Please Define "Simplicity"

[rbattelle]

I see lots and lots of references across the TDR to this eclectic thing people call "simplicity". For example, many people point out that the 12v engines are "simpler" than the VP-44 or CP-3 trucks.



Webster's definition of simplicity:

the state of being simple , uncomplicated, or uncompounded

And Webster's definition of simple:

free from elaboration or figuration

or

readily understood or performed

rbattelle's definition of machine simplicity:

minimum part count

Such that between two machines the one with fewer parts is "simpler".



As someone who holds simplicity as a supreme virtue (in a machine), I have my own definition of what is "simple". I'm interested in what others' definitions of "simplicity" are, because I think there are lots of opinions around here that differ from my definition.



-Ryan

[Does this even belong in the general diesel forum? Maybe it's "other"?]

 

[Dl5treez]

I think it's not so much that 12 valves are simpler, as it's a common fear of many of electronic "gremlins" that make mechanical parts/mechanical systems more comfortable to some.



My father is that way--he's much more comfortable with systems he can understand & repair, and does not in any way like newer electronically controlled systems on today's vehicles. He appreciates his power windows, likes that his forearms don't burn from 165 degree tower temps while running his shovel--thanks to fly-by-wire hydraulic systems, and will go on & on about how lovely it is to have mirrors and windows that stay clear & dry in even the harshest of winter storms. Just don't ask him to diagnose or repair any of it.



To me, electronics have made systems "simpler" on the surface. There are, however, many areas where *overcomplication* over-rides any simplicity gained by technology..... HEUI fuel systems come to mind.

 

[SRadke]

To me, electronics have made systems "simpler" on the surface. There are, however, many areas where *overcomplication* over-rides any simplicity gained by technology..... HEUI fuel systems come to mind.

Aint that the truth.



-Scott

 

[BigEasy]

I define simplicity as a proven design with half the valves and NO electronics

 

[67guzzler]

I got your point Ryan. Basically I think people when they refer to 12V's as simple(r) are thinking of the lack of electronics mainly. No drive by wire, etc... .

 

[rbattelle]

Does failure to understand a system or component automatically classify it as "complex"?



What, exactly, makes a throttle cable and it's associated mechanisms simpler than a drive-by-wire system?



-Ryan

 

[Rocketdoc]

I'll go with Al Einsteins' approach: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. "

 

[TKingsbury]

To me, electronics have made systems "simpler" on the surface. There are, however, many areas where *overcomplication* over-rides any simplicity gained by technology..... HEUI fuel systems come to mind.

I think you are confusing "user friendly" with simplicity in the first sentence. They are not necessarily the same. As for the HEUI statement, alot of people (including some on this site) believe their common rail trucks are better than the "others" because they aren't HEUI motors. Well, I hate to break it to ya, but they are just like the rest. The only difference is the cummins uses high pressure fuel instead of high pressure oil to drive the injector. While this system is simple in theory, I believe it is simply not as reliable as a mechanical system.

Travis. .

 

[Dl5treez]

Does failure to understand a system or component automatically classify it as "complex"?

To many people, yes..... unfortunately.

I think you are confusing "user friendly" with simplicity in the first sentence. They are not necessarily the same. As for the HEUI statement, alot of people (including some on this site) believe their common rail trucks are better than the "others" because they aren't HEUI motors. Well, I hate to break it to ya, but they are just like the rest. The only difference is the cummins uses high pressure fuel instead of high pressure oil to drive the injector. While this system is simple in theory, I believe it is simply not as reliable as a mechanical system.

Travis. .

That's why I said "... 'simpler' on the surface. "



I didn't bring up the HEUI system to debate it's pluses & minuses versus common rail systems, I only used it as an example of how technology can sometimes breed overcomplication. Factually common rail is less complex than HEUI, though.

 

[rbattelle]

Well, I hate to break it to ya, but they are just like the rest. The only difference is the cummins uses high pressure fuel instead of high pressure oil to drive the injector. While this system is simple in theory, I believe it is simply not as reliable as a mechanical system.

Travis. .

This is not true. The injectors do not use high-pressure fuel to fire. They use electrical solenoids.



-Ryan

 

[Joe G.]

One thing to consider is that the code to run the electronics is NOT simple. Process control programming can really get complex. It is hidden of course, but that does not make it simple. If we count a line of code as a part then there are many many more "parts" in electronic systems than mechanical systems. Electronics is getting more and more reliable. When the car companies decide to do electronics right instead of as cheap as possible there will be no need to regard mechanical things as more "simple".

 

[rbattelle]

One thing to consider is that the code to run the electronics is NOT simple. Process control programming can really get complex. It is hidden of course, but that does not make it simple. If we count a line of code as a part then there are many many more "parts" in electronic systems than mechanical systems. Electronics is getting more and more reliable. When the car companies decide to do electronics right instead of as cheap as possible there will be no need to regard mechanical things as more "simple".

An excellent point. I'm not sure I'd go so far as considering every line of code a "part" (maybe every subroutine?), but I generally agree with you that software can certainly be very complex.



