Date: 4 Sep 2002 15:21:49 GMT
Subject: Re: GM Influence

Someone who looks an awful lot like Mike <mereridnopsamcom> wrote: > On 29 Aug 2002 03:14:19 GMT, wrote: >>You're right. They were designing aircraft, which requires a great >>deal of attention to things like power:weight ratios, center of gravity, >>aerodynamics, stability, and all those other things that are important for >>cars as well. > Ok, so since they're aircraft designers/engineers, they *MUST* be good > at designing cars? Is power-to-weight ratios that important? Well, let's see. It effects performance and fuel economy, which seem to me to be two things that are important in cars. Would you not agree? > Apparently, in terms of other performance issues that are important, > Saab fell behind most of its competitors. Their cars may be decent > (maybe even very good, I don't know) by the standards then, but as > time went on, they went stagnate. Have you driven a 2-stroke 96 with one of the red engines? 58 BHP doesn't sound like alot, but it's a *very* spirited car. >>> A few doesn't even have driver's licenses. >>> Also, the Head Engineer hired an engineer because he could draw a >>> "airplane wing". >> >>Yes; somehow you seem to be saying that a car designed in 1947 with a >>drag coefficient of, what was it, 0.39 I think, is bad? Did you notice >>the bit about his initial guess of the weight of the car, and the real weight, >>being amazingly close? > Is a drag co. of 0.39 that important considering the speeds cars > travel at in 1947? Hrrm? How fast do you think cars went in 1947, and do you think it's significantly different than it is today? Also, how does drag *not* enter into the equation even at lower speeds? Even if the effect were lower due to lower speeds, that doesn't mean it's a force to be disregarded in the proper design of a car. Just another place where they were ahead of their time. > Again, it points to things that Saab (and Saab > lovers) concentrate on. I think the car market speaks for itself. Well, Windows, and the common cold, are both pretty popular too, but that doesn't mean they're good. >>> And you think GM has problems... ;-) >> >>What does that have to do with the designer previously being a wing >>expert? It's almost like you're saying he was unqualified to work on >>cars, when evidence seems to suggest that you're wrong. > Again, being a wing expert doesn't make him a qualified car designer, > unless his only job is to keep the car aero. The similarites between designing an airplane and a car are much more significant than the differences. They are very close to the same machine, if you look at it in terms of what systems and qualities are important. >>I'm not sure why you consider that "funny" - maybe I'm misreading your >>intent? > I'm not the Saab historian that you are, so I found it funny reading > these single like quotes from the Saab book without elaboration. > My "intent" is to point out that Saab isn't the perfect European car > maker that was took over by the bad American car conglomerate and > suddenly tranformed into a bean-counting bad-engineering car factory. Since your basic premise seems to be that an airplane engineer can't be a good car engineer, I would submit that your conclusions are built on a faulty foundation. I'm not slamming GM, I see them as a necessary evil. As long as they don't interfere with engineering issues, I don't care all that much. Dave Hinz

Return to Main Index

The content on this site may not be republished without permission. Copyright © 1988-2018 - The Saab Network -
For usage guidelines, see the Mission and Purpose Page.
[Contact | Site Map | on Facebook | on Twitter | Shop Amazon via TSN | Site Donations]