Originally Posted by simsgw

Well, my first thought is you're pretty knowledgable about this yourself, so I'll bet you know most of what I'm about to say, but for the sake of others, you and I can discuss the finer points.

Let me clarify my background first. I never designed a single automotive part. I'm afraid space was my field. Some spacecraft projects, a lot of launch facility design and when it became the 'in' thing, I was asked to start building the computer networks. That's where I finished my career. Mostly the space segment of such networks of course, given my early years. Air Force for twenty, then NASA and finally our own company.

On the other hand, I was a car enthusiast and learned to drive about the age of eight, so all the while my head was in space, my *** was in cars. I always related my training back to my hobby at each level, and among engineers, we tend to read each other's technical journals, trolling for ideas, mutual solutions to problems, or just being nosy. As part of a design exercise, a buddy and I spec'd out a car that used a computer-controlled engine and transmission. Our boss, CSUSAF, wanted to know where computers might be in 25 years, so he asked for examples. We didn't build it of course, and talk is cheap as they say, but our design for the interaction of computer and mechanical subsystems came out a lot like a modern Porsche engine and the PDK.

Unfortunately, that was in 1975, so I doubt it qualifies me as having designed anything automotive. With the right sort of training, a graduate engineer can get around a lot. Would you credit the bureaucratic snafus that led to my having a hard-rock mining engineer working for me at... wait for it... NASA? Not because we were building launch pads on that project either. Just... oh, never mind. You know Dilbert's pointy-haired boss? Well, his hand can be seen in some strange places. Think what that looks like on David's resume. "Wow! You built mines for NASA? Uh... where?" I'm sure he learned to say with a quiet smile: "Oh, that's classified. Sorry."

So we tend to know what our counterparts do in other fields, even if we would need a lot of cross-training to do each other's job. (And David did, but he was a bright lad.) With my lack of direct personal experience in the automobile industry understood, let's talk about your excellent points.



Yes and no, as you know. What you're describing fits into one of two situations. No, three I think. (Anybody know why my text is coming out blue like Speed's? Oh well, never mind.)

In the first case, we have a problem as part of our design, and you got there before me with a great solution. After doing a build/buy analysis, we decide that buying the product you've already designed is better than designing and building our own. Unless we are seriously pressed by some outside factors, we won't declare you a sole source on a crucial part. That's puts us in an untenable relationship if your product is to become a vital part of our design. That sort of relationship is reserved for situations where our expertise lies in one area, like building sports cars, and yours lies another area, like audio systems. I don't know but what Porsche AG owns Bose, but let's suppose they don't. Then that is a good example. If I'm the chief engineer at Porsche, I'm perfectly happy to sole source Bose for the audio system because we don't really have the expertise in house to compete. And don't care to build that capability. When all is said and done, 'my' Porsche will be a Porsche no matter what's in the audio stack. If you become difficult to live with, if our relationship sours because Honda buys Bose, then we can always dump you and cut a deal with Harman Kardan or someone like that. But pistons? No. Not me anyway. It's a matter of judgment of course, but my judgment would be not to accept a sole source relationship on a part like that.

So what do I do? You have a great part already designed, you're not locked up with another manufacturer in a hostile relationship with us and I'd like to use your pistons. Or your rings, or whatever we pick for the example. We go to lunch, and probably dinner and a few breakfasts as well, while we negotiate. What I insist on for a final deal is that we get the right to use your design, including any patented features of course, with other suppliers. You have to provide full design information, background access for my engineers, and eventually a spec that means approved second source suppliers can build an identical piston or ring or whatever. Identical in all respects, within the limitations of the manufacturing art. Normally, this means you get a royalty on each one, but not necessarily. You might settle for "preferred supplier" status or something like that. Depends on my size, the volume of my potential orders and things like that. Basically, I'm willing to give you the profit your preexisting design has earned, but only if you're reasonable. If I'm as big as Porsche (or the USAF or NASA), I can always design my own. And don't think for a minute that patents keep us from doing that.

So in the end, even though you designed it with custom coatings, machining techniques, or whatever, each of our suppliers will be delivering it exactly the same. Because I won't give you the contract for this important part unless you agree to those terms. I know this, because we did that in the Air Force and I'm very sure Porsche engineers went to the same business schools as we did. We end up with multiple sources of this critical part, and they do have variations among them, but as few as we can achieve.