-Ryan

 

[Joe G.]

I'm not sure I'd go so far as considering every line of code a "part" -Ryan

Yeah, I admit that's kind of making the point with a sledge hammer. The electronics won't work without some programming. Then it gets kind of crazy trying to decide about complexity. If a program consists of something like "do while (key_is_on) control_transmission(); exit; it doesn't about to much. However the function control_transmission() would probably be a bunch of lines of code, many which call other functions, etc, etc.



Pretty hard to compare something like a mechanical injection pump governor to an electronic governor. Both are pretty complex gadgets. Not apples and oranges, more like apples and horses.

 

[DValentine]

I just finished a engine swap on a 46 chevy truck-216 to a 235. I smiled the whole way. Points, carb and a push button starter. It doesn't get much better.



Dave

 

[Dl5treez]

Person A defines simple as "easy for me to work on, because I like to tinker & nobody but me touches my ride. "



Person B defines simple as "easy for me to use. "



Person C defines simple as "easy for me to understand. "



Person D defines simple as "easy for me to find people to work on it for me. "



Person E defines simple as "no frills, just the basics. "



Person F defines simple as "everything I could ever want, and it's all wireless & voice activated, so I don't have to turn any knobs or push any buttons. "



Person G defines simple as "easy for me to build. "



Person H defines simple as "reliable. "



And on & on & on.....







I guess "simple" is all relative to who says it.



Ryan, since you asked, my personal opinion of simple is "if I understand how it works, why it works, and it's easy to use/work on, then to me it's simple. "

 

[BigEasy]

rbattelle... are you an engineer? you sure sound like one.



Simplicity, to me, means being able to fix something alongside the road or in MY garage, should something fail... not pay some nitwit $50+ per hour to fix my truck, only to have the same part break on the way home.



Case in point... new girlfriend's Blazer won't start. I look under the hood, and the alternator is fried black. Her dad won't let me touch it, because we haven't met yet. He has it towed to the dealership(thank God for AAA), they say the alternator is bad($348 and 2 HOURS LABOR at $60/hr), I told her dad to have them check the battery, too(DUH). They say it checked ok, "thanks for your $500+, have a nice day"... she leaves the dealership headed to my place 11 miles away. When she goes to leave my place an hour later, it won't start! New GM alternator is fried, and I call her dad. I tell him what's up... he tells me to "fix it if I can do better". So I call the dealership, tell them what's up, and that I'll be there in a lil bit. I have the battery tested at AutoZone(JUNK), so I go to the dealership, with the fried alt, junk battery, new battery, and a very polite attitude. I get back her dad's check, plus a new alternator(exactly the same as the new fried one, for $119 instead of $348), I take it back to the house, and fix it. That was two weeks ago, Blazer is running great. Any tips on how I can get her damn father to leave me alone now? He wants to be my buddy...



I understand a newer engine such as the common rail, and a very good argument could be made that adding or removing 200hp with a switch is simplicity at it's best. I'd rather have an older, cheaper truck that won't shut off when I key the CB mike... know what I mean? Just because it's newer, quieter, and more expensive, doesn't make it better in my book.

 

[rbattelle]

I guess "simple" is all relative to who says it.

This is true. So far in this thread we've heard from a number of people who each have different ideas of what is simple, ranging from "anything without electronics" to "anything I can understand". Each of these opinions has merit, and each represents a persons unique experiences.



I think Dl5treez summed things up nicely with the quote above. I think it's good to bear in mind when making generalizations about the relative simplicity of a machine that what you think is simple isn't necessarily simple to someone else, and vice-versa. So when you're out there in the forums, before dismissing someone elses equipment as somehow inferior due to its apparent lack of "simplicity", keep in mind simplicity is all relative.



-Ryan

 

[nickleinonen]

This is not true. The injectors do not use high-pressure fuel to fire. They use electrical solenoids

yes and no... the heui's also use electronic solenoides too...



in the heui, they close off the oil passage to allow the injector body to pressurize with the HP oil...



in our HPCR injectors, we open a spill port allowing a pressure differential to develop across the injector valve assembly allowing the hp fuel to lift the nozzle. to end injecton, we close the spill, then the hp pressure equalizes across the internal surface areas [the top side is larger surface area than lower side, so with equal pressure on both sides, more force is on the top side holding the nozzle closed]



i am going by memory from when i was in school in winter in my fuels class...

i can look it up in my text book and even scan a few pages to show the cutaway schematics [i'm sure my teacher won't mind. he was the one who wrote the book ]

 

[BigEasy]

rbattelle... are you an engineer? you sure sound like one.

That wasn't meant as an insult, either. There's just a different manner among engineers... even Ryan Newman has it.

 

[EBottema]

I belong in this post...



Anyways, 12v is simpler than a 24v and than a HPCR (look at the less wiring, less valves and such) The drive by wire system vs throttle cable is a joke. Drive by wire is slower to react then a throttle cable, with a shorted out drive by wire sensor, your screwed and stuck. . Plus a electrical gremlin could cause an accident...