made some of those guys superstars in my young eyes. One of the best engineering managers I ever worked for had a sign posted that read [b:3c114b2316]'Last week I couldn't even spell enganeer; now i are one!'[/b:3c114b2316] His message was clear: [i:3c114b2316][b:3c114b2316]You can fool the fans but not the players[/b:3c114b2316][/i:3c114b2316] So every one knew that when he asked how your part of the project was coming you didn't BS him; you told it like it was or ...... :shock: He did'nt care about what you knew or thought you knew, what degrees you had or didn't have - he wanted straight answers BUT he was, also, as fair a man as I've ever known. So there are, as in any profession, three kinds of engineers: The Good, the Bad and the Ignorant...... My 2¢
 
Hello NCWayne.
Engineers make revisions not mistakes.
They star with rev/a.
When you see rev/aa That is the 27th time they are trying to get it wright, having gone through the alphabet ones already!
Guido.
 
I started out in my career 20 years ago working for an engineering firm. Met lots of young big feeling engineers who had no field knowledge at all.I could not believe it. doing design and not having a clue what equipment actually looked like!!!
.Met some Brit engineers who started off as tradesmen then progressed to the engineering field them boys knew there stuff..inside out ,Cocky ,,yup ,but they were good.
I've butted heads with a few engineers over the years and,Have been proved wrong as many times as right.
Get a big feeling engineer just ask em what there Engineering ring stand for ...
Now as a lowly Instrument Tech with lots of engineers for bosses and Technical contacts I've again seen good ones bad ones ..But What they know I don't want to and I will gladly use them as a resourse.My brain can't keep all them numbers and things ..But I don't like it when they think they know MY JOB.
20 years experience is as good as a degree in my books .
The best Engineers we have on our site ask the operators their opinion and don't assume they are smarter then a guy who's been running a machine for 20 years..Them boys will bury a Technical contact right quick ,oh you want me to run the machine like that OK!!
Bottem Line others have said it .It's more an Ego/personallity thing then a profession issue..
Now lets give it to all them electricians out there who don't know nutt'en!!!!!:)
 
Re: Vista!! Yes, i know exactly what you mean! I could/would personally like to shove my copy of Vista where the sun don't shine! And, i'd gladly go back to Win 98!
My dear wife said our old machine was too old, got a new one with Vista, and i've been lost ever since. Lost all of my drawings and special items, can't send out the new drawings, all junk!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Yesterday's Tractor Forums
Buy Tractor Parts Here Buy Tractor Manuals Here

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Copyright © 1997-2025 Yesterday's Tractor Co.

All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.

Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy

Back
Top