Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaxonalden
Ghostrider,
The bean counters didn't design the bearing, the engineers did! They should have done their stress analysis to come up with the MTBF (mean time between failure) models. Those models would have produced numbers showing an inferior design through premature breakdown and failure. At that time only the prototypes would have been produced and cost would have been low to redesign.
I would think a roller bearing over a ball bearing to distribute all the stress and handle the high speeds the IMS encounters. Think about it, the surface (and pin point pressure) of a ball bearing in contact with the race vs. the surface of a cylindrical bearing and the distribution it can achieve...duh!
|
Jax,
I worked on design teams in the fortune 100. I saw how it worked across business lines and at three powerhouse companies during my career. Profit is always the main objective, profit improvement as well. Many were the times millions was spent correctly in application of a beautiful modification. Just as many times, correct fixes and accurate predictions of imminent failure before launch were ignored in the classic American business paradigm of "damn the glitches, we'll repair them in the field on the fly and bless them as ongoing modifications". It was also frequently true that 100% remedies were avoided in cost containment, with those very decisions being made by the holders of the purse.