Please Define "Simplicity"

[Johnstra]

Great thread, Ryan. I believe the term 'simplicity', used in the context of automobiles in general and diesel pickups in particular, is more a qualitative statement about reliablity, maintainability, and modifiability.



The 12V, 24V, and HPCR all have very different design requirements. Emmissions requirements have changed, performance requirements have changed, sound level requirements have changed, etc. To say the 12V is simpler just because it's mechanical is false. What would it take to build a fully mechanical system that meets the emissions, power, and sound level requirements of the current generation? I suspect it would be significantly more complex than our trusty12V friend. Someone used Einstein's definition earlier in the thread, and he's right. You can't make something simpler than it needs to be. Can you build a 12V diesel engine with a single injection event that meets today's emmissions requirements? Hmmm... a mechanical pump that can do pilot injection? That would be interesting. What kind of machine tolerances would that take and what would it cost to tool for and build? I suspect it's 'simpler' to use a computer to control electrical signals than it is to design and build a mechanical pump that can do the same thing.



Now, is the 12V simpler to repair and modify? Sure. It does have way fewer parts, fewer solid state sensors, much much much less software. Most of the things we need to do to our engines to fix them or make them stronger can be done without electronics and software.



-john

 

[BNH4221]

FWIW, my wife says I am simple.



Steve

 

[Johnstra]

Tell her that means you have an elegant design

 

[rbattelle]

Good post, John. I once read a statistic that if you constructed a cell phone using vacuum tubes instead of transistors it would be as tall as the Eifel Tower.



-Ryan

 

[MMiller]

For me mechanics wise, simple is being able to troubleshoot and repair my truck without needing a computer to help. I work on tractors that COMPLETELY fly by wire. Steering and everything. The only cable from the cab to the tractor is the brake system. That being said, I'm not scared of electronics, I understand how it works. But one little solenoid that fails, or one sensor that fails the $200,000 tractor sits until I get there. I've had them die in the middle of the road before. Talk about an upset customer. However, you give me an old 65C with cables to shift the trans, cables to operate the hydralics, hydralic steering, and a mechanical injection pump, and it will be largely trouble free and "simple".



I agree that "simple" is not always user friendly, guys really like the new tractors compaired to the old ones, but I wonder what these new tractors will be like maintence and repair wise in 20 years. I don't hardly touch any 20 year old 65C and lots of them have 10,000 hrs on them.



"Simple" to me is less stuff to make it run. Pop the hood on my 75 dodge. You see a carb, distributor, alternator and power steering. Pop the hood on the wifes durango, got a mess. In my mind the 75 is simpler. To make my 93 run requires 12V to the starter and the shut off solenoid. I can remove the solenoid and make the truck run if need be with out any 12V. That's what I can do to get my truck home, but my wifes durango will be on a trailer to get home.



Very good topic.



Michael

 

[Gary - K7GLD]

Horses were "simple" - so are brace and bit drills...



Any devout 12 valve owners here wanna trade their trucks for a horse to gain all that "SIMPLICITY"?



Wanna trade yer variable speed/reversible electric drill for that super reliable hand operated brace and bit?



Touting "simplicity" is OK I suppose - as long as you don't at the same time slide into the "simpler is BETTER" trap - it ain't always true. Sometimes the path to "better" necessarily travels down a complex road to deliver results NOT available via older and "simpler" methods



Take a P-7100 fuel pump as an example - how would you, using "simple" methods, make it adjust injection timing and volume on the fly, as it also allows for engine load, fuel temperature, intake manifold air temperature and mass airflow - as well as engine RPM?



Anyone managed that yet - or likely to?



Sure, some have had problems with the VP-44's that replaced the P-7100 - and a few have even traded the versatility of the VP-44 for a return to the P-7100 - maybe gained "simplicity" - but at what real cost in the broader spectrum of overall efficiency?



Some of the newer stuff hitting the streets IS far more complex and efficient than the older "simpler" stuff - but for the most part, that complexity delivers features pretty much impossible to economically accomplish by simpler methods.



Shoe leather is simple too - but I'll gladly take my "complex" '02 truck over "simple" foot power ANY day!

 

[MMiller]

Gary-horses ain't simple. I've never seen a simple horse in my life. You gotta tie them up, or fence them in. You've gotta feed them even when you aren't riding them, they have a mind of there own, and they get spooked by anything. My dodge doesn't care about the bee that just flew by, it doesn't burn a drop of fuel when turned off, and it usually sits where I park it :-laf



I've never had the desire to adjust my truck on the fly. I got it set where I want it, no messing around with all them durn switches and dials. Set em right and forget them! If its set right, then you won't need to monitor everthing! :-{}



Heck, far as I can tell the first genners were the easiest to get high fuel economy numbers. even with the aero dynamics of a garage door. :-laf Hows that for efficency?



I'm not saying my truck is better then yours, we're just trying to figure out the definition of "simple". As you can see definitions are quite differnt.



Oh, and I don't like horses! I prefer to be the only brain in the operation when I am running down the road.



Michael