Before invention of computer aid drafting?

I have been watching old films made by Fisher Bodies for General Motors. When they made plans for a new car, a lot of people have to work together to make sure that the new car can be built without any problems. Before invention of computer aid drafting, how can they do that?

Engineering degree, paper, pencil, slide rule and maybe a calculator. Just look at history. We think how did they build that without modern tools? Necessity is the mother of invention.

Cars are child's play, and not usually considered the pinnacle of engineering prowess except to those afflicted by the marketing hype of people selling those crappy examples of engineering.

Research the design development of the Saturn launch vehicle and Apollo spacecraft. It went to the moon and back nine times (even mission 13), with seven of them landing and leaving from there. There was no 3D CAD or even 2D CAD, only hand-drafted projections and views. There were no computational fluid dynamics, just astute review and calculation.

Just after the end of that program, IBM began thinking about a system called "CADRA" which ran on a dedicated IBM microchannel computer (since it was a faster interface than a PC or anything built in someone's garage). By the early '80s it was ready for deployment. A lot of impressive engineering was done long before the 1980s.

It was also a time when an engineering degree was not peeled from the bottom of a Rice Krispies box, but had to be earned.

Cars are child's play, and not usually considered the pinnacle of engineering prowess except to those afflicted by the marketing hype of people selling those crappy examples of engineering.

Research the design development of the Saturn launch vehicle and Apollo spacecraft. It went to the moon and back nine times (even mission 13), with seven of them landing and leaving from there. There was no 3D CAD or even 2D CAD, only hand-drafted projections and views. There were no computational fluid dynamics, just astute review and calculation.

Just after the end of that program, IBM began thinking about a system called "CADRA" which ran on a dedicated IBM microchannel computer (since it was a faster interface than a PC or anything built in someone's garage). By the early '80s it was ready for deployment. A lot of impressive engineering was done long before the 1980s.

It was also a time when an engineering degree was not peeled from the bottom of a Rice Krispies box, but had to be earned.

I would say that actual engineering went into the design and construction of automobiles from before around 2000.

After that, a blend of engineering and asethics/ cosmetic values, began. Today's cars - the outward appearance anyway - see to be mostly about looks: the tractor-trailer sized wheels wrapped in thin rubber bands of tires, door sill - to- side window ratios that render the side windows as gun slits, the high rear- low nose aesthetic that has us scraping the latter whenever we pull into Burger King, church, or our own driveway.

Very little engineering seems to go into the drivers perspective nowadays - the view out of the vehicle from the drivers seat. I'm 5'7(lost one inch since high school graduation), and I have to elevate the seat all the way up to get the same downward view I used to get out of everything from a Ford Pinto to a 1970 DeVille! Are people today really that much huger? I want to see TRAFFIC when I look out my left and right windows at a busy cross road, not the 'carefully crafted and stitch patterns' in the interior door panels!

And forget the view aft - turning around and looking out the back window is like looking up at the north star!

Instead, "engineers" have placed cameras on the front and rear bumpers, to aid our outward vision in these rolling fashion models!

There's still a lot of engineering that goes into many of the designs that you consider as "aesthetics." Many of those design "choices" are driven by safety requirements, and a lot of engineering goes into implementing the safety standards. Large wheels are needed for large brake packages. Tall sides are to improve side crash survival rates and to help hide bracing and crumple zones. Low noses are to reduce the death rate when hitting pedestrians, motorcyclists, and bicyclists because the driver's are too busy looking at their phones and other distractions.

Yeah, there's possibly less engineering focus on the driver's visibility and more focus on the driver's comfort, features, and safety of the driver and the public. That's part of why I get so frustrated with the media trying so hard to condemn Tesla's driver-assistance systems. How are engineers supposed to improve on these systems if companies are continually encouraged to not implement or further develop the systems because the media wants to hold Tesla (or any other manufacturer) responsible for injuries due to the driver's abuse of the features, which gets expensive and could easily discourage a company from attempting to further develop these systems? If used properly these systems have potential to save hundreds or thousands of lives. What's next, gun manufacturers will be help responsible for shootings when someone abuses their product? Oh, wait....

-Rod

There's still a lot of engineering that goes into many of the designs that you consider as "aesthetics." Many of those design "choices" are driven by safety requirements, and a lot of engineering goes into implementing the safety standards. Large wheels are needed for large brake packages. Tall sides are to improve side crash survival rates and to help hide bracing and crumple zones. Low noses are to reduce the death rate when hitting pedestrians, motorcyclists, and bicyclists because the driver's are too busy looking at their phones and other distractions.

Yeah, there's possibly less engineering focus on the driver's visibility and more focus on the driver's comfort, features, and safety of the driver and the public. That's part of why I get so frustrated with the media trying so hard to condemn Tesla's driver-assistance systems. How are engineers supposed to improve on these systems if companies are continually encouraged to not implement or further develop the systems because the media wants to hold Tesla (or any other manufacturer) responsible for injuries due to the driver's abuse of the features, which gets expensive and could easily discourage a company from attempting to further develop these systems? If used properly these systems have potential to save hundreds or thousands of lives. What's next, gun manufacturers will be help responsible for shootings when someone abuses their product? Oh, wait....

-Rod

1. Aesthetics. I don't know how having a lower nose contributes to saving the life of a pedestrian hit by a car or such.

2. Drivers visibility - call me pragmatic, but the first order of business when it comes to vehicle safey is being able to see outside of it, in all directions. No cameras or sensors can ever fully supplant that property.

3. Autonomous Teslas: Do you believe that every instance of a Tesla Motors vehicle driving into a restaurant, or out of control in traffic, is somehow the fault of its driver?

3. Autonomous Teslas: Do you believe that every instance of a Tesla Motors vehicle driving into a restaurant, or out of control in traffic, is somehow the fault of its driver?

It's absolutely the fault of the driver because they aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing and paying attention to what the car is doing.

It's absolutely the fault of the driver because they aren't doing what they are supposed to
be doing and paying attention to what the car is doing.

Not always. What if a sensor goes whacky and the Tesla brakes or steers suddenly when no such input is required for the present circumstance.

Is the driver now responsible for routine testing of the myriad sensors required in an autonomous vehicle, in addition to monthly tire pressure checks, etc?

The driver is responsible, always. No what ifs, no buts, the driver is supposed to be paying attention and take over if anything goes sideways.

The driver is responsible, always. No what ifs, no buts, the driver is supposed to be paying attention and take over if anything goes sideways.

Well if that's the case, then I'll just leave the fuckin Tesla at home, and use a car that I have to drive myself!

Well if that's the case, then I'll just leave the fuckin Tesla at home, and use a car that I have to drive myself!

I'm 100% with you on that. I don't trust the "self-driving" crap anyway and I have zero love for electric cars.

I'm 100% with you on that. I don't trust the "self-driving" crap anyway and I have zero love for electric cars.

I don't fully trust the self-driving features, but I still trust that as a nice addition in cars that these days tend to be driven by people more interested in the text message on their phone than on the traffic around them. Similar to auto braking systems, I think there's good potential and value in continuing to develop and improve the technology, but I will need to be SEVERAL years older before I want to give up as the primary operator of my vehicles.

I don't like the tremendous push to ban ICE vehicles in favor of all-electric vehicles (or any other power source) that our infrastructure and environment is not equipped to fully deal with. But as an electrical engineer and someone who's enjoyed R/C cars as a child, and enjoys my children's enjoyment of R/C cars, I do think there is a place for all-electric cars. I just don't think they should be the only option.

-Rod

Eeek, I guess I've been a bit guilty of causing this thread to get off topic....

I'm 100% with you on that. I don't trust the "self-driving" crap anyway and I have zero love for electric cars.

But the fact that you would hold the driver of said self-driver 100% responsible for anything afoul that happens with it, even an undiscovered factory defect, muddies your position.

By that same logic, it’s the driver’s fault the Ford Pinto exploded from being rear-ended - simply because they bought it, and drove it in traffic!

But the fact that you would hold the driver of said self-driver 100% responsible for anything afoul that happens with it, even an undiscovered factory defect, muddies your position.

By that same logic, it’s the driver’s fault the Ford Pinto exploded from being rear-ended - simply because they bought it, and drove it in traffic!
That's the dumbest take ever. Dumbest.

That's the dumbest take ever. Dumbest.

In denial, are we?

Classic courtroom response when there is no defense...

"Are you crazy?" "That's the dumbest thing I've heard" etc..

There is zero correlation. The "self-driving" mode is supposed to be constantly maintained by the driver, so that the driver is in control. Even with a "defect" the driver would still be able to avoid an accident.

That has nothing to do with exploding gas tanks.

There is zero correlation. The "self-driving" mode is supposed to be
constantly maintained by the driver, so that the driver is in control. Even with
a "defect" the driver would still be able to avoid an accident.
That has nothing to do with exploding gas tanks.

Invalid argument.

No product is perfect, even brand news. A defect is a defect is a defect!

And if a driver still has to monitor their vehicle's performance, even with feet and hands off the controls, then what’s the point of autonomous vehicles in the first place?

My carefully used and cleaned toaster this morning just burned a hole through my kitchen ceiling. It’s “my fault” because the toaster developed a slow fault, and I didn’t stand over the toaster while it was toasting. The 1/10th of one percent of toaster users that do stand and watch their toasters probably belong in Five South, if you get me.

Man I’d hate to live in your planet’s form of justice!

You are the only one living in your own little world.

You are the only one living in your own
little world.

You believe what you want.

I believe in an imperfect world where any product can malfunction or possess defects.

You know what? Your whole tone of the last five posts sounds like you have a financial interest in autonomous vehicles.

Owning and driving a Pinto that explodes when rear ended is not the fault of the Pinto driver, but it IS 100% the fault of the driver that rear ended the Pinto! So the Pinto exploding is still 100% the fault of a careless driver, just NOT the Pinto driver.

It's too bad Tesla opted to call their system "auto pilot" since people seem to think that means it can be totally hands-off. But I suspect if one were to look into "auto pilot" in commercial aircraft even that system is NOT intended to be 100% hands off. A pilot and/or co-pilot are still expected to be alert, aware, and ready to take over command of the aircraft at ANY moment. Hmm, sounds pretty similar to Tesla's disclaimer and position for their system.

And the integration of the "auto pilot" or any other driver's aid, while it becomes much more efficient with the use of CAD modeling, could still be done old-school (relating to the original topic).

-Rod

Owning and driving a Pinto that explodes when
rear ended is not the fault of the Pinto driver, but it IS
100% the fault of the driver that rear ended the Pinto!
So the Pinto exploding is still 100% the fault of a careless
driver, just NOT the Pinto driver.

-Rod

Yeah... Now I see where your's and Stealthee's thought patterns come from. Corporate Autocracy at it's finest!

Never blame the product - always blame the user/operator/driver/etc.

Som insight, in the case you two weren't alive when the whole Pinto/Bobcat matter happened:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

So is there any record of a Pinto catching fire due to a fuel tank rupture that was not due to some driver's negligence? But who's going to sue the driver when there's an opportunity to sue a large company with millions or billions of dollars after determining than the tank placement was less than ideal?

Back then there probably weren't great CAD and simulation software tools to model what might happen in an accident, and maybe (I don't know, just speculating) crash testing wasn't performed with fluids in the vehicles under test.