Would I do that with a crankshaft? Probably not. Despite my not being an automotive engineer, I feel comfortable surmising that the crankshaft is so intimately tied to the rest of my engine design that I'm not even willing to consider an outside supplier for the design. For the manufacturing, certainly. It's a high quality forging and machining job, but certainly nothing like as bad as many jobs in the space industry, and our contractors use multiple suppliers for critical components all the time. But they own the design. (Or rather 'I' do. Managing prime contractors is another whole issue we'll skip for now.) They don't source the design for something so unique to the requirement from somebody else, even with rights to use second sources.

Now, that's the first case and probably the one you were picturing. But maybe not. Let's go on.

The second case is we design the engine and ask for designs for the oil rings. Or we may do a first draft design taking into account its relation to other parts of our designs and ask for detail designs. We would naturally send that RFI to you as well as the other top manufacturers of aftermarket rings. (Or pistons etc.) But it is our design. We are seeking suppliers to build to our design. As part of the negotiation, we will probably offer the right to advertise yourself as a supplier to our design, 'my' Porsche in this example. But it still is our design. So yes, every supplier will be producing the same ring or piston or whatever to the limit of the ability of our production engineers to make that happen. As I say, equipment varies unless we make that part of the requirements, so sources vary, but they all are trying to make the same part, lest they get cut off.

Finally, we have after-market parts. Now this is a more benign relationship with prime manufacturers than marketing people would like to think. When we design somethin... well, not necessarily with spacecraft, but let me put on that hypothetical Porsche cap for now. When we design a car, we know the industry has to support us with consumables as well as a certain amount of aftermarket parts that really are thought of as permanent components. We decide what part of our market calls for that support and we make it feasible. The examples with Porsche are obviously performance oriented, but consider motorhomes for example. Ford and GM offer design data to let motorhome manufacturers use their heavy chassis without having to crawl all over measuring this and that, and taking wild guesses about structural strength, yield forces and other topics that will get them in court as well if a motorhome catches fire in Manhattan and burns an office tower, or something silly like that. Different parts of the business work together, because a prime manufacturer cannot expect to satisfy all parts of the market.

Aftermarket replacements for pistons, rings, and what have you, may indeed give different results than our factory design. That may be true even if you sell that piston design to us and then sell pistons in the aftermarket. We may well allow you to do that, with restrictions on the second suppliers that they may not re-use your design that way. All part of the negotiation. But as the original designers, and with your inside knowledge of our car you gained while working with us, you may decide that nikasil is a good deal for your customers and change to that alloy, while we still want to stick with the older technique in the production line. That's okay. The customer better expect different results from an aftermarket product, or why is he voiding his warranty and going to the trouble to change?

Bottom line? My thought is you knew most of this already, as I said at the beginning, but it doesn't hurt to explain it to others. Aftermarket suppliers often have some of the best engineers in the business. If I am that Chief Engineer at Porsche, I'm not going to agree that they are better than my in-house engineers. Not on your life. But I may find it economically or schedule-wise more effective to use their design talent to solve my in-house problems. But when I do that, on a part or subsystem I consider is part of the essence of my own product, then I"m going to get the right to treat their design work the same way I do our own work. So the question doesn't affect that discussion before.

As for aftermarket parts for some of our customers... Well, the aftermarket suppliers can very likely provide designs that are better for a small segment of our customers than our own answers intended to satisfy the whole customer base. Wheels are an excellent example, and with some complex reservations, so are those pistons you mention. Just don't expect to come running back to me for warranty work... uh, I mean back to Porsche if you go changing something so interrelated to the rest of the design as is a piston.

Incidentally, with all that said as an engineer, let me add something as a new owner. Porsche is the most adaptive large sports car manufacturer in my experience. It is usual for only the very low volume manufacturers to let you get so many different parts of the car tailored to your own expectations, but large manufacturers usually limit that sort of thing to a special subdivision, like a racing relations group. I am amazed at how many things I could custom tailor from Porsche if I had the urge. I don't know that they offer carbon-fiber wheels like HRE, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn they did. On special order only of course.

Gary

Originally Posted by speed21

There are examples where component design has proven to be falible even though science is employed in the design process.

Originally Posted by simsgw

Yep. I've heard that. Let me tell you some time about a telescope we built...

Well, not precisely 'we'. Hubble was another division and I thank God it was. That mistake was exactly the kind my group was responsible for catching. An instance of two properly done jobs that didn't work together. The kind that sound stupid in retrospect but are amazingly hard to catch. Glad my people weren't the ones who missed it. Do we have a shudder icon? I'm off to bed.

Gary

Originally Posted by speed21

Too funny on that telescope story Gary .

I guess its these very things that drive re invention and development. Who would have ever thought that we would have engines with the kind of reliable out put that we now have in some of todays vehicles.

And, a little bit of extra oil consumption is a small sacrifice to pay along the way